A Vegan Diet Gave Jesus and His Disciples Ample Protein. Dr. Chapman Chen
- Chapman Chen
- Jul 29
- 4 min read
In his book, For Love of Animals, Charles C. Camosy, a professor of medical humanities at the Creighton University School of Medicine and holder of the Monsignor Curran Fellowship in Moral Theology at St. Joseph Seminary in New York, makes the bold and deeply problematic assertion that because protein sources were severely limited in first-century, Jesus and His disciples had to eat fish in order to obtain adequate protein (Camosy 1998, 54). In support of this, Camosy alleges that Jesus undoubtedly ate fish and cooked fish, citing Gospel accounts that appear to show Jesus engaging in such acts at least six times (Camosy 1998, 53).
Camosy then attempts to resolve the apparent tension between Jesus' example and modern ethics by arguing that although industrial fishing today is unsustainable and morally problematic, it was not so in Jesus' time. Therefore, he concludes, we do not need to imitate Jesus’ dietary practice today (Camosy 1998, 53-4).
This article directly challenges Camosy's claim that Jesus and His disciples needed to eat fish for protein, and secondarily critiques his ethical reasoning that excuses ancient fish-eating while condemning it today. Drawing upon historical scholarship, textual criticism, nutritional science, and Christian ethics, this rebuttal exposes the weaknesses in Camosy’s framework.
1. A Nutritional Fallacy: Plant-Based Protein Was Plentiful
Camosy's central claim — that Jesus and His disciples had to eat fish to maintain a healthy level of protein — is simply false. First-century Palestine offered a wide variety of plant-based protein sources:
A. Legumes: Lentils, chickpeas, broad beans
B. Grains: Barley and wheat, forming the base of most meals
C. Nuts and seeds: Almonds, pistachios, flaxseed
D. Vegetables and greens: Mustard leaves, cucumbers, herbs
Bread and legumes were daily staples for the poor. Keith Akers (2022) notes that in the ancient Roman world, meat was largely restricted to the rich. The poor rarely purchased flesh from the marketplace. Their diets were predominantly plant-based, not by ideology but by socio-economic reality. Even fish, though more accessible than red meat, required specialised trade, storage, and preparation — and was not available in abundance to all.
Also, The World Health Organization affirms in its authoritative report on protein requirements that “a diet based on a mixture of cereals and legumes can provide all the essential amino acids” (WHO/FAO/UNU, 2007). As summarised in Nutrition and Metabolism (Lanham-New et al., 2020), a diverse plant-based diet can adequately meet both protein and amino acid needs without reliance on animal products. Jesus would have had no nutritional necessity to consume fish — especially as a man of deep spiritual discipline who resisted bodily cravings.
2. The Fish-Eating Jesus: A Textual Mirage?
Camosy's secondary support — that Jesus “undoubtedly ate fish” — is based on highly contestable Gospel passages. As Norm Phelps demonstrates in The Dominion of Love (2002, 108–123), and as I elaborate in my 2024 article “All Those Fishy Stories about Jesus the Vegan Christ” (note 1), many of these fish-related accounts are either post-resurrection narratives (e.g. John 21), which are symbolic in nature; or absent from early manuscripts (e.g. Luke 24:41–43); or based on Greek terms such as opsarion, which could mean savoury plant-based food or fishweed.
The stories about Jesus eating fish are thus not historical certainties but theologically motivated additions or misreadings. They contradict Jesus’ consistent ethic of mercy, nonviolence, and self-sacrifice.
3. Ethical Reversal: If Fishing Is Immoral Now, It Was Always Immoral
Camosy’s second argument is that while fish-eating is problematic today due to ecological damage and species collapse, it was morally acceptable in Jesus’ time. But this implies a form of ethical relativism that sits uneasily with Christian moral theology.
If killing sentient beings unnecessarily is wrong today, it was wrong then. Jesus declared, "I desire compassion, not sacrifice" (Hosea 6:6; Matthew 9:13). His ethic transcended time-bound customs. He resisted evil not by indulging in lesser harm, but by offering a radical alternative — the Kingdom of God, where the lion lies down with the lamb.
4. Jesus the Good Shepherd: The One Who Lays Down His Life
Even if — hypothetically — fish were necessary for protein (which we strongly dispute), Jesus would still not have eaten them. For He was the Good Shepherd who lays down His life for His sheep (John 10:11). He did not preserve His life by taking the lives of others. Indeed, He was a martyr for animal liberation. In freeing the sacrificial animals from the Temple, in calling the Temple-turned-butcher-shop ‘a den of murderers’ (Mark 11:17), Jesus debunked its fraudulent, violent nature, and disrupted the lucrative income stream of the high priests and scribes, who immediately afterward plotted to have Him killed (Mark 11:18), eventually leading to His arrest, trial, and crucifixion (cf. Akers 2000, 113–134).
To suggest that this Christ, who dies to save creation, would kill fish for bodily maintenance is to betray the radical compassion at the heart of His mission.
5. Conclusion: Jesus the Vegan Christ
Camosy's central claim — that Jesus and His disciples needed to eat fish for protein — collapses under scrutiny. Historically false, nutritionally ungrounded, textually dubious, and — most importantly — ethically incoherent, it reflects a modern projection of flesh-dependency onto a prophet of compassion.
A Christ who kills fish to survive is not the Christ who dies to liberate all creation. True discipleship is not about copying Jesus' alleged diet under empire, but about living His ethic of compassion for all sentient beings in every age — an ethic best embodied today through veganism. #VeganChrist #VeganGod #VeganTheology #VeganChurch
Notes
Opmerkingen