Over on his blog, Joe Cathey has founded a Center for Old Testament Theology. Oh, no, wait, sorry about that. He’s put up a poll to find out whether is readers think there is a “center” for Old Testament theology. For those of you who are not in the loop on this century-old debate, one of the burning questions in the 20th-century practice of “Old Testament theology” was whether the Old Testament, or Old Testament theology, has a “center”—that is, a central theme, concept, or affirmation that somehow binds or holds together all the other themes, concepts, and affirmations in the Old Testament, somewhat like the nucleus at the center of an atom.

Even though a certain amount of theological diversity must be recognized within the Old Testament, many Old Testament theologians sought to find such a “center.” Prominent proposals in the 20th century included covenant, communion between God and people, promise-fulfillment, and even God as such.

Unfortunately, Joe’s poll seems not to be Mac-friendly; it does not even appear in my browser window when I visit Joe’s blog. Therefore, I must register my answer here: I do not think the Tanakh, whether construed as Jewish scripture or as the (Protestant) Christian Old Testament, admits of a “center.” Every proposed “center,” by its elevation to the status of “center,” creates a “margin” that is thereby implicitly devalued due precisely to its distance from the “center.” Historically, it has usually been the wisdom literature that ends up on the margins.

Rather than think in terms of an “atomic” metaphor with peripheral matters orbiting around and always seen in reference to a “center,” I think a “sheepfold” is perhaps a better metaphor. There are certain boundaries beyond which the biblical writers do not stray (e.g., no biblical writer advocates that Israelites should worship any god other than Yahweh), but otherwise they may differ significantly in emphasis and even in fundamental beliefs among themselves (e.g., the biblical writers do not speak with one voice as to whether gods other than Yahweh actually exist and have power in their own spheres of influence). The various “theologies” evident within the Tanakh (e.g., Deuteronomism, Zion theology, Priestly theology, etc.) can be imagined as sheep that range throughout this pen, sometimes interacting with and “shaping” each other, sometimes butting heads. They are constrained by outer parameters (of course, this is a retrospective statement, since they undoubtedly did not consciously operate with more than minimal, self-imposed parameters) rather than by a central organizing theme.

Jim West has two posts (so far) today—here and here—celebrating the birthday of Hermann Gunkel, unquestionably one of the most prolific and influential biblical scholars of recent memory. Happy birthday, dear Hermann.

In a second post on Joseph’s and Tamar’s wearing of a כתנת הפסים, Jim takes a couple of potshots and misses the point. Maybe my point just got lost in my long blockquote, but I might as well continue the conversation.

First, let’s quickly dispense with Jim’s quibbling over my use of the word “parenthesis.” Come on, Jim, you know as well as I do that a “parenthesis” is a grammatical construction, an aside, that has nothing inherently to do with what punctuation marks or grammatical structures are used to demarcate it. In this case, the כי in 2 Sam 13:18 clearly introduces an “aside” that is properly called a “parenthesis” (dictionary definition: “a word, clause, or sentence inserted as an explanation or afterthought into a passage that is grammatically complete without it”). Don’t joust with straw windmills, Jim.

Now let’s get to the main point. In the new post, Jim writes:

… I am simply attempting to come to terms with the fact that the author of 2 Samuel seems to take pains to clarify the kind of person who wore a כתנת הפסים; i.e., young girls. … The issue is “who would wear such a thing as a כתנת הפסים.

The evidence from Samuel indicates that it’s a garment worn by females.

Jim continues to misconstrue the function of the parenthetical comment. The author of 2 Samuel 13 does indicate that the “king’s virgin daughters” wore כתנת הפסים, but it does not thereby indicate that a כתנת הפסים is a garment worn exclusively by females. Just because the king’s virgin daughters typically wear כתנת הפסים does not mean that other people, including males, never wore כתנת הפסים. “Many young women these days have pierced noses” does not perforce imply that “few men these days have pierced noses.” It’s Jim, not the author of 2 Samuel 13, who has turned this into a gendered garment.

When “shown” (verbally) the iconographical evidence against “gendered garments,” Jim responds:

Iconography notwithstanding. Indeed, the iconography which exists is all external to Israel. If Assyrians and Egyptians portray Israelites or Judeans wearing the clothing normally attributed to women, wouldn’t this demonstrate their lack of respect and even disdain for such “men”?

No, Jim, it doesn’t. What it demonstrates is that “gendered garments” are your issue, not the ancients’ issue. You, not the Beni Hasan artist, are the one who “disdains” mean who wear what you, not the ancients, consider “women’s garments.”

In my earlier post, I explained the exegetical importance of the כתנת הפסים in each context (Genesis 37 and 2 Samuel 13). By “gendering” the garment, Jim is exposing his own ideology, not the biblical writers’, and creating a “problem” where none exists. The evidence is that men and women dressed very much alike in ancient times, and 2 Samuel 13:18 really does not suggest otherwise.

Jim West posted an interesting question earlier today:

The curious phrase כתנת הפסים in Genesis 37:23 only occurs in the Hebrew Bible again at 2 Sam 13:18- כתנת פסים which is further described as כי כן תלבשן בנות המלך הבתולת מעילים . My question- why does Joseph wear a virgin girl’s robe? Why does he dress like one of the maiden girl’s in the king’s court? It’s a strange curiosity.

Actually, I don’t think it’s any stranger than the constantly shifting template on Jim’s blog, but that’s another matter (sorry, Jim, I couldn’t resist). The simple answer is that Jim is overemphasizing, or rather, “over-exclusivizing,” a side comment. 2 Samuel 13:18 does not “make such a big deal about” it. Jim’s the one doing that. All 2 Samuel 13:18 does is make a parenthetical comment to the effect that Tamar was wearing clothing that was typical of the “king’s daughters” at that time. 2 Samuel 13:18 does not imply that such tunics were exclusively worn by the “king’s daughters,” nor that men could or would not dress in similar fashion. Still less does 2 Samuel 13:18 imply that the author and/or ancient readers of Genesis 37 would have considered Joseph’s tunic to be “women’s wear.” As others pointed out on the Biblical Studies e-mail list, and as I will show below, our iconographical evidence does not suggest a great deal of difference between “women’s wear” and “men’s wear” in the Iron Age Levant.

The phrase in question, כתנת הפסים, is a curious one. As I described in a another post published some time ago,

The Hebrew text describes Joseph’s special garment as a כתנת פסים, which the Septuagint translator(s) rendered as a χιτῶνα ποικίλον (which was then taken over in the Vulgate as tunicam polymitam and thence into other European languages as the famous “technicolor dreamcoat”). The Greek text unambiguously means “multi-colored tunic” or “variegated tunic,” but not so the Hebrew. In order for the Hebrew description to be rendered as “multi-colored tunic” it would need to literally be “tunic of colors,” and we would need to show that there was such a word in biblical Hebrew as פס meaning “color.” The only פס attested (elsewhere than Gen 37:3 and 2 Sam 13:18) in the Tanakh, however, is an Aramaic word in Daniel 5:5, 24 apparently meaning “the palm of the hand” (it doesn’t just mean “hand,” it seems, because it stands in the phrase פס ידה). The question is whether to take our translational cue from the Septuagint or from the Aramaic portion of Daniel. Very few modern translations render פסים as “multi-colored”:

JPS: “an ornamented tunic”
NET: “a special tunic”
NIV: “a richly ornamented robe”
NRSV: “a long robe with sleeves”
NCV: “a special robe with long sleeves”
GW: “a special robe with long sleeves”
BBE: “a long coat”

Only the WEB and the HCSB still retain “coat of many colors.” It seems me that the JPS, NET, and NIV translators are persuaded that there is little philological support for the “multi-colored” translation, but they don’t want to get too far from the idea of “ornamentation.” NRSV, NCV, GW, and BBE are following the philological evidence internal to the Bible just where it goes, by understanding פס as an Aramaism (or, as Gary Rendsburg might have it, a feature of nortern Israelian Hebrew), understanding כתנת פסים as “tunic of palms/soles,” and then trying to render that in smooth English as something like “long robe with sleeves.”

The “long-sleeved” nature of the coat itself is exegetically significant in both cases, but not because of intertextual resonance between the two passages.

In Joseph’s case, a “long robe with sleeves” would be quite distinct from typical Bronze-to-Iron Age Canaanite garb as seen, for example, in the Beni Hasan paintings (as shown here). Our iconographical evidence suggests that we should be thinking of Jacob and his sons as typically wearing “kilts” and going bare-chested (men only), or wearing tunics that fasten over one shoulder and have skirts that drape to the knee (men and women). A long-sleeved, long-skirted tunic would be quite atypical in this context, and would be unsuited to typical agricultural or pastoral work. Joseph’s כתנת הפסים, then, marks—in its context in Genesis 37—a kind of exemption from the labor to which his brothers were otherwise subject (as also shown, contextually, by the fact that he does not go with them to Dothan to shepherd the flock, but stays home with his father).

In Tamar’s case, the narrator of 2 Samuel 13 indicates that a “long robe with sleeves” is typical of the “king’s daughters.” Unlike Joseph, Tamar is not dressed in an unusual fashion that would draw attention to her. Nor, being covered from neck to wrist and to toe, is she dressed immodestly by any stretch of the imagination. Tamar—or at least Tamar’s dress—is thus excluded from consideration as a factor inciting Amnon’s lust. Certainly she does not come to his “sick bed” dressed seductively. This is quite a contrast to 2 Samuel 11, where David espies the naked Bathsheba and then puts into motion his designs up on her.

Thus the detail of Joseph and Tamar each wearing a כתנת הפסים does in fact matter in each story—but independently, and in quite different ways.

With all that’s been going on the last few weeks, I failed to post here a notice of iTanakh’s April updates. During April 2006, iTanakh added listings in the following categories:

Archaeology > Sites
Context
Methods > Philology
Methods > Theology
Texts > Tanakh
Texts > Tanakh > Torah/Pentateuch > Genesis
Texts > Tanakh > Former Prophets > Joshua
Texts > Tanakh > Former Prophets > Samuel
Texts > Tanakh > Former Prophets > Kings
Texts > Tanakh > Latter Prophets > Ezekiel
Texts > Tanakh > Latter Prophets > Habakkuk
Texts > Tanakh > Latter Prophets > Haggai
Texts > Tanakh > Latter Prophets > Zechariah
Texts > Tanakh > Writings > Psalms
Texts > Tanakh > Writings > Qoheleth
Texts > Tanakh > Writings > Lamentations
Texts > Tanakh > Writings > Ezra-Nehemiah
Topics > Creation
Topics > Ethics
Topics > Jerusalem
Topics > Law

Well, it’s no surprise, I suppose, but Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, has expressed concerns about The Da Vinci Code, particularly in light of the upcoming film adaptation. Poupard did not endorse a boycott of the film, and in fact said “Why not?” to those who want to know if they should see the film—provided they understand it is fiction. The problem is that while everybody recognizes that Sophie Saunière and Robert Langdon are fictional characters, many readers have swallowed Brown’s “backstory”—which he himself promotes as containing fact—as fact, when it is riddled with inconsistencies, errors, and outright falsifications. All of that befits fiction, of course, but as Poupard said, “What I’m concerned about is that decent people who do not have the proper religious education will take this nonsense for the real thing.” Demonstrably, that has already been happening. The CNN article ends with this wisdom from Poupard:

Asked if he would go see the film, Poupard said: “I don’t plan to, because life is short and I have a lot of things to do. I have so many friends who have described this nonsense to me that I don’t have time for that.”

Jim West has another post criticizing a proposed resolution urging the SBC to come up with an “exit strategy” to get Baptist students out of public schools. My first, knee-jerk reaction was, “Oh, come on, Jim, not this again.” Regular readers of Higgaion, and those who have followed my links back here from comments in Jim’s other anti-homeschool posts, know that my eight-year-old son is enrolled in the California Virtual Academy (Kern County), which is a public charter school that delivers its curriculum via book, video, and computer to students who study at home. It’s a blend of public and home education, and it’s working very well for us. The curriculum is nonreligious (or maybe I should say nonpartisan, for Nathan has learned basic facts about Islam, Shinto, and Buddhism in his history curriculum this year), and Nathan is held to the same educational standards as traditional public school students (in fact, right now—literally this very minute—he’s at a testing center taking the state-mandated standardized achievement tests). We opted for this model because we felt that the public school experience was dragging him toward mediocrity—an inherent logistical hazard of putting eighteen kids with different capabilities in the same classroom. I’ve blogged about all this before, so I won’t go on at length here.

The thing is, I think Jim actually has a point in this latest post—albeit a point that easily gets lost in the vitriol. Note that Jim’s criticism is leveled against “people who pull their kids from public schools out of fear.” When I followed Jim’s link and actually read the Agape Press article, I found that I couldn’t quite muster a passionate defense of the proposed resolution. The authors of the proposed resolution, Bruce Shortt and Roger Moran, seem to have two primary bees in their bonnett: evolution and sex education. My son is young enough that sex education in public schools would still be several years away, so I haven’t paid that much attention to what’s going on in California public schools on that score. But it does sound to me like the Shortt-Moran resolution really is a vote for ignorance. A home school situation that “protects” children from the theory of evolution really does nothing but ensure that they will be undeprepared for college biology courses, and probably promotes seriously flawed interpretations of the biblical creation texts. A home school situation that “protects” children from sex education may be more defensible, but I think has a high potential to result in woefully underinformed teenagers who actually end up getting worse information about sex because they get it from their peers instead of from reliable sources. I can understand the Shortt-Moran concerns about what they see as promotion of homosexuality and abortion, but—regardless of your attitude toward either of these issues in the abstract—if parents whose children are in public schools are abandoning moral instruction of their own children and leaving that up to the schools, then that is a parental failing, not a public education failing.

So I find myself in a bit of a pickle here: I don’t agree with Jim’s general animosity toward home education, and I think there are very good reasons to opt for home education (as we have done with our son)—but I don’t think the Shortt-Moran reasons are among the good ones.