|
It
is axiomatic that not all communication is verbal. The wink of
any eye, a vigorous handshake, a kiss - such are among the more
obvious body actions which communicate beyond speech.2
On a more grand scale, the Star of David, the Crescent, or the
Cross, wordlessly stir deep emotions for those whose allegiance
is grounded in Judaism, Islam, or Christianity respectively.
Such
symbols pose a problem. As French must be learned to communicate
verbally with Parisians, so one must become sensitized to another
culture's values and their corresponding representations if one
wishes to comprehend with some degree of accuracy the non verbal
signals of another culture. One must adjust to the frequency of
the sender if one wishes to receive intelligibly. Symbols constantly
acquire new significance through usage, and one unfamiliar with
the custom remains an outsider. The problem in understanding or
even being aware of such symbols (the domain of semiotics) increases
with an individual's conceptual or temporal distance from the
sending culture.
For
the reader of the Old Testament, the problem is particularly acute.
Even though one may through translations surmount the language
problem of a text originally penned in a non Indo European
language, there still remains the formidable obstacles associated
with a culture thousands of years old, no longer in existence,
whose sole literary3
remains are the biblical text with no human interpreter from that
culture to guide our reading.
The
following discussion is designed to uncover one such symbol of
substantial significance in the Old Testament: clothing. By examining
reflexes of the relatively stable cultural values expressed by
clothes within the Old Testament (with reference as well to the
New Testament and traditions elsewhere in the ancient Near East),
we hope to make the reading of the biblical text more intelligible
to the twentieth century reader for whom clothes and fashion are
as changeable as the weather.4
One
may succinctly describe clothing as an extension of the life,
personality and vigor of the wearer. Apart from explicit exceptions
to be noted below, there is a strict correlation between the condition
of one's life and the clothes that are worn.5
Clothing often appears as a metaphor for human life in general
and an image of a specific individual's life in particular.
The
frequency with which mourners are bedecked with sackcloth is a
ready illustration to introduce this perspective.6
Extreme tragedy provoked a change in garments. Normal clothes
worn in daily life were inappropriate when normalcy was broken
in one's life. The rough, abrasive, uncomfortable and unattractive
sackcloth communicated eloquently an inner change in one's psyche.
It is obvious that one who wore sackcloth had encountered a crisis
for which the sackcloth was the concrete manifestation. But the
significance of garments goes far beyond this isolated phenomenon
with which most are familiar.
Sackcloth
apparel was not the only visage of mourning imaged by garments;
the destruction of one's own proper garment was an even more intense
drama portraying an invisible reality. One might describe the
deliberate tearing of one's garment as a formal enactment of the
rending of oneself. The sorrow that precipitated such a violent
display was often of sufficient intensity to mark the end of one's
former life and its continuation (if at all) only in a modified
fashion. When an individual becomes hopelessly aware of his or
her own imminent death, the tearing of one's clothes is an eloquent
metaphor of one's own demise.7
The loss or even anticipated loss, of a relative or loved one
finds the bereaved rending their garments.8
Life had been diminished even for those who continued to live:
the rape of Tamar forever changed her life, a boundary by which
she marked by the tearing of her garment (2 Sam. 13:19). The leper
who is cut off from the community, forced to live apart from society,
is to have his clothes torn his life is terminated
while he lives (Lev. 13:45).9
The
point to be emphasized is that not all bad news elicits such extreme
responses as the tearing of clothes.10
Instead, it is the liminal events and significant boundaries where
one's life is dramatically changed. The tearing of the garment
is a picture of the irrevocable11
tearing of a life: it is a response to a tragedy which mars if
not destroys the person who mourns.12
It
is helpful to note that one who tore his garments often would
accompany the act by the deprivation of other life-affirming symbols:
refusal to eat food,13
the cutting of the hair,14
failure to bathe or anoint oneself with oil.15
Sackcloth and torn garments are simply one tangible expression
of a terrible reality.
The
perspective is reinforced by the fact that the priests were not
to tear their clothes in mourning for deceased relatives under
certain conditions (Lev. 10:6; 21:10). The wholeness which is
required by one who serves in the presence of God must not be
diminished, in the same way that those who are mutilated may not
serve as priests (Lev. 21:17 23). The apparent callousness
of this stipulation is explicable from the perspective that the
rending of the garments (along with other mourning rites) genuinely
represents a deterioration of the life of the officiant.
In
fact, the position of the priest is made explicit in this regard,
for he must wear special clothes if he wishes to enter the temple
area.16
The elaborate directions for the manufacture and use of the priestly
garments in Exodus and Leviticus are another manifestation of
the central import of clothes in ritua1.17
The dress of the priest is not an optional feature but fraught
with considerable significance: in both the Tabernacle legislation
and the future Temple service envisaged by Ezekiel, the priests
put on special garments when they enter the arena of the holy
and they remove these garments when they leave.18
The
garment is thus an objective element by which an individual's
vitality and personality is displayed. The destruction or marring
of one's garment is consequently a foreboding event which moves
in the realm of death. When Jacob sees his son's Joseph's coat
covered with blood, he exclaims: "It is my son's robe; a
wild beast has devoured him; Joseph is certainly torn to pieces"
(Gen. 37:33). This is a reasonably logical conclusion on the basis
of the evidence, but in a larger framework it is essential that
it be precisely Joseph's bloodied garment which is used to represent
the misfortune of its former owner.
In
the same fashion that the destruction of one's clothing marked
the end of one's former life, so the renewal of garments identified
the wearer as entering into a new .life. When Jacob makes the
decisive move to transfer completely his allegiance from traditional
gods to Yahweh alone, he orders his extended family to purify
themselves and change their clothes (Gen. 35:2). Clothing stands
as an extension of one's personality: renewed clothing marks a
renewed orientation in life. Perhaps the donning of special clothes
to enter the sacred Temple area represents one facet of such a
renewal or vivification.19
Similarly,
clothing which does not wear out is a sign of continued vigor
under the special protection of providence. The wilderness experience
of the Israelites was a forty year miracle of clothes which
neither deteriorated nor required replacement, from the clothes
on their backs to the shoes on
their
feet (Deut. 8:4; 29:5; Neh. 9:21). This miracle was another manifestation
of the charmed existence of the Israelites in the wilderness,
eating manna from heaven and receiving water from the rock.
In
like manner, the three Jewish men thrown into Nebuchadnezzar's
furnace survived the ordeal with no real threat to their lives.
The text describes their clothing in detail as they were thrown
to their (apparent) doom: "Then these men were bound in their
mantles, their tunics, their hats, and their other garments, and
they were cast into the burning fiery furnace" (Dan 3:21).
The interest in detail is curious but significant as the narrator
later resumes at the climax: "The fire had not had any power
over the bodies of those men; the hair of their heads was not
singed, their mantles were not harmed" (Dan.3:27).
The
cultural value which perceives a vigorous life as reflected in
continued maintenance of one's clothing became canonized as a
legal reality. Exodus 21:10 requires a husband to continue providing
the basic necessities to a wife whom he by passes in favor
of marrying another. Clothing is one of these three commodities
stereotypic throughout the ancient Near East20
which guarantees her continued livelihood.
We
have seen so far that the mundane banality of clothes may be inadequate
to account for their crucial importance at significant junctures
in life. This becomes more apparent at the transfer of clothes
from one party to another, for it was an act weighted with solemnity
of life and death proportions. To give clothes as a gift was one
of the most common benefactions of royalty.21
But on the non royal plane, it is of central import that
Joseph provides his brothers with new garments after he reveals
who he is (45:22). Not only is there an irony present, reversing
the jealousy once stimulated by the "coat of many colors;"
but the gift is a sign of new life for the brothers a new
life which Joseph wishes to sponsor as a sign of full forgiveness.
However,
of deeper significance was the transfer to another of clothes
which were actually worn by the giver. For example, the influential
royal officer Shebna, "the palace administrator" ('aser
'al habbayit Is. 22:15), is excoriated by the prophet Isaiah
for abuse of his official power. Shebna's doom is eloquently foretold
by the prophet, a doom which includes his demise and death in
a foreign land. But more precisely for our purposes, his removal
from office is described as a divestiture in favor of another
person’s investiture with the same garments (Is. 22:19 21):
I will thrust you from
your office, And you will be cast down from your station. In that
day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, And I
will clothe him with your robe, And will bind your girdle on him,
And will commit your authority to his hand.
It
is not accidental that such activity marked the death of the one
deprived of clothes, or at least pointed to his demise or termination
of his effectiveness. When the story of Aaron's death is told,
we find Moses following God's directive (Num. 20:25 28):
Take
Aaron and his son Eleazar, and bring them up to Mount Hor; and
strip Aaron of his garments and put them on his son Eleazar. So
Aaron will be gathered to his people and will die there . . .
And after Moses had stripped Aaron of his garments and put them
on his son Eleazar, Aaron died there on the mountain top.
The
transfer of the clothes immediately prior to death is not coincidental,
for the text wishes to underscore the real connection in an unbroken
sequence of the spiritual unity between the first priest and his
successor. The bond is achieved through the transfer of the former
person’s clothes.
This
deliberate orientation reappears at the death of the great prophet
Elijah. His successor Elisha's initial response is to tear his
own clothes when Elijah is taken away forever (2 Kgs. 2:12). But
the torn clothes do not mark the final statement of Elisha's condition,
for he next picks up his former master's mantle by which he is
invigorated to accomplish precisely the same miracles which his
master had performed before his death. As Elijah had split the
Jordan (2 Kgs. 2:8), so the new bearer of the mantle can do precisely
the same (v.14). The continuity between the deceased and his successor
is marked by the transfer of the former person’s garment.
In
addition to the transfer of authority just noted in the prophetic
and priestly offices, even the kingship privilege was marked by
the transfer of the royal garments. King Saul had already clothed
David in his own garments and armor at a time when Saul was ineffective
in leading the people (1 Sam. 18:38). Although David declines
the offer as inadequate, this unwitting transfer of the royal
wardrobe to the future king is affirmed as more than fortuitous
when Saul's own heir, the crown prince Jonathan, also gives
his own clothes to David (1 Sam 18:4). These actions adumbrate
the eventual death of Saul and Jonathan, in whose place David
assumes the kingship.22
It
was also possible to share one's garment with another while still
wearing it or at least maintaining possession. The inertia of
the concept above would imply that a shared garment signifies
the assimilation of the newly clothed party into the life of the
one who shares the garment. Thus, in some betrothal contexts,
the man is described as spreading his garment over his future
wife. Ruth asks Boaz to do this to her (Ruth 3:9), and God describes
himself as spreading his garment over Israel when she became his
bride (Ezk. 16:8). It is not simply that "covering a woman
with one's mantle signified the intention of acting as her protector,"23
but on a more fundamental level the life of the woman is now becoming
joined to the life of the man, or in the words of Genesis 2:24,
they become "one flesh:"
Since
the garment was clearly an extension of one's life and personality,
certain symbolic gestures gain clarity when seen from this vantage
point. The acknowledgment of a new Israelite king was partially
achieved, on at least one occasion, by individuals removing their
garments and placing them at the king's feet. Clearly a symbol
of submission, the garments in this context are a part which represents
the whole of the person whose garment lies beneath the king. The
repetition of this action in the case of Christ's entry into Jerusalem
is no doubt embroidered with royal connotations (Mk. 11:8; Lk.
19:36), but the royal ritual must be seen as a part of a much
larger dimension in which a garment is perceived as an extension
of the wearer's life.
Another
symbolic gesture appears in relation to the tearing of garments
discussed earlier. Saul attempts to humbly petition an angry Samuel
by grasping the hem of Samuel's garment.24
But when the cloth accidentally tears in Saul's hands, Samuel
sees the action as pointing to a violent rending in the perpetrator's
(Saul's) own life: the kingdom will be torn out of his hand and
given to another (1 Sam. 15:27-28). The tearing of a garment with
this same significance reappears later when Solomon's kingdom
is fractured (1 Kgs. 11:29-31).
The
potency of the garment as a legitimate extension of the wearer
is the driving element in the minds of many of those who seek
to be healed by Jesus and his disciples. The woman who had been
sick for twelve years articulates the dynamic precisely: "If
I can just touch his clothes, I shall be saved" (Mk. 5:28).
This narrative is crucial, for not only is she immediately cured,
but the event elicits a response from Jesus. As Mark observes
(5:30):25
And at once aware of
the power that had gone out from him, Jesus turned around in the
crowd and said, 'Who touched my clothes?'
The
identity between clothes and wearer can be no more intimately
presented, for the cloth is a vehicle and channel for expressing
the vitality and life of the person. This woman's wish is not
unique, for wherever Jesus went, "they laid down the sick
in the open spaces, begging him to lei them touch even the fringe
of his cloak" (Mk.6:56). It is consequently not surprising
to find that those who follow it Jesus' footsteps are able to
heal individuals by simply touching garments which are then taken
to the ill as an extension of the personal power of the apostle
(Acts 19:12).
On
another level, garments were a reflection of a person's position
or status in the community.26
Among the more obvious examples are the luxuriously splendid clothes
of those either of royal status or specially privileged by royalty.
Mordechai left the presence of the king bedecked in "royal
robes of blue and white with a large crown of gold and a garment
of fine linen and purple" (Est. 9:15). Daniel is elevated
to position as third ruler in Babylon, clothed with purple and
a necklace of gold (Dan. 5:26). When Joseph is elevated over all
Egypt, Pharaoh bestows upon him garments of fine linen with a
gold necklace (Gen. 41:42). The assumption in these stories is
that clothing is a reliable indicator of status.
But
it is not just the upper class who can be identified by their
clothes. We are specifically told of a special garment worn by
virgins in Israel (2 Sam. 13:18). Widows wore a distinctive garb
according to Genesis 38:14, 19, and a harlot could be identified
by what she wore (Pr. 7:10). Jesus related a parable whose climax
depended upon distinctive garments which one should wear to a
wedding (Mt. 22:11 12). The special garment which Jacob gave
to Joseph alone among all his brothers certainly communicated
a message that this son was uniquely special to his father, for
it showed to them that "their father loved him more than
all his brothers" (Gen. 37:4). The attire of a prophet was
apparently distinctive with its hairy exterior and leather belt
(Zech. 13:4; 2 Kgs. 1:8; Mt. 3:4; Mk. 1:6), a type of clothing
which Jesus underscored as certainly not characteristic of a refined
life style: "A man wearing fine clothes? Look, those
who wear fine clothes are to be found in palaces" (Mt. 11:8 9).
Clothes, therefore, could be unambiguous symbols of identification
of status, social position, and relationship.27
It
is appropriate that clothing should reflect the life of its wearer,
for biblical texts repeatedly employ imagery which stresses the
"mortality" of garments. In fact, the mortality of mankind
is compared to the parallel shortcoming in garments: "Man
crumbles away like rotten wood, or like a moth eaten garment"
(Job 13:28). Garments are characteristically short-lived so that
even the inevitable dissolution of the cosmos itself is honed
to a comprehensible, narrow focus where it is compared to clothing
which grows old or is vulnerable to voracious moths (Ps. 102:26;
Is. 50:9; 51:6, 8).
It
is easy to overstate the correlation between the clothes on the
exterior and the real person whom they represent. Biblical imagery
is equally emphatic that a second trajectory is also present which
depicts the garment as a deceptive facade which misleads the onlooker.
Examples already cited above align themselves in this direction,
such as Joseph's blood stained coat presented to Jacob. Joseph
is not really dead, and although the coat presented to Jacob is
an accurate symbol of what amounts to Joseph's living death as
a slave in a foreign land, his father is deceived as to Joseph's
true condition. The deception is not inappropriate in this case
and is a fitting act of poetic justice, for Jacob had earlier
deceived his father by donning his brother's clothes and pretending
to be Esau (Gen. 27:1 45). In like manner, Judah, who had
assisted in passing off the bloodied cloak, was deceived by Tamar's
deliberate disguise as a cultic prostitute (Gen. 38:1 26).
Therefore,
Christ's dictum that false prophets are wolves in the guise of
sheep (Mt. 7:15) is not without precedent, Joshua was fooled by
the crafty Gibeonites who displayed their tattered clothes as
"proof" of the great distance which they had traveled
(Jos. 9:5,13). King Ahab was tricked by a prophet who disguised
himself (1 Kgs. 20:37 42). And the early church succumbed
to the easy but false intuition that there is a true correlation
between one's clothes and one's spiritual status (James 2:2 4).
Now
suppose a man comes into your assembly, well dressed and
with a gold ring on and at the same time a poor man comes in,
in shabby clothes, and you take notice of the well dressed
man, and say, "Come this way to the best seats"; then
you tell the poor man, "Stand over there" or "You
can sit on the floor by my footrest" In making this distinction
among yourselves have you not used a corrupt standard?
It
is not true that there is always a necessary correlation between
the outer garment and the inner personality. When Joel cries out,
"Rend your heart and not your garments" (2:13), he is
already affirming a universal human condition, as common as the
lying tongue.
In
fact, one could argue that there is sufficient semantic overlap
between the notion of "covering" oneself with a garment
and "covering up" something which one wishes to hide,
an overlap which may account for the very vocabulary of clothing
itself:
The connection between
the ideas "cover, clothe, besmear, cover with paint or other
material" on the one hand, and "deceive, mislead",
etc. on the other hand is very frequent.28
What
is it that clothes are designed to cover up? The testimony of
the Bible is unanimous that man's natural condition of nakedness
is a legitimate cause for shame. God certainly does not wish to
see men's nakedness when they serve in the sacrificial ritual
(Ex. 28:42 43), and precautions are taken to insure that
no accidental exposure occurs: steps are not allowed at God's
altar lest the raising of the leg accidentally lift one's garment
(Ex. 20:26).
There
is an awareness that this shame results from a former breach between
God and man, for there once was a time when man walked naked in
God's presence with no opprobrium, indeed, no self consciousness
that he was naked (Gen. 2:25; 3:8 11). Not only does God
provide cultic measures to minimize exposure of nakedness in the
sacrificial service as noted above, but God himself affirmed that
covering one's nakedness with clothes was a legitimate means of
solving the immediate problem of shame. Although Adam and Eve
initially sewed fig leaves together (Gen. 3:7), it was God who
designed the first substantial garments for humankind out of animal
skins (Gen. 3:21). Clothing thus is a bivalent symbol in this
regard, affirming simultaneously both the tragedy of man as an
incongruous rebel in creation and also his nobility as one whose
shame is found worthy of resolution by the very hand of God himself.
Indeed, God's gift of clothes to man and woman is an affirmation
of hope that God can yet bring life where death holds sway.29
The
identification of nakedness with shame is integrated with notions
of death, reinforcing our observations that clothing represents
an extension of the life of the wearer. It is precisely the naked
who are on the verge of death if not already dead. Most obviously,
one often finds that those without clothes are also lacking in
nourishment (e.g. James 2:15). But in addition, before execution
one is stripped naked (Hos. 2:5; Ezk. 16:39 40; cf.; Ezk.
23:26; Is. 47:2 3; Nah. 3:5 7). When Job's calamities
burst over his head, he first tears his robe and then the words
which leave his mouth provide the classic commentary: "Naked
I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return" (Job.
1:20 21).30
The
one who is naked is the one who is aware of his imminent mortality.
It is the one without clothes who is vulnerable and in danger
of perishing (Job 24:7, 10; 31:19). It is later fitting that the
insane man dwells among the tombs without clothing (Lk. 8:27),
but when healed by Jesus, he is found in his right mind and clothed,
sitting at the feet of Jesus (Lk. 8:35).31
It is also appropriate that man's mortality in the Garden of Eden
is signaled by a dawning awareness of his nakedness.
Therefore,
the laws in the Pentateuch which limit certain exchanges of clothing
should not be perceived as an isolated phenomenon. One is not
allowed to take a widow's garment as a pledge for payment of a
debt according to Deuteronomy 24:17, while Exodus 22:20 26
requires that any garments taken as pledges from the poor must
be returned before sunset. That the issue is of life and death
proportions is evident from the fact that abusing this stipulation
moves God to personally deal with the offender (v. 27):
It is all the covering
he has; it is the cloak he wraps his body in; what else will he
sleep in? If he appeals to me I shall listen.
Naturally,
the one who is insensitive to human lives is the one who strips
others naked, pushing them to their death (Job 22:6), while it
becomes a life giving act for the righteous to provide clothing
for the perishing.32
In
summary, when one moves into the realm of ancient Israel's culture,
it is apparent that abstract concepts often donned the tangible
clothing of physical substance. It is a world where spirits were
birds descending from heaven, where the voice of God was heard
in the thunder, where the winds were God's servants and his angels
stars. It is part of this intimate integration of the physical
and the spiritual realm, the abstract and the concrete, that common
clothing was not so common after all. A man's garment was his
life or at least an extension of it - representing his status,
condition, position, personality, vulnerability. From sackcloth
to splendid purple, from a widow's garb to the royal cloth, from
a prophet's hairy attire to the sacred priestly clothes, from
the torn garment to the gift of new clothes the diversity
of representations allowed for the fruitful development of the
bond between a person and the clothes which he or she wore. The
biblical narratives assume an awareness of this value system as
an essential part of plot and character development. Indeed, John's
care to point out that Christ's garment was not torn by the soldiers
at the cross33
seems to be one such use of this symbol by which the gospel writer
alluded to the fact that the cross did not mark the end of Jesus'
life.
NOTES
1
I wish to dedicate this paper to Carol Anderson.
2
For gestures and body language in the specific context of the
ancient Near East, see Mayer Gruber, Aspects of Non verbal
Communication in the Ancient Near East (Studia Pohl 12 [2
volumes]. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1980)
3
Literary in the sense of reflective composition, not merely
documentary for which one could easily cite scores of old Hebrew
inscriptions.
4
We are not interested so much in the nomenclature of fashion
(e.g. Roland Barthes, Systeme de la mode (Paris: Seuil,
19671) as in the signification of clothing itself. A western
perspective which simply notes that "principally and fundamentally
dress was intended as an
added protection against climatic conditions" (L. Eichler
Watson, The Customs of Mankind (Garden City, N.Y: Garden
City, 19241 501) will be seen to be grossly inadequate from
the oriental perspective in which the biblical world moves.
5
For this phenomenon in other cultures, see J. Frazer, The
Golden Bough (3rd ed. London: Macmillan, 1913) Vol. 1 pp.
205 207.
6
E.g. when Jacob mourns Joseph (Gen. 37:34) or Hezekiah laments
the humiliation before Assyria (2 Kings 19:1); see I DB IV
147.
7
So Athaliah (2 Kgs. 11:14). This and the following examples
point out the inadequacy of interpretations such as the following:
"by tearing his clothing and putting on sackcloth a man
symbolized either his submission to the dead or his readiness
to give up all his pleasures and luxuries as a result of the
bereavement he had sustained" (Maurice Farbridge, Studies
in Biblical and Semitic Symbolism [N.Y: E.P. Dutton, 1923]
224). Athaliah is hardly submissive. In any case, we are not
concerned with the origins of these symbols as with their usage
in the historical period.
8E.g.,
Jacob over Joseph (Gen. 37:34), Benjamin's brothers (Gen. 44:13),
Jephthah over his daughter (Jud. 11:35), David over Amnon (2
Sam. 13:31)
9
This is not to deny other significances, for as with most symbols,
a polyvalent orientation may be legitimately articulated by
different members within the same community. With regard to
torn garments specifically, it is noteworthy that the mother
of the last Babylonian king, Nabonidus, specifically attributes
her torn clothes to her desire to move the gods to compassion:
"for calming the heart of my god and my goddess, a dress
of fine wool, jewels, silver, gold, a new shift, perfumes, sweet
oil I applied not to my body, but in a torn shift I went clothed"
(C.J. Gadd, "The Harran Inscriptions of Nabonidus,"
[AnSt 8 (1958) 35 92] 46--47). The Talmud suggests that
in the case of children, garments may be torn to move them to
sorrow (Moe'ed Qatan 26b).
10
For later rabbinic refinements in the custom of tearing the
garment and in responses to death or tragedy, see Moe'ed Qatan
22b 26b.
11
According to Moe'ed Qatan 26b, rabbinic authorities in some
cases did not allow one to ever completely mend a rent garment.
12
This is the perception of the mourner. Circumstances can, of
course, reverse or mitigate the tragedy as in the case of Joshua
at Ai (Jos. 7:6f.).
13
2 Sam. 1:11,12; 1 Kgs. 21:27.
14
In addition to Job (Job. 1:20), Ezra also pulls out his hair
(Ezra 9:3,5) while 80 men from Schechem shaved off their beards
(Jer. 41:5). See Farbridge, Studies, pp. 233 239.
15
2 Sam 14:2 (although the Tekoite woman's clothes are not said
to be torn); see the discussion of this verse in Moed
Qatan 15b.
16
Perhaps of significance is the "keeper of the wardrobe"
Isomer habbegadim 2 Kgs. 22:14) or the "super or
of the chambers/wardrobe" ('Yser al hammeltahah 2
Kgs. 10:22; see KB for the problem of etymology), the latter
of whom is specifically responsible for providing clothes for
worshipers who enter the sacred area. The ritual requirement
of special garments for those who enter the realm of the sacred
is abundantly documented for Israel's neighbors as well.
17
Ex. 28:1 43; 29:5 9,21,29 30; 31:10; 35:19,21;
39:1 31,41; 40:13 14; Lev. 8:2,7 9,30; 21:10.
18
Lev. 6:10,11; 16:3 4,23 24; Ezk. 42:14; 44:17 19.
19
The miserable condition of the Poor Man of Nippur
no money, no food, no drink is described climactically
be noting that "he was clad in garments for which he had
no change" (1.10); his life changes, however, when he resolves,
"I will take off my garments, for which I have no change
. . . I will buy a sheep" (1.12,14,43). Eventually he is
richly girded by the king (1.79 82) and provided with new
clothes by his enemy (1.108; O.R. Gurney, "The Sultantepe
Tablets," [AnSt 6 (1956) 145 162]). The naked Enkidu
becomes human in tablet II of the Gilgamesh Epic by donning
clothes: "He put on clothes, (and now) he is like a man"
(II.iii.27).
20
S. Paul, "Ex. 21:10. A Threefold Maintenance Clause;"
(JNES 28 [1969] 48 53).
21
1 Kgs. 10:25 is a biblical example of a phenomenon well attested
in the Near East at large, most abundantly at Mari and Amarna;
see C. Zaccagnini, Lo Scambio dei Doni nel Vicino Oriente
durante i Secoli XV--XIII (Rome: Centro per le Antichita
a la Storia dell'Arte del Vicino Oriente, 1973).
22
The wearing of garments made of animal skin certainly reinforced
this perception, for the transfer of the animal's skin to the
man required the death of the animal (as when God clothed Adam
in Gen. 3:21).
23
Farbridge, Studies, 275.
24
The fringe or hem of a garment was a frequent locus of persona
identification, particularly well-attested in Mesopotamia: it
could be pressed on a clay tablet or given to another (often
with a lock of hair) as a testimony of personal identification
in a contract, while in divorce proceedings it was cut off in
a symbolic act of severance (for texts see sissiktu in
CAD S 322-325). To grass the hem of another person’s
garment was a gesture of intense petition attested in Akkadian,
Hebrew, Aramaic and Ugaritic (Edward Greenstein, "'To Grasp
the Hem' in Ugaritic Literature,” VT 32 [1982] 217-218).
25
Parallels in Mt. 9:20-22: Lk 8:43-48 .
26
For a fascinating survey of this dimension of clothing in genera,
see the chapter entitled, "Le costume, signe social;"
in Yvonne Deslandres' Le costume, image de l'homme (Paris:
Albin Michel, 1976) 170 240.
27
The only extra biblical evidence available for pre exilic
Israelite dress comes from artistic representations of Israelites
by Israel's neighbors. The 37 "asiatics" depicted
in the 19th century B.C. Egyptian tomb painting of Khnumhotep
at Beni Hasan show a stunning array of clothing with diversity
of style, design, and color for a period long antedating the
period of the Israelite monarchy. For depictions of actual Judahites
and Israelites from the period of the monarchy (on stone and
colorless), see figures 14 42 of Markus Waffler's Nicht Assvrer
neuassyrischer Darstellung (AOAT 26. Neukirchen Vluyn:
Neukirchener 1975).
28
J.L. Palache Semantic Notes on the Hebrew Lexicon (Leiden:
Brill 1959) 10. Palache identifies a spectrum of Semitic roots
which bear this double weight: bqd, m’l, lbs, glm, hmr,
kpr, t/tpl, htl, sgr, mkr, dgl, hlb.
29
29 The particular role which God plays as the bestower of clothing
reappears in a Ugaritic text from Ras Ibn Hani (78/20 1.12 13):
lbs il ystk ‘rm
il
ystk "a garment El puts on you; a skin El puts on you"
(Francesco Saracine, "Ras Ibn Hani 78/20 and Some Old Testament
Connections," VT 32 (1982) pp. 338--343. See also the excerpt
from the Assyrian hymn in note 32 below.
30
In Mesopotamia, the Descent of Ishtar is suggestive with the
progressive disrobing of Ishtar as she enters the underworld
and her progressive robing as she leaves (cf. the unidentified
objects taken from Nergal in his descent [O.R. Gurney, "The
Sultantepe Tablets," (AnSt 10 [1960) 105 31;
126 127). Advice to others who descend to the underworld
includes not putting on clean clothes nor wearing sandals lest
the underworld inhabitants easily identify the intruder as an
alien (Gilgamesh XII. 14 15, 22, 33 34, 40 originally
a Sumerian tradition see A. Shaffer Sumerian Sources of Tablet
XII of the Epic of Gilgamesh [unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Pennsylvania, 1963) pp. 108, 110).
31
Mark describes only his clothed state after his healing (Mk.
5:15); Matthew greatly condenses the story (Mt. 8:28 34).
32
Is. 58:7 8; Ezk. 18:7 9; Job 31:19 20; Mt. 28:63.
Such activity legitimizes a king: "I provided the naked
with clothing" says Esarhaddon (Borger Esarhaddon 25.27);
cf. LAS 121.r3. According to passages such as Deut. 10:18
(and even Gen. 3:21 as described above), one is simply following
the divine example; note the parallelism in the late Assyrian
hymn: "Who covers shame with clothes, who gives life to
god and man" (E. Ebeling, "Ein Loblied auf Gula Baba
aus neuassyrischer Zeit;" Or 23 [1954] 346, 348
1.13). The case of Dorcas in the New Testament is particularly
instructive, for though she died, it is the clothes which she
made for others which is the single concrete feature of significance
which precedes her being raised from he dead (Acts 9:39-40).
33
One finds that the description of the garment as seamless is
often interpreted as a reflection of the high priest's garment
made in similar fashion (e.g. New Jerusalem Bible p. 1787 n.i.
). But this does not explain why John insists that it was not
torn.
|
