At 12:53 PM 12.7.97 +0000, you wrote:
>I've never been sure if can.68 is indulging in rather heavy irony at the
>Jews' expense. The Mosaic commandment could refer to not mixing wool and
>linen or to the possession of fringes at the four corners of the garment:
>it had nothing to do with status differentials, nor did the carrying out of
>the commandment involve public display. Ecclesiastical legislation had more
>to do with the ideology of the mark of Cain, than with the enforcement of
>scriptural dress codes.
>
>Gary Dickson
>University of Edinburgh
For what it is worth, Antonio Garcia y Garcia cites Lev 19,19 and Deut 22.5
and 22.11 in regard to this reference to Moses in his edition of the canons
of Lateran IV. The first and last refer to the prohibitions against wearing
cloth made of wool and linen mixed together, but Deut 22,5 reads, "A women
shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a
woman's garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord
your God." This speaks, I think, to some of the things Carol was saying
about clothing being used as a general marker of difference. I agree that
there is an ironic element at work - perhaps on the level of the customary
Christian complaint found in polemical texts that the Jews didn't keep their
own Law. So c. 68 is almost saying, "See, you don't follow the Law unless
our Church councils enforce it for you."
Regards,
Lucy Pick
******************************************
Lucy K. Pick
Nuveen Instructor
Divinity School
University of Chicago
1025 East 58th Street
Chicago, IL 60637
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|