Abnormal Interests

Hey Duane,
Your comment on my post hit the nail on the head. Rather than anything to do with "feet" being used euphemistically for the genitals or pudenda, I think my interpretation makes more sense of the use of the verb סכך "cover". If feet was to indicate genitals, then how does "covering your genitals" suggest going the bathroom? Understanding it as a circumlocution for the act of squatting with robes covering/cloaking the action does justice to the verb. For the posture of squatting see Deut 23.13 where ישׁב is used to refer to going the bathroom. I enjoy your blog... thanks for the link.

Tyler,

Thank you for saying I "hit the nail on the head," but from reading the remainder of your comment, I think you meant that I hit the nail on the side of the head.

While sitting on the throne this morning I gave further consideration to your reference to Deut 23.13. This passage does indeed describe in some detail how one should "go potty" when encamped. You are quite right that squatting is involved.

I am not without experience in these manners having once urinated on my shoe while my foot was in it. This was the result of misunderstanding the nature of sub-standard plumbing in a rural part of Israel. On another, more recent occasion, I defecated in my hat. For the record, my hat was not on my head at the time.

I have one question/observation about squatting while wearing robes. If one squats with a robe on, wouldn't it be necessary to pull the robe up, perhaps uncovering rather than covering the feet, to prevent spoiling the robe?

Now, what do I really think about all this. I think the evidence is mixed. We are dealing, in Judges 3:24, which I actually cited in my previous post and I Samuel 24:3, which I didn't cite, with a idiomatic express for "going potty." The origin of such an idiom is not always clear. Nor does it matter much in the interpretation of these texts because, while the origin of the idiom may not be clear, the meaning is very clear.

If asked to make a decision at risk of my life, I would likely support Tyler's position. First, Tyler is a qualified expert biblical scholar and I am an amateur. Therefore, his intuitions in these manners are likely better than mine. That doesn't mean that qualified experts are always right or that amateurs are always wrong. It means that the burden of proof in ambiguous cases must fall disproportional on the amateur. And I do not believe that I have met that burden of proof in this case.