Welcome to Coat of Many Colors, Joe Pranevich’s humble blog about religion and the bible.

The original mission of this blog was as a place for me to document my thoughts and reactions as I reread the Torah, the first five books of the Bible – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. That lasted about a month. Since then, I have been reading and commenting on my own pace, discussing and digesting the stories of the bible piece by piece. Along the way, I take detours off into discussions about holidays, biblical genealogy, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and pretty much whatever interests me at the time. This is not a devotional blog. You will not find me waxing poetic about articles of faith, but rather attempting an intellectual approach.

Although my studies tend toward Jewish sources, I am not myself Jewish. (My wife is, though!) I have no formal training in theology or really much of anything. All I have is an open mind, a keyboard, and a heck of a large collection of bibles and religious commentary…

I hope you enjoy my foray into wherever this adventure takes me!

About Joe

Joe Pranevich is a writer, technologist, and a geek. By day, he heads up technology at an well-known internet portal. By night, he is a Teaching Fellow at Harvard Extension, in computer networking and Internet theory. He’s also a former technology writer whose work has appeared in several magazines including Linux Journal, LanLine, Byte (Russia), and others, as well as a paid contributor to Linux Today.

Joe has absolutely no qualifications for writing this blog except a long-standing curiosity and love of religious studies and, apparently, too much time on his hands.

Joe’s Other Stuff

Joe can be reached at jpranevich < at > gmail.com.

7 thoughts on “About”

  1. Greetings Joe,
    I stumbled across your blog while searching for a Bible genealogy image via Google. Your blog is very interesting from what little I have read. Just wanted to let you know and say hi.
    – David

  2. I call it a King’s Coat because Joseph and Judah share two deaths that are confused by historians as great christ-kings regarded as greater than Joseph ruling for Pharaoh. When Baby Judah was born in Syria the 500-year old Nimrod died that year, and then 20 years later in 1750bc Babylon’s king Hamurabi who thought he would be be great like Nimrod died when Joseph was 17. So in both cases, Jacob was proclaiming his son would be greater than Nimrod and greater than Hamurabi (two of Babylon often mistaken as the same king). And two sons of Jacob likened to a ruling Messiah.

  3. Well Joe, for a guy who is not a trained biblical scholar, you did an excellent job on this post. I am a biblical scholar, a graduate of Drew Theological Seminary (Methodist) and a retired Adjunct Prof. at a top Catholic college. I would like to add some scholarship to the issue of the differences between the women in Genesis 1 and 2. What I say is what is taught in all mainline Protestant and Catholic seminaries. It is based on Form Criticism as opposed to the literal interpretations of Evangelicals and other fundamentalists. It is a result of the study of the ancient texts found by archeologists. We Form Critics look for the historical context of each text by asking certain questions. When was the text written? Where was it written? Why was it written? (What was the crisis it addressed?) What literary form was used? What was the message? How does that message apply to me, today?
    Genesis 1 was written by the Hebrew priests during the Babylonian captivity (593-573 B.C.). It is in response to a crisis. Many Jews were participating in the Babylonian religion. So, the priests adapted the creation myth of the Babylonians (Gilgamesh epic) to compose the Hebrew creation myth (Genesis 1). The literary form is, allegory. By changing the Gilgamesh myth at certain points, Genesis 1 became a vehicle for needed Revelations, which clarified Jewish religious identity. In contrast to the Babylonian myth, where the earth and humans were created out of the bodies of dead, evil gods and the role of humans is to serve the banquets of the gods, Genesis 1 tells us that there is only one, all powerful God, He is Good and the matter He creates out of His Word is good. And humans are created to be co-creators with God of earthly society. Also, as we read on in Genesis, we learn that blessings come from moral behavior.
    The creation myth in Genesis 2 was composed between 8 and 900 B.C. in the court of Solomon. The addressed the crisis that was created by the many pagan wives Solomon was bringing into the palace (hundreds). Each pagan princess brought her own pagan priests and servants with her and set up worship services inside the palace. These attracted Hebrews. This…….in the very center of their fiercely monotheistic faith! The Revelation in Genesis 2 is that Yahweh wills that His People be monogamous. “Each clings to the other and they become one body.”
    The fact that in Genesis 1 man and woman are created simultaneously and in Genesis 2 they are created separately means nothing. It is just the way each story goes. In 1, equality was not an issue. In 2 the translators have had a ball. Some call Eve a helpmate and some call her a companion or partner. Your choice depends on your politics.
    Keep up the good work, Joe.

    1. This is a P.S. to my comment above. I did not realize it would not follow on your Lillith article.
      As you can see from the Form Critical analysis, neither woman in Genesis 1 or 2 has anything to do with Lillith. Efforts to include Lillith are non-canonical syncretisms. I.E., independent add-ons.

  4. Hello Joe,

    I hope all is well. You have a great blog here. Should we be expecting any new entries or have you retired from the blog?

    Best Regards,
    Ralph D.

    1. Ralph, this remains my dream blog and one that I hope some day to get back to. I love this material and this book deeply and want to talk about it more…

      I was burned out a couple of years ago because the attention I was getting was not the attention that I had hoped for. Too many arguments with people who approached it from a position of love, but also a very combative style in their own views of the work. I just wanted to focus on the text and it’s very difficult to talk about the bible without bringing in (sometimes unfortunate) baggage.

      I want nothing more than to come back to this someday.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *