Orientalizing one biblical figure forces all more-oriental figures to be orientalized too.

Evidence

The formula is a hierarchy, in which each category to the left is more oriental (that is, more likely to be pictured in oriental attire) than any of the categories to the right. The formula is implicational for the following reason: If any of the categories is represented as oriental, then all the categories to its left must be represented as oriental as well. In other words, choosing to mark any of the categories as oriental implies that all the others to the left are marked oriental as well. The implicational hierarchy predicts that if a “Christian” Jew is orientalized (for at no time were artists obliged to represent any Israelites as oriental) then so will be any personages that may be present from the categories to the left: “Judaic” Jews or gentile orientals. If “Judaic” Jews are orientalized, then so will be any Gentile orientals present. Another way to look at the hierarchy is that it prohibits representations that mark a category as oriental without so marking the categories to its left. We do not have any examples of “Christian” Jews (such as the disciples of Christ) shown with a kaffiyeh while the Pharisees or the skeptical crowd wear exclusively Western attire. — Ivan Davidson Kalmar, Derek Penslar, Orientalism and the Jews, 226

Categorization

• DEFINE: The ‘implicational hierarchy’ concept from linguistics is clearly explained through its application to biblical art — a model of how a structured rule generates otherwise arbitrary-looking choices.
• XREF: Connects with the law-merchant material on institution-rules and with Chomskyan linguistics’ implicational universals — an analytical technique for showing hidden systematicity under surface variation.