Matthew J. Lynch, «Neglected Physical Dimensions of “Shame” Terminology in the Hebrew Bible», Vol. 91 (2010) 499-517
Psychological and social paradigms have dominated translations and interpretations of shame terminology in the Hebrew Bible. Scholars often adopt modern notions of shame as either internal feelings of worthlessness or external social sanction, and then apply those notions to the biblical text. I suggest that there is need to reevaluate whether or not such psychological and social frames are appropriate to biblical terminology of shame. My essay contends that shame terms, such as #$wb, Mlk, and their cognates and synonyms, frequently denote the experience of 'diminishment' or 'harm' in ways far more physical than typically reflected in modern renderings.
502 MATTHEW J. LYNCH
biblical occurrence in the hophal stem, μlk means “to suffer
(physical) harm†(1 Sam 25,15) 8, strengthening the case that the
phrase wmlkhw wvb in v. 3 and wvb in v. 4 also refer to physical
processes of bodily harm occasioned by the drought.
Second, the verb ttj (be ruined, shattered, cracked), which
describes the ground in 14,4, is only used elsewhere in the Hebrew
Bible to depict humans, and it normally pairs off with vwb to depict
a state of startled distress 9. Indeed, the text itself suggests that the
farmers linked their own “diminishment†(vwb) to the cracked
earth. In v. 4b we read that the farmers “cover their headsâ€, a
gesture that indicates a state of mourning and not an attempt to
hide shame 10. Though we do not know what the farmers use to
cover their heads, it is quite possible that they use the dry earth
itself, a possibility made stronger by the prominent agricultural
themes in this passage 11. Indeed, other than hands, “dust†and
“ earth †are the only things that mourners place on their heads in
the Hebrew Bible 12. At the very least, v. 4 establishes a causal
relationship between the cracked earth, the farmers’ “diminishedâ€
state, and their act of covering their heads.
Third, the structure of vv. 2-6 emphasizes that the farmers and
servants are only representative victims of the drought, and
therefore they are probably not trying to express their personal
feelings of responsibility for the calamity 13. Jeremiah 14,2 states
WAGNER, “μlK klm â€, TDOT VII, 187. While Wagner acknowledges the
8
physical sense of the hophal μlk in 1 Sam 25, he still maintains that in Jer 14
“ disappointment over unfulfilled expectations results in a sense of shame†for
the servants and farmers.
2 Kgs 19,26; Isa 20,5; 37,27; Jer 17,18; 48,1. 20; 48,39; 50,2; cf. Isa
9
33,9 ; Ps 129,6.
Discussions of mourning gestures in the Hebrew Bible include
10
T. PODELLA, Sôm-Fasten. Kollektive Trauer um den verborgenen Gott im
Ë™
Alten Testament (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1989) and S. OLYAN, Biblical Mourning.
Ritual and Social Dimensions (New York 2004) 31.
2 Sam 15,30; Ezek 27,30; Lam 2,10; Est 6,12.
11
Josh 7,6; 1 Sam 4,12; 2 Sam 1,2; 13,19; 15,32; Jer 2,37; Ezek 27,30; cf.
12
Rev 18,19.
KLOPFENSTEIN, Scham, 40, misses the point here: “The passage of Jer
13
14,1-6 describes the embarrassment which came upon different people groups
and individuals through the drought. ... The unsuccessful servants bring on
themselves the reproach of their master, while the farmers are disappointed
about the destruction of the cult†(translation mine).