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.
509
NEGLECTED PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS “ SHAME â€
OF
that process using vwb and other so-called “shame terminologyâ€.
Such gestures are more appropriate to situations of distress and
accompanying appeal than social or psychological disgrace.
II. Semantic Polarities and Motifs of Protection
It should be clear by now that vwb-synonyms do not always
stand in semantic or conceptual contrast to terms related to honor.
Indeed, semantic contrast between vwb-synonyms and terms for
honor are extremely rare 38. Most importantly, “shame†and
“ honor †vocabulary rarely form a dyadic pair. vwb or tvb occur
only once in opposition to dbk or dwbk (Isa 66,5 cf. Isa 24,23), and
μlk or hmlk only oppose dbk or dwbk in one text (Ps 4,3). Neither
shame term ever opposes dwh (“ splendor, honorâ€) or rqy (“ valuable,
noble â€). Among all shame terms, only llq and dbk form a truly
antonymous relationship 39. Polarities that comprised the social
world of ancient Israel did not necessarily manifest themselves in
corresponding semantic polarities 40.
For a recent critique of biblical scholarship’s appropriation of shame-
38
honor models, see S. SCHWARTZ, Were the Jews a Mediterranean Society?
Reciprocity and Solidarity in Ancient Judaism (Princeton, NJ 2010) 23.
Schwartz contends that “At the moment of its decline as an ethnographic
hypothesis, mediterraneanism was embraced, in its crudest and most
deterministic form, by scholars of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testamentâ€.
His observation is evident in the section “The Wise and the Foolâ€,
W.H. MATTHEWS – D.C. Benjamin (eds.), Social World of Ancient Israel
1250-587 BCE (Peabody, MA 1993) 143-144. The authors suggest that the
labels “wise†and “clean†were really just “generic label[s] for honorâ€.
Furthermore, they suggest that “wise†and “clean†denote social status. In
other words, while the biblical writers may use unusual terminology, social-
scientific models allegedly provide us with a tool for translating the denotative
meaning of terms. “Wise†and “foolish†really mean “honor†and “shameâ€.
This explanation of wisdom and cultic language in purely social terms is
deeply reductive. For a reevaluation of the Mediterranean shame-honor
p a r a d i g m , see M. HERZFELD , “Honour and Shame: Problems in the
Comparative Analysis of Moral Systemsâ€, Man 15 (1980) 339-351; idem.,
“ The Horns of the Mediterraneanist Dilemmaâ€, American Ethnologist 11
(1984) 439-544.
KLOPFENSTEIN, Scham und Schande, 208, argues this point contra
39
Pedersen : “Es fällt auf, dass sich ein eigentlicher Gegenbegriff nur bei der
Wortgruppe qala nennen laßt, nämlich kbdâ€.
Contra MATTHEWS –BENJAMIN, Social World. For a solid critique of
40