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.
511
NEGLECTED PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS “ SHAME â€
OF
of security and deliverance contrast sharply with vwb-synonyms and
other terms belonging to a domain that I call the “semantics of
disaster †45. This semantic domain includes the verbs ttj (“ be
shattered, ruined†12x), gws (“ turn back [in defeat]†8x), dba
(“ destroy †4x), ddv (“ devastate †3x), lvk (“ stumble †3x), lhb (“ be
terrified †2x), djp (“ be in terror†3x), and other such terms that
occur less frequently. Because μlk and other terms like rpj rarely
occur independently of vwb 46, it is important to understand these
three terms in connection with their broader word-field to avoid
circular semantic reasoning.
In order to explore more deeply the contrast between vwb-
synonyms and protection/deliverance, it is necessary to examine
several specific texts where we can observe the fuller phenomenon.
In 1 Sam 25, David requests quid pro quo food for his men from
the wealthy, but foolish, Nabal (vv. 7-8). In his request, David
appeals to the fact that his “mighty men†had provided protection
for Nabal’s shepherds, stating explicitly that μwnmlkh (“ we did them
no harmâ€; 25,7b) so that his men could freely tend to their sheep 47.
After Nabal spurns this appeal and David prepares for retaliatory
measures, one of Nabal’s messengers urges Abigail that the
shepherds had “suffered no harm [wnmlkh]†from David’s men. In
fact, David’s men were a protective wall by day and night so that
Nabal’s men could attend to their sheep 48.
AVRAHAMI, “vwb in the Psalmsâ€, 301, suggests that vwb-synonyms in the
45
Psalms “belong to the larger semantic field of ‘worthlessness’ in the Hebrew
Bible â€, though the lexical examples she gives do not fit well “worthlessnessâ€.
vwb occurs 15x with the verb μlk and 14x with the verb rpj.
46
Though most versions recognize the physical meaning of μlk in vv. 7
47
and 15, there is a tendency for those invested in the sociological shame-honor
polarity to seize upon the presence of “shame terminology†in this passage.
For example, G. STANSELL, “Honor and Shame in the David Narrativesâ€,
Semeia 68 (1994) 55-79, translates μwnmlkh in v. 7 as “we did not shame themâ€
and goes on to state that taking Nabal’s sheep would have brought dishonor to
the wealthy man. See also, M.S. ODELL, “The Inversion of Shame and
Forgiveness in Ezekiel 16.59-63â€, JSOT 56 (1992) 104; G.G. NICOL, “David,
Abigail and Bathsheba, Nabal and Uriah: Transformations within a Triangleâ€,
SJOT 12 (1998) 130-145.
The hophal form of μlk was also used in Jer 14,4 to depict the response
48
of the servants to the empty cisterns. Texts where vwb and μlk appear in
conjunction include Ezr 9,6; Job 19,3; Ps 35,4; 40,15; 69,7; 70,3; Isa 41,11;
45,16 ; 50,7; 54,4; Jer 14,3; 22,22; 31,19.