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.
512 MATTHEW J. LYNCH
The story is clear that David wanted physical goods because of
the physical protection he provided for Nabal’s men, and that
Nabal should not harm David because David never harmed
Nabal’s men. This is why the servants go on to state that David
was like a vigilant wall “both by day and by night†so that they
and their flocks were not harmed by animals or humans. The
servants’ use of μwnmlkh denotes the absence of physical harm and
not dishonor. There are certainly shame-honor dynamics at play
between David and Nabal elsewhere in the story at the connotative
level, and scholars are correct to point those out. However, the
construction μwnmlkh denotes the absence of physical harm that
resulted from the physical protection of David’s men 49.
1. Isa 1,29
Oppositions between vwb-synonyms and protection motifs
likewise recur in prophetic critiques of foreign political alliances,
idols, or false prophets 50. According to the biblical prophets, all
such objects of trust would ultimately fail in the Day of Judgment
precisely because they lacked any real power vis-Ã -vis Yahweh.
Thus, the prophets engaged in a two-fold process of exposing false
power and revealing the logical end of Israel’s policies of escape
and protection. It is within the matrix of that prophetic strategy
that we often observe the use of vwb-synonyms.
For example, in Isa 1,27-29 we read that when Yahweh comes
to visit Zion, its inhabitants would be “ashamed of†(*vwb) their
illicit sacred objects, and would “blush†(*rpj) because of their
illicit cultic sites. The use of such “shame†rhetoric in the face of
certain death and ruin seems out of place, and indeed, there is
good reason to rethink our translation and understanding of these
terms.
A similar use of the hiphil μlk occurs in Judges 18,7, which nicely
49
illustrates the contrast between security and μlk. In that verse we read about
the inhabitants of Laish, who were “living securely [jfblAtbvwy] ... at rest and
secure [jfb], with no one harming [μylkmA–ya] anything in the landâ€. For a
discussion of this text, see J. BARR, Comparative Philology and the Text of
the Old Testament (Oxford 1968) 14-15, who critiques the use of Arabic
cognates meaning “speakâ€, and the LXX B text, to explain this passage.
E.g., Isa 44,20; Jer 10,14 ; 51,17.
50