Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: GENESIS 2:25 AND 3:1

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: ben.crick AT argonet.co.uk (Ben Crick)
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: GENESIS 2:25 AND 3:1
  • Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 22:33:41 +0100


On Thu 17 May 2001 (17:49:48 +1000), heinrich AT med.usyd.edu.au wrote:
>
> 1. Does anyone know something about how the concepts of BARE, NAKED,
> AND CLEVER are related through this root?

Dear Paul,

Hebrew is very fond of puns and doubles-entendres. In Genesis 2:25 we have
`a:RuMMiYM (with Dagesh Forte in the Mem), from the root `uWR to strip. This
is repeated in Genesis 3:7, where we have the fuller form `eYRuMMiYM from the
same root `uWR.

In 3:1, we have `aRuWM which is the passive participle from the root `aRaM
to be cunning or subtle.

> 2. The two uses of the word occur in 2 consecutive statements. In oral
> speech, the second follows hot on the heels of the first, with a
> difference in meaning. Are there any linguistic hints that would act as
> cues to alert the hearers that a different usage is intended? Is it
> merely the fact that it is associated with the snake, where lack of
> hair is assumed, or not relevant as a concept, or perhaps triggers into a
> pre-existing image of the clever snake?

I doubt it. In the LXX, we have FRONIMWTATOS in Genesis 3:1 (3:2 LXX); but
not
in the good sense /prudens/, but in the pejorative sense, /callidus/ (see the
Vulgate). The snake's subtlety is in his ability to tempt people into sin.
Baldness or hairlessness would be from the root QaRaX (Leviticus 13:40, etc).
IMHO, the pun is between the roots `uWR and `aRaM.
>
> 3. Is there anything in the text itself that justifies the negative
> connotations of clever in connection with the snake? The same word is
> used elsewhere in its positive aspects, as WISE or PRUDENT. From my
> reading, it is only used in this negative aspect of CRAFTY or SUBTIL
> therefore EVIL in the Book of Job. Is the translation as SUBTIL with
> negative overtones a translator's choice, or does it have a clear
> linguistic base in BH?

You spotted Job 5:12f and 15:5. See also Psalm 83:4 BH (82:3 LXX), where root
`aRaM is again featured in a pejorative sense; /malignaverunt/ in the
Vulgate.
ISTM that craftiness is morally neutral in itself; it just depends to what
end
you bend your craftiness. IOW, it's in the Context, rather than in the Text.

> 4. What kind of associations might have occurred in the minds of the
> hearers when these two statements were presented one after the after in
> BH, with different meanings from the same root occurring so closely in
> time?

I suppose, that the *craftiness* of the Tempter was responsible for the
shame-inducing awareness of *nakedness* before the gaze of the Creator. They
had nowhere to hide, thanks to the Serpent of Eden. Hebrew loves puns; no
doubt the play on words was not lost on the original hearers of the early
storytellers of the Genesis material.

HTH

Shalom
Ben
--
Revd Ben Crick, BA CF
<ben.crick AT argonet.co.uk>
232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK)
http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm






  • GENESIS 2:25 AND 3:1, Paul Heinrich, 05/17/2001
    • <Possible follow-up(s)>
    • Re: GENESIS 2:25 AND 3:1, Ben Crick, 05/18/2001

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page