Biblical Hebrew Forum

[ben.crick AT argonet.co.uk (Ben Crick)]

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