The Self Examined: Christian Perspectives on Human Identity

2017.

CHAPTER 1

An Identity of Shame in Genesis

The Human Condition

JÜRGEN SCHULZ

Every accep person must face matters of identity and shame, but a widely ted definition of both terms is still wanting. ¹ In this chapter, I will explore the nature and function of shame for the identity of an individual in the Old Testament, particularly in Genesis. In the texts of the Old Testament, we do not find a defined theoretical concept for identity in a modern or postmodern sense, and the same is true for shame. Shame is a genuinely human experience, and yet stereotypical assumptions about the nature and function of shame fall short because of the variations found between different cultures and languages. The understanding of shame in Germany and the United States—the two countries with which I am most familiar—differs significantly, for example. During our time in Dallas, I remember a debate in our student housing about the appropriate attire for women using the pool. For some, a bikini was considered to be too revealing and unacceptable. From my German beach experience, I was happy that they did not go topless. If two contemporary Western cultures already differ so greatly in their understanding of the same term (Eng., shame; Ger., Scham), how should today’s reader of the Old Testament understand what the text is saying when it uses the term? How, also, does shame function in the Old Testament in relation to the identity of the self? In the texts of the Old Testament, personal identity is closely connected with the social context of the self. In this connectedness, shame takes on an essential regulative function. This chapter seeks to explore these questions and varying aspects of shame. We begin with an exploration of the self in the Old Testament.

Identity: The Self in the Old Testament

The Old Testament does not contain specific technical terms that express the concept of identity or person. How, then, do the Hebrew Scriptures speak of personal identity and the self, and how does our modern construction of personal identity connect with these ancient concepts? Using Charles Taylor’s Sources of the Self as a gateway, I will first provide a sketch of our modern conception of self and then consider it alongside the Hebraic description of personhood.

Our contemporary Western languages use terminology that Charles Taylor, in his seminal work, locates in Plato’s metaphor of Phaedrus in the classical Greek context. Here, identity is chiefly determined by a sense of inwardness.² For Taylor, the self is constituted by an inside-outside opposition, whereas the world within holds the key for finding the true self. Taylor explains:

We think of our thoughts, ideas, or feelings as being within us, while the objects in the world which these mental states bear on are without. Or else we think of our capacities or potentialities as inner, awaiting the development which will manifest them or realize them in the public world. . . . We are creatures with inner depths; with partly unexplored and dark interiors.³

These inner depths are located within one’s soul, the source of human thought and feeling, where reason should rule. Since it possesses the power of reason, the self is able to face the chaos of the outside world in a regulatory role.⁴ Because of the dominance of reason, one’s soul achieves within oneself a harmony that no longer depends on the outside world. This notion of inner depths provides the foundation for the modern understanding of the self as an autonomous, disengaged, self-sufficient, and self-responsible unity. Individualism, as one of the prominent features of the modern identity, is an outgrowth of modernity’s focus on the inner depths. The self is grounded in one’s inside world rather than in the outside world of one’s social relations.⁵

In contrast, one of the fundamental and constitutive characteristics of the self in the Old Testament is its relationality and sociality.⁶ Robert di Vito, in his comparison of Taylor’s idea with Old Testament anthropology, points out these conflicting positions of inwardness and outwardness. He summarizes the concept of personhood as presented in the texts of the Old Testament with four aspects, thus identifying the very different construction of the self. Di Vito states that a person is

1) deeply embedded, or engaged, in its social identity, 2) comparatively decentered and undefined with respect to personal boundaries, 3) relatively transparent, socialized and embodied (in other words, altogether lacking in a sense of inner depths) and 4) is authentic precisely in its heteronomy, in its obedience to another and dependence upon another.⁷

While some have emphasized the rule of reason as a constitutive factor of identity, the Old Testament presents a view of personal identity that focuses on constellations of complex relationships to the world outside of the self: to fellow human beings, to animals and plants, and also—in the transcendent realm—to God.⁸ Relatedness is presented in the Old Testament as the essence of man.⁹ One’s personal identity in the Old Testament is intertwined with one’s social and collective identity. Di Vito goes so far as to emphasize a person’s social context at the expense of his or her individual identity, a weakness in his otherwise very useful contribution.¹⁰

Now the question remains: How does the Old Testament speak about the individual personal identity as a self-contained entity, especially while taking into account the importance of the social context? Or is the notion of an individual self foreign to the Old Testament texts?

The anthropological aspects of a person are particularly expressed in the Old Testament through the usage of terminology for the body; bodily terms are central in conceptualizing humanity. In addition to their organic definitions, these terms carry socio-anthropological connotations and express relationality. See, for example, Psalm 16:7–10 (ESV):

⁷ I bless the LORD who gives me counsel;

in the night also my kidney (כִלְיוֹתָֽי, ḵilyôṯāy) instructs me

⁸ I have set the LORD always before me;

because he is at my right hand, I shall not be shaken.

⁹ Therefore my heart (לִבִּי, libbi) is glad,

and my liver (כְּבוֹדִ֑י, kᵉḇôḏi) rejoices;

my flesh (אַף־בְּשָׂ֝רִ֗י, ʾap̱-bᵉśāri) also dwells secure.

¹⁰ For you will not abandon my soul (נפַשְִׁי֣, nap̱ši) to Sheol,

or let your holy one see corruption.

The different body parts bring different aspects of the somatic and cognitive functions of the body into view: the kidneys (intuition), heart (reason), liver (emotion), flesh (the fugacity of life), and the soul (the neediness of humanity). These body parts are connected by verbs that express a course of action or emotion.¹¹ Only in relation to one another can we speak about the whole person who is drawing near to God (Ps. 16).

The reference to individual body parts is thus a reference to the body’s relational function. Through the body, relationships between fellow human beings and God are established. The soul, for example, is misunderstood if we interpret it in a dualistic sense, as an entity separate from the body. The word denotes vitality or vital energy that is not found in itself but in seeking relatedness—a relatedness to God (Ps. 16). The term soul labels someone with a need for relationships.¹² Schroer and Staubli go so far as to state, "This nephesh-ness of the human being means that we are entirely oriented to relationship, from the very beginning."¹³ The living aspect of the self, in its capacity to relate, is the core meaning of the soul. What is relevant for the term soul is also applicable to other body parts, a matter that will need to be discussed elsewhere. For our purpose, it is important to have in mind that in the Old Testament the relationality of a person is so fundamental that it is grounded in the body itself.¹⁴

Each body term emphasizes one aspect of a person but also must be understood in its totality. For the anthropology of the Old Testament, it is important to focus not only on the unique feature of each aspect or what has been called elsewhere the principle of the aspective, but also on the principle of the connectivity. The connectivity of these individual aspects can be described with the help of the concept of a constellative construct.¹⁵ As with the human body, the whole is seen through the constellation of its individual aspects. Without this inherent relationality, the whole is unthinkable.

In the Old Testament, anthropology is portrayed in a multidimensional fashion, presenting corporeality and relationality as essential characteristics of the self. Personal identity is another facet of this multi-dimensionality. Bernd Janowski, who rejects Di Vito’s description of the self as decentered and undefined with respect to personal boundaries,¹⁶ situates the individual identity in the heart (לבֵָב /לֵב, leb/lebāb), which he calls a symbol for the ‘inner person.’¹⁷ Contrary to the modern understanding, the Hebrew concept of the heart is the center of cognition. But in the Old Testament, the emotional and volitional aspects are also located in the heart. All three merge and are difficult to separate from one another.¹⁸ The experiences of the reciprocal relationship between the inner and outer world of the self are located in the heart. To examine the self in the Old Testament by focusing solely on the social context and the external world means to neglect the whole person. Old Testament anthropology must understand the individual not only within the social context, but also as an individual identity. The world within and the world without have to be viewed in tandem.

The interrelation of corporeality and sociality are constitutive for personal identity. The personal and social dimensions are connected, as can be seen in the human body; the body is a union of individual parts. Comparatively, the personal self is part of a collective such as a family household or ethnic group. The individual and the collective do not merely coexist but depend on each other, and the personal is always correlated with the collective.¹⁹ This understanding of the self stands in contradiction to the concept of corporate personality most often seen in Old Testament studies, which perceives the individual exclusively through the group with a concomitant neglect of his or her individual aspects.²⁰ The Old Testament does acknowledge the individual self and presents it as one dimension of an identity concept.

In Old Testament studies, another unique dimension of the self is its relation to the supernatural. The personal identity is embedded in its sociality—a sociality that, at its core, carries a religious-transcendent element.²¹ The individual in the Old Testament is predominantly presented as one part of a chosen collective: the people of Israel. As part of the chosen nation, the individual is related to YHWH, the divine. Although this relationship can also be observed for the individual apart from the people of Israel (e.g., Jonah and Nineveh), a qualitative difference for the individual who is part of the chosen nation exists. Only Israel, in contrast to its neighboring nations, is regarded as the people of God, a nation with an established direct relationship with the divine.²² The personal self of the Israelite is part of a sacred people, and it is only by belonging to the divine that the self is complete.²³ The identification of the individual with the collective, and the collective’s acceptance of the individual, is constitutive for an Old Testament anthropology.²⁴

The Hebrew concept of identity differs significantly from modern Western ideas. To present the personal identity as an alternative to the collective would be an anachronism. Multidimensional relatedness is fundamental. The physical, social, personal, and religious-transcendent dimensions are deeply intertwined. The personal self is embedded in the collective, and the collective is constituted by the individual.

Shame, by its very nature, is both a personal and a collective experience. Before we review the different aspects of shame in relation to identity, however, we will explore its meaning in the Old Testament.

The Concept of Shame in the Old Testament

The Hebrew verb בושׁ (bôs̆) in Genesis 2:25, which is usually translated ashamed, serves as a key term in the garden narrative of Genesis 2–3. Since a major investigation of the concept of shame for ancient Israelites through the lens of theological and historical anthropology is lacking, it is essential to understand the words that describe shame.²⁵ Thus far, only limited research has been done on the actual meaning of the different shame words in the Old Testament. While a comprehensive semantic contribution is beyond the scope of this chapter, it is necessary to define the concept of shame in the Old Testament and examine its use in a larger discussion of identity.

The three major shame words in the Hebrew texttext—בושׁ (bôs̆), כלם (klm), and חפר (ḥpr)—are generally translated as to shame or to put to shame. They express either a generic connotation that describes the experience of shame in general or a personal connotation of the particular feeling. The challenge faced in reading a translation of the Old Testament is the loss of context and nuance. The concept is more multifaceted than the lexical definitions suggest.²⁶ A comparison between different dictionary entries reveals further nuances in meaning. To humiliate, to hurt, for example, is (according to some) the prioritized and preferred translation for the verb כלם (klm).²⁷ When we take into account the different order of meaning in the dictionaries, shame is only listed as second or third in importance. It can be argued that the feelings of being hurt and humiliated can be interpreted as expressions of shame, but to actually use the word shame in a translation is likely to lead to a loss of nuance present in the concept of the