Chapter 1 : Greek vs. Hebrew thought The Bible's in My Blood Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek by Thorleif Boman is interesting, thought provoking, and detail oriented. Because of my limited background in the subject area, it is not an easy read. And because transliterations vary so much, I would have preferred to see Hebrew letters instead of transliterations of Hebrew words; using both could have made. This posting forms the second part of a two-part reflection. In the ancient Mesopotamian myths the supreme gift humanity desires is the one gift denied them. It is the gift of immortality. The hero Gilgamesh discovers the plant of immortality in the depths of the sea and picks it. But he places it on the grass while he bathes in a pool. A snake slithers up and snatches it. By contrast in the Genesis creation story Genesis, God does not deny humans access to the tree of life. Presumably they can eat of its fruit and be constantly rejuvenated. Instead God prohibits eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Knowledge is the forbidden fruit, not immortality. Faced with this oddity, we are left to wonder: What is so dangerous about knowledge? In my last posting, I suggest that when Adam and Eve grasp at this fruit, they are seeking to gain omniscience. Once they know everything, they can be truly independent. They will be masters of their own lives. God will be pushed to the fringes of life. He becomes a needless hypothesis. The grasping for omniscience is a delusional act. Human beings are not gods. Instead the grasping for omniscience severs their relationship of trust in God. It cuts the spiritual artery of life. Are faith and knowledge in eternal conflict? This raises another question. Does the author then see a fundamental conflict between faith and knowledge? Is his attitude deeply anti-intellectual? In fact, is the spirit of the Bible itself anti-intellectual? Some Christians today certainly hold this position. Many non-believers assume the same. I find it a common prejudice among scientists. Religion and science are inherently incompatible, they contend. Many Christians also seem to confirm that prejudice. In field after field, they set themselves in opposition to the scientific consensus. But that is not a fair reading of the Bible. The Biblical writers place great value in knowledge, especially knowledge that advances human well-being wisdom. There are many places where the Biblical authors praise wisdom. The opening chapters of the Book of Proverbs are one classic exposition. One can hardly exalt knowledge and wisdom to a higher status. There is one striking feature, however, of how the Bible, especially the Book of Proverbs, understands its lauded pursuit of knowledge. That pursuit beginsâ and must beginâ with a foundational reverence for God as God. This is stated explicitly in the opening verses of Proverbs. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and knowledge. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all those who practice it have a good understanding. Rather it stands for a basic reverence for God. That reverence is grounded in trust, trust in the power and the goodness of God. The pursuit of knowledge is not dangerous as long as it is united with a basic reverence for and trust in God. When Adam and Eve grab the forbidden fruit, they seek knowledge at the expense of that relationship to their Maker. The contrast between the Greek and Hebrew attitudes towards knowledge The Garden of Eden story highlights, I believe, a fundamental contrast between ancient Greek and ancient Hebrew attitudes towards life. Therefore our salvation is closely tied to the pursuit of the truth. In his dialogues around Athens, Socrates, for example, seems to assume that if human beings can come to know the truth, they will do the truth. I have never been quite sure why. We will not be able not to want to live by it. Truth attracts us by its beauty. So as knowledge advances and ignorance recedes, life will become better for everyone. The Biblical authors operate on a different assumption. Humanity has sought to live in independence from its Maker. In repentance we return to a foundational trusting in God. Until that happens, the pursuit of knowledge will always be an ambivalent affair. We have seen how science, for example, has done great good in advancing the welfare of human beings, especially in the field of medicine. But scientific knowledge has also given us the ability to annihilate life and civilization on this planet. How will humans use the knowledge that science and other intellectual endeavors have given us? That involves choices made by the human will. And knowledge does not infallibly govern the human will. Attitudes, emotions, and desires play an important role as well. In fact, in my opinion, the more decisive role. When Adam and Eve grasped at the forbidden fruit, they introduced a fatal separation between the head and the heart. Instead of working in harmony, reason and human desires work at cross Page 1
purposes a lot of the time. We see this separation continued in the tension between science and religion in our own day. This is what makes the Genesis myth so insightful for understanding the human dilemma. Hebrew thought, science and religion, Socrates, the Fall, wisdom 2 Replies The Christian Scribe Gordon Lindsey follows in the path set by the Jewish scribes, medieval monks, and Christian commentators through the centuries. This blog shares the fruits of his conversations with and about the Bible. Join other followers. Page 2
Chapter 2 : Hebrew thought compared with Greek - Thorleif Boman - Google Books Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek has 38 ratings and 5 reviews. Jared said: Another half-completed book. I look forward to coming back to it someday. It. This is an article for students and theologians. It is an extract from Dr. The Greek View Until we can reconstruct with some confidence the emergence of Gnosticism, it is highly speculative to speak of the influence of Gnostic ideas on the emerging Christian faith. There is, however, a body of Greek literature that contains a view of man and the world very close to that of developed Gnosticism, namely, those Greek philosophical and religious writings that reflect the influence of Platonic dualism. These are writings that are well known and datable; and it is profitable to compare their view of man and the world with the biblical view in both the Old and New Testaments. Such a comparison leads to two conclusions: The basic problem is that of dualism. However, dualism means different things in the Greek view and in the biblical view. The view found in Plato and in later thinkers, influenced by him, is essentially the same cosmological dualism as is found in later Gnosticism. Like Gnosticism, Platonism is a dualism of two worlds, one the visible world and the other an invisible "spiritual" world. As in Gnosticism, man stands between these two worlds, related to both. Like Gnosticism, it sees the physical body as a hindrance, a burden, sometimes even as the tomb of the soul. Like Gnosticism, it conceives of salvation as the freeing of the soul from its entanglement in the physical world that it may wing its way back to the heavenly world. Two further elements found in Gnosticism do not appear in the Platonic philosophers: The biblical dualism is utterly different from this Greek view. It is religious and ethical, not cosmological. Therefore the consummation of salvation is eschatological. It does not mean the gathering of the souls of the righteous in heaven, but the gathering of a redeemed people on a redeemed earth in perfected fellowship with God. The theologies of the Synoptic Gospels, of John, and of Paul are to be understood in terms of this Hebrew dualism, and each of them stands in sharp contrast to the Greek dualism. The unifying element in New Testament theology is the fact of the divine visitation of men in the person and mission of Jesus Christ; diversity exists in the progressive unfolding of the meaning of this divine visitation and in the various ways the one revelatory, redeeming event is capable of being interpreted. Since radical differences between Greek and Hebrew ways of thinking have recently been challenged,15 we must now develop our thesis and document it in detail. The foundations of the Greek view go back to the theology of the Orphic sect, which came to light in Greece in the sixth century B. This theology is embodied in the ancient myth of Zagreus Dionysus, begotten by Zeus of Demeter. Zagreus fell under the power of the Titans, wicked enemies of Zeus. In his effort to escape them, Zagreus changed himself into a bull; but the Titans captured him, tore him to pieces, and devoured him. However, Zeus blasted the Titans by a flash of lightning, and from their ashes arose the human race. Mankind thus possesses two elements: This mythology expresses the Orphic theology of the dualism of body and soul. Man must free himself from the Titanic elements and, purified, return to the gods, a fragment of whom is living in him. Usually the soul at death flutters free in the air, only to enter into a new body. It may pass through a series of deaths and reincarnations. Finally, by the sacred rites of the cult and by a life of ascetic purity, man may escape the wheel of birth and become divine. His cosmic dualism is paralleled by his anthropological dualism. The soul of man in his earthly existence is composite, consisting of the reasoning part or mind nous, the spirited or courageous part thumos, and the appetitive part epithumia. These three parts of the soul are located respectively in the head, the chest, and the midriff. The lower parts of the soul, like the body, are mortal. Human experience is a struggle between the higher and lower parts of the soul. While Plato in this way locates moral evil in the soul, it is in that part of the soul that was created with the body and, like the body, is mortal. Most of the time, Plato speaks of the soul as simple in essence, and as the enemy of the body with its appetites and passions. The soul, then, belongs to the noumenal world and descends from this higher world into the phenomenal world of bodily existence whence it strives to regain its proper place in the higher world. Plato likens this struggle to a charioteer driving two winged horses, one noble and the other ignoble. The noble horse wishes to mount up to the sky, to the realm of the divine eternal realities; it represents the divine immortal part of the soul whose proper realm is the region Page 3
above the heaven of "the colourless, formless, and intangible truly existing essence [ousia ontos ousa] with which all true knowledge is concerned. In a real sense of the word, salvation for Plato is by knowledge. The mind can apprehend truth; but the bodily senses can hinder the soul from the acquisition of knowledge. Therefore the mind must have as little to do as possible with the body. He lays hold on truth and partakes of immortality so far as that is possible. Those who attain this beatific34 vision are loath to descend to human affairs, but their souls are ever hastening into the upper world in which they desire to dwell35 because this escape from the earth is to become like God. And this state of the soul is called wisdom. The influence and prevalence of the Platonic dualism may be realized by the fact that it is found in widely different quarters in New Testament times. We refer here only to two: Plutarch provides us with a vivid picture of the state of Greek religion in educated circles in the late first century. He was thoroughly nurtured in Greek thought, culture, and religion, and his chief aim was to harmonize traditional Greek religion with Greek philosophy, represented primarily by Plato,48 and to avoid the twin evils of atheism and superstition. In his dialogue The Face of the Moon we find an eschatological myth about human destiny. This purifying process consists in purging away the pollutions that were contracted from the body. This process of purification is neither uniform nor uniformly successful. Some souls succeed in purging away all of the evil influences of the body, that is, in making the irrational element in the soul completely subordinate to reason. Other souls are so laden with evils from bodily existence that the purification is incomplete and they fall back again to earth to be reborn in different bodies. Final destiny is to be released from the cycle of birth58 and to attain a permanent place in the heavenly realm. Plutarch no more regards matter as evil ipso facto than did Plato. God is described in philosophical language61 and also in terms of mind and reason. While he does not recognize matter ipso facto as evil,78 the body is a foul prison-house of the soul,79 like a sackcloth robe,80 a tomb sema,81 a grave trumbos. But those who pursue wisdom and philosophy, namely, God, those who discipline the body and cultivate the mind, "soar upwards" to behold the wonders of the heavenly realm. Philo describes this experience of "salvation" in the language of the Greek mysteries as though it involved ecstatic vision. For when the mind soars aloft and is being initiated in the mysteries of the Lord, it judges the body to be wicked and hostile. The philosopher, being enamored of the noble thing that lives in himself, cares for the soul, and pays no regard to that which is realty a corpse, the body, concerned only that the best part of him, his soul, may not be hurt by an evil thing, a very corpse, tied to it. When, then, O soul, wilt thou in fullest measure realize thyself to be a corpse-bearer? Will it not be when thou art perfected and accounted worthy of prizes and crowns? For then shalt thou be no lover of the body, but a lover of God. For when the mind has carried off the rewards of victory, it condemns the corpse-body to death. The rational part of the soul, which was pre-existent, is incorruptible and immortal,92 and at death "removes its habitation from the mortal body and returns as if to the mother-city, from which it originally moved its habitation to this place. The destiny of men is not a redeemed society living on a transformed earth; it is the flight of the soul from earth to heaven. In this basic thinking about man and his destiny, Philo is quite Greek and Platonic. The Greek idea that the material world is the sphere of evil and a burden or a hindrance to the soul is alien to the Old Testament. When God created the world, he saw that it was good Gen. Thunder was the voice of God Ps. To be sure, the world is not all it ought to be. Something has gone wrong. But the evil is not found in materiality, but in human sin. When man in proud self-assertion refused to accept the role of creaturehood, when he succumbed to the temptation to "be like God" Gen. The Old Testament never views the earth as an alien place nor as an indifferent theater on which man lives out his temporal life while seeking a heavenly destiny. Although the world was designed to reflect the divine glory and still does so, it is a tainted glory because of sin. This intimate relationship is sometimes expressed poetically. Because of human wickedness, the land mourns, and all who dwell in it languish, also the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and, even the fish of the sea are taken away" Hos. This can and be illustrated by the Old Testament concept of life. There is no antithesis between physical and spiritual life, between the outer and the inner dimensions in man, between the lower and higher realms. Some Christian theologies would consider this crassly materialistic; but a profound theology underlies it. Life, which can be enjoyed only from the perspective of obedience to God and love for him Deut. It is God alone who is the source of all good things, including life itself Ps. Those who forsake the Lord will be put to shame, for Page 4
they have abandoned the fountain of life Jer. God alone has the way of life; it is only in his presence that there is fullness of joy and everlasting pleasures Ps. Behind this understanding of life is a profound theology. Man shares with nature the fact of creaturehood. But man stands apart from all other creatures in that he was created in the image of God. For this reason, he enjoys a relationship to God different from that of all other creatures. However, this does not mean that men will ever transcend creaturehood. Indeed, the very root of sin is unwillingness to acknowledge the reality and implications of creaturehood. The fact that man is a physical creature in the world is neither the cause nor the measure of his sinfulness and thus a state from which he must be delivered. The root of sin is found not in succumbing to the physical side of his being, but in the intent to lift himself out of his creaturehood, to exalt himself above God, to refuse to give God the worship, praise, and obedience that are his due. For this reason the Old Testament never pictures ultimate redemption as a flight from the world or escape from earthly, bodily existence. Page 5
Chapter 3 : Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek Vineyard Boise BookCellar Thorleif Boman's Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek is a fascinating and even inspiring book. Lots of thoughts were running through my mind after reading it. Lots of thoughts were running through my mind after reading it. Theology and the Greek mindset A brief exploration Parsons, Sivan 4, Recently someone asked me what I meant by the term "Greek mindset," especially when used in contradistinction to the term "Hebraic mindset. By way of response, however, I wrote the following exploratory article where I attempt to look at a few of the basic distinctions. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world -- to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice. To begin to understand some of this, we need to go back to ancient Greece and appreciate its tremendous influence in western intellectual history. Inferences regarding its objects are really just opinions based on sensations. The highest of all ideals is that of "the Good," the transcendent source of all value in the universe. The idea of justification means that the proper use of language yields a well-defined object of correspondence: This led to a sort of dualism in both nature and in man -- there is the real and the ideal; the "is" and the "ought," and so on. The world of Forms is the true, high, and good world; this world of incessant flux is a "copy" that "participates" in the heavenly realm. One famous example Plato used was that of a triangle the Meno. Only by apprehending the "idea of triangle" can we classify if this particular thing partakes of the essence of triangularity. In the Republic, Plato illustrates these concepts using the metaphor of the sun, the divided line, and the allegory of the cave. Aristotle attempted to redirect the thinking of his mentor by insisting that universals forms, ideas, etc. In either case, however, the business of the mind is to understand things in terms of their static generalized essences. Taxonomies, categories, precision in definition, the use of logic, etc. God or heaven, for these ancient Greeks, was an "Unmoved Mover" or an infinite Mind that contemplated its own inner perfection. Most of western thought -- including ideas about language and logic, natural science, mathematics, ethics, jurisprudence, politics, aesthetics, theology, and so on, draws from this tradition, and much has been subconsciously adopted into the educational technologies of the west for thousands of years. So enormous has been the influence of Plato that Alfred North Whitehead once remarked that "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato" Process and Reality. And since the early Roman church was led by orators and others schooled in classical Greek thought i. Paradoxically and perhaps tragically the early western church therefore became a carrier of the legacy of ancient pagan thinking. Thus we find two of the greatest theologians of the Christian world - Augustine and Thomas Aquinas - attempting to synthesize Greek philosophy with the Scriptures Augustine following Plato and Aquinas following Aristotle. The Hebraic mindset, on the other hand, was not concerned with these abstract ideas of the ancient Greeks. Hebrew thinking therefore tended to be more dynamic, more poetic, more dramatic, more "phenomenological" based on appearances, and more impassioned than that of the ancient Greeks. Just as the ancient Hebrews did not ask, "What is truth? Time is therefore linked not so much to chronology as it is to spiritual significance. Therefore the Exodus event is reenacted every year during Pesach, the giving of the Torah at Shavuot, and so on. Unlike Greek speculations about time as a substance or medium or "dimension," in Hebrew thinking events are the focus, not the supposed substratum for these events. Since the Hebrews dealt with the drama of Divine revelation that was eventually committed to writing i. The study of narrative, the layered sense of meanings, the focus on action rather than static being, the application Divine law to particular cases, etc. This explains in part why Judaism has never been strongly represented in the realm of Greek philosophy and philosophical theology. Jewish Theology has been conditioned by debate, discussion, and dialog -- all within a shared sense of communal tradition. Consider the Talmud, for instance, where we see ongoing debate and discussion regarding matters of Jewish law alongside midrash and homiletic literature. Why should I break my head about the outside world? Let the outside world break its own head. He is rightâ Perchik: You know, you are also right! As such, reality is intensely, overwhelmingly, and even hauntingly personal Truth therefore is a matter of trust -- not abstract knowledge -- whereas "knowledge" is primarily about practical ethics, moral obligation, and cult practices i. For the Hebrew mind, truth is more akin to moral Page 6
fidelity than it is to propositional correspondence; it is more a matter of the heart than of the head From its earliest days in Rome, the Greek mindset has been hugely influential in shaping the vision of the "church" -- its structure, mission, "theology," and its ways of doing business. The roles of the earliest "Church fathers" and apologists is a study of Greek oratory and dialectic. And even though the so-called "Reformation" of the church in the 16th century tried to restore a primitive Christian expression, it failed ironically enough because it went back to ancient Greek humanism rather than to the Jewish roots of the Christian faith. The ideal of Zion as a real, physical future continued to be allegorized, just as the Church continued to mistakenly regard itself as "Israel. This is the hubris of "Greek philosophical theology" and explains in no small measure the various disagreements among Christian "denominations" that persist to this day. Hellenistic Judaism, for example, sought to syncretize Hebraic-Jewish religious tradition with the culture and language of the Greeks. Therefore we see the Jewish theologian Philo of Alexandria c. The same syncretism is found in Islamic theology as well. Christian theology has always had those among its ranks who, like the Hebrew Maccabees, opposed syncretism with the Greeks. For example, the early church leader and orator Tertullian CE once quipped, "What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem? This approach is sometimes called fideism "faith-ism" and is usually contrasted with "natural theology" i. Tertullian might have gone too far in his reaction against reason, however, since he later became something of a theological absurdist whose mysticism promoted the errors of replacement theology. Ironically his separation of "Athens from Jerusalem" made the latter a mystical ideal of the Gentile world rather than the promised hope of the Jewish people. It could not have evolved by chance. After all, these churches read Jewish literature on a weekly basis i. Moreover, not all ancient Greek thinking and culture is bad. In addition to its literary and artistic genius, the reason Greek thought has become so intractable is because the use of formal logic, clear thinking, artistic perfectionism, etc. But please do not think that I am advocating any form of "gnosticism" that an individual "must" understand the Hebrew mindset in order to attain salvation Groups that purport to "reconstruct" the original words of Yeshua such as the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research or that claim that we must follow the teachings of the Jewish rabbis and sages such as legalistic Messianic groups are essentially cultist in their orientation On the other hand, it is undeniably true that most Gentile churches are steeped in Greek theological presuppositions and are therefore ignorant of the meaning of the inherent Jewishness of their faith.. They are often unwittingly? When Pilate asked "What is truth? Yeshua did not come to speculate like Socrates and to dialog about abstractions No, He came to reveal the Face of God On the other hand, when Yeshua spoke to His disciples - just before his impending death as the Passover Lamb of God - he said, "I am the way, the truth, the life The way to God is the way of faith Yeshua is derech ha-chaim - the way of life. The truth of God is revealed in the Person and sacrifice of Yeshua. The cross demonstrates the truth of our depravity and our need for salvation. And Yeshua is the life - He is both the one who sustains all things and mediates all things through His infinite glory. For those who trust in him, he offers abundant life, eternal life, inexpressible joy, unsurpassed peace, love that passes understanding, and a glorious future in the world to come. Page 7
Chapter 4 : Read Hebrew Vs. Greek Thinking Hebrew "dynamic" thought compared to Greek "static" thought; differences in how things and people and buildings and God are perceived and conceived; their contrasting conceptions of time and history and space - just to mention a few areas Boman explores. Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek. Lots of thoughts were running through my mind after reading it. This is odd in a wayâ the analysis of real oral tradition was done thoroughly beginning in the s with Milman Parry and his student Albert Lord. It seems that no theologians know about this, so they keep passing on bad information to the next generation. Basically, his book is saying that Hebrew thought is dynamic, most words are rooted in verbs, and there is always of sense of becoming and of history having scope. He shows that Hebrew thought and language is more time-oriented and active. Greek thought, which is more typical of the West, is more static and spatial. Even the way Greeks viewed historyâ more analytically and less purposefullyâ is different. Understanding both streams of thought helps us understand both Testaments of the Bible, as well as something of our own language and cultural perspective. In Hebrew even the verb to be, hayah, is dynamic. It has a passive voice! Do any Indo-European languages have a passive voice for to be? Russian does the same thing. The significance of the verb to be is lost in Modern English, but in Old English pre there were actually two verbs to be: Wesan did not even have a past participle. Interestingly, too, in Old English become was more active, really be in the old sense plus come and is usually translated come or is coming when rendered in Modern English. Hebrew descriptions are active. There are no real physical descriptions in the Old Testament and few in the New except for some minor details: Those are not physical descriptions, Boman tells us, but rather descriptions of actions and moral qualities. The hair suggests not so much physical beauty, but the actions and care given by a shepherdess. The tower suggests moral strength and purity. The Hebrew view of history and character is personal and moral. Greek descriptions are more specific and physical, perceived with all the senses. The Greek sense of time also is secondary to the perception of space. Space is more important than time. It is the opposite from the Hebrew perspective. Time to the Greek is noted by movements. Time is linear, sometimes cyclic, but man is almost detached from it. The Greek sense sees man detached from the gods and therefore fatalistically detached from history. Time to the Hebrew is based on rhythmic patterns, it is neither linear nor cyclic. Time is historical, and man is part of it, and God is behind it. God is not only transcendent and immanent, but Boman calls Him transparent, revealing Himself through who He is by His deeds. The key deed, of course, in the Hebrew Scriptures is the Exodus. Boman summarizes simply by saying in effect, Hebrew emphasizes psychology more, while Greek is more logical and visual. Bradford compared the Mayflower crossing to the Exodus. After all, our ancestors and founders were some of those Pilgrims and saints. Page 8
Chapter 5 : Greek or Hebrew? Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek by Thorleif Boman and a great selection of similar Used, New and Collectible Books available now at blog.quintoapp.com Ancient Hebrew Research Center In the world, past and present, there are two major types of cultures; the Hebrew or eastern culture and the Greek or western culture. Both of these cultures view their surroundings, lives, and purpose in ways which would seem foreign to the other. With the exception of a few Bedouin nomadic tribes living in the Near East today, the ancient Hebrew culture has disappeared. What happened to this ancient Hebrew thought and culture? Around BCE, a new culture arose to the north. This new culture began to view the world very much differently than the Hebrews. This culture was the Greeks. This was a very tumultuous time as the two vastly different cultures collided. Over the following years the battle raged until finally the Greek culture won and virtually eliminated all trace of the ancient Hebrew culture. The Greek culture then in turn influenced all following cultures including the Roman and European cultures, our own American culture and even the modern Hebrew culture in Israel today. As 20th Century Americans with a strong Greek thought influence, we read the Hebrew Bible as if a 20th Century American had written it. In order to understand the ancient Hebrew culture in which the Tenack was written in, we must examine some of the differences between Hebrew and Greek thought. Ancient Hebrew thought views the world through the senses concrete thought. All five of the senses are used when speaking and hearing and writing and reading the Hebrew language. An example of this can be found in Psalms 1: In this passage we have concrete words expressing abstract thoughts, such as a tree one who is upright, righteous, streams of water grace, fruit good character and a unwithered leaf prosperity. Abstract thought is the expression of concepts and ideas in ways that can not be seen, touched, smelled, tasted or heard. Hebrew never uses abstract thought as English does. Examples of Abstract thought can be found in Psalms As you noticed I said that Hebrew uses concrete and not abstract thoughts, but here we have such abstract concepts as compassionate, gracious, anger, and love in a Hebrew passage. Actually these are abstract English words translating the original Hebrew concrete words. The translators often translate this way because the original Hebrew makes no sense when literally translated into English. Let us take one of the abstract words above to demonstrate how this works. When one is very angry, he begins to breath hard and the nostrils begin to flare. A Hebrew sees anger as "the flaring of the nose nostrils ". Functional Description Greek thought describes objects in relation to its appearance. Hebrew thought describes objects in relation to its function. A deer and an oak are two very different objects and we would never describe them in the same way with our Greek form of descriptions. A deer stag is one of the most powerful animals of the forest and is seen as "a strong leader" among the other animals of the forest. The literal translation of this verse in Hebrew thought would be; "The voice of the LORD makes the strong leaders turn". When translating the Hebrew into English, the translator must give a Greek description to this word which is why we have two different ways of translating this verse. This same word is also translated as a "ruler" in 2 Kings Another example of Greek thought would be the following description of a common pencil: A Hebrew description of the pencil would be related to its function such as "I write words with it". Notice that the Hebrew description uses the verb "write" while the Greek description uses the adjectives "yellow" and "long". Personal Description The Greek culture describes objects in relation to the object itself. The Hebrew culture describes objects in relation to the Hebrew himself. The Hebrew describes the pencil in relation to himself by saying "I write". Because Hebrew does not describe objects in relation to itself, the Hebrew vocabulary does not have the word "is". A Hebrew description would be "God loves me" describing God in relationship to myself. Active Nouns Greek nouns are words which refer to a person, place or thing. Hebrew nouns refer to the action of a person place or thing. The Hebrews are active people and their vocabulary reflects this lifestyle. The Greek culture recognizes the words such as a knee and a gift as nouns which by themselves impart no action. As you can see, both Hebrew verbs and nouns have action associated with them where the Greek nouns do not. Even the Hebrew nouns for father and mother are descriptive of action. Be sure to watch the video, " Abstract vs Concrete " for additional information. Page 9
Chapter 6 : Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek, Thorleif Boman??? - Logos Bible Software Forums The clue to the impact made by this volume of the Norwegian Thorleif Boman is the number of editions, â three German and two Japanese, which have preceded this translation into English by the Assistant Professor of New Testament and Languages at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, Dr. Jules Laurence Moreau. Both of these cultures view their surroundings, lives, and purpose in ways which would seem foreign to the other. With the exception of a few Bedouin nomadic tribes living in the Near East today, the ancient Hebrew culture has disappeared. What happened to this ancient Hebrew thought and culture? Around BCE, a new culture arose to the north. This new culture began to view the world very much differently than the Hebrews. This culture was the Greeks. This was a very tumultuous time as the two vastly different cultures collided. Over the following years the battle raged until finally the Greek culture won and virtually eliminated all trace of the ancient Hebrew culture. The Greek culture then in turn influenced all following cultures including the Roman and European cultures, our own American culture and even the modern Hebrew culture in Israel today. As 20th Century Americans with a strong Greek thought influence, we read the Hebrew Bible as if a 20th Century American had written it. In order to understand the ancient Hebrew culture in which the Tenack was written in, we must examine some of the differences between Hebrew and Greek thought. Ancient Hebrew thought views the world through the senses concrete thought. All five of the senses are used when speaking and hearing and writing and reading the Hebrew language. An example of this can be found in Psalms 1: Abstract thought is the expression of concepts and ideas in ways that can not be seen, touched, smelled, tasted or heard. Hebrew never uses abstract thought as English does. Examples of Abstract thought can be found in Psalms Actually these are abstract English words translating the original Hebrew concrete words. The translators often translate this way because the original Hebrew makes no sense when literally translated into English. Let us take one of the abstract words above to demonstrate how this works. When one is very angry, he begins to breath hard and the nostrils begin to flare. A Hebrew sees anger as "the flaring of the nose nostrils. Functional Description Greek thought describes objects in relation to its appearance. Hebrew thought describes objects in relation to its function. A deer and an oak are two very different objects and we would never describe them in the same way with our Greek form of descriptions. This same word is also translated as a "ruler" in 2 Kings Another example of Greek thought would be the following description of a common pencil: Personal Description The Greek culture describes objects in relation to the object itself. The Hebrew culture describes objects in relation to the Hebrew himself. A Hebrew description would be "God loves me" describing God in relationship to myself. Active Nouns Greek nouns are words which refer to a person, place or thing. Hebrew nouns refer to the action of a person place or thing. The Hebrews are active people and their vocabulary reflects this lifestyle. The Greek culture recognizes the words such as a knee and a gift as nouns which by themselves impart no action. Even the Hebrew nouns for father and mother are descriptive of action. Page 10
Chapter 7 : Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek by Thorleif Boman The contrast between the Greek and Hebrew attitudes towards knowledge The Garden of Eden story highlights, I believe, a fundamental contrast between ancient Greek and ancient Hebrew attitudes towards life. It is one of the essentials that Bible students are taught so that they can properly understand the Bible. There are several basic principles that must be applied for correctly understanding the Bible or any written material, for that matter: This is called the context. The dictionary defines the word context as follows: Understanding the proper context of something written has everything to do with understanding the meaning of the message the author was trying to convey to his audience. The answer is obvious. In theological circles there is much debate as to what Paul really taught, believed and practiced. One thing that we can all agree on is that Paul is at the center of much controversy and some of his writings are very hard to understand. Paul knew that his teachings were being twisted, for he mentions this in Romans: Paul elaborates on this slanderous twist of his teachings, saying: Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Furthermore, upon visiting Jerusalem in Acts 21 Paul was again confronted with this same slanderous twist on his teachings. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: The focus of this study will be how he thought as a Hebrew and this is directly related to the Hebrew language he spoke. As we shall see, Hebrew-thinking is very different than Greek Hellenistic -thinking which is the foundation of our western mind-set. What is the cultural mind-set of the authors of Holy Writ? Are we to understand the Bible chiefly through the eyes of Hellenism Greek thought and culture or through the eyes of Judaism Hebrew thought and culture? Obviously, the last question focuses on the New Testament. Most scholars affirm an essentially strong Jewish background to Gospel studies and to the life and teachings of Jesus [Hebrew: In sum, contemporary Christians have strong reasons to question any approach to Paul which finds the primary roots of his theology in Hellenism, Gnosticism, or mystery religion. Paul was proud of being a Jew 2 Cor. Rather, the Christian faith is divinely revealed and is securely anchored in the Hebrew Bible --the [Torah], Prophets, and Writings. God breathed his word into the minds of the biblical authors within a Jewish cultural environment. When we enter their civilization and view it through their eyes, we find that the contour of their thought is vibrant, rich, and colorful. Christianity has been the religion of Europeans ever since. It is significant, however, that despite their absolute authority the words of [Yeshua] were preserved by the Church only in the Greek language. Not only are these two languages essentially different, but so too are the kinds of images and thinking involved in them. This distinction goes very deeply into the psychic life; the Jews themselves defined their spiritual predisposition as anti-hellenic. This is evidenced in the syntax of the Hebrew sentence compared with that of the Greek and other western languages. The English language usually places the noun or subject firs in the clause, the verb or action-word: In the narrative of biblical Hebrew, however, the order is normally the reverse. He goes on to explain that even Hebrew verbs which express a position like sitting or lying is done by a verb which expresses movement ibid. Therefore the verb, the action word forms the basis of Hebrew thinking and even those verbs which Westerners might consider to be stationary or positional in nature, to the Jewish mind, or not. As we shall understand more fully as we progress, for the Hebrew everything is in transition, moving toward something and is in process. Only being which stands in inner relations with something active and moving is reality to them He then cites some examples of this in Scripture: Behold, I will make thee a new sharp threshing instrument having teeth: Such hyperbolic images cannot be explained by natural phenomona For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the LORD that hath mercy on thee. Their view of the Divine is more open and expansive. Instead of trying to confine Him to limited human definitions and descriptions they focus their efforts on pursuing Him and the character and qualities that determine His makeup. The understanding of the world around them, including God, is to pursue life and God to the fullest, rather than spending time passively trying to define Him. In the pursuit comes the understanding and comes the relationship between the Divine and humanity. This is not Page 11
only an apt description of American cultural life, but of the American Christian church, as well, which, sadly, has, to a large degree, become a mirror image of the surrounding secular culture. The typical church service in the First American Church, in Anytown, America has become a spectator sport with chairs or pews arranged theater-style facing a stage where often paid professional performers titillate emotions and the tickle ears of their fans for an hour or two on Sunday morning. They were primarily outdoor folk,--farmers, fishermen, tradesmen --who lived life to the full. For them, truth was not so much an idea to be contemplated as an experience to be lived, a deed to be done. The biblical writers often use vocabulary which is highly colorful, dynamic, and action-centered. They tell the story of a people on the move, a people who approached living with boldness, drive, and expectation Rather, the Hebrews were mainly a doing and feeling people The words originally expressed concrete or material things and movements or actions which struck the senses or started the emotions. Only secondarily and in metaphor could they be used to denote abstract or metaphysical ideas. Wilson then cites a number of such examples: For the Hebrews, non-being, nothingness no-thingness also has a certain existence which in practical life is tangible and unsavoury. The lying words of the false prophets are negative quantity in content, yet have a disastrously seductive strength. A lie for the Hebrew is not as it is for us, a nonagreement with the truth; for example, he would not impute lying to the midwives Ex. For him the lie is the internal decay and destruction of the word: That which is powerless, empty, and vain is a lie: Examples of this in Scripture are: In addition, the word of God was not only nor even primarily an expression of thought; it was a mighty and dynamic force Boman, p. Examples of this in Holy Scripture are: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast. The basic meaning is to be behind and drive forward, hence to let words follow one another, or even better to drive forward that which is behind; the verb thus portrays somehow the functions of speaking. Dabhar means not only word but also deed. Hebraically, such a concept of pronouncing a word without following it up with actions makes the word null, void and meaningless. This is the concept that the writers of Scripture had when they penned such popular Christian salvation passages as Romans To not understand the proper meaning of the words of Holy Scripture Hebraically can result in false teachings going forth leading to false conversions leading to many people thinking they are spiritually saved when in reality they are the walking damned! By comparison to the Hebrew word dabhar to speak, the Greek word logos to speak means to gather or arrange in an orderly manner. It means to speak, reckon, think. The deepest meaning and focus of logos is neither the function, articulateness nor the dynamics of the speaking, but rather the ordered and reasonableness of the content, according to Boman. Therefore, logos expresses the mental function that is highest according to Greek understanding. We see, therefore, that the word word is, so to speak, the point of intersection between two entirely different ways of conceiving the highest mental life, a fact that can be pointed up by means to the following diagram: I would, at this point, add into this discussion some observations that I hope the reader will find cogent and interesting. Hebraically, the land of Israel is considered to be at the center of the earth. Geographically it lies at the intersection and crossroads of the three main continents of the ancient world. YHWH placed Israel there so that it would be a light and an example of righteousness to the nations. When the long awaited Messiah arrived on the scene, it was not only his mission for his disciples to evangelize Jerusalem and Judea, but also Samaria and the rest of the world, which at that time was Greek in culture and language. Yeshua came not only to establish the mechanics by which this evangelism could be accomplished via a body of followers or believers in him and in his mission, but it was his purpose to reconcile through himself both the Jews and the Greek Gentiles. This was done through his Person at the cross, and his followers subsequently took the message of the cross everywhere. Hebrew as we are seeing and will see proven more fully below was a language whose primary purpose was to aid a people in approaching their Creator. It was a God-centered language spoken by a God-centered and Godintoxicated Hebrew people. Its core and essence was vertical in nature and could be represented by a vertical line extending from earth to heaven. Conversely, Greek was a language of science, of describing the world, of facts and reason. It was primarily humanistic in nature and can be characterized by a horizontal line parallel to the surface of the earth. Put these two lines--the Hebrew vertical line and the Greek horizontal line--together and you have constructed a cross, which is, in essence, a construct of the diagram above at the center of which is Page 12
THE WORD, which is exactly what Yeshua the Messiah was the Word of Elohim made flesh, the Word of Life. This was accomplished as Yeshua hung on the cross suspended between heaven and earth--between the horizontal and vertilal planes of earthly and heavenly dimensions of existance. Prior to His crucifiction He talked about being lifted up crucified Jn. Through the vertical post which represents the salvation of the Jews that Yeshua talked about in Jn. This relates to the last letter of the Hebrew alephbet which is the letter tav which in its original paleohebrew pictographic form is in the shape of a cross and pictographically and anciently signified a sign, a seal or a covenant. The letter tav in the shape of a c ross going back to the creation of man and to the first spoken language that YHWH gave to man at the Garden of Eden, namely Hebrew, was a prophetic picture way back then long before the pagan sun-worshippers misappropriated the cross and perverted it into a pagan symbol of idolatry of the reconciliation of the world through the Jewish people, the Jewish Scriptures and the Jewish Messiah, Yeshua. The vertical post representing the Hebrew part can exist without the horizontal cross arm representing the Greek part, but the horizontal cannot exist without the supporting vertical post without falling to the ground. Similarly, the branches need the tree trunk to support it. The tree trunk can live without the branches, but not vice versa. Speaking of this very fact, Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles states this in Romans And who did Yeshua choose to carry this message of the cross, the reconciling of the vertical and the horizontal, the Hebrew and the Greek? Who carried the Word of God outward from Jerusalem--the center of the earth? Page 13
Chapter 8 : Review â Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek English Plus Language Blog Greek or Hebrew? The Church of All Nations in Jerusalem - an example of Greek architecture, with columns and a portico. The issue here is not what language the Bible was written in but whether we read it with Greek or Hebrew spectacles. The author is greatly indebted to David Pawson "Dispensational Zionism" Feast of Tabernacles and Dwight Pr. Zechariah 9 v13 Greek or Hebrew? The Church of All Nations in Jerusalem - an example of Greek architecture, with columns and a portico. The issue here is not what language the Bible was written in but whether we read it with Greek or Hebrew spectacles. Even though the earliest surviving manuscripts of the New Testament are in Greek. The Bible was written by 40 authors, of whom only one was possibly not a Hebrew, and he got his material from Hebrews. Remember also that Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi. There is a great difference between Hebrew and Greek thought and this has been an area of conflict through history. In the era before Jesus it manifested in the conflict remembered at Hannukah. The story is set against a background of the Hellenisation of Judah and all the surrounding nations. The attempt by Hellenism to overcome Hebrew faith can even be seen in the twenty first century, Hannukah is paralleled by the pressure on the church to tone down its celebration of the birth of its Messiah. In the history of the Church Hellenism affected the way scripture was read â completely for around a thousand years and still to some extent. Paul observed the different outlooks in his first letter to the Corinthians. Western civilization is often called Judeo-Christian, since those have been its dominant religions, but in terms of civilization, it is basically Greek. Look at civic architecture before the coming of steel and glass; it is based on Greek Temples with columns and porticos. Our Politics, social structures and government are Greek â democracy is Greco-Roman; the Bible never advocated rule by consensus of the people. The pursuit of individualism is also Greek. Jewish Biblical aspirations are towards a body of people following and serving God. Our concept of sport is drawn from the Greek Olympics and the gymnasium. Philosophy is Greek, and it has coloured Christianity through the teachings of academics who value sophistication and the approval of man. So what of education? Hebrew reliance is on God and His Torah while Greek minds do not accept revelation; only reason. Art is based upon Greek concepts, and the term Classical refers to Greek style. The Hebrew mind thinks of the Beauty of holiness, while the Greek mind seeks the holiness of beauty. Even many church robes are based on Greco-Roman togas as worn by governors and leaders! The Greeks could not handle the scale of values in Hebrew thought, nor the interrelation of physical and spiritual. The concept of God being interested in both our bodies and our spirits was rejected. David Pawson found that mentions of a Jewish blessing for going to the toilet amuses Christian audiences â because of the Greek mindset that God is not interested in the proper working of our bodily functions but a Jewish audience would not react because Jews see no separation between physical and spiritual. The Greeks downgraded the physical to being bad and to be shunned or hidden, but the spiritual they elevated to the opposite extreme. The concept of the Spirit of God coming to dwell in our mortal bodies was unthinkable. Thus the Greek view of eternity was of striving towards the escape from the base, physical world and body and translation to a spiritual non physical existence in Heaven. If this version of Heaven was true, why did Jesus need to be resurrected with a physical body, and why would we look forward to being resurrected like Him? Greek thinking started to impact the Christian church between the second and fourth centuries CE. Before that time the church had been rooted in Hebrew thinking and belief. Philo of Alexandria, Origen and Clement and St. Augustine all switched from reading the scriptures through Hebrew spectacles to reading it through Greek spectacles. They sought spiritual meanings for everything â a temptation to us all, even today. The worst damage was done by allegorizing prophecy. See Heaven and Hell So! Looking at the world you live in; what is Greek and what is Hebrew? How can we replace Greek spectacles with Hebrew spectacles? And how does it Compare with the Hebrew way? How the Church Lost the Way Looking at how a preference for Greek philosophy has made the church what it is today can explain many things about what many Christians believe and how churches behave. Steve Maltz has tackled this subject with his usual clarity and directness. He shows how pagan Greek philosophy became part Page 14