Note: Each chapter of the book is outlined into sections, which are in turn outlined in smaller parts.
Chapter 1: Dynamic and Static Thinking — Again, the issue stands on how any separation between thinking and language is artificial. There are a whole class of so-called Bible translators who know the mechanics of translation as taught, but who never quite get inside the head of those who used that language. This is why some translations into English are so bad, and yet so very few people even begin to understand that such translations are bad. New Testament translation should be a breeze, right? Not if you can’t grasp the Hebrew minds of most of the writers.
Section A: Dynamic Thinking
Part 1: The Dynamic Character of Hebrew Verbs of Inaction
The primary purpose of Hebrew writing was to inspire, not to inform. Thus, Boman notes that Hebrew thinking is characterized as “dynamic, vigorous, passionate and sometimes explosive” while the Greek was “static, peaceful, moderate and harmonious”. In this case, the stasis is not simply “rigid, inflexible and lifeless”, but also “prudent, moderate and peaceful”. Viewed from the Greek perspective, Hebrew thinking is “exaggerated, immoderate, discordant and in bad taste” (all quotes from page 27). The author prefers to make the two different without making them enemies.
As a rule, Hebrew verbs are all inherently dynamic, yet can be used to express images of passivity. Boman launches into a list of verbs which can all be translated as “stand”. All of them have a fundamentally active meaning of how one arrives at a standing position, though some point more to taking up a dwelling. His point is that what strikes us as passive in English is imbued with dynamism in Hebrew — actively pushing against resistance (if only internal entropy) in order to hold a spot. Because of our internal psychological frame of reference, Hebrew words can be ambiguous, portraying opposite ideas in the same word — stand versus sit. In Hebrew, those two concepts are closely connected.
In a footnote, Boman notes that Arabic scholars even have a word for how common this is in Semitic languages in general — addad. For example, life and death are linked in that “death is the weakest form of life.” (p. 29) Then he says something very critical to understanding Hebrew: Those who live with the Hebrew language would not differentiate between a word spoken and its effects. That is, the concept of “word” is itself equated with the will and intent of the speaker. Words and actions are generally not distinguished.
And it’s not just people. In a very roundabout fashion, Boman points out that even inanimate objects are spoken of as having taken an action, using the various words for “stand” cited from several passages. Even a city “standing” takes on the connotation of being inhabited, as if the city itself chose this. In Hebrew, “dwelling” means a person dwells actively (as in “occupying, using”), while in Greek minds the whole point is the facility and normal contents that come with active use.
Part 2: The Dynamic Character of Hebrew Verbs of Condition and of Quality
Such verbs in Greek (and English) portray a state of being. In Semitic languages, translators commonly use them to convey an active becoming. However, even that often fails to capture the Hebrew emphasis of getting work done. Boman refers to “lighten” as more than brightness or even becoming bright; it means the work of illumination — the effect of lighten.
He offers another collection of Hebrew verbs often translated “lighten/brighten” followed by a very technical discussion of Hebrew verb forms and how to recognize them. His point is that a great many experts have struggled to find ways to discuss these things (transitive versus intransitive verbs) in their western languages and there is no solid consensus on how to portray the subtle distinctions between types of verbs, distinctions we consider essential, but which apparently don’t seem important from a Hebrew point of view.
I’ve read plenty of such analysis, and have often wondered if they aren’t all missing some bigger point: The Semitic languages developed before such concepts were even available in that part of the world. The whole discussion may well be artificial and pointless. Boman seems to come to that conclusion eventually. It’s not a question of being or becoming, but of the intention from within the subject of such verbs. For us, the anthropomorphism of inanimate objects is just a figure of speech; for the Hebrews, it is the essence of reality itself. Without meaning to, Boman comes out in support of our teaching that the Hebrew people seemed to act as if all of reality was living, sentient and willful.
Tangent: For all those who claim that the reading and understanding the Bible should not require graduate level training in Biblical Studies, your arrogance is showing. Translating Hebrew thinking into English is extremely difficult, and the results are numerous different translations, all of which clearly miss the point in one way or another. Such a contention is dismissive of the radical difference in psychology between the people in the Bible and western folks today. The reason you can’t instantly get the whole gospel message from your favorite English translation is because you are unwilling to surrender the two millennia of cultural corruption that made our world so alien to God’s revelation.
Yes, you can probably meet Jesus in just about any English Bible translation, but you will not be able to walk in His Covenant and bring Him due glory without that vast depth of knowledge. That was the reason He died on the Cross. You may be content to just step inside the gate and camp out there; we want to accept God’s invitation to wander the Garden of Eden at His side.
“The Semitic languages developed before such concepts were even available in that part of the world. The whole discussion may well be artificial and pointless.”
I never thought about that possibility, and wonder how many other things we are wasting our time on.
Those who want to deceive themselves into thinking they understand the Word are doing so to cover the very conceit that is motivating them to do so in the first place. What they also cannot see is that it is obvious basically to everyone else besides those who happen to be on the same crusade.
I’m eagerly following this review of Boman as I’ve wanted to read it myself but have never had the chance. Your posts here promise to uncover its treasures, judging from these first two which are excellent.
Recognising that it is exceedingly difficult to get inside the Hebrew mind from a Western position is profoundly important if one wants to understand the Bible properly. This ‘extra dimension’ in Hebrew thinking compared to Western thinking I believe is responsible for much of the waywardness and confusion that permeates Western Christianity.
The point you make in your ‘Tangent’ paragraph is well made, however I suggest that the arrogance comes from holding fast to Western ways of thinking rather than lack of formal study. It is indeed arrogant to think that a mind borne out of the rationalistic, scientific, Western Enlightenment way of thinking can understand the Bible properly. Enlightenment rationalism and scientism focused Bible scholarship heavily on textual and historical minutiae and other systematic and orderly methods that missed the active and animated dimension of Hebrew thinking. The best that Western Bible scholars even today seem to be able to do is to just make mention of it like Boman or summarize it as a single proposition – the systematic and orderly mission life animated by the Holy Spirit alone which inspired St.Paul. The result today is a systematic theological Christianity in the West that is eminently rational and scientific, yet remains heavily dependent on textual minutiae and interpretation. It’s quite Pharisaic when you think about it – a priesthood for the priests.
The Hebrew parts of the Bible nor the Greek texts that draw from the animated language of Hebrew thinking cannot be properly understood by rational scientific methods alone, but it is the Western Enlightenment mindset that is behind this, not merely the absence of Bible College training. I studied under some excellent OT teachers at Bible College and the best they could do was point to this problem but could not resolve it convincingly because they themselves were locked into Western ways of thinking. Understanding required a change of mindset rather than simply more study which often made it worse. Coming from a more ‘spiritual’ non-Western culture, I wasn’t conditioned to the Western way of thinking and understood easily what my teachers found difficult long before I attended Bible College.
I conclude from this that unchaining oneself from Western Enlightenment constraints is the key to understanding the Hebrew mindset rather than going to Bible College. Children think in an active an animated way, untroubled by rationalism and scientism, perhaps this is what the Hebrew Jesus meant when he said ‘become like the little children.’ (Mt 18:2-5)
I’m eagerly following this review of Boman as I’ve wanted to read him myself but have never had the chance. Your review posts here promise to uncover its treasures, judging from these first two which are excellent. Apologies if this comment repeats after getting stuck in moderation.
Recognising that it is exceedingly difficult to get inside the Hebrew mind from a Western position is profoundly important if one wants to understand the Bible properly. The ‘extra dimension’ in Hebrew thinking compared to Western thinking I believe is responsible for much of the error and confusion that permeates Western Christianity, especially the culture-syncretistic Evangelical church.
The point you make in your ‘Tangent’ paragraph is particularly interesting. I think the arrogant thing is holding fast to a Western Enlightenment mindset and believing that is enough to understand the Word of God. Bible College training can help but it can also make things worse. Enlightenment rationalism and scientism brought about a systematic and orderly way of thinking about the Word at the expense of the active and animated Hebrew way of thinking which was mostly by word of mouth. The best that Western-conditioned Bible scholars seem to have been able to do is sequester the active and animated aspects of Hebrew thinking into a single NT proposition – the ministry of the Spirit that characterized Paul’s missionary journeys. The result today is a heavily Pauline Christianity in the West that is rational and scientific but inanimate. We call it ‘the living word’, but we study it like a chemistry textbook.
I studied under some excellent OT teachers at Bible College and the best they could do was point to this active language problem. They couldn’t resolve it convincingly in their textual exposition because they themselves were locked into rational and scientific thinking about Scripture. The Hebrew parts of Scripture nor the Greek NT texts that draw from the animated language of Hebrew thinking cannot be properly understood by rational scientific methods. Understanding the OT better required a change of mindset rather than simply more study.
I understood easily what my teachers and many OT scholars found difficult long before I attended Bible College since I came from a more ‘spiritual’ non-Western culture. I wasn’t conditioned to the Western way of thinking. They called it ‘enlightened discernment’ but really it was just a lack of Western conditioning.
Children think in an active and animated way, untroubled by rationalism and scientism, learning how to live through the active and animated communications of the people around them. Perhaps this is what the Hebrew Jesus meant when he said ‘become like the little children.’ (Mt 18:2-5)
Pingback: They Can't Understand the Word, Part 2 - Derek L. Ramsey