Chapter 3: Time and Space
Section E: History and Nature
Part 1: Historical Understanding among Greeks and Israelites
Boman divides modern historians into two camps. There are those who insist the Greeks were the masters of history writing. There are also those convinced that the Greek conception of history is quite limited against the broader spectrum. The real difference between the two sides is a different approach to what “history” means.
The first is objective, seeking to describe the events and, when possible, discernible causes. The latter is more about teleology — things are known by their purpose. Finally he gets around to telling us that the latter is the Hebrew cultural approach. It’s all about God’s actions and revelation. The Greeks are looking for patterns that repeat across historical events to understand why things happen from a human perspective.
For once, Boman really gets it right: God is not known through propositions, but through His actions. It’s not systematic, but history is a record of things God did, and nothing ever quite repeats. He calls us to join in with the covenant family to claim the rich heritage of what He offered to and through His people. We can then claim that He brought us out of Egypt, too. The Covenant Nation is a person, and we participate in that identity.
Further, eschatology is simply the conclusion of the history begun at Creation. Mixing the two viewpoints is a mistake, Boman says, and results in things like Hegelian Dialectics and Evolution, mixing a unique and purposeful narrative with scientific reductionism.
Part 2: The Proclamation of Creation in the Old Testament and the Doctrine of Creation in Plato
Because of Boman’s candy-stick (JEPD Theory), he suggests early Hebrews didn’t teach that God created the world. That arose later. He maunders on about all the events that caused them to eventually state the doctrine. With rapturous prose he tries to build the image of God as creating all the time, not just once at the beginning of things.
Then, once again, he tries to marry Plato with the Hebrew outlook again in how the philosopher approached the question of creation. He admits only slight differences, and two pages of blather don’t help us understand anything useful about the topic of the book.
