We continue with Chapter 1.
Section D: The Word
Part 1: The Word in Ancient Oriental and Hebrew Thought
It has been well established by many scholars that the image of word in Hebrew is not a matter of ideas or content, but a mighty force of will. Boman cites some big names to back this up, but then says something patently silly. He says that the convergence between Greek logos and Hebrew dabhar is stronger than any similarity between Hebrew and the rest of the Ancient Near East, despite the latter’s near unanimity.
Boman cites an example of the word as it is described in an ancient Marduk-Elill hymn. It’s the same kind of language you expect from the Old Testament regarding Jehovah. It’s a cosmic shattering power to change everything that exists, referring to both voice and word. In Egypt it was depicted as the substance of Creation flowing from specifically the mouth of one deity or another. Boman waxes lyrical in quoting multiple religious inscriptions from the Nile Valley and Delta. Creation texts from Babylon and Assyria don’t offer as much direct references, but it can be deduced by indirect mentions from other literature.
In Hebrew it’s not simply the mouth; there is a very specific focus on the voice of God that asserts power through nature. Hebrew distinguishes between the voice and the utterances of the mouth. The divine word is not expressed through forces of nature, but in His moral character. Jehovah was never depicted as some force of nature rather like Mesopotamian deities; He was always a person. Further, while a divine word in Mesopotamia and Egypt has a distinct worldly manifestation, Jehovah is portrayed as a being in the Spirit Realm.
Boman is not so clear and eloquent as Heiser on one point: The Hebrew writers in the Bible often hijacked pagan literature to ascribe the same powers and attributes to Jehovah — “our God is the real God”. Instead, Boman talks all around the idea, but does mention Hebrew writers would sometimes copy expressions used in pagan literature. His point, though, is that the image of Jehovah is transcendent, not corporeal, despite the symbolism. He argues strenuously against what we know was the established Second Temple doctrine of the Word as a second person in Heaven (The Two Powers). This is a glaring error on his part.
He does a fine job of pointing out how the creation myths from Babylon and Egypt are more a matter of transformation of existing materials (fluid) into the cosmos, populated by lesser deities, matter and humans. In the case of Jehovah, we are never told the mechanism, but that He creates from nothing. Then Boman crashes on the rocks of the Documentary Hypothesis (JEPD Theory). He gets all tangled up chasing which documentary source used which kind of expression. However, he does make clear that the Books of Moses have an unmistakable trace of Egyptian influence, which is entirely natural given that Moses grew up in Pharaoh’s household.
What he’s trying to do is make the case for converging Hebrew with Plato by stripping away parts of the native Hebrew culture that weakens his argument. He eventually circles back around to remind us that the Hebrew dabhar can also be translated sometimes as deeds — a word accomplished, the force of will. That is, “will” in the sense of commitment or drive (faith) for something. Thus, a lie is lacking commitment, a vanity. At any rate, to translate the Hebrew term as “word” can completely miss the point.
“What he’s trying to do is make the case for converging Hebrew with Plato by stripping away parts of the native Hebrew culture that weakens his argument.”
I found it interesting that he does not mention the other meaning of ‘dabhar,’ which is ‘a thing,’ the implication being that every ‘thing’ is literally a word of God, something that Pageau does not specifically state even though that is obviously one of the foundations of his Language of Creation.
Instead, Bowman says that Jehovah’s word ‘belongs not to the physical but to the spiritual sphere,’ a qualification I did not understand seeing as he seems to contradict himself in other places by saying that his word is not merely a sound but ‘a reality.’
Later on, Bowman says, ‘Because things have a meaning, they are symbols given in nature, which are quite immediately comprehensible to every Israelite without explanation.’ I am wondering, were it not for his attachment to Plato, how much closer to Pageau he would have came, because he was pretty darn close there.