Chapter 2: Impression and Appearance — This is where Boman examines the comparisons between Hebrew and Greek thinking when it comes to portraying someone or something.
Section A: The Impression of Buildings
The western mind is generally obsessed with reproducing a visual impression of things. When Greeks described a subject, the intention was to convey as closely as possible what your eyes would see. Boman correctly warns that, when reading the Old Testament, the Hebrew people never once had any concern for describing in the sense of photography. Their whole thrust was to offer a dramatic impact leading to a moral impression.
In a footnote he makes the critical distinction that Daniel 2 does not even tell us whether the statue was of a human figure or something else entirely. The whole description is consumed with the materials and what those represented.
The narrative of God commanding Noah to build the ark offers nothing of its appearance, only it’s construction. Not a single word of the Tabernacle’s design could give you a distinct impression of how it would appear to someone. The same tone continues through the furnishings — no visual detail. The details of Aaron’s and his sons’ garments don’t offer a clue to their appearance.
We know that Moses was “shown” a model of the Tabernacle, and David seems to have presented drawings to Solomon for the Temple, but nothing of the appearance slips into the narrative. It never occurred to the Hebrew mind to consider such a thing. No Hebrew cared much about the visual symmetry or beauty, only how it was made and how it was used.
Section B: The Impression of Men
Part 1: The Beauty of Renowned Persons
Hebrew standards of physical charisma are wholly unknown. We cannot guess what “beauty” meant in that sense. Rather, we are offered in just a few instances the passing remark that some people did have charisma, but we get the impression it had more to to with their demeanor and the impression they gave to others of having something divine in them.
Chasing a tangent here: The Men’s Red Pill community noticed some time ago that plenty of western men who didn’t appear especially striking visually could still project charisma by how they spoke and carried themselves. However, a western man’s impression of femininity is still dominated by a woman’s visual spectacle, which can be only slightly enhanced by charming feminine movements.
Part 2: The Descriptive Lyrics in the Song of Solomon
Even in the Song of Solomon we are forced to confront the Hebrew lack of interest in actual visual impression. The descriptions are all metaphors pointing to moral qualities. If taken as visuals, some of them would portray what we might take as deformities.
For example, the Hebrew talpiyyoth is typically translated “tower, fortress”. It does not offer a visual description, but the sense that the thing is strong and trustworthy, a good place of refuge in trouble. It’s not meant to be admired like scenery, but to provide security. Of course, the poetic thrust here is taking refuge in the lady’s charms from the ugliness of the world outside the bedroom.
Boman also notes that these features withstood the assaults of others (virginity), but is freely opened to her beloved. He makes much of how it represents a refined lady aloof from the rabble of the unworthy men. He goes on at length about this and similar images. A dove represents purity and innocence. Cool spring waters are the most highly desired refreshment in a place like the Middle East.
In the midst of more chapter-length footnotes in this section, Boman points out something that should have been in the main text: The Hebrews were quite candid and matter-of-fact in talking about sex organs where appropriate, but we get no visual effects from it. Indeed, in Hebrew society, nudity, live or represented in art, would have been utterly shameful. The Greeks would have been candid visually, boldly displaying a fine nude body in public, but would have been offended by the verbal bluntness of the Hebrews.
The whole thing with flowers is not their fragile visuals, but the heady fragrance. It’s similar to the mention of fruits, in terms of taste sensation. Keep in mind: Ancient Near Eastern societies knew nothing of candy and pastry, and our sugar didn’t exist for them. Thus, fruit was about the sweetest extravagance they tasted. To enter a private garden to eat fruit represents an invitation to come into the bedroom. Again, it’s the privileged openness to the heroic husband, and no other. Furthermore, fruitfulness is all about having children.
The lady’s attraction to the man is in terms of his power and social prominence, along with his virtue as a protector and provider.
We have a deep technical expertise, I suppose starting with the Greeks and others like them, with reproducing visual things with striking accuracy. I don’t mean just technologically, but in our overall intentions towards things, like art. Like all cultural programming, it feels way too difficult to break away from it when we need to think different.