Chapter 3: Time and Space
Section C: Space
Part 1: Form
Western thinking distinguishes between the form of space and time separately from the content. Boman says we can imagine both as empty, yet still existing as an entity of reality. For the Hebrew mind, there is no form, and no actual need for the terminology of space and time. They have no abstract concept for matter, either.
Boman refers to Kant and the philosophical assumptions that pure form and abstract conceptions of space in multiple dimensions are more real than the examples of objects we have encountered. The mathematics of geometry are intuitively real.
He attempts to distinguish Kant and Plato, but it’s pretty thin. Plato tends to refer to the purity of geometry as a manifestation of eternity that better minds can recognize (a semi-mysticism), while Kant approaches it chiefly as a matter of human experience.
Hebrew is completely lacking in the concept of form or anything similar. Boman reminds us of the Hebrew conception of content and purpose, and form never crosses their minds. He reviews Hebrew terms previously discussed that even remotely approach the idea of shape and outline, and how rarely they show up in the Old Testament text. All of them rest on the concept of how they are perceived in the eye of the beholder.
He notes how the western conception rests on the task of drawing the things we see. We first need to interpret what we see and abstract a form that we can represent with lines on our drawing. In reality, all we see is the external surface of the object; the shape is mentally overlaid. For the Hebrew, there is no interpretation. I will note that, more broadly, the few samples of ANE artwork that we have found is often comically lacking in realistic form. The pieces aren’t representations, but characterizations, perhaps even caricature.
Part 2: The Boundary
It takes a couple of pages for Boman to tell us that in the West, the line between two things occupies no space. In other words, to draw a boundary means a clear, sharp boundary that has been surveyed with instruments and all that it implies. It can ignore natural topography in favor of precise coordinates.
For the Hebrews, a boundary could not be so artificial. Boman runs through a few Hebrew words, but the point is they would never draw a boundary without a distinguishing physical feature. If none exist naturally, then they are built up manually. Further, the words translated into English as “border” actually refers to whatever is within the limits. When reading the biblical text, you would do well to recognize that usage.
Thus, to indicate the whole country, Hebrew writing might indicate the extremities here and there — “Dan to Beersheba”. The idea of “coasts” often means whatever is between the speaker and those coasts. The whole earth would often be spoken of as having ends, and is often depicted as a great island (they had no word for continent).
Again, Boman notes how we are stumped by the Hebrew lack of precision. For westerners, it seems so natural that we can scarcely imagine the soft boundaries and fuzzy edges in Hebrew thinking. I note that legalism among Jews was completely absent until the influence of Hellenism arrived with Alexander the Great. Hebrews never had to deal with teenage boys discovering logical precision and making smart-aleck comments about it until after Hellenism collided with their Hebrew culture.
