NT Doctrine — Hebrews 9

Posted on October 5, 2024 by ehurst

The author lays out his core argument: The Covenant of Christ is an eternal covenant rooted in Heaven, not a national covenant rooted on earth, as the Covenant of Moses was.

Having just declared that a new covenant was necessary, he goes back and reviews how the old one worked. It had rules about rituals, the Tabernacle layout, furnishings, and those curtains. He runs through the basic design of things, including the Ark of the Covenant and what was in it. The rituals were required on a regular basis.

The author didn’t want to get bogged down in the details, but the priests only entered the main chamber on a regular basis, and the High Priest saw the actual holy place representing God’s throne room only once yearly. Even that single visit required offering blood for his own ritual purity, and then for the nation as a whole. And even with all that, the High Priest was at risk of dying from God’s wrath.

Keeping peace with God was a very solemn and fearful thing. All of those rituals only covered the unintentional sins, not any actual rebellion against God. The whole package presumed an honest heart in submission to Jehovah. It could not solve a bad attitude. If they had clear hearts, then it allowed them gain access to the covenant blessings God had promised for those at peace with Him. The way was not fully opened as long as the old system remained.

Christ stands as the Lord of a new covenant. There is no mass of rituals and veils; the way into God’s Presence and peace is opened — the blessings that were only hinted at by the symbols of the old. The Elect of old never had any kind of assurance that they would see Eternity. In Christ, the Elect can receive that assurance of adoption as children of the Father. Jesus wiped away the sense of doubt they had harbored under the Old Covenant.

The author then shifts to the imagery of an inheritance. The one who made the will must die before it is revealed. It’s just a proposal until then. Well, that first covenant was attested by death, and the bloodshed of ritual offering animals. Moses engaged in quite a rigmarole with the people to get their attention and encourage them to take it seriously. That blood was sprinkled on everything.

Just so, since the most ancient times of human memory, sin could not be covered without some bloodshed. Though as fallen creatures, we all deserved to die for our own sinful nature, God from the earliest times outside the Garden accepted the bloodshed of some proxy sacrifice as a symbol of just how grave this whole business was.

Well, the heavenly sacrifice Jesus made also included bloodshed, the final sacrifice for which all previous sacrifices were just a symbol. Approaching the actual throne of God in Heaven required a real sacrifice of genuinely innocent blood, someone who could carry the burden of the Fall.

It was an eternal sacrifice. Otherwise, we’d have the silly spectacle of Jesus having to die on the Cross again and again. The long period of symbolism is over; at the end of human probation, the final price has been paid once for all. When humans die, they face their individual judgment. When Christ returns, it will be the Final Judgment of all things. Are we not eagerly awaiting that day?

Note: For the Hebrews, the term “salvation” refers to the Covenant blessings. The blessings of the Old Covenant were merely a symbol of our Eternal blessings as Children of Resurrection in the final Promised Land.

Posted in bible | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on NT Doctrine — Hebrews 9

HTCG 05

Posted on October 4, 2024 by ehurst

Chapter 5: Logical Thinking and Psychological Understanding

Section A: Logic and Psychology

Boman separates between logic (impartial and objective) and psychology (engaging sympathetically) in approaching reality — thinking versus understanding. But in actual experience, the two are inseparable. Still, he says, we must keep a theoretical distinction for the sake of scholarship.

Section B: The Warrant for the Two Viewpoints

He mentions Kant (logic) and Bergson (psychology) as two schools of thought debating on where to begin. What’s the foundation of knowing? Boman outlines the two approaches and concludes that they are both mistaken when they try to exclude the other.

He goes on to identify the Hebrew with the psychological and Greek as primarily logical. It would be a mistake to assume that the Hebrew approach is more primitive and less developed; it is simply different. Boman approaches the idea that the Hebrews were so focused on morals and moral reasoning that they considered systematic logic as a hindrance to human redemption.

Section C: The Independence of the Israelite Thinker

The genius of Hebrew writers was not in creativity as innovation. On the contrary, they always claimed to restore the ancient ways. This was carried into church theology with its claim to being apostolic. Rather, the genius was in absorbing foreign material and reworking it to remove idolatrous traces and confirm the singularity of Jehovah. Some sections of the Old Testament are clearly the product of very independent minds.

Unfortunately, it’s all spoiled again by Boman’s JEPD theory and partitioning of the text into primitive versus developed theology.

Section D: The Formal Peculiarity of Each Kind of Thinking

Boman reviews the Greek emphasis on thinking with their eyes, and contrasts it with the well established notion that Hebrews thought with their ears. Instead of visions of things, it was for the Hebrews the word spoken and heard.

The Greek concept of truth was something unveiled and seen clearly. For the Hebrews truth was a matter of being faithful and consistent to your calling. Hebrews were not interested in what can be verified as objectively accurate; they were interested in personal commitment to what was declared by higher authority.

In Greek, the word logos was derived from lego — “gather”. Thus, it meant collection and analysis of data. The Hebrew word for “understanding” is bin (literally: dismember, separate), from which root we gain the word binah — comprehension, discernment, insight. The image is to carve off the junk and keep the meat. Once the moral purpose is identified, nothing else matters.

I believe Boman misses when he tries to explain how parables are aimed at overcoming the initial psychological resistance people have to something they are told. It’s not about psychology, but moral truth in the heart. Parables are meant to point out something for exploration so that people will find the Lord in their own contemplations.

He’s correct when he identifies similar Hebrew words as ways of making a moral point, versus the Greek furnishing a proof. Boman mushes up the effort to explain the Hebrew use of the concept of “seeing” truth. In the Hebrew mind, the term “seeing” refers to recognition of someone or something you already know. When Hebrews argue, the point is that others “see” — recognize the character of God in their words.

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

HTCG 04

Posted on October 3, 2024 by ehurst

Chapter 4: Symbolism and Instrumentalism

In this chapter Boman starts out bouncing off of Canon Oliver Quick, an Anglican priest who wrote a good bit on philosophy.

Section A: The Hebrew Conception of the Thing

The mainstream view is that the Hebrew dabhar (normally “word”) can be translated “thing” in the sense of an issue for discussion, but it cannot indicate an unnamed object. Much closer is the Hebrew word kelî, essentially a “tool” or “implement” — musical instrument, weapon, vessel for liquids, an ornament. As always with Hebrew, the word indicates functionality. Finally, the Hebrew word ḥephets indicates trinkets or objects of desire (having a value), with the emphasis on someone treasuring it.

Section B: The Greek Conception of the Thing

Opposite the Hebrew active frame of reference, the Greek mind passively seeks to observe and understand the things in its environment. This becomes a clue to what is beyond the immediate environment. This is considered the prerequisite for action. Activity and knowledge are separate concepts, yet inseparable in practice.

Things are symbols to our knowledge and implements of our actions. They can also be riddles or hindrances, respectively. And for two pages Boman wanders over the terrain of abstract reasoning about the implications in human reasoning.

He notes that the Hebrew mind was more about metaphysics rather than physics. I would add that the moral purpose of things reigned supreme in their reckoning. They didn’t waste time trying to gain human control over the reality of life because they assumed it would bring only limited results anyway. The Greek mind was obsessed with gaining mastery, trying to maximize the cooperation of knowledge and use.

Eventually Boman gets around to pointing out that for Hebrews, things are signs as well as symbols, whereas for the Greek they are indicators of ultimate reality. For the Hebrew, ultimate reality is unknowable; for the Greek it is assumed to be within human reach. For the Hebrew, God is a moral entity known by His actions, and for the Greek, the ultimate reality is about being.

Boman does not say that Hebrew wisdom is revealed from above, and Greek wisdom in gained by human effort, but it certainly helps to understand all of his academic blather. This goes on for several pages, as usual ending in yet another effort to justify not embracing the Hebrew outlook, but trying to blend it with his Platonic views.

Excursus: The Transparence of God

This is Boman trying to show off again. He mentions that God is seen in western minds as both transcendent and immanent. These are normally mutually exclusive terms. He calls for a third term: God is not only above and in the world, but through the world. It’s more of where he left off in the previous section above. He tries to connect it with the Doctrine of the Trinity, and it should be obvious how that works out: Father (above), Christ (in) and the Holy Spirit (through) the world.

Thus, he wants to introduce the concept of God’s “transparence”. If you know the world at all, you will know God.

He goes on at length striving to justify sticking with the Greek view (of Plato) when approaching theology. He even tries to sanctify it by noting that the Hellenized world Paul traveled was still heavily influenced by pagan mysticism, and so he had no trouble offering a sort of Greek-Hebrew hybrid. But in Athens, it was pure Greek and they weren’t receptive. It required later generations of church scholars without the Hebrew background to make inroads with Greek intellectuals.

I’ve already addressed this often enough on this blog.

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , | Comments Off on HTCG 04

HTCG 03k

Posted on October 2, 2024 by ehurst

Chapter 3: Time and Space

Section E: History and Nature

Part 3: Functional Cosmology versus Visual Cosmology

It has been a common assumption that Hebrew cosmology can be interpreted visually. You can find lots of drawings, and they are all wrong. Just as Hebrews never offered a visual of anything else, their concept of cosmology was also non-visual. Any other understanding is reading things back into the Hebrew Scriptures.

For example, there are numerous passages indicating that the Hebrews understood that rain came from clouds, often blowing in off the sea. They also believed that in every case, rain came from the hand of God — references to “windows of Heaven”. That image often refers to any kind of blessing, not just rain. If the Hebrews clearly understand at least some of the mechanics of actual water drops falling from sea clouds, it is patently silly to read their poetic symbolism literally.

Boman notes we cannot guess how much astronomy the Hebrews borrowed from Babylon, but there are too many times and places when the Hebrews also borrowed their cosmological imagery and astrology to express their own confidence in Jehovah. (Boman seems unaware of the idea that Hebrews mocked other religions by recasting their symbols.) But in most Semitic writings, they simply don’t bother to differentiate between symbolism and more literal science. In Babylon, there was no distinction between astronomy and astrology; the physical facts always carried a religious meaning. The Hebrews were no different in their outlook.

The Greeks would see history as part of their study of nature; it was all a matter of sensory observations and making sense of it. The Hebrews reversed that: nature was part of their sense of history. Moral function is everything. God made the world as a place to put man. Boman still stumbles over his precious JEPD theory in trying to explain the development of Hebrew thinking, insisting that there are two creation accounts in Genesis from widely different eras. However, he does note that if you stop trying to read the two creation accounts visually and start thinking about them functionally, they fit together nicely.

Of course, the Hebrew word often translated “heaven” is actually “sky”. It is symbolism quite intentionally. Boman notes that any mention of “heaven” as God’s residence doesn’t mean eternity. Heaven is also subject to removal when this world has run its course. I have said before that “heaven” refers to a temporary accommodation where God camps out as long as this world exists. It’s not here, but it’s also not Eternity proper.

Then again, when you read that God will dwell among His people, it’s a moral proximity, not physical, much the same as when we read that He is in the Temple. Most common attempts by church scholars to portray a visual cosmology of the Bible are actually an injection of something like Medieval cosmology. It’s not particularly Greek and certainly not Hebrew.

I would say that even Heiser’s image of Hebrew cosmology is a mistake.

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

HTCG 03j

Posted on October 1, 2024 by ehurst

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.

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

HTCG 03i

Posted on September 30, 2024 by ehurst

Chapter 3: Time and Space

Section D: Quantity and Number: Spatially Quantitative and Dynamically Qualitative Quantities

Boman really drags out this chapter, but still misses some things. He notes that, to understand the Greek spatial conception of things, we need to see how it shines brightest in the mathematics of geometry. What he doesn’t mention is that the term “geometry” means “earth-measuring”. If there’s anything that tells us how spatially oriented their thinking was, that should do it. The implication is that it’s the field of math for measuring the planet as the nearest element of space itself. They included things like squares and cubes, and their roots, etc.

We know historically that the Hebrews stand alone in having never bothered with math, in contrast to the other Semitic races. It was the arrival of the Semitic influence that saw the Babylonian development of algebra. And while we know that geometry is the drawing of what algebra abstracts, and that algebra abstracts what geometry draws, the Babylonians actually went farther with algebra than the Greeks did with geometry.

(Note: the word “algebra” is derived from an Arabic term for figuring out fractions.)

All the Hebrew terms that seem to translate into English as geometrical terms actually have no such origin. There are no triangles or squares, only vague concepts that bring those figures as results. The Hebrew word for “compass” is merely a drawing tool. The words translated as “round” are more aimed at things which naturally turn out round simply because it’s the easiest shape for handling some materials.

Factoid: Do you know that “silver coins” in Israel were originally rectangles cut from thin sheets? They weren’t worth the trouble to strike them in rounds; as long as the mass was consistent on the scales, nobody worried about their shape.

The Hebrew word associated with great spaces or long journeys (rabh) is the noun form of a verb meaning “to become many; to be thick or dense”. A few other words used that way have similar meanings. The opposite terms meaning “small” all come from a root meaning of “diminish or reduce”. Again, not abstract concepts nor visual but actions. The image of something being bigger is not “greater” as in Greek, but simply that something draws away at a distance. That was the expression used to declare Saul a head taller than the average Israeli.

We are aware that Hebrew share one thing with the most primitive languages: numbering is conceptually one or two. A few primitive languages go as far as three. Indo-European languages appear to have developed this from the image of people seeing themselves as one, someone they speak to as two, and maybe a third person they can indicate — I, you, him. It’s visual. Not with Hebrew; it’s based on the concept of repeating an action, like tapping or stomping. Boman doesn’t mention that a great many expressions in Hebrew indicating numbering stops at two, because of the moral implication of being single-minded versus double-minded, though they had words for numbers of things that required actual counting.

Thus, the rise of the number seven in Hebrew comes from the Sabbath cycle, of course. He also doesn’t mention that quite naturally, the Hebrew word for “seven” has the additional implication of “making sacred or holy”. But other words for counting things are typically tinged with moral qualities, rarely a simple matter of abstract numbering. Grammatical plurals (-im for masculine and -ôth feminine) are often purely symbolic in that having a bunch is all about intensity and greatness, not how numerous — elohim is the most common example, meaning “plenitude of power”.

So, Boman suggests we treat Hebrew “plurals” as intensives. Along this same line of thinking, Hebrew language expressed the concept of “every” quite often by using the plural noun twice — yôm yôm (“days days”) is the expression for “every day”. Only when they indicated the whole total together did it switch back to singular.

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on HTCG 03i

HTCG 03h

Posted on September 29, 2024 by ehurst

Chapter 3: Time and Space

Section C: Space

Part 3: The Boundless or the Infinite

Boman surveys several different conceptions of infinity in the West. On the one hand, he says westerners strive too much to explain it. On the other hand, Boman spends too much time talking about it himself. For several paragraphs he goes on about it, only to finally note that Semites in general, and Hebrews in particular, never struggled with the concept of infinity because it was never on their radar. It never occurred to them that they should regard themselves as restricted in the first place. Thus, three major world religions came from Semites, all presuming that human limits exist only to be exceeded by Eternity.

Excursus: Biblical Faithfulness to Reality

Boman chases down some speculation from Oscar Cullmann, a French Lutheran theologian who was famous for restoring ecumenical dialogue between the Catholic and Lutheran leadership. Cullmann was also noted for emphasizing the historicity of Christ against the debates on His nature. Eschatology was anchored and begun in Christ’s passage through our world, an early version of “already-but-not-yet”. Eschatology is already defined.

Boman doesn’t do a good job of summarizing Cullmann’s views, but does offer us what he feels is a fair correction. Jesus cannot be captured in theology, but in His verifiable historical advent. The reference to historical events as dated before or after Christ is justified; He is the anchor of all human history. Cullmann’s mistake is asserting that Christ is placed on a single timeline passing through all history, instead of looking at the Hebrew viewpoint of time as cyclical.

At any rate, Boman wanders intellectually, trying very hard once again to separate the New Testament from the Old, seeking to drag the former into his preferred Platonic outlook.

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

NT Doctrine — Hebrews 8

Posted on September 28, 2024 by ehurst

It is critical here that we read this passage with a Hebrew mind, for it refers to Hebrew Scripture and oral lore. As noted in the previous chapter, the covenant under which Melchizedek served was the original covenant of faith finalized in Christ. It is an eternal covenant, while the Covenant of Moses was anchored in time and space.

Our High Priest is Christ, the living Word of God. He is revelation personified. Unlike the High Priests who served under Moses, all of whom died and are resting for the Day of Judgment, Christ lives eternally and sits at the right hand of the Father. This is an honored position reserved for the Heir to all Creation. He serves in the Heavenly Courts, not in some man-made shrine.

The earthly priesthood officiated over the required material offerings in the earthly Temple. Their place of service was a manifestation of God’s courts. In Hebrew thinking, it’s not that Moses saw a visual “model” in the western sense, but he gained a direction impression in his heart of something that would serve a particular function. God listed the materials He wanted them to use. This was all the clue they needed. Moses and his supporters would have already had in their minds the practical design based on what such materials would have made possible for that kind of use.

They did not build a residence for Jehovah; they built a human representation of what a residence for an imperial ruler would have been. It would house however much of God’s Presence as this world could endure. Meanwhile, Jesus is there in Heaven in the real thing, the ultimate reality of what the Tabernacle, and later the Temple, were meant to represent.

The same goes with the Covenant of Moses; it was simply a model composed of elements humans could grasp for a purpose they understood. It did not require faith in one sense, only submission. However, in another sense, Moses flatly stated that it wasn’t the ultimate reality; it was an indicator of how someone could live in faith in that context. Had that law code been sufficient, there would never have been prophesies promising something else coming down the road.

The author quotes from the Old Testament prophesy of Jeremiah 31:31-34. God promised that He would call His people into a new covenant that was not merely law and custom, but would be expressed in His own Presence in their hearts. They would all know Him directly by His Presence.

Thus, the Covenant of Moses was obsolete. In Jeremiah’s day, it was “already-but-not-yet” obsolete, and in Christ that action was finished. Granted, the Temple still stood, and the external trappings of that religion were carried out. But the author hints that this is almost at an end — “about to disappear”.

Posted in bible | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on NT Doctrine — Hebrews 8

HTCG 03g

Posted on September 27, 2024 by ehurst

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.

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on HTCG 03g

HTCG 03f

Posted on September 26, 2024 by ehurst

Chapter 3: Time and Space

Section B: The Israelite Conception of Time

Part 2: Psychic Time

Subpart f: Contemporaneity

Boman mentions Kierkegaard’s writing about taking faith and jumping across the ages to experience Christ and His life as if we were there in person. We can do this only by faith as a gift from above, not by any act of human will. This is not a new idea on this blog. I have long said that the whole thrust of Hebrew writing is to breathe life into the narrative, to generate a sense of the drama and experience of the event first person.

This seems to point out the Hebrews as uniquely capable of presenting the gospel message. This is how God wants to communicate, by putting us in the place of those who really needed Jesus when He was here. Boman mentions another scholar who tries to explain things in terms how Hebrews could participate in a corporate personality, placing themselves in the moment their ancestor experienced things.

The paradox here should be obvious. Only a few pages back, Boman noted that we cannot be in two moments at the same time, according to the western logic of time and space. Yet, it is quite possible to narrate a situation from the past with enough parallels to cause the unaware listener to believe it’s contemporary. Fiery political rhetoric from past decades or even centuries can sound like something we have heard just recently.

That’s because some things never change; political manipulation is drawn from the same tricks used by oppressors throughout history. Still, it’s almost funny how we strive to grasp how the Hebrews consciously handle their past in terms of morals and faith, but oddly westerners find themselves in the same frame of reference unconsciously for mere rhetoric.

Subpart g: Before and After

Boman points out that the Indo-European languages are quite backwards from the Hebrew when it comes to reckoning our place in time. For the Hebrews, the view to the front is the past. It lies open, in clear view. The future is behind our back, out of view. We cannot see it. Thus, when Hebrew Scriptures (Jeremiah 29:11; Proverbs 24:14) talk about promises for tomorrow, the words for “tomorrow” are always referring to what’s behind us. They don’t think of it as moving at all, much less moving backwards. It’s not a matter of “where” we are or where we are going, but the moral demands upon us.

If anything, we are taking our stand of faith and the future catches up to us. The predecessors came before and stand in our site. Our ancestors will follow us. It’s not spatial reckoning, but psychic reckoning.

Subpart h: The Verbal Origin of the Concept of Time

If you were to chase down the etymology of the words in both Hebrew and various European languages, you’ll find a subtle distinction. The latter developed spatial awareness before they began talking much about time. For the Hebrew, it was generally simultaneous, and still remains more primitive for both time and space reckoning.

Hebrew thought in general is dynamic, as previously noted. This contributes to the difficulty, the lack of definitive answers about how they developed the various suffixes and prefixes and classes of verbs and word forms in general. I note that recent scholarship prefers to work under the assumption of very simple root words consisting of just two or three consonants. Either way, it is well established that Hebrew verbs are all about time, not location.

Subpart i: Endless Time

It’s very easy to understand that Platonic notions of “eternity” rest entirely on the notion of time-without-end — a spatial concept. There simply is no Hebrew equivalent. Boman doesn’t say so, but the entire ANE never felt competent to discuss eternity very much; all of their comments about eternity relate to our duties here and now. We must be very careful to avoid the “boundless time/space” imagery when discussing Hebrew literature.

When you see English translations of Hebrew Scripture mention “eternity”, the most common word behind it is `olam. Best guess for now is that it derives from `alam — hide, conceal. Thus, we believe `olam points to “over the horizon”, and in both directions (“everlasting to everlasting”). The point is not “endless” but that the boundaries are unknown (and unknowable).

In some cases, the word simply means for the rest of one’s life. In all cases, it refers to that time beyond the horizon of those in any given context. It’s personal, as always. Thus, the prosperous wicked believe they will always prosper, and the faithful agree that it does seem to carry on way too long, because they have no idea when God will judge them — that’s `olam, too.

The other two Hebrew words for eternity are used about the same way. Boman complains that the Hebrews were amused by repeating words over and over in a narrative. They would use the same root word repeatedly in a single statement, delighting in the various forms of the word crammed together in a single line. What Boman doesn’t mention is that the Hebrew senses of humor with the use of very similar sounding words comes from this (Hebrew version of puns).

In summary, Boman hints at something I wish he could have said more bluntly: For westerners, the spatial reference is rather static. Time and events are there, existing independently. For the Hebrew, if you didn’t experience it, and could not connect it to your communal identity, then it might as well not exist. That is, you didn’t have to deal with it.

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on HTCG 03f