HTCG 03e

Posted on September 25, 2024 by ehurst

Chapter 3: Time and Space

Section B: The Israelite Conception of Time

Part 2: Psychic Time

Subpart c: The Time of History

Boman takes a couple of pages to warn us that the western notion of time is quite confused. The concept of spatial imagery is misleading. Two points on a line coexist; two successive moments of time do not. You cannot be anywhen; you can be only now. The western imagery is internally inconsistent.

The Hebraic conception is quite consistent, if only for it’s near absence. There simply could not be a Hebrew philosophical discussion about time. It’s a prison and there’s no escape, so why pretend we can transcend it and think about it from outside? Memories of past events are what they are. Even the past is not an objective reality, but in the whole, it is God’s personal memory of events. The past is whatever He says it was.

Subpart d: The Tenses

Boman reminds us of his thesis: The language of a people, as developed and used, represents their epistemology solidified as the ground on which they live. Language declares cultural assumptions about life.

Thus, we have a paradox: The Greeks had all manner of verb tenses and fine gradations about when, how long, etc., and yet mushed things up by clothing it all in spatial terminology. In Hebrew, verb tenses are virtually absent, and yet they had a very consistent view of time. The language cared only whether an action was accomplished already, or not finished yet. Did it already happen, or is it happening now (live and ongoing)? It gives new meaning to the old product advertising line: “Is it live or is it Memorex?”

Granted, Hebrew viewed emerging actions as current. However, Boman is at pains to note once more that the whole issue of verb tense in Hebrew is solidly relative to the speaker, not any imagined objective reality. Everything is personal.

Subpart e: The Psychology of the Tenses

Here Boman repeats some of the mental imaging people use in West versus Hebrew. Westerners think of themselves on some continuum established already, whereas the Hebrew thinks of everything in relation to his life’s rhythms. It’s all relative for the latter. Thus, the two verb tenses are complete (AKA, perfect) and incomplete (imperfect).

Notice how this looks when it comes to viewing something from yesterday. To a Greek mind it is “past/passed” behind you and you are moving forward. It’s a matter of objective reality. To a Hebrew mind it is finished business, no longer a matter of personal concern. Boman invests plenty of effort in trying to make this more plain. Hebrew language has a few words roughly equivalent to “now” (the present).

  • pa`am — step, pace, time: The image is someone in the lead starting the group movement by taking the first step for everyone else to copy, as on some journey.
  • zeh — this, here, there, now: A hand points to something immediate, or motions mimicking the action desired.
  • koh — thus: Again, equivalent to a demonstrative adverb in western languages, very similar to the preceding. All of them mark a vigorous action that should be taken simultaneously with the signal.
  • `attah derived from `eth — time in the sense of the current situation. “Now that this thing is done…”

That the Indo-European languages also developed the added dimension of perfect and imperfect to each of the trio past-present-future is probably the only reason we can begin to understand at all how the Hebrews never went beyond the simple matter of verbs that express solely the experience of the person speaking the language at the moment.

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

HTCG 03d

Posted on September 24, 2024 by ehurst

Chapter 3: Time and Space

Section B: The Israelite Conception of Time

Part 2: Psychic Time

Subpart a: The Identity of Consciousness

Western minds think of space as the place we exist. Time plays the same role for the Hebrews. This much is accurate, but I think Boman botches the discussion of this. He wanders around for several pages without coming up with anything meaningful. Only briefly does he approach the idea that Hebrew consciousness is communal against the western individualism, but then doesn’t really do anything with it. It’s very disappointing.

As previously noted, a western mind is location driven. All things are reckoned in terms of place. For a Hebrew, it’s event driven. While there is some overlap between the two, in the long run the difference is so significant that it’s very hard to put into words that westerners will recognize. I’m sure that’s why it appears Boman struggles here.

Toward the end of this blather he finally mentions that a Hebraic sense of identity refers to what role one has played in the nation’s fulfillment of who their patriarchs were supposed to be. A man’s sense of who he is rests on how well he represents a prominent ancestor, for whom his tribe is named. He never stands alone. Ultimately, it rests on the sense of community with those who serve his God.

Subpart b: The Content of Time

Boman reiterates some of this by noting that, while a western mind differentiates between time and events, for a Hebrew it is the events in time to give time meaning. They cannot be separated in Hebrew reckoning. While western minds can blend to two for exceptional events, for a Hebrew it was uniform reckoning.

He takes the time to remind us how significant it is in Hebrew prophecy that a day having darkness symbolizes a day of wrath and doom. Having the sky darken like night in the middle of daytime is high drama, and typically not meant literally.

One of the highest expressions of Hebrew literature was Ecclesiastes, where we find the passage about a time for this and that. Solomon cites the extremes, as if pointing to the boundaries of the human experience of life. Notice that it’s not at all spatially conceived, but event-driven. What Boman fails to mention is that, in a Hebrew mind, life is typically a matter of when the time is ripe for one event or another.

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

HTCG 03c

Posted on September 23, 2024 by ehurst

Chapter 3: Time and Space

Section B: The Israelite Conception of Time

Part 1: The Time of Heavenly Luminaries

Subpart c: Time-rhythms rather than Time-cycles or Time-lines

We can be sure that humans and even animals sense the rhythms of time; it’s the one thing wired in to the natural world — heartbeats, respiration, mealtimes, sleep and wake times, etc., right on up to the length of our lives.

Boman doesn’t quite say it like this, but for the Hebrew it’s not an image of circles and lines, but more like a restricted view portal of reality, that what came before and what comes after is not certain. Western minds imagine vast circles and are convinced that it’s all stable and reliable in itself. The span of time is so huge that we need not worry that the circles will be broken or even bent (thus, the “normalcy bias”).

Our science confidently asserts that the world is billions of years old. The physical reality appears to have matured by slow processes for countless ages, running by knowable laws of matter. For the Hebrew, God can and does change reality on a whim. Thus, reality is a dubious thing. For them, there was no proof that reality didn’t just pop into place sometime in the past, and burst on the scene already in a mature condition. And there was a very potent sense that it would all end without warning for no other reason than God is through with it.

But what Boman does say in a couple of pages is pretty much the same thing. Instead of circles that continue on their natural course to its end, Hebrews see that God has decided to bring around a fresh start. Thus, a cycle is start to start, not end to end.

Subpart d: Duration and Instant

These cycles of time flow into larger cycles, all centered on the lunar rhythm and the lunar year. It’s not mathematically precise; it’s experientially consistent. It’s centered on the 7-day cycle of Creation, and a lunar month is four of them. Their reckoning was adjusted now and then to make up for the lack of precision.

Boman is all over the place explaining that for the Hebrew, the smallest segment of time is not a moment, not a point on the line or circle. Rather, it’s regarded as a beat in the rhythm — a heartbeat, the twitch of an eyelid, etc. It’s something you feel, not something you observe from the outside. There is also a broad recognition of things that are sudden, unnoticed until it’s upon you. The eyes open wide and the jaw drops; that’s about as fast as anything a Hebrew might recognize.

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

HTCG 03b

Posted on September 22, 2024 by ehurst

Chapter 3: Time and Space

Section B: The Israelite Conception of Time

Part 1: The Time of Heavenly Luminaries

Subpart a: The Uselessness of the Western Concept of Time

Boman correctly notes that westerners are notorious for flatly ignoring any conception of time that isn’t their own. They seem to deny that any other conception is even possible. Scholars have assumed that something about human nature itself demands that an awareness of time hinges first on an awareness of space, and that conception of time is built on movement.

And yet, it is painfully obvious that neither the Hebrew in particular, nor the ANE in general, have followed this course. They’ve all been quite inconsistent with the Indo-European culture alive at about the same time. Hebrew in particular reverses the western understanding of future and past. We see the future before us, that past behind. Hebrews saw the future as a concealed thing chasing them down from behind, and the past as a open before them.

Subpart b: Sun and Moon as Time-Determinants; Perception of Time

The Hebrews used the same luminaries in the sky to get a sense of what “now” means. However, they used them differently. The Greeks think of them as physical objects in the sky, orbs. Size matters. Western minds are fixed primarily on solar influences, noting the least light on the peak of winter, and the longest exposure to the sun on midsummer day. Ancient festivals reflected these notations.

The Hebrews ignored the sun’s schedule and kept their eyes on the moon. Their words for the luminaries (lamps and lights) do not indicate what they are but how they function, serving as illumination. The meaning of night and day were established before the sources of light were created. Light bears authority regardless of source.

In northern Europe, the transition between night and day tends to linger, almost imperceptibly. In the Middle East, it is much more dramatic and sharp. Thus, the Hebrew conception focuses on the separation between light and dark and the moral implications. They never revered the sun, but the original source of light: God. His Presence is very decisive. Periods of human history are not marked by standard divisions of celestial motion but by the moral content of the events.

Thus, the moral meaning of what we experience is not determined by the movement of the luminaries — God forbade them from ever going down that route (we call it “astrology”). Rather, the meaning is found in His gaze, His declaration of what it is. Thus, the lights in the sky, along with the rainbow when it shows up, are marks of God’s mercy and reliability. They determine nothing; they manifest glory and grace that stood long before them.

For western minds, the moon is just an accessory floating nearby. For the Hebrews, being closer to us means it speaks most loudly of God’s care. Thus, the sacred seasons are marked by the moon, not the sun. Meanwhile, more mundane activities can rely on the sun, such as how the city gates do not open until the sun is hot. It’s not about the sun as some ruler in the sky, but what things are like right now in the Promised Land. Time is marked by subjective effects, not celestial mechanics.

I must note that Boman is not so blunt as this outline; I’m bringing in my own previous studies to clarify his subtle thrust and voluminous citations of other scholars. Still, this part of the book is quite good.

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

NT Doctrine — Hebrews 7

Posted on September 21, 2024 by ehurst

Once again, I defer to previous commentary…

While we must acknowledge that the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was a new thing on this earth, we make a grave mistake if we assume faith and grace were not in operation before Christ. The Jews assumed the Covenant of Abraham was fulfilled in Moses. It was not. Moses was on a wholly different level, an earthly symbol of a higher reality, with earthly requirements and earthly promises and blessings. Those things have their place, but they are mere symbols of a deeper reality. Since before Abraham, people gained right standing with God neither by rituals nor behavior at large, for all failed at those things. Rather, they stood before God on the basis of faith embracing His grace.

So, what was this Priestly Order of Melchizedek for which Jesus was the final member? First, his name is Hebrew for “King of Righteousness” and his title means “King of Peace.” Abraham knew this man. On his return from defeating the kings of Mesopotamia up north of Galilee, he was dragging a massive load of spoil these kings had taken. By ancient custom in every land in that region, it all belonged to Abraham by right of conquest. Melchizedek, as a fellow worshiper of God Almighty, met him and brought out some refreshments. This was a very strong symbolic gesture and Abraham gave recognition of Melchizedek’s priesthood of his own God by granting the priestly king a tenth of the spoils. The rest of the spoils Abraham righteously returned to the kings of the Pentapolis near the Dead Sea.

In this, Abraham operated by faith that such wealth would not benefit him, but would actually harm him. He had more than enough, anyway, and was regarded in those parts as a prince in his own right. Now, he was a proven master in battle, a battle by no means insignificant. It was all by faith, not by any human desire to dominate. Abraham would have been just as happy to keep a low profile and hold a reputation as harmless. The Jews proudly pointed out how all their wealth was a gift from God, not taken from the likes of Sodom and Gomorrah. Yet, in all this pride, they failed to grasp the significance of Abraham giving a tithe to Melchizedek.

This priestly king was unknown, no official genealogy. All we know about his priesthood is Abraham’s recognition of it. We have no idea who his parents were, when or where he was born, nor where he died and was buried. Symbolically, that means his priesthood is eternal, since no one can pinpoint the terminus of it. If the Jews had long recognized David’s prophecy of the Messiah as being of that order, and Jesus was the Messiah, we must realize that this order of priesthood never ended. Was not David King of Salem? David touched the Ark without being struck dead. Was not this a sign that his righteousness and reign were at least theoretically marking him as a Priest of the Order of Melchizedek? Was not Jesus of his lineage, proven by pedigree? And was He not the Messiah, also of the Order of Melchizedek?

If the Levites, who receive the tithes of Israel under the Law of Moses, were born of Abraham, then while yet unborn they paid tithes to Melchizedek. Do not the lesser pay tithes to the greater? Surely, it isn’t that hard to grasp! Jesus the Messiah, Priest of the Order of Melchizedek, belongs to an order that is greater and older than that of Aaron. The Aaronic order of priesthood and all it represented had a distinct beginning and end.

If the Law of Moses had been the final fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham, then there would have never been any prophecies of a new priesthood rising from an ancient order. Changing from Aaronic DNA and pedigree to some other means of passing office means that Levitical Law was not intended to be permanent. David’s prophecy in Psalm 110 was a subtle declaration that Moses had an endpoint. Indeed, we already have said Jesus was not a Levite, but of the Tribe of Judah, of which not a single man ever stood as priest under Moses. For a man of Judah to now stand as High Priest – prophesied by David as all Jews agree – it requires doing away with the Law of Moses. That Covenant of the Law ended in Christ. His priesthood was not about law, but faith. It returns things to the original covenant of redemption, to which both Abraham and Melchizedek adhered. It was a covenant marked by Eternal Life, not rooted in this world.

This Law of Moses is dead. Christ closed it forever, by opening the door for us all to come into the Presence of God. It was His promise from long ago. Priests are sworn in, passing through a very rigorous background check. Jesus was sworn in by His Father, having already established His background by divine birth. Notice how every Aaronic priest eventually died. There were a bunch of them. Jesus is a spiritual priest, standing in a spiritual realm, a spiritual temple, in the very presence of God Almighty, never again to die. His priesthood is eternal.

Unlike the Sons of Aaron, who have to keep offering a sacrifice for themselves first, before they can offer the sacrifices of others, Jesus is His own sacrifice, once and for all. He needed no sacrifice for Himself, because He was already sinless and pure, unlike every priest of Aaron. The Law of Moses placed in office men who were morally unfit, but as long as they and the nation met the ritual requirements, the system continued to work. And what was that work? It was mere earthly blessings. Jesus was the one and only perfectly sinless man, the only one truly fit to be our High Priest. The result is pulling the whole business up into the spiritual realm, which is the only place to find God. Everything else is just symbolism.

Posted in bible | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on NT Doctrine — Hebrews 7

HTCG 03a

Posted on September 21, 2024 by ehurst

We are about halfway through this book, folks. It’s always a good thing to stand up and defend your position against better educated people. Boman is not stupid, but he has his own biases. Mine have been discussed here often enough.

Chapter 3: Time and Space

Section A: The Greek-European Conception of Time

Some of you may recall when Catacomb Resident Blog reviewed the book by Matthieu Pageau about the symbolism of Hebrew language in Genesis. Space was building and bringing order, while time dissolved building and brought rest, and it was all a balance between two hands of God. Here, Boman notes that Hebrew culture seems to focus more on time while the Euro-Grecian thought more in terms of space. Indeed, the Hebrew depiction of man’s increasing depravity over time was told by the Greeks spatially.

Notably, the intrusion of spatial thinking in early church teaching represents the intrusion of Hellenism. Meanwhile, the reason the Greek philosophers spent so much effort dwelling on time is because it was challenging; space came naturally to them and was largely taken for granted.

Somehow Boman assumes that, because he embraces the JEPD Theory, folks in the Garden and shortly after were vegetarians, not eating meat until after the Flood. He discusses how the Greeks viewed human history as a myth of several stages of mankind from near gods to rather common folks we have today. The descent from one stage to the next was not a matter of fallen nature, but varied as Greek tales do. The races were gold, silver, copper, a race of heroes, and then a race of iron. With the Hebrews, it’s more of a steady decline.

There was also the Greek mythology of special places in the world where various levels of paradise can be found — again, the emphasis on space. The western conception of time is a straight line, and all our verb tenses are based on how near to or far from us things and events are. The future is in front of us and the past behind. About the only mention of natural cycles is used as a means of measuring the passage of time. It’s focused on the solar cycles. Notice how the view of time is itself spatial in description and how we talk about it — lines, circles, even the math that considers a 4th dimension.

Boman refers to Kant’s discussions of time as something of a climax for western notions. His main point is that Kant insists that time is entirely subjective in the sense that it cannot exist outside of a conscious being who senses it. He tries to merge scientific time with psychological time. Plato, on the other hand, distinguishes the two. For Plato, eternity is static and unchanging, while physical time is moving and can be segmented. But the sense of past, present and future is psychological time. Both physical and psychological time merge in our conscious awareness. And time is merely a shadowy reflection of eternity.

Eternity is perfect peace and beauty in Plato. It is untouched by the ravages of time as our world is. Thus, Plato and Aristotle agree that time is a bad thing, a destroyer. Pageau agrees in principle, but not in the full discussion of the Hebrew thinking about it. We’ll see if Boman gets it right.

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

HTCG 02h

Posted on September 20, 2024 by ehurst

Chapter 2 continues.

Section E: Appearance in Greek Thinking

The Greeks were known for seeking to describe what they saw in objective terms. The intent was to give the hearer/reader a concrete impression of the scene or object of concern. They did not prolong their narratives, but stuck with only the essentials.

Boman demonstrates this point by recounting a description from one of Plato’s works. As he notes, you can see it in your mind. He offers a few other examples from Greek literature, emphasizing how the descriptions invoked the image of harmony within nature and architecture in harmony with nature. Yet, there is some ineffable quality to it all. While the latter Greeks described a lot of blue, there was no equivalent word in Hebrew. There is only the reference to the murex dye that can range over quite a wide number of bluish hues.

Early Greek philosophy was more visual and not so abstract in the broader western sense we have now. Boman makes much of the Greek theoria, from which our word “theory” descends. Showing his bias in favor of Plato over Aristotle, he talks as if Plato were the crest of reason and theoretical contemplation in Greece.

Then again, the Greeks did not invest much effort into describing persons with objective visual portrayals. Instead, they tried to invest some kind of moral character in the things they did choose to describe. It’s not that they always considered the good people as beautiful; they knew about the deception of a fair face and body. Rather, they were not objective in describing the whole. Instead, they picked out features that gave clues to their inner nature, Boman tells us.

During the peak of the Homeric Age (the peak of Greek mythology), deities were depicted as highly idealized humans. Boman avoids saying the obvious: Since man was the measure of all things, then ideal men and women were surely the natural representation of these superhumans. The very meaning of the concept of deity was both serious business yet spectacular. They were meant to be seen, and it was part of what the gods did to see and be seen. The etymology of theos was from the word for “spectator” — theoros.

Boman notes that what we consider “Greeks” were actually conquerors of a more primitive people. This latter had a very strong animist religion, revering the spirit powers inherent in all kinds of things. He tells us that the primitive animism peeks through at us with the signature animal traits of the Homeric mythology — Zeus’s eagle, Hera’s cow, etc. This underlying primitivism shows even more strongly in the Dionysian rage parties in the mountains.

However, with the rise of Homer’s heroic mythology, all of the fear-based religion is gone. There are no longer any dark spirits haunting the landscape. It was all happy and bright, but the one thing they must avoid was hubris. Boman points out how this echoes in Hebrew religion’s blanket condemnation of human arrogance. Still, it was nigh impossible for the latter Greek mythology to arise without elevating the deities from animals, plants, and forces of nature, and to make them more like the highest form of life anyone had experienced directly. Thus, the anthropomorphism of Greek mythology was associated with the apex of Greek culture.

And Boman never stops trying to drag the Hebrew and Greek together, even when the fit is very painful and almost ludicrous. I can imagine some folks finding his chatter blasphemous as he strives to redefine Plato as spiritual and mystical like the Hebrews. And yet, his attempts to elevate Hellenism as somehow the final manifestation of God’s revelation fits very neatly into most church folks’ assumptions, even if they never heard of Plato. Boman is in good company.

This several pages of discussion eventually turns back toward trying to explain the message of the Gospels, published in Greek, as an exercise in blending Hebraic thought and Hellenism in telling us about Christ. He keeps ignoring the stark difference in substance by weaving together a false impression from shallow discussion. He even tries to insist that Hebrew literature focused on the concrete, as if ignoring the vast wealth of symbolism, a trick more characteristic of the Pharisees and their perversion of the Books of Moses.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on HTCG 02h

HTCG 02g

Posted on September 19, 2024 by ehurst

Chapter 2 continues.

Section D: The Impression of God

Part 2: Imago Dei

I rather expected what I got on this question. Boman chases a lot of theological meaning, bringing up two major figures in his educational background (Paul Humbert and Hermann Gunkel) who wrote at length on what “image of God” means in the Genesis context. He still chases the JEPD nonsense, trying to pin the passage on a later source. At any rate, he still comes up missing the point: “this does not prevent God from having a bodily form”.

The two Hebrew words in the phrase translated as “in Our image, after Our own likeness” at root mean an exact copy and yet something similar. In western minds, it can’t be both. Boman offers a confused attempt to explain how man is neither animal nor elohim (he gets that term right), but seems to forget this is before the Fall. We can’t imagine what mankind was like before the Fall. What we were meant to be is not what we are now.

Thus, anything we might say about what “image of God” is supposed to mean, it applies to some quality that transcends anything we can think or say. It belongs in Eternity, not here. Stop trying to make sense of it intellectually. He almost gets there when trying to assert that this developed late in Hebrew history, whereas the anthropomorphism is from earlier, primitive Hebrew thinking. He fails to notice that it was God Himself who spoke in terms of anthropomorphism. You get the feeling Boman doesn’t believe God actually communicated that clearly.

Excursus: Jewish Pictorial Art in the Disapora

Because he seems to accept a secular humanist evaluation of Hebrew religion, it’s no surprise he cannot identify Judaism as a clear departure from it. He shares with us how Diaspora Jews were less strict about the Code of Moses in regards to artistic renderings of real life. Their synagogues featured visual artwork depicting scenes from the Old Testament, something pointedly forbidden in Moses.

In the case of ruins found in the ruins of Dura, Syria, the synagogue artwork at least did not try to show the face of God, but at most, a hand here and there. Instead of trying to raise up an image to venerate, the art showed God in action.

But in recent times, we’ve seen archaeological ruins of synagogues even in Palestine from the early centuries after Christ that show a substantial disregard of Moses with artwork. Some synagogue ruins feature statues that should be called “idols”. No matter how you slice it, this is not an extension of Hebrew culture, but a corruption of it. And this all fits right into the pattern painted so very clearly in the Gospels, of Judean leadership leading the people astray.

Let me note that the older academic notion of how primitive the Hebrew people were in the Exodus or prior to that is not borne out in the literary evidence of the general level of sophistication in the rest of the ANE. There is no reason to suppose that the Hebrews didn’t benefit from the sophistication of their progenitor, Abraham. The Mesopotamian culture in his time was not in some dark ages just out the troglodyte stage. The Hebrews did not start out as animists; they had a clear revelation from Jehovah. Meanwhile, it’s the same high intellectual climate that built the pyramids in Egypt. We keep finding sophisticated structures all over the world reaching back to the Flood of Noah, and perhaps before.

The Hebrew people were in on the highest culture of Mesopotamia and Egypt before they ever went out to Sinai. The ancient peoples, to include the Hebrews, we not somehow more primitive than modern western materialistic culture, they were just very different.

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

HTCG 02f

Posted on September 18, 2024 by ehurst

Chapter 2 continues.

Section D: The Impression of God

Part 1: The Israelite Image of God

Boman starts off introducing the term “theriomorphic” — having the form of a beast. He talks about the Old Testament representation of Jehovah paganized in the Golden Calf. Apparently he never understood the common Mesopotamian concept of an invisible deity seated upon said calf, bullock or whatever. The various Semitic nations never worshiped the cow itself. The image was used in worship of various manifestations of Baal and other major figures in Semitic mythology. The symbolism is not obvious to an outsider.

For the Greeks, that would be confusing; their images are meant to portray the deity in a more literal sense. But Boman at least recognizes that Jehovah was never captured in the Scripture’s rhetoric of animals or man. Those were merely expressions used to indicate something about how He acts in this world. Still, he believes that Jeroboam’s shrines called for worship of gold-plated bull sculptures themselves, not as the beast upon which “Jehovah” rode. He also correctly notes that the Scripture referring to these idols as “calves” instead of mature bulls (the image actually used) is mocking their impotence.

Reviewing the imagery of Psalm 18, he notes that you cannot build a coherent image of God from the description, nor are you meant to visualize from it. Rather, it’s all about piling up symbols of power. Then he points out God riding on a cherub and upon the wind, and how that cannot be easily reconciled in concrete terms; rather, you are supposed to recognize that God moves faster than we can imagine.

After stumbling around a bit trying to distinguish the comparative ages of Bible passages (Documentary Hypothesis again), he notes correctly that none of the anthropomorphic of theriomorphic images were descriptions of what the prophets actually saw in their visions. Rather, the prophets themselves were choosing symbolic language to convey the impression they received of ineffable things.

Thus, when God’s nostrils are mentioned, it portrays wrath. The right arm or hand portrays purpose and power. Various hand motions portray invitation, joy, etc. The eyes symbolize perception and clarity. The ear represents paying attention to someone or something. The Hebrew shem is often translated as “name” or “appearance” — probably better as “reputation” or “title” in some contexts. This is the whole point of all these anthropomorphisms: We must pay careful attention to God’s reputation, His glory and recognition.

Thus, when Moses on the mountain asks to see God’s glory, what he gets is a declaration of His kindness and His sovereign will. Boman gets lost here because he doesn’t recognize the Ancient Near Eastern notion that heart is a separate faculty from the conscious mind. He talks about how Jehovah will not show His face lest Moses die, but then gets tangled up in the five senses, and seems wholly unaware that the ANE folks believed that your heart could perceive things directly by itself in moral terms.

Moral perception is what the Scripture is referring to, not some hybrid sensory perception. The Scripture uses symbolic language to tell us God was going to let Moses receive a direct impression in his heart. That is inherent in the ANE outlook on things; the Hebrew terminology in the passage would have been recognized that way by anyone in that region. They would not have expected a pictorial visualization of the event.

He does get right the idea that “face” (Hebrew panim) is more a verb used in place of a noun, referring specifically to dynamic action of being turned to gaze upon something or someone. When used referring to the “face of the earth” it’s the part you encounter directly, the part that is turned toward you. For Greeks, the concept is more static — the earth is not alive; it’s “face” is the part merely seen passively.

Boman never quite gets around to telling us that for Moses to be someone who conferred with God face to face signifies a shocking level of privilege. ANE people entered the presence of any mere human ruler with their eyes averted, looking down and not daring to see his face. This language of God speaking to Moses face-to-face is a symbol of Moses being treated as a personal friend, something precious few humans ever experienced even with human rulers.

In his summary, Boman again tried to indicate that the Hebrews moved from a primitive to a more developed understanding of God, but his idea of “more developed” is more like the Greek, of course. He fails to see that at least some of that greater sophistication was actually moving farther from the truth of divine revelation. I’m not suggesting that change is inherently wrong, and that there was no improvement in the Hebrews’ theology, but that improvement was mixed with adulterations that Jesus condemned. Boman seems blind to that. He fails to see that the latter convergence of Hebrew scholars into Hellenism was precisely the thing Jesus condemned.

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

HTCG 02e

Posted on September 17, 2024 by ehurst

Chapter 2 continues.

Section C: The Impression of Things

Part 4: Personification in the Old Testament

Boman insists that the Hebrews did not literally personify the forces of nature, but that it was simply a figure of speech. It seems he was totally unaware of the broad ANE assumptions about the world and our communion through the sensory heart. While the modern science about this arose long after he published the original version of this book, the notion that our hearts can perceive the natural world directly was well established by studies in ANE literature going back centuries.

Once again, Boman brings his cultural bias into the picture. He plows through a substantial mix of passages from the Old Testament that insist the natural world rejoices at the demonstration of God’s power. For him, it’s just metaphor. Nature itself fought for Israel plenty of times, but he says it’s just lyrical drama. To deny it is a western bias, and arises from a lack of belief in miracles.

Boman cites modern poetry (Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson of Norway) that is loaded with similar imagery, but it’s from a pagan background. It reflects the superstitions of pagan Germanic peoples, so it’s not quite the same thing as the Hebrew Scriptures. In this, Boman almost trivializes the whole question. He waxes lyrical about how this still somehow gets at the truth, referring to a mystical and unexplainable unity in Creation that somehow reflects the divine nature, but his affirmation of the Scripture still gravely misses the point. This is the common western approach of spookifying something the Hebrews clearly understood.

Then again, I didn’t expect much better.

When Jesus rebuked the storm and the sea, it obeyed. This was no mere poetic metaphor. Every time He made a demand of the natural or spiritual world, it was the exact same thing. He treated nature as if it were literally alive and capable of responding to Him personally. It was His domain; that’s the Hebrew outlook.

It bears only a superficial resemblance to the superstitious outlook of the pagan Germanic and Scandinavian countries who feared the forces of nature. When Christian religion came to those northern lands, they did not fully absorb the Hebrew outlook, but a very paganized Christian understanding. The Bjørnson mentioned in the book, while a major literary giant in Norway, was a socialist materialist, using the old superstitions to sell poetry.

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on HTCG 02e