Hebrew thought

From Wikinfo

Since ancient times, there have been two main rational ways of looking at the universe. A third way, through feelings, is not rational. The two rational ways are called “Greek Thought” because it was used by ancient Greek philosophers though also used throughout most of the rest of the world, and “Hebrew Thought” named after the language used in writing the one book from ancient times that used this method of thinking, namely the Hebrew Old Testament, also called “Tanakh” by Jews. Both ways of thinking are named after languages used to express them.

History of Hebrew Thought

Hebrew Thought is one of the ancient ways of looking at the universe preserved in ancient writings. However, there is no ancient record that the ancients recognized that there was a difference in the thought methodologies.

Luther noticed the dynamic character of the ancient Hebrew prophets and the writings of the Old Testament. This was in contrast to the Greek philosophers that he read as part of his study leading to his advanced degrees in Roman Catholic theology. He attributed that dynamism to the Hebrew language itself.

Because the Bible was written using Hebrew Thought, both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, most people who followed the Bible unconsciously internalized the Hebrew Thought outlook without realizing that it is different from Greek Thought. Further, those who used Hebrew Thought tended towards the practical applications of empirical science and technology, and theology, while those utilizing Greek Thought tended towards philosophy, rarely did the twain meet and realize that they were not thinking according to the same principles.

The modern realization of the differences is found in the PhD dissertation by Thorleif Boman “Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek” (the book that made me realize why I thought differently from my philosophy professors and fellow students). While Thorleif Boman, like Martin Luther, tried to attribute the differences to the Hebrew language itself, that was disputed by linguists such as Robert Barr, who then mistakenly concluded that because Hebrew Thought is not part of the language itself, that it therefore does not exist.

There are those who rightfully object to the use of the terms “Hebrew Thought” and “Greek Thought” to identify the two different ways of thinking, as they are not intrinsic to the languages. That nomenclature is misleading. The fact that the New Testament was written in Greek yet used Hebrew Thought is a case in point. Others have suggested that it would be more accurate to reference “functional” verses “formal” thought, or “active” verses “contemplative” thought, or some other more accurate and descriptive nomenclature. But for the time being, these are the terms used in philosophical circles.

Comparison of Hebrew Thought with Greek

Probably the best way to illustrate Hebrew Thought is to compare it with Greek Thought, as it is recorded in ancient writings.

First of all, Hebrew Thought is historic. The basis of teaching and action is datable events that have happened in the past (though there is some trouble correlating those dates with our modern calendar). For example, the reason for the Sabbath given in Exodus 20 was the creation, and for our resurrection the example of Jesus’ resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15. Recorded history takes precedence over present theories.

Greek Thought is ahistoric. The truth of an argument is based on its internal consistency and logic. The present is the key to the past.

Hebrew Thought is practical, based on observation. It takes people, objects and situations where they are and works from there. Theory takes back seat to observation, from the observation of the universe that God created, to the observed signs of his continued action into history. Part of its practicality is its challenge to life: if something is true, what is one personally going to do about it?

Greek Thought is theoretical. There is no clarion call to action based on its truth claims. Where things don’t fit the theory, an attempt is made to deny the observation or to change things to fit. Virgins don’t give birth, therefore the virgin birth didn’t happen, floods don’t cover the whole world, therefore Noah didn’t survive one, etc. The present is the key to the past.

Hebrew Thought looks at function. Connected with this is action. “Pretty is as pretty does” and “A young man makes himself recognized by his repeated actions” Proverbs 20:11. Function is also how one can define objects consistently and accurately. Many of the “anthropomorphisms” in the Bible concerning God are not to be understood as descriptions of the Deity, rather they are symbolic representations of God’s actions. Nature is to be studied by looking at actions (that’s how most chemical elements were recognized) and active experiments. Connected with function and action is that Hebrew thought deals with internal structure of what makes things tick. In art, the Dutch masters were reknown for their attempt to freeze action on the canvas, even the quiet pictures were like a pause between actions.

Greek Thought looks at form and external appearances. Along with form is the concept of a static universe. Quiet contemplation is considered the height of achievement. Working with one’s hands is denigrated in favor of philosophizing and the making of theories.

Hebrew Thought looks for patterns. There is the natural beat of time, from heartbeats to the patterns of day and night, months and years. This is also a way to combine both particulars and universals, for though particulars (objects and/or actions) may not be exactly like other particulars, they fit patterns that point to universals.

Greek Thought looks at either individuals or universals, but not both at the same time. In fact, the two are divided from each other by what Francis Schaeffer called “the line of despair”.

Hebrew Thought is democratic. In government and society this is expressed as Lex Rex, where the law is king and even the king is subject to it. All people are equal under the law, only on the basis of office are some allowed to have authority over others, God being the ultimate law giver. In music, this is expressed in that the different voices are all melodic, but they work together to make the whole, in other words, the music of Händel and Bach are good examples of Hebrew Thought.

Greek Thought is dictatorial or anarchic. In government this is expressed in the idea of Rex Lex, where the king and the government are above the law, for they are the law givers. It also teaches the divine right of kings to rule as they wish. In music, there is either one melodic voice where the others are supportive of the one, as in Vivaldi, Hayden and Beethoven, or the other extreme where all the voices are autonomous and the music falls apart, as in Schoenberg.

Hebrew Thought is audial. Though there are more synonyms for the verb to see than for any other verb in ancient Hebrew, the most important thing repeatedly told in the Bible is to listen to God’s word. Even all the signs and portents were to be evaluated on the basis of the listened word of God. Until the time of Augustine, all reading was done out loud (a neighbor taught him how to read silently), therefore all reading resulted in listening to the word. Furthermore, listening takes time, is active and is best remembered when listening to patterns, such as poetry.

Greek Thought is visual. An object can be viewed in an instant, with no reference to history or action. But again, without history, we are left as said one ancient Greek philosopher, “One cannot step into the same river twice” because by the time he steps into the river a second time, it has already changed.

Results of different ways of thinking

The claim exists that Hebrew Thought leads to psychological understanding while Greek Thought to objective truth. That is not true. Both deal with both psychological understanding and objective truth. Part of Hebrew Thought’s practicality listed above is the call for individual and corporate response to the objective truths presented in Hebrew Thought, whereas Greek Thought leads to privatizing, internalizing and making a psychological response to its claims. For example, the Hebrew response to misery is charity and/or attempts to solve the causes of that misery, the Greek response is a feel good response such as raising a person’s self image.

Of the reformers, Luther was the one who was most consistently Hebrew in his theology. That is probably the major reason he did not make a systematic theology, nor did he try to. He recognized that some of his teachings appear to contradict, but he made no effort to make them logically consistent. His attitude was that the Bible teaches what it teaches, even if he didn’t understand all of it.

Hebrew Thought, introduced to Europe through the Reformation and is uniquely connected with the Bible, was indispensable for the development of modern science. Some of the ancient Greeks had the concepts that nature was worth studying, that we should expect it to have logical construction and that we should be able to understand it, but with very rare exceptions, they did not have the concept of function needed to develop this understanding into science (Archemedes is the only one I can think of off hand, though Ptolomy may also fit). What the ancient Greeks lacked were the concepts of an active universe and the importance of getting one’s hands dirty with experimentation. I have speculated in the past, wondering if science can survive the paganizing of the West: according to my theorizing, it should not, and increasingly I see signs that it will not.

Unique concepts that Hebrew Thought contributed to science:

history: the recognition of process from beginning to end
function: that we are looking at actions, forms only secondarily
scientific method: active observation and experiments (gathering of data), looking for patterns and classifying of such (making hypotheses and theories) and the concept that observation trumps theory.

Hebrew Thought gave us our modern concepts of government, where there is equality under the law. While there are many examples where people did not follow the ideals, that did not nullify the ideals, rather they were used as spurs to greater conformity to the ideals. That was one of the major influences behind the U.S. Constitution as forming a representative republic while the founders of this country despised democracy.

In closing, Hebrew Thought in the West led to the development of science, while Greek Thought led to philosophy. Hebrew Thought gave the action, Greek Thought the emphasis on logic. Hebrew Thought to a Constitutional Republic, Greek Thought to anarchy or tyranny.