Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

A little understanding is needed here.

What we are running into here are the differences between what
philosophers call "Hebrew Thought" verses "Greek Thought". What
follows are a few comparisons:

Hebrew Thought (H)—function, Greek Thought (G)—form
H—action, G—repose
H—internal reality, G—external appearance
H—historical, G—ahistorical
in understanding categories, H—based on universal principles, G—each
case defined on its own
H—gives primacy to the practical, even where the logic is not
understood, G—looks for a logical unity
And there are some categories in each way of thinking where there is
no corresponding aspect for contrast in the other.

Now what we have here is that, philosophically thinking, Yitzhak is
Greek, while Harold Holmyard, I and in this case Peter Kirk are all
Hebrew. According to form, since atheism is defined as not a
theological belief, then Yitzhak's arguments are not theological;
according to universal principles and function, they are theological.

Thus both Yitzhak on the one side, and Harold and Peter on the other,
are correct.

These differences have come up before, in discussions on word
understanding on this forum: lexicographers such as Gesenius, BDB,
etc. base their definitions on Greek thinking, I on Hebrew: I look at
the underlying action that is expressed in different forms (contexts)
and because I recognize one action I see one definition; they look at
the different forms and so claim that there are multiple definitions.
This is true also of lexica based on semantic domains, as far as I can
tell.

Karl W. Randolph.


On 11/15/06, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/15/06, Peter Kirk wrote:
> > On 14/11/2006 23:06, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
> >
> > > ...  Also, skepticism about the historical reality
> > > underlying the Biblical claims is not a theological position.  Theology 
> is the
> > > study of the divine and the study of history does not need to be related 
> to
> > > the study of the divine (unless that is a theological position you hold). 
>  So
> > > the position that the book of Ezra must be historically accurate because 
> it is
> > > in the divinely sanctioned canon of books is a theological position.  But 
> the
> > > view that the book of Ezra is not necessarily accurate is not a 
> theological
> > > position.  To put the point further, the book of Hebrews may be in your
> > > theological view, a 1st century book allowing us to see the views of the 
> Jews
> > > at that time.  But for me, it is just a book, ...
> >
> > Yitzhak, I agree with most of what you are saying in this message. It is
> > important to distinguish between the meaning intended for example by
> > Haggai and later interpretations of his book.
> >
> > But on the point above I must disagree with you. You are taking a
> > theological position by rejecting the accuracy of Ezra or the authority
> > of Hebrews. It may be a negative theological position, like that of the
> > atheist who takes the position that there is no God, or perhaps that of
> > the agnostic who takes the position that the existence of God cannot be
> > proved or disproved, but it is still the position you take on a
> > theological issue and so a theological position.
>
> Just because you choose a text to be theologically meaningful to you does
> not automatically make my position regarding that text also theological....
>
> Yitzhak Sapir