Within the whole corpus of the Biblical text we find evidence of two very different logic systems and thought processes. Here we will delve into contrasting the two logic and thought processes of the Hebrew and Greek cultures, specifically in terms of linguistics, and cultural practices and world views.
Thoughts are expressed in the form of words, or combinations thereof, no matter the language being used. The problem is that a given word (or combination of words) may have a different meaning depending on the culture in which it is being read. We have already seen that not all words in a source text have precisely like meanings when translated into a receiving language, and that idioms or speech mannerisms do not directly translate. Moreover, not every word or expression can be translated with complete accuracy, simply because the meaning in the source language may not exist in the receiving language. Also, we have seen that language is what drives culture or, stated another way, if you change the language you change the culture. Thus, the definition of a given word or expression is going to be directly related to the culture in which the word or expression is used. Without having a fundamental understanding of the source culture in which a passage of Scripture was originally written, there is a strong likelihood that certain passages will not be understood in the manner that the original writer intended. Naturally, this problem is compounded when text has gone through more than one translation to reach the final receiving text.
Seekers of Biblical truth need to understand that Hebrew (the original language of the Bible) thought and logic views the world through the senses. This is known as concrete thought, which relates to the five tangible senses (1) of sight, touch, smell, taste and hearing, as previously noted. Conversely, Greek thought and logic views the world through the mind or intellect. This is known as abstract thought, which relates to mental perceptions, and of course can vary from one person to another.
In addition to the above, we need to understand that Hebrew thought perceives and describes objects in relation to their function or application in real life. Greek thought, on the other hand, perceives and describes objects in terms of their form or appearance. Take, for example, a common pencil. The Hebrew mindset will describe this object in terms of its function, using the verb “to write,” or “for writing.” The Greek mindset will describe a pencil in terms of its form and appearance, using adjectives such as “it is yellow and about 7 inches long.” The Hebrew is decidedly prone towards using verbs (action) far more than the Greek, which is adjective (form) oriented in describing objects (nouns).
Finally, in our western culture, which is heavily Greco-Roman influenced, verbs express action (dynamics), while nouns express static (inanimate) objects. Unique to the Hebrew, all things are in motion (i.e., dynamic or in action), including nouns and verbs. Accordingly, common sentence structure in the Hebrew uses verbs to reveal the action of an object, while nouns reveal an object of action. For example, the word for “king” in the Hebrew is melek or malak. The noun melek is the king who reigns (e.g., see 2 Samuel 2:4). The verb malak is the reign of the king (e.g., see Isaiah 32:1).
Moving on from linguistics, we must remember that the Scriptures are replete with warnings not to mix the ways of the Creator Elohim with those of the nations.(2) From this Biblical evidence we can readily conclude that the prospect of comingling Hebrew thinking with Greek thinking, and expecting any semblance of comprehension, is not possible. When knowingly done, this is tantamount to one shaking his fist in the face of Elohim. Yet, this is precisely what much of man’s errant doctrines and Biblical interpretations have done, and continue to do even to this very day. On the other hand, when done unknowingly, this has birthed much of man’s errant theologies. Perhaps one of the most grievous illustrations of this has been the practice of attempting to interpret the Apostolic Scriptures by draping a Greek logic system atop a text that was thoroughly dependent on an understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures, and written using Hebrew thinking and logic. Clearly, the writers of the Apostolic Scriptures contemplated that the early recipients of the message would be familiar with Hebrew logic and thought processes. This is more than adequately proven by the extensive Hebraisms, Hebrew syntax and textual structures found in the oldest extant Apostolic manuscripts. The idea that the “New Testament” was first penned in Greek, and therefore should be interpreted and understood using Greek oriented thinking, is simply the result of uninformed scholarship.
Our western, heavily Greek influenced culture can be traced back through history to as early as Egypt, and dominance of the Egyptian dynasties of the then known world. Working back from the founding of the United States of America, our founding Fathers and the early colonists were influenced by their British homeland and its culture. The British Isles were influenced by Roman culture and law, which inherited much of its culture from Greece, which in particular received considerable of its religious ideals from Egypt. Thus, we see where a mixture of social, political and religious traditions became amalgamated and moved forward in time, from close of the period of Alexander the Great (323 B.C.) to the death of Cleopatra VII in 30 B.C. Cleopatra was the last Macedonian ruler of Egypt. What emerged from within this period was a compounding of Macedonian and Near Eastern traditions, which dominated the political, social, religious and, overall cultural structure of the eastern Mediterranean basin and its surrounding areas.
The term adopted to describe this cultural structure was “Hellenism.” The “Helen” of Hellenism, or Hellenistic thought is rooted in the writings of a blind poet named Homer (c. 10th Century, B.C. Greek poet). Homer is the reputed author of the “The Iliad” and “The Odyssey,” two epics set in the time frame of 12th Century B.C., and about a war between Greece and the City of Troy. Interestingly, some Greek scholars question whether the man Homer actually lived. However, the writings allegedly attributed to Homer had major influences on Greek philosophy, religion, science, and social justice.
Fundamentally, Hellenism portrays the idea that a mixed, cosmopolitan form of social and cultural life combining Greek, Hellenistic thought with the indigenous customs and traditions of the eastern Mediterranean region emerged, gradually infusing itself in the aftermath of Alexander the Great’s conquests, and resultant dominance of the eastern Mediterranean basin. At the time of Yeshua, and later the Apostle Paul, many Jews were influenced by this infusion, resulting in a mix of Hebraic ethnicity with the Greek world view. (3)
The Greeks of course were polytheistic (recognizing multiple gods), as were the Egyptians before them, and the Romans after them. The Greeks were also humanistic, placing their faith in the mind and its intellectual capabilities. The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384 – 322 B.C.), a student of Greek philosopher Plato (428? – 348 B.C.), became the tutor for Alexander the Great, hired by his father Philip in 342 B.C. Aristotle had a profound impact on Alexander as a youth and young man. Aristotle taught in the areas of geography, botany, zoology, cosmology and medicine. Alexander accepted his teachings and, above all, learned to rely on the intellect. Third (but earliest) of the three most influential of the Greek philosophers was Socrates (469? – 399 B.C.), who was the teacher and mentor of Plato.
These three (Socrates, Plato and Aristotle) Greek thinkers have had almost unimaginable influence on the western world and, in particular, its social and religious culture and thinking.
Plato was a member of the social elite, and through this avenue he had tremendous impact on the religious thinking of the time. His most significant effect on religious matters was the “dualism of man.” He taught that only the soul was good; the flesh was evil and could do no good. The body was only a passing stage of man’s cosmic existence. Only the soul had any involvement in the future, and thus the body was irrelevant. Only those in the highest class, the “educated,” could grasp this thinking, it was taught. And it was this ruling class who possessed the ‘knowledge’ to determine policies, making decisions on who would be allowed to mate with whom, with the objective of producing the most intellectually excellent children. To achieve this goal children of this class lived together in communal halls, grouped together in a common environment overseen by special caretakers (i.e., a public school setting, likened to uniform indoctrination).
Plato initiated the era of “sophists,” philosophers who carried forth his teaching that physical matters are matters of human relativism. Thus matters of family, government, education, law or customs were all relative because they were outside of the area of the soul. Accordingly, for example, truth was to be determined through persuasiveness. Whoever could put forth the most compelling argument was the possessor of truth. There were no absolutes surrounding any matters of human existence or interaction. The Hellenistic age can be described as one in which there was no anchor, no stability from one generation to another, being engulfed instead in mixture and confusion.
From the above environment was birthed the Epicurean and Stoic schools of thought, based on the Greek concept of multiple gods. The ‘gods’ it was believed were not infallible, and thus were subject to failures, emotional variations and vacillation. To deal with this understanding and help explain life in the Greek world, many less prevalent schools and philosophies surfaced as well.
Taking their name from the founder, Epicurus (341 – 271 B.C.), the Epicureans believed humans should pursue pleasure and happiness. The best way to do this was to avoid distasteful encounters by turning inward and congregating only with like-minded people. They sought to avoid excess and the fear of death by seeking tranquility and freedom of pain. Because the gods took no notice of human affairs, humans had no reason to fear the gods.
Founded by Zeno of Citium, the Stoics pursued a less isolationist life style. They sought virtue and were resigned to fate, thus denying free will. Stoics were pantheists (4) who saw the universe as ruled by an absolute Purpose or Will, to which a person had to conform his or her will, unmoved by external circumstances. The person who did this would reach the perfection of virtue. By-products of this philosophy were pride and self-sufficiency. The Stoics presented an arrogant response to the Gospel message (see Acts 17:18,32).
Finally, within this period of history arose what is known as Gnosticism. In the Greek, Gnosis means knowledge. Gnosticism became a religious sect at the time of Yeshua. And it was a factor the Apostle Paul had to deal with, particularly in Colosse, where one form of Gnosticism was prevalent (see Colossians 2:20-23). Those who practiced this philosophy were known as Gnostics, and essentially had replaced faith or trust in a creator with intellect, or knowledge. Gnostics, and other philosophical groups like them, became antinomians, or anti-law (against the laws of Elohim).
What is interesting is that the word for ‘anti’ in the Hebrew is tachat (transliterated), which means ‘instead of’ or ‘in place of.’ In reality, what has occurred is that people are not against laws, they simply replace the laws they do not like or believe in, such as God’s Written Laws, with others more to their liking. History reveals that no society of man, no matter how small and primitive or large and sophisticated, can survive without certain absolutes (i.e., rules and laws). Ironically, mankind seems to have thought that freedom can be equated with freedom from rules and laws. Wherever tried this has quickly resulted in chaos, been short lived, and has not manifested itself in freedom of any form.Within the whole realm of Christendom the antinomian theology has resulted in attempts to allegorize or spiritualize portions of the Biblical text, particularly those of the Old Testament Scriptures addressing Elohim’s Written Laws. Allegorizing the text operates to cast aside the literal, historical import of the message and instruction, opening it up to the whims of varying symbolic interpretations. From this the reality of God’s Written Word becomes a jumble of opinion and mystical application, leading to intellectual emptiness and confusion.
Gnosticism too followed the Greek philosophy that matter was inherently evil, and only non-physical, spiritual realities (e.g., one’s soul) were good. The moral outcome of this thinking took on two different forms. One was the tendency towards unbridled indulgence concerning the body. The reasoning essentially was that since the body was evil and the spirit (soul) good, nothing done by the body could harm the spirit. Thus, one faction of Gnosticism tended to give license to every sensual desire, denying themselves absolutely nothing. One outworking of this was rampant homosexuality, temple prostitution and many other deviated acts in the name of religious activities. Secondly, another diametrically opposed faction subscribed to asceticism.(5) Ascetics reasoned that since all matter was evil, including the body, the body should be denied every pleasure. They believed that denial of the body would elevate the spirit. The Ascetics found the textually extrapolated Jewish oral laws to be alluring. These strict laws (see Colossians 2:16-19) meshed rather easily with their harsh, self-denying beliefs and rituals. The Apostle Paul warned that such rituals were meaningless and carried no spiritual value (see Colossians 2:20-23).
Closely paralleling the Ascetic beliefs were those of the Stoics, mentioned above. Again, they believed that through self-control and endurance, and the shunning of all emotions, one would attain peace and tranquility. Other schools of Greek thought existed as well, each attempting to provide an explanation of life – all missing the mark. The result, again, was the infusing of various beliefs and religious philosophies, in combination with reverence of the multiple gods of the Greek world.
Principle among the problems created by the above beliefs, besides utter confusion, was denial of the Messiah Yeshua. Due to their fundamental belief that flesh was evil, they could not accept that the incarnate Yeshua could possibly be good, or bear a message of true salvation, later carried on through His disciples. Instead, Gnostics subscribed to their intellect as being a superior source of salvation, all the while continuing to abuse, corrupt or deny the body, depending on the particular strain of Gnosticism. A number of 1st and 2nd Century A.D. philosophies concluded that Yeshua was simply a spirit of the Messiah, since the ‘deity’ would not have an evil body, as all flesh and material things were evil and wicked. Principal among these teachers was Marcion (c. 85? – 160 A.D.), although he was later declared a heretic by a majority of the early Church Fathers.
So the Greek Gnostic thinking was heavily oriented around the logos, or ultimate knowledge and the Sophia, or Greek wisdom. Once again this led to no rules or absolutes for the body, and no overriding spiritual or ethical guidance for the soul. (6)
(1) Adapted from Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible, by Jeff A. Benner, Pgs. 11-12.[Benner, Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible: 11-12]
(2) See, e.g., Genesis 3:15, 25:23, 29-34; Exodus 23:19b, 34:26b; John 17:14-19, 18:36; 1 Cor. 2:12; James 4:4
(3) Adapted from Let This Mind Be in You, by Bradford Scott, Wildbranch Ministry, www.wildbranch.org [Scott, Let This Mind Be in You ]
(4) Pantheism is a philosophical doctrine that identifies the universe with God; denies God’s personality, and expresses the tendency to identify God with nature; yet, sees God as a transcendent reality, of which the universe and man are only manifestations.
(5) The practice of religious austerities; rigorous abstinence, or strict denial of bodily pleasures; extreme self-discipline.
(6) The foregoing adapted from Let This Mind Be in You, Ibid.
Comments