Hebrews and Greeks...

HLF · (#1 (**permalink**))

This topic is from an outgrowth from 'have you read the whole Bible?'as well as the general discussion of the Hebrew/Israelites and the Greeks [Greco-Romans], in the addition of misconceptions of who these people were and are todaytime and time again.

I have been reading a book by the name, "Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek", which discussesthe very link of language to culture to a people. Pertaining to the bible, the Old Testament and New Testament, that is exactly what it is, two languages-cultures-people, but one derived their works from the other.

First I would like to start off my mentioning that Hebrew is described as a semtic language, which pertains to the culture of the people, greek is described as an indo-european language, which similardesignations in relation to culture and its people.

Page 12enotes twoseparate forms of thinking found in church history/history of dogma,this includes the original Hebrew Word, known as the Old Testament and the Greek New Testament."both kinds of thinking are encountered, sometimes in harmony, as in the leading personages of the ancient church, cheifly Augustine, and some times in disharmony and opposition (ex. from book: conflict between Realism and Nominalism in the Middle Ages [for white people]).

Between the pages of 12-13, the author talks about how the major factor in division of church was difference in thepsychology of religious life and thought, not spiritual, because religion (root latin word religio) is based in the physical, which is an inherent dependency upon the five senses, nothing higher, but definitelylower (thus the saying "Seeing is believing") realms of sensory perception. The author denotes harmony as a "semitic element" and not european, but he uses this external principle in the cohesion of a few european examples: Michelangelosculpture compared to the harmony of classic greek sculpture/ Galileo's physics in comparison with Aristotelian physics (we all knowing where physics origins from as a science, from the people of Akebulan [Africa]). We do not see harmony in religion, let alone for example of Euro-religion,the Christian religion with all of its denominations and sects.

Page 17: "Christianity arose from Jewish soil (Judaism); Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic, a language related to Hebrew..." Despite the lack of practical cohesionbetween Hebrew and Aramaicin reference to the writings of the bible, the new Testament was written in Greek, yet again the two testaments lack cohesiveharmonybesidesverse snippets thatthe New Testament has taken from the Old Testament and perverted: "As the New Testament writings show, they were firmly rooted in the Old Testament..." Those who have studied the bible down to the original language of both works tothe language difference know this.The author writes the following on page 19: "It can be regarded as generally recognized that Hebrew thinking is dynamic and Greek static..." Nowthe Jews took their religion from the spirituality of an much more ancient people; no one in the Old Testament called themselves "Jewish", yet no Jewish people call themselves Hebrew nor Israelites, this is the realm which they speak very little about, that is because they are neither. Hovering upon the point on page 58: The Israelite-oriental [same as afro-asiatic] conception of the word, is formally the opposite of the Greek conception." Page 24:"...Ernst Cassirer, a Jew who knew Hebrew (not just a Hebrew that spoke hebrew?)...Cassirer thinks as a European (because he is, he isGerman [picture]), more precisely as a kantian.."

Page 189: "Quick(,Canon)is fairer to the Greek way of thinking than other theologians who have dealt with the same subject, even he comes finally to the conclusion that the Israelite's dynamic way of thinking is more valuableand more necessary for religious thinking than the Greek." Truthfully, the Israelites way of thinking is more necessary for spiritual thinking, because a core of this sort of thinking is understanding, which envolves understanding everything, the truth from the lie, the righteous from the wicked, everything. What elsemakes thisway of thinking so important? That I will later explain in the continuation of this writing. Last but not least is this thought from the book (same page) "What I conceive as atree cannot be only my conception, for no tree exists therein; the tree must be objective."