# Hebrew v. Greek



## Carolyn (Jan 18, 2007)

I read the following post yesterday on Doug Wilson's blog.

http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=3390&Data=3003#posts

(sorry, I don't know how to do the neat link)

Is there a thread here that explains the "either/or" approach he and many of the commentors are taking in the above post? I figured out that Greek=Enlightenment=WSC only=bad and Hebrew=Postmodern=good. What is the point of choosing one or the other though?

Is the point that "Hebrew"-style layering would result in dialog as people discuss which "layer" is operating on a particular passage, and "Greek"-style interpretation involves "truth-claims" which are suspect?

I apologize if this question is too simplistic or off-base because I missed an obvious point in the referenced post. 

Thank you for any help you might be able to offer.


Carolyn Martinson
Attending Covenant Presbyterian OPC, Baldwin, WI
River Falls, WI


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 18, 2007)

Either way Doug Wilson doesn't know Hebrew or Greek.


----------



## tewilder (Jan 18, 2007)

Carolyn said:


> I read the following post yesterday on Doug Wilson's blog.
> 
> http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=3390&Data=3003#posts
> 
> ...



This Hebrew mentality vs. Greek mentality is one of the recurring themes in Federal Vision. It goes back to James Jordan, and it is a contributing factor to the emergence of a lot of the FV wierdness. It was debunked by scholars before the FV even picked it up, but it continues to be popular in the FV, and like many of their other ideas, such as their Calvin vs. the Calvinists notions of the emergence of "decretal" theology, their supposing that the Enlightenment happened in the mid-sixteenth century etc. it shows how the FV is very much an amateur contruction.

Jordan believed that Adam and Eve spoke Hebrew before the Fall, and that we need to learn Hebrew so that we can learn the correct concepts that we are supposed to think with. In this way the FV is a lot like hermeticism or traditional Chinese philosophy with their pursuit of the "rectification of language" trying to get back to the true uncorrupted language, true concepts, true symbols, etc. as a way to straitening things out.


----------



## Archlute (Jan 18, 2007)

Dr. Clark knows of an essay in the WTJ written some years ago by Mike Horton that addressed this false dichotomy. I found it helpful, although even without reading it one can see the silliness of their proposition. Maybe he could come along and give the precise journal issue and number? 

I remember him saying that this article had been written some time back (a decade or more?), and that the FV guys have all systematically ignored interacting with it, or even acknowledging its existence. Who knows, maybe their ministers don't read scholarly journals?


----------



## Theoretical (Jan 18, 2007)

tewilder said:


> This Hebrew mentality vs. Greek mentality is one of the recurring themes in Federal Vision. It goes back to James Jordan, and it is a contributing factory to the emergence of a lot of the FV wierdness. It was debunked by scholars before the FV even picked it up, but it continues to be popular in the FV, and like many of their other ideas, such as their Calvin vs. the Calvinists notions of the emergence of "decretal" theology, their supposing that the Enlightenment happened in the mid-sixteenth century etc. it shows how the FV is very much an amateur contruction.
> 
> Jordan believed that Adam and Eve spoke Hebrew before the Fall, and that we need to learn Hebrew so that we can learn the correct concepts that we are supposed to think with. In this way the FV is a lot like hermeticism or traditional Chinese philosophy with their pursuit of the "rectification of language" trying to get back to the true uncorrupted language, true concepts, true symbols, etc. as a way to straitening things out.


Fascinating to see this brought up, as I've run into it before from a very off-kilter and self-educated, practically self-appointed Bible teacher who is very postmodern now. A few years ago, this thinking got me very messed up in the head as I was having to deal with this sort of "secret knowledge/hermeneutic" businesss. It does make sense that the FV advocates would love this dichotomy, given my experience with this particular sub-set of the teaching.


----------



## tewilder (Jan 19, 2007)

Theoretical said:


> Fascinating to see this brought up, as I've run into it before from a very off-kilter and self-educated, practically self-appointed Bible teacher who is very postmodern now. A few years ago, this thinking got me very messed up in the head as I was having to deal with this sort of "secret knowledge/hermeneutic" businesss. It does make sense that the FV advocates would love this dichotomy, given my experience with this particular sub-set of the teaching.



I should probably add there there seems to be a sort of generational division here. The younger guys in the FV are out of the universities where they learned their relativism and love of paradox from people like Derrida, while the older founding generation of the FV got it from Van Til. The younger ones coming out of seminary were taught in places like Westminster that Hebrew only came into existence at the time of the united monarchy (so nothing in the Bible could have been written before then). This sort of teaching shocks and appalls people like Jordan. 

What holds the young and old together is more the FV theology of worship, as found in Meyers's book, for example, and the fact that they are making common cause against the TRs in the PCA and OPC. This unity will not last.


----------



## Carolyn (Jan 19, 2007)

Archlute said:


> Dr. Clark knows of an essay in the WTJ written some years ago by Mike Horton that addressed this false dichotomy. I found it helpful, although even without reading it one can see the silliness of their proposition. Maybe he could come along and give the precise journal issue and number?



I would be interested if someone could provide the WTJ issue information, if not the actual article. I think the back issues are on sale for the time being!

I don't know how much time and effort I should devote to understanding (or trying to) all this.

Thank you all for your help.

Carolyn Martinson
Attending Covenant Presbyterian OPC, Baldwin, WI
River Falls, WI


----------



## tewilder (Jan 19, 2007)

Carolyn said:


> I would be interested if someone could provide the WTJ issue information, if not the actual article. I think the back issues are on sale for the time being!
> 
> I don't know how much time and effort I should devote to understanding (or trying to) all this.
> 
> ...



James Barr and Brevard Childs are the names that I have heard associated with the refutation of the dichotomy. There is something about this in Paul Wells's _James Barr and the Bible._


----------

