Page 1 of 3

Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek Thorleif Boman

Pages 27-30
Dynamic and Static Thinking
The dynamic character of Hebrew verbs of inaction
If Israelite thinking is to be characterized, it is obvious first to call it dynamic, vigorous, passionate, and sometimes quite
explosive in kind; correspondingly Greek thinking is static, peaceful, moderate, and harmonious in kind. Ordinarily
speaking, 'static' is opposed to 'dynamic' as antipodal, but the concept 'static' is unfortunate because it represents only
the negative underside of the dynamic: the rigid, inflexible, and lifeless. Only when dynamic thinking is considered the
ideal does Greek thinking appear static; once it is recognized that Greek thinking is fully the peer of Israelite thinking, an
attempt must be made to give positive expression to the antithesis from the Greek side as well. From that viewpoint
Greek mental activity appears harmonious, prudent, moderate, and peaceful; to the person to whom the Greek kind of
thinking occurs plainly as ideal, Hebrew thinking and its manner of expression appear exaggerated, immoderate,
discordant, and in bad taste. Putting aside the negative, the biased, and the unjust, we intend to understand both
peoples positively from within. The antithesis we have mentioned cannot, then, be simply stated as 'dynamic-static', but
preferably it should be designated dynamic-harmonic or -resting. The terms static-dynamic belong to the realm of
mechanics and physics and are for that reason generally unsuited to express mental qualities; yet they are so well
rooted in our vocabulary that they are scarcely to be avoided.
The idiosyncrasy of a nation or family of nations, a race, finds expression in the language peculiar to them. This is not
least the case with culturally less developed nations and their languages in which the inner logic and its connexion with
the psychology of the nation are easier to Penetrate. In any case, Hebrew, a language exceptionally unusual in our
experience and to our manner of thinking, betrays in many respects the idiosyncrasy of the Israelite psyche. The verbs
especially, whose basic meaning always expresses a movement or an activity, reveal the dynamic variety of the
Hebrews' thinking. When a verb is to express a position like sitting or lying, it is done by a verb which can also designate
a movement. Now the question is how is this possible logically or psychologically? Have we here to establish two distinct
and, to our way of thinking, fundamentally different and contradictory meanings for the same word ? Or has the word
one basic meaning from which its various other meanings arise as nuances ? If the latter is the case, that is if two
opposites appear as related concepts, it must be asked how this is to be explained in connexion with the Hebrew
manner of thinking. Verbs such as the following are to be taken into consideration here: idiosyncrasy of the Israelite
psyche. The verbs especially, whose basic meaning always expresses a movement or an activity, reveal the dynamic
variety of the Hebrews' thinking. When a verb is to express a position like sitting or lying, it is done by a verb which can
also designate a movement. Now the question is, how is this possible logically or psychologically ? Have we here to
establish two distinct and, to our way of thinking, fundamentally different and contradictory meanings for the same word
? Or has the word one basic meaning from which its various other meanings arise as nuances ? If the latter is the case,
that is if two opposites appear as related concepts, it must be asked how this is to be explained in connexion with the
Hebrew manner of thinking. Verbs such as the following are to be taken into consideration here:
gum - arise and stand.
Natsabh - niph. (1) take one's stand; (2) stand.
Amad - (1) alight somewhere; (2) stand.
Yatsabh - hithp. (I) take a (firm) stand; (2) hold one's ground.
Shakhan - (1) stretch oneself out, alight for a while, encamp; (2) dwell. gar(I) settle down as a stranger; (2) dwell.
Shakhabh - (1) stretch oneself out; (2) rest (of animals and men).
Page 2 of 3

Vashabh - (1) sit down; (2) sit; (3) dwell (almost always with a personal subject). Apparent exceptions to these
meanings: Gen. 49.24, where a thing is used in place of a person as the subject of this verb; Ps. 122.5, `there thrones
are set' (yashabh); Jer. 3o.18c, 'and the palace shall stand (yeshebh) where it used to be' (here yeshebh is either to be
deleted as materially and rhythmically superfluous [Kautzsch], or to be translated as 'be occupied' on the analogy of Isa.
13.20; Jer. 17.25; Ezek. 26.20; Zech. 9.5; 12.6, etc. [Kautzsch], or agreeing with the parallelism to be translated as 'be
erected', or else with LXX 'people' is to be read for 'palace' and the passage translated 'the people will dwell'. There is
here no question of 'dwelling' in the same sense as in Isa. 13.2o; Jer. 50.30 [see the discussion below regarding
shakhan]).
Originally gum is a verb of movement meaning 'rise up, raise oneself, rise up in enmity'. Here and there gum does have
the meaning 'stand' : Now your kingdom will not stand, i.e. have no endurance (I Sam. 13.14). For our purpose, those
cases are most instructive where gum, etc. are parallel to a verb of motion because in those instances the dynamic is
self-evident on the principle of parallelismus membrorum, even though our European feeling for style requires a static
concept for a complement since mere repetition is intolerable for us. A few examples will demonstrate this point:
Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord ?
And who shall stand (qumtake his stand) in his holy place ? (Ps. 24.3).
My sheaf arose (qum) and stood upright (natsabhdrew itself up) (Gen. 37.7).
all the people rose up (qum), and every man stood (natsabh) at his tent door . . . (Ex. 33.8). (This is Mowinckel's
translation, but Kautzsch translates with a verb of motion: every man stepped under the door of his tent.
When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend (yaradh) the door of his tent and stand (amad) at the
door of the tent . . . (Ex. 33.9).
Dathan and Abiram came out (yatsa) and stood (natsabh [ptcp.] ) at the door of their tent . . . (Num. 16.27). (This is
Mowinckel's translation, but again Kautzsch uses a verb of motion: and formed up. The meaning is exactly the same, but
the form of the image is different.)
Thou halt established (kun) the earth, and it stands fast (amad) (Ps. 119.90)
... you shall surely be king, and (that) the kingdom of Israel shall be established (qum) in your hand (I Sam. 24.20).
In the negative sense:
He will not be rich, and his wealth shall not endure (qum) (Job 15.29). The Lord has taken his place (natsabh) to
contend, he stands (amad) to judge his people (Isa. 3.13).
These examples show that motion and standing are not opposites as they are for us, but they are so closely related to
one another that together they can form a unity. Movement is carried through to a standstill, or seen from the other side,
standing is viewed as the result of a rising or a placing. As we shall see below, this latter idea concurs with the concep-
tion of 'building'. We can also trace this line of thinking when we compare the 'standing' in a noun clause (in which the
verb is omitted) with the `standing' that we find in sentences of our own language. The 'standing' of trees in a field is a
natural expression for us because we begin from a static image; from that viewpoint it must be granted that the upright
position of a tree is very similar to that of a man standing. If the `standing' is the conclusion, the end, or the result of an
actual or possible rising or being placed, then no similarity exists, and the 'standing' of trees is absurd and non-existent.
We also say that a word stands fast; in such an instance we are thinking of the firmness and validity of the content of the
word. The Israelites did not distinguish between the spokenness of the word and its content; when Jahveh has spoken,
his words stand fast [qum] (Isa. 40.8; Jer. 44.28; 51.29, etc.).
It is in the very nature of verbs of motion and of `stative' verbs that their subject is a man, an animal, or a living being;
Joseph's sheaf behaves like a man, and so do the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars (Gen. 37.9), likewise the sun and
moon in the valley of Aijalon (Josh. 10.12 f.). Of much greater interest are those instances in which the subject is a thing,
cases in which we cannot arrive at the above explanation; they require some other explanation. In the account of
Page 3 of 3

Solomon's throne (I Kings ro.19 f.), alongside the arm-rests stood (amad [ptcp.] ) two lions, and twelve lions stood (amad
[ptcp.] ) on the six steps at both sides. Amad here means no mere 'being' but refers to the position of the lions; they
could just as well be sitting or lying down. At Josh. 11.13, none of the cities that stood (`amad [ptcp.] ) on mounds did
Israel burn (Mowinckel translates the verb 'were put up on' and means by this that the 'standing' of the cities is for the
author the consequence of their having been previously built). The standing of Jordan's waters (Josh. 3.13, 16) is easy
to explain; here the standing of the waters is the end and discontinuance of flowing. On the contrary, the standing of the
waters of the Red Sea like two walls (Ex. 14.22) is not told as a direct consequence of God's action since the passage of
the Israelites intervenes, and it is therefore best expressed by a noun clause. In the Song of Moses, the breath of
Jahveh piles up the water (Ex. 15.8), and so it says here: the floods stood upright (natsabh) like a heap. When the
disease or the itch is not spreading, it stands (amad), or the movement stops (Lev. 13.5, 37). Amad can be used to
express the idea that an expected change does not take place; hence, the taste of the wine stands, i.e. does not alter
(Jer. 48.11), and this is the equivalent of documents that stand, i.e. are well preserved and last (Jer. 32.54). Generations
come and go, but only the earth `stands' for ever (Eccles. 1.4); when wisdom continues to remain, it 'stands' (Eccles.
2.9). So also 'stand' may be the equivalent of 'not die' (Ex. 21.21); again, the waters cease (amad) from their raging
(Jonah 1.15), and this status is one of not moving, not changing.
The verb shakhan usually takes as its subject men, animals, and even God. As is the case with yashabh, however, the
subject can also be a city such as Babel (Isa. 13.20; Jer. 50.39) or Jerusalem (Jer. 33.16); in such cases it must be
translated 'be inhabited'. The Hebrew image can also be the one generally accepted, that the inhabitants of the city are
meant (Ps. 147.12; Isa. 3.8; Jer. 14.2). If shakhan, yatsabh, or amad designates no motion but only a standing still of the
subject, that repose is the end or the result of a movement, or else it contains a latent movement. Thus, he dwells in a
place who has alighted there or who can depart there from; consequently, shakhan, yatsabh could be used only with
such subjects as have done so or can do so, respectively. 'Dwelling' for the Hebrews is related to the person who dwells,
while for the Greeks and for us it is related to the residence and the household goods.
Our analysis of the Hebrew verbs that express standing, sitting, lying, etc., teaches us that motionless and fixed being is
for the Hebrews a nonentity; it does not exist for them. Only 'being' which stands in inner relation with something active
and moving is a reality to them. This could also be expressed: only movement (motion) has reality. To the extent that it
concerned Hebrew thinking at all, static being as a predicate is a motion that has passed over into repose.