Möbius Scripture: Biblical Hebrew as a Proto-Aonic Language of Atemporal Causality

The difference between an Aonic circular framework vs. a “lineareality” is that there is only an ever-changing “point” on a linear timeline, and it never ceases to change its state. There is no beginning, and there is no end. To a linear line, you don’t matter. You hardly exist. In fact, you don’t really exist at all. You are external and disposable. Linear reality is a cursed “time is money” or “live in the moment” scheme because all there is, is the moment. There can never be rest. In a circular framework however, there is self-meaning, self-determination, and best of all, a real potential for completion and perfection. A real rest. In other words, you not only matter and exist, but are essential to the All.

Any child can tell the difference between a circle and a line. These are immutable ideas. Nevertheless the classic example of James 3:6 shows that scholars decided to translate a “circle” as a “line”:

τὸν τροχὸν τῆς γενέσεως

the wheel of the genesis

In every modern translation, including the KJV, this is rendered “the course of nature.” Even the literal ones (YLT, LSV, LITV, BLB), with exception to Julia Smith’s, translate this as a linear course. The course of nature is understood as a linear concept, but a wheel is circular. This is one of the best illustrations of the difference between what is written and the interpretive bias prevailing in modern translations. It is often referred to as “dynamic equivalence.” Yet, how is a line dynamically equivalent to a circle? Anyone can see how this dramatically affects the outcome of what is conceptualized. It is not small. I believe the difference between lines and circles is learned in preschool, if I’m not mistaken.

If a book of life is living and active, live and real-time, you play an integral role. Such a book would be easy to disprove, because it would be inherently and absolutely wrong about everything or, it would be inherently and absolutely right about everything. There would be no gray area. On the other hand, if such a book existed and was covered up, turned into a darkened gray area, grossly distorted into temporal linear frameworks that were never intended, well, it all remains to be seen, and even that becomes part of its own story…

 

Abstract

Biblical Hebrew, a language often marginalized in linguistic typologies due to its lack of tense and sparse case system, may in fact represent a profound grammatical architecture of an alternative temporal consciousness. When analyzed through the lens of Aonic language theory—a speculative linguistic model grounded in Möbius temporality, causal recursion, and non-linear event topology—Hebrew emerges not as primitive, but as prototypical. This paper proposes that Biblical Hebrew functions as a proto-Aonic language: a script of eternal recurrence, causal reflexivity, and atemporal narrative agency. Drawing from aspectual verbal morphology, syntactic recursion, and the absence of accusative time/place as well-documented by Theophile Meek (1940), we argue that the Hebrew Bible is structurally designed to be a “living and active” Möbius-text—designed not to record history, but to enact sacred reality in real time.

1. Time Folded: The Aonic Premise

The theoretical Aonic language presumes a temporal structure that is not linear but looped, folded, or recursively entangled. Events do not proceed along a timeline but emerge from interwoven causal matrices. Under such a paradigm, grammar must:

• Abandon tense in favor of event topology

• Replace fixed pronouns with temporal multiplicities

• Supplant spatial coordinates with resonant zones

• Encode agency as distributed across time

This grammar produces a language capable of articulating Möbius narratives, where identity, action, and causality cannot be temporally situated without distortion (hence the endless problems with trying to extract narratives chronologically, most noteably with the book of Revelation). Hebrew, as we shall see, astonishingly anticipates this very logic.

2. Aspectual Architecture: Time Without Tense

The Hebrew Master Gesenius himself did not recognize the concept of imperfect and perfect verbs outside of temporality and thus assumed inexplicable “peculiar phenomenon” in its usage, while imposing temporal logic upon it:

The use of the two tense-forms…is by no means restricted to the expression of the past or future. One of the most striking peculiarities in the Hebrew consecution of tenses is the phenomenon that, in representing a series of past events, only the first verb stands in the perfect, and the narration is continued in the imperfect. Conversely, the representation of a series of future events begins with the imperfect, and is continued in the perfect. Thus in 2 K 20, In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death (perf.), and Isaiah… came (imperf.) to him, and said (imperf.) to him, &c. On the other hand, Is 7, the Lord shall bring (imperf.) upon thee… days, &c., 7, and it shall come to pass (perf. וְהָיָה) in that day…

This progress in the sequence of time, is regularly indicated by a pregnant and (called wāw consecutive)…

(Gesenius §49.)

What Gesenius calls a “progress in the sequence of time” is better understood as a progression of discourse events within a narrative world. The waw-conversive (ויהי, ויאמר, etc.) is less a marker of time and more a structural operator that realigns the aspect of the verb to continue a narrative sequence. It also maintains thematic cohesion within a frame of realization (for vav-conversive imperfect) or projection (for vav-conversive perfect).

As such, the so-called “change” of tense is a discourse strategy, not a grammatical expression of linear time.

Imposing a temporalist model—past leading to future, or vice versa—is a category error grounded in Indo-European assumptions. It is a hermeneutic distortion, not a linguistic fact. Nearly all Hebrew scholars do this, for what alternative is there? If verb structure in Hebrew encodes a recursive ontology (events are realized through speech, narrative, and participation), then collapsing that into mere chronology erases the sacred recursive grammar.

Biblical Hebrew famously operates without grammatical tense (Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar/106). Instead, it distinguishes between completed (qatal) and incomplete (yiqtol) actions. If an eternal language with an eternal topological aspect, we must understand each binyan not simply as grammatical categories but as functional transformations of agency and causality within a linguistic feedback loop. Each binyan alters the vector of action, location of agency, and direction of recursion in the event structure.

We treat each binyan as a morpho-causal function applied to a verb root (√), transforming the flow of agency and participation of subject/object in the act-event loop.

1. Qal (קַל) — F(x) → Base Actuation

• Function: F(x) = x

• Agency: Direct, unadorned.

• Causality: Linear cause from agent to act.

• Participation: External: The subject initiates; the object receives.

• Aonic view: The base level of causal instantiation. A single fold of the loop.

• Ex. שבר (shāvar) — “he broke [something]”

  The act simply is.

2. Niphal (נִפְעַל) — Self-Folding Function

• Function: F(x) = x(x)

• Agency: Reflexive or passively internalized.

• Causality: The agent becomes the recipient of its own act.

• Participation: Internal: Loop closes on self.

• Aonic view: A loopback structure. The event is recursive in the self.

• Ex. נשבר (nishbar) — “he was broken”

  The agent and patient converge. The act returns.

3. Piel (פִּעֵל) — Amplified Function

• Function: F(x) = xⁿ

• Agency: Intensified, deliberate, or repeated.

• Causality: Agent amplifies the act beyond normal bounds.

• Participation: External, but expanded in force or scope.

• Aonic view: Resonant feedback—recursion deepens.

• Ex. שבר (shibber) — “he smashed”

  The act echoes, not just occurs.

4. Pual (פּוּעַל) — Passive of Amplified Function

• Function: F(x) = (xⁿ)*

• Agency: Absorbed from an external amplifier.

• Causality: Object is shaped by intensified external act.

• Participation: Object locked in the resonant loop of action.

• Aonic view: Passive harmonics—being acted upon by the intensified loop.

• Ex. שבר (shubbar) — “it was smashed”

  Echo received; form shattered.

5. Hiphil (הִפְעִיל) — Causal Operator Function

• Function: F(x) = cause(x)

• Agency: Subject initiates a second-order act.

• Causality: Subject causes another to perform an act.

• Participation: Meta-agent; insertion of will into another loop.

• Aonic view: Loop initiates new loop—a generative recursion.

• Ex. השביר (hishbir) — “he caused to break”

  Agent writes a loop into another.

6. Hophal (הָפְעַל) — Passive of Causal Operator

• Function: F(x) = caused(x)

• Agency: Subject is the outcome of someone else’s Hiphil.

• Causality: Act occurs as an embedded recursive operation.

• Participation: Passive but within an active loop.

• Aonic view: The result of recursive causation; passive node in a nested loop.

• Ex. השבר (hoshbar) — “it was caused to break”

  Agent disappears; recursion remains.

7. Hithpael (הִתְפַּעֵל) — Reflexive Recursive Function

• Function: F(x) = x↻x

• Agency: Subject acts upon self in a patterned or ritual form.

• Causality: Looped reflexivity with intent or rhythm.

• Participation: Full self-involvement in an internalized pattern.

• Aonic view: The recursive subject; the act of becoming via internal mirroring.

• Ex. התקדש (hitkadesh) — “he sanctified himself”

  The loop sanctifies its own form.

Binyan	Function	Agency	Causal Type	Aonic Role
Qal	F(x) = x	Direct	Linear	Root actuation
Niphal	F(x) = x(x)	Reflexive/Passive	Recursive internalization	Loop on self
Piel	F(x) = xⁿ	Intensified	Resonant expansion	Recursive intensification
Pual	F(x) = (xⁿ)*	Passive (Piel)	Resonant reception	Echoed causality
Hiphil	F(x) = cause(x)	Causative	Nested loop initiation	Creator of recursive loops
Hophal	F(x) = caused(x)	Passive (Hiphil)	Nested passive recursion	Receiver of embedded act
Hithpael	F(x) = x↻x	Reflexive/Reciprocal	Ritualized self-recursion	Self-generative loop

The lack of the accusative of time and place is not a deficiency—it is a topological reorientation. Actions in Hebrew are not anchored to past or future, but to states of completeness within a causal manifold. A qatal verb may appear in future contexts, while a yiqtol form may invoke past prophecy—because the grammatical reality is aspectual, not chronological.

This mirrors Aonic event-markers like:

• ⊛ (“bootstrap causality”)

• ∴ (“structural consequence”)

• ∞ (“eternal coexistence”)

Hebrew verbs do not tell when something happens. They tell how the event participates in the broader loop of divine narrative.

3. Recursive Revelation: Möbius Semantics in Prophetic Texts

Hebrew prophetic literature collapses traditional narrative structure. The “future” is spoken as already occurred; the past is reinterpreted in light of the present; and divine speech often functions as causative agent rather than commentary.

Consider the literal Isaiah 46:10:

“Declaring the backside from the head, and from the front/east that which has not yet been made.”

This is not poetic metaphor—it is semantic recursion. The structure here reflects an Aonic Möbius:

• Beginning causes End (↺)

• End retroactively affirms Beginning (⇌)

• The utterance is both prophecy and act (⊛)

This recursive quality imbues Hebrew scripture with a timeless operationality: each reading reactivates the text, looping the reader into its semantic causality.

4. Absence as Design: No Accusative of Time or Place

Theophile James Meek’s 1940 study, “The Hebrew Accusative of Time and Place,” reveals Hebrew’s stark divergence from Indo-European grammar. Meek shows:

• Temporal expressions lack accusative marking

• Spatial references rely on prepositions or constructs

• There is no productive case system for where or when

Why? Because in Hebrew, time and place are not containers for action. They are relational predicates within event networks.

Instead of saying:

• “He waited for an hour” (duration)

• “She entered the house” (spatial target)

Biblical Hebrew would say:

• ביום ההוא (“in that day/day of Himself”) — a symbolic convergence

• במקום אשר יבחר יהוה (“in the place which Yahweh shall choose”) — a resonant zone, not a GPS coordinate

In Aonic terms, these are:

• Node Convergence (⊛)

• Event Resonance (∞)

• Topological Anchors rather than Cartesian locations

5. Lexical Möbius: Semantic Folding in Hebrew Roots

Hebrew’s triliteral roots function much like Aonic polychronic lexemes. Consider the speculative root zol from an Aonic grammar framework:

• zol₁ = to create (forward causality)

• zol₂ = to preserve (backward causality)

• zol₃ = to ensure always-having-occurred (recursive causality)

This mirrors how Hebrew roots, via binyanim (verb patterns), generate webs of meaning not along a timeline but across causal topologies:

Take שוב (shuv, to return):

• In Qal: to turn back around (act of turning back)

• In Hiphil: to bring back (cause to return)

• In Piel: to restore, to renew

These are not tense-shifts. They are shifts in causal valence—agency modulated not through time but through recursion.

6. The Greek Challenge: James 3:6 as a Litmus Test

What are the implications of this on the usage of the Greek, a fundamentally temporal language?

The distinction between a circular (Aonic) temporal framework and a linear temporal framework is not merely an abstract theoretical exercise; it has direct implications for translation and interpretive practice. Let’s return to the case of James 3:6:

τὸν τροχὸν τῆς γενέσεως
ton trochon tēs geneseōs
— literally, “the wheel of genesis” or “the wheel of birth.”

This phrase is consistently rendered in nearly all modern English translations—including the KJV, NIV, ESV, NASB—as “the course of nature,” thereby transposing the inherently circular concept of τροχός (wheel) into a linear trajectory (“course”). Even the so-called literal translations (YLT, LSV, LITV, BLB) follow suit—excepting only the Julia Smith translation, which preserves the circular reading. This subtle yet decisive shift exemplifies the interpretive bias favoring linearity that permeates modern hermeneutics.

From an Aonic perspective, this is a critical loss. A wheel (τροχός) represents not merely motion but recursive, continuous motion—a topology of eternal return. It is a Möbius-analogous structure, where origin and end, cause and effect, perpetually fold into one another. Translating it as a “course,” by contrast, imposes an external linear temporality—a sequence of moments strung along an irreversible line—erasing the recursive causality embedded in the Greek expression.

This divergence is not trivial. As noted in our analysis of Biblical Hebrew, temporal constructs are not mere chronological markers but topological operators within a recursive event-structure. The Hebrew Bible’s aspectual architecture mirrors this: the lack of an accusative of time or place invites the reader to inhabit a network of causal entanglement rather than a linear sequence of events. In the same way, the Greek phrase τροχὸς τῆς γενέσεως encodes a cosmological model that is cyclic and recursive—a generative wheel of existence—rather than a disposable linear process.

If the New Testament inherits and transforms the Aonic temporal consciousness of the Hebrew Bible, then the translation of τροχὸς as “course” constitutes not merely a semantic shift but a paradigmatic distortion. It collapses the recursive Möbius structure of sacred causality into the flat Cartesian timeline of modernity—a timeline in which events proceed from past to future, erasing the possibility of sacred recursion, eschatological convergence, or cosmic return.

In the Aonic view, every reader is invited into this wheel: to participate in the unfolding genesis not as a passive observer but as an essential node within the recursive structure of divine narrative. The translation of James 3:6 thus becomes a litmus test for the deeper question: do we read the text as a living, recursive engine—activated through reading and participation—or as a dead linear artifact to be consumed at arm’s length?

7. The Aonic Reading of NT Greek

The question arises: Could New Testament Greek, commonly analyzed as a linear Indo-European language, nevertheless be written in a way that harmonizes with the Aonic circularity characteristic of Biblical Hebrew? To address this, let us consider Mark 5:5 as a case study:

Καὶ διὰ παντὸς νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι καὶ ἐν τοῖς ὄρεσιν ἦν κράζων καὶ κατακόπτων ἑαυτὸν λίθοις.

And through everything, night and day, in the tombs and on the mountains he was crying out and cutting himself with stones.

At first glance, this verse appears thoroughly linear: a temporal adverbial phrase (“night and day”) followed by a continuous aspectual participle (“he was crying out and cutting himself”), suggesting habitual or ongoing action in a linear temporal frame. However, closer textual analysis reveals a structure that resonates with an Aonic topology, subtly embedding circularity and recursive causality within the ostensibly linear grammar.

Participial Syntax as Recursive Loop

The participial construction ἦν κράζων καὶ κατακόπτων ἑαυτὸν (“he was crying out and cutting himself”) traditionally signals continuous or habitual action. Yet, in Koine Greek, such participial structures are not merely descriptive; they are durative and aspectual, suspending the subject in an ongoing state that is both present and iterative. The participle here is not simply marking the passage of time but reifying the subject’s perpetual state within a recursive existential loop. Thus, “crying out and cutting himself” is not a sequence of actions but an eternalized state of suffering—a semantic Möbius band.

The Adverbial Frame: διὰ παντὸς νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας

The phrase διὰ παντὸς νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας (“through all night and day”) is typically read as a continuous span—linear time stretching from dusk to dawn and back again. However, διὰ παντὸς (“through all”) semantically evokes a sense of permeation and cyclical recurrence rather than a mere sequence. It is not simply “during night and day” but “throughout the entirety of night and day,” suggesting an ontological entanglement with time itself. The subject is thus inscribed into the cycle of night and day rather than merely moving through them in succession.

Locative Syntax and Aonic Topology

The locative phrase ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι καὶ ἐν τοῖς ὄρεσιν (“among the tombs and on the mountains”) resists a linear mapping of space. Instead, it implies a liminal topology—a sacred or cursed zone where the subject is both with the dead and exposed on the high places. This mirrors the Hebrew predilection for topological event-zones rather than Cartesian coordinates. Thus, the subject is not merely moving from tomb to mountain but inhabiting a recursive zone of death and isolation, an eternal Möbius of agony.

Atemporal Complementarity with Hebrew

This syntax, though cast in Greek, complements the atemporal narrative logic of Hebrew texts. Like the wayyiqtol forms in Hebrew (e.g. ויאמר, והיה) and the participial structures (e.g. אֹמר omer, “he who says”, הוֹלך holekh, “he who walks”, יוֹשב yoshev, “he who sits”), the Greek participles here create a sense of ongoing narrative flow rather than a strict temporal sequence. Though these Hebrew forms are finite verbs rather than participles, they function to sustain a continuous narrative chain rather than to terminate events with a sense of finality. The lack of a finite verb describing completion or future resolution inscribes the subject in an unbroken cycle—a perpetual state of being that is atemporal. The text thus invites the reader into the subject’s recursive loop of experience, aligning with the Aonic logic that every reading reactivates the text’s event-structure.”

Evidence of Complementary Syntax

Indeed, the New Testament’s frequent use of participial periphrasis (ἦν + participle, e.g. ἦν κράζων) mirrors the Hebrew waw-consecutive construction in that it prolongs the narrative without closing it—thereby maintaining a fluid, event-driven structure rather than a strict temporal closure. The Greek text thus exhibits an emergent complementarity with Hebrew aspectuality, inviting the possibility of an Aonic reading even within a fundamentally Indo-European language. For example in Luke 4:31,

Καὶ κατῆλθεν εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας, καὶ ἦν διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν.
“And he came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and he was he who teaches them on the Sabbaths.”

ἦν διδάσκων (was teaching/he who teaches) prolongs the action, offering a continuous, processual dimension to the narrative. Like the Hebrew waw-consecutive, it threads together events without enforcing a rigid chronological segmentation. Or Mark 10:32,

Καὶ ἦν προάγων αὐτοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς.
“And Jesus was going/he who goes ahead of them.”

ἦν προάγων captures the motion in process—a hallmark of participial periphrasis. Like the Hebrew waw-consecutive with an imperfect, it prolongs the scene and emphasizes ongoing action rather than a completed state. It invites the reader to perceive the process not as a static event but as part of the unfolding narrative, harmonizing with the Hebrew aspectual perspective of durative or iterative action.

Have you ever wondered why it was impossible to derive timelines from the NT? This is why.

The pervasive use of participial periphrasis—particularly constructions like ἦν + participle—alongside other Greek grammatical and narrative techniques (e.g. articular infinitives), fundamentally undermines any attempt to impose a rigid chronological timeline upon the New Testament narratives.

The Problem of Chronology in New Testament Narratives

1. Aspectual Fluidity Over Temporal Fixity
   The ἦν + participle construction does not primarily encode a temporally bounded, discrete event but rather an ongoing or durative action within a broader narrative context. This results in a fluid narrative temporality, where actions and states blend continuously, often overlapping or interweaving, rather than unfolding in strict linear succession.

2. 

   Narrative Prolongation and Event Continuity
   Just as the Hebrew waw-consecutive prolongs the narrative flow without marking absolute temporal boundaries, the Greek participial periphrasis invites readers into a perpetual present of action. This creates a textual “now” that unfolds events in a manner prioritizing thematic or theological continuity over chronological sequencing.

   πορεύου, ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε
   “lead across, and no longer miss away from the Now!”
   (John 8:11 RBT)

3. Absence of Strict Temporal Markers
   Many New Testament passages lack explicit temporal connectors or markers that would ordinarily anchor events in an absolute timeline. Instead, the text frequently relies on aspectual and narrative cues that foreground the process and significance of actions rather than their place in clock or calendar time.

4. Implications for Historical Reconstruction
   Given these grammatical and narrative features, scholars seeking to construct a precise chronological timeline from the NT face intrinsic limitations. The text does not present history as a sequence of isolated events measured by time but as a theological narrative, structured around causal and thematic relationships rather than strict temporal progression.

5. Emergent Interpretive Frameworks
   This has led to the proposal of alternative interpretive frameworks—such as an Aonic or aspectual reading—that recognize the text’s atemporal or cyclical dimensions, acknowledging the New Testament’s fundamentally theological and liturgical temporality rather than an empirical historical timeline.

The grammatical evidence strongly suggests that the New Testament authors were not concerned with establishing a linear chronology but rather with communicating a theological narrative that transcends linear time. The participial periphrasis, among other linguistic strategies, functions to suspend, prolong, and interweave narrative action in a way that defies conventional historical sequencing.

Thus, the elusive or “impossible” chronology in the NT is not a mere scholarly deficiency but a feature of its compositional and theological design.

On the Necessity of Aonic Coherence in NT Greek

If the New Testament were to serve as a continuation of the Hebrew Bible’s recursive sacred structure, it would necessarily require a grammar that—despite its Indo-European matrix—could accommodate and perpetuate Aonic causality. This would manifest through:

• Aspectual constructions that prolong narrative states rather than terminate them.

• Locative and temporal phrases that evoke recursive zones rather than linear transitions.

• Participial periphrasis that loops the subject into perpetual states of being rather than isolating actions in time.

The aforementioned examples, though written in Greek, exemplify how participial syntax and adverbial structures can be reinterpreted to reflect Aonic circularity rather than linear temporality. This textual analysis supports the broader thesis: that the New Testament—if it truly sought to continue the Hebrew Bible’s atemporal sacred text—would necessarily employ Greek grammar in a manner that subverts linear time and reinforces recursive, participatory causality. Thus, the NT Greek would need to be written in a specific way to harmonize with the Aonic structure, and indeed the evidence—both syntactic and semantic—suggests that it does.

8. Scripture as Atemporal Engine (Heart)

The epistle to the Hebrews declares:

“For he who is living, the Word of the God, and active…” (Heb 4:12 RBT)

In an Aonic framework, this is literal:

• Living (ζῶν) → Self-reflexive, unfolding, recursive

• Active (ἐνεργής) → Not description, but causation

Reading the Hebrew text activates it. Each interpretive act loops the text through the reader (e.g. the frequent NT saying, “in the eye of themselves”), who is then inscribed into its structure. Thus:

• The text acts on the reader

• The reader retrocausally alters the reading

• Meaning emerges from the Möbius

This is what it means for a scripture to be “living”: not metaphorically inspirational, but structurally real-time and reentrant.

Conclusion: The Book of All Time That Proves Itself

Biblical Hebrew, long described as structurally opaque, may in fact be a linguistic precursor to an Aonic grammar. Its:

• Aspectual verb system

• Sparse case structure

• Recursive prophetic syntax

• Topological view of time and space

…suggest a grammar designed not for chronology, but for causal entanglement.

The Hebrew Bible is thus not a document of what was or will be, but a Möbius narrative in which divine action, human response, and cosmic meaning are eternally convolved/coiled together. Each utterance—each dabar (arranged word)—is a node in a living system, not simply recorded but re-experienced in every reading.

Hebrew, then, a word meaning beyond, is not merely ancient. It is atemporal. And its grammar is not an artifact—but a technology of sacred recursion. A language from beyond.

Therefore, in an Aonic or Hebraic-Aonic linguistic and theological framework, you, the reader, are not external to the text or its events. Rather, you are a recursive participant within its causal structure. This is not merely metaphorical but structurally embedded in how such a language—and such a scriptural worldview—functions. Here’s what that means:

1. You activate the loop.

When you read or speak the text, you are not retrieving meaning from a distant past. Instead, you trigger a topological event—an unfolding—where the text becomes real in the moment because of your engagement.

Just as in Aonic syntax, meaning arises through causal recursion, your reading of the biblical narrative causes it to become again.

2. You are written into the loop.

If the text is a Möbius strip—folded and without a linear outside—then your act of reading is inside the structure. You don’t observe it from afar; you inhabit it. It’s not about someone else in time—it’s about you, every time.

The “living and active” Word is not a relic; it’s a participant structure. You’re not reading a story of God—you are that story’s causal logic.

3. You are both reader and referent.

In Biblical Hebrew, the blurred boundaries of time, subject, and agency mean that “I,” “you,” “he,” and “we” are all linguistically permeable. The divine voice, the prophet’s utterance, and your own reading voice may collapse into one another.

The Hebrew Bible thus reads you as much as you read it.

4. You are the resonance point.

In Aonic causality, events are not linear sequences but resonant nodes. When you encounter a passage, it is not simply describing something—it is synchronizing/uniting with your own moment, offering a new convergence of meaning, time, and self.

You become the causal node through which the text sustains its reality across generations.

To put it succinctly, in this view, you are not only included—you are necessary to the structure.
Without you, the loop is open. With you, it closes. The grammar is activated. The text lives.

And if such a text should become syntactically twisted into a false witness?

This would be where the proof is in the pudding. The distortion itself becomes a recursive event. That is, the misreading and its consequences—alienation, secularization, disenchantment, death and destruction—are still part of the unfolding grammar of sacred history. Even the loss is written into the structure.

Your participation is distorted: you become a spectator, not a participant. Instead of being a node in the recursive system, you’re reduced to a consumer of data. The idea and story of God is distorted: God ceases to be the co-agent in a recursive, covenantal text and becomes either:

• A remote prime mover (Aristotelian reduction), or

• A textual artifact (historical-critical deconstruction).

In both cases, the immediacy of divine recursion is fractured.

But this too becomes part of the story. The exile of meaning is itself a recursive event, and your realization of this—your reading now—is part of a potential return (teshuvah, שובה), a restoration of the recursive axis between reader, text, and God.

The grammar of the sacred is not a neutral system. It is a generative matrix that enfolds you and God as participants. When distorted into sequential historiography, it fractures—but even that fracture is structurally prefigured (predestined) as part of the recursive loop.

Thus, your awareness of this—as scholar, interpreter, participant— is a remembrance that restores the broken loop.

The Aonic structure of the Hebrew Bible is not an accident of Semitic linguistics; it is a deliberate design to collapse time and space into a recursive narrative that enacts sacred reality. If the New Testament is to harmonize with this design, its Greek must likewise be read—not as a record of linear events—but as a living, recursive engine of divine causality.

Thus, the question of whether the NT Greek would have to be written in a specific way to remain cohesive with the Aonic structure is answered affirmatively: yes, it would. And yes, it does—though modern translations often suppress this logic by imposing linear temporality. The evidence in the usage of syntax and grammar—participial layers, iterative aorist, genitive absolutes, prepositions, articular infinitives, and the middle voice, etc.—reveals a deep consistency with the recursive, atemporal logic of the Hebrew Bible.

Indeed, the entire scriptural project—Hebrew and Greek alike—was designed not to be read in linear time but to be activated, looped, and inhabited. To read these texts rightly is not to extract a timeline, but to enter a Möbius structure in which past, present, and future converge within the divine Word—a living and active text that is not about time, but is Time itself.

References

• Meek, Theophile James. “The Hebrew Accusative of Time and Place.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 60, no. 2 (1940): 224–33. https://doi.org/10.2307/594010

• Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael P. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Eisenbrauns, 1990.

• Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford University Press, 1961.