George Bush, the Swedenborgian Commentary author....IN LOGOS!!

And, yes, he IS related to those Geo. Bushes. I have 5 commentaries (one in 2 vols. for six total) in my Logos Library that were written by George Bush. As the Wikipedia article shows, he became a Swedenborgian in 1845. The 5 commentaries he wrote are dated:

Exodus (2 vols.) - 1841

Leviticus - 1852 ( ! )

Numbers - 1858 ( ! )

Joshua - 1844

Judges - 1844

I'm not easily spooked by such stuff...I'm just pointing this out for the sake of awareness. Swedenborgianism was originally a flavor of Christianity, but it eventually attracted a bunch of hocus-pocus type mumbo jumbo of the "Mesmerism/animal magnetism" and "spiritist" vein, among other stuff. Bush may not have been involved in this more unsavory aspect of the denomination. Still...

I just think it's "note-worthy" that Logos is selling such commentaries.

Noted.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Evan Boardman

Have you read them? I wouldnt throw stones till I read them first.

DMB

Well, if one of the greatest missionaries liked Swedenborg (Johnie Appleseed of course), then by George, Bush can't be all that bad.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/449239#Comment_449239

Have you read them? I wouldnt throw stones till I read them first.

Well, I'm not throwing stones...I'm just reporting a fact. I expect they will be "typical" commentaries...some I agree with and some I don't. I'm always looking for an insightful perspective that can be backed up by Scripture itself. But many, probably most, Logos customers would probably prefer to have a heads-up about such things. Like I said, I don't get spooked about such things. But if I was reading a commentary written by a Mormon, a Unitarian Universalist, a Christian Scientist, etc., I would like to be aware of it. I posted the OP assuming others feel the same way. I'm not going to hide the commentaries, and I'm quite sure I will read through them at some point. This isn't alarmism...just information.

Swedenborgism is a very late offshoot of Medieval Jewish mysticism initiated by a Scandinavian Lutheran. He was sitting in a London tavern when a great dark spirit came and introduced himself as God, or so.... As such it is not mainstream Christianity at all. Commentaries are on the Torah or rather properly the Hexateuch, not on the NT; I hope it is easy to find. Jewish Mysticism a.k.a. Kaballah is based on Sepher ha-Zohar and Sepher Yetzirah which are rejected by mainstream Judaism in turn. I strongly recommend Arye Kaplan's commentary on the later if you are interested in real and actual source-texts. Basic knowledge of modern physics required. If you consider Quantum Physics, Ten Sephirots, and Metatron spooky then do not even look into "the stuff"...Swedenborgism has never become popular, it appeals to very spiritual if not psychologically fragile individuals, IMHO.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/449251#Comment_449251

I'm just reporting a fact

I assume you are joking as

attracted a bunch of hocus-pocus type mumbo jumbo

is certainly not in language that can convey a fact.

A fact (derived from the Latin factum,
see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the
case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is
whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.

Bush graduated from Dartmouth College in 1818, and then studied theology at Princeton University, where he was a tutor 1823-1824. He was ordained in the Presbyterian ministry, spent four years as a Christian missionary in Indiana, and in 1831 became professor of Hebrew and oriental literature at New York University. ... In 1845 he embraced Swedenborgianism and went on to write many defenses of his new faith.

=========

I find Swedenborgianism no stranger than some contemporary Logos resources - simply older and less familiar. But Bush may have better logic[;)]

Paul N

And, yes, he IS related to those Geo. Bushes. I have 5 commentaries (one in 2 vols. for six total) in my Logos Library that were written by George Bush. As the Wikipedia article shows, he became a Swedenborgian in 1845. The 5 commentaries he wrote are dated:

Exodus (2 vols.) - 1841

Leviticus - 1852 ( ! )

Numbers - 1858 ( ! )

Joshua - 1844

Judges - 1844

The very tempered voice of Charles Spurgeon (and friends) have this to say about Bush's commentaries in Commenting and Commentaries while giving all five works the highest level of recommendation:

169 - BUSH (George). Notes on Exodus.

"Of considerable value. We do not know that it is a plagiarism."

215 - BUSH (George). Notes on Leviticus.

"The author read extensively to produce this volume. In his later years he became a Swedenborgian, but there is no trace of that leaning in this or his other comments. He inserts the notes of the Pictorial Bible, but handsomely acknowledges them."

230 - BUSH (George). Notes on Numbers.

"Although Bush is indebted to many authors, he is by no means a mere collector; his remarks repay you for consultation, and we hope that in this case they are his own."

236 - BUSH (George). Notes on Joshua.

"Bush is a careful illustrator of the Word, and apt at giving the practical lesson. His works are well compiled."

248 - BUSH (George). Notes on Judges.

"Like other works of this author—of considerable value."

I'd say other than some questionable lack of source citing in some of Bush's other works (according to Spurgeon) these are highly profitable for use in study.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/449294#Comment_449294

I'd say other than some questionable lack of source citing in some of Bush's other works (according to Spurgeon) these are highly profitable for use in study.

Of course, the question is whether one can trust Spurgeon. [;)]

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/449288#Comment_449288

I'm just reporting a fact

I assume you are joking as

attracted a bunch of hocus-pocus type mumbo jumbo

is certainly not in language that can convey a fact.

No, MJ...not joking. But I could wonder at your inability to separate out the elements of my two posts. The "fact" is that Bush became a Swedenborgian.

Another fact is that Swedenborgianism early on was, and continues to this day to be, a very attractive belief system for people who are practitioners of Theosophy and similar esoteric systems. Any amount of deliberate web-surfing will establish this.

Taken from the Wikipedia article on Theosophy:

Antoine Faivre successfully created a taxonomy approach as a means to comparing the various traditions. He proceeded by taking the concordance of neoplatonism, Hermeticism, Kaballah, astrology, alchemy, magic etc. and deduced six fundamental characteristics of esoteric spirituality. ^[21] He discovered that the first four characteristics of esotericism are always present, while the latter two are sometimes present.^[22]^[23] Along with these six characteristics of esotericism, he identified three characteristics of theosophy.^[24]

Esotericism:

Correspondence: Everything in Nature is a sign. The signs of Nature can be read. The microcosm and macrocosm interplay. Synchronicity exists, and can be found as signs from Nature and may lead to the understanding of the divine.
Nature is Alive: It is not just correlations between pieces of matter. It is a living entity that will, and does, surge and evolve through its expanding self, replete with dynamic flows of energy and light.
Imagination and mediations: Imaginations as a power that provides access to worlds and levels of reality intermediary between the material world and the divine.^[25]
Experience of Transmutation: The Gnosis and illuminations of self and mind performing a transmutation of consciousness. The birth of an awareness, a second new life becomes born.
Practice of Concordance: Primordial Tradition. Studying traditions, religions etc. seeking the common one Root from which all esoteric knowledge grows.
Transmission: Master-Disciple, master-Initiate, initiation into the Occult.

The three characteristics of theosophy are listed below.

Theosophy:

Divine/Human/Nature Triangle: The inspired analysis which circles through these three angles. The intradivine within; the origin, death and placement of the human relating to Divinity and Nature; Nature as alive, the external, intellectual and material. All three complex correlations synthesize via the intellect and imaginative processes of Mind.
Primacy of the Mythic: The creative Imagination, an external world of symbols, glyphs, myths, synchronicities and the myriad, along with image, all as a universal reality for the interplay conjoined by creative mind.
Access to Supreme Worlds: The awakening within, inherently possessing the faculty to directly connect to the Divine world(s). The existence of a special human ability to create this connection. The ability to connect and explore all levels of reality; co-penetrate the human with the divine; to bond to all reality and experience a unique inner awakening.

The bolded part about "initiation into the Occult"--well, that IS hocus pocus mumbo jumbo. Many theosophists claim Swedenborg.

I said that Swedenborgism "attracted" the hocus pocus crowd...and it did.

http://www.trcb.com/religion/christianity/theosophy-anthroposophy-and-swedenborgianism---their-societies-and-churches-34594.htm

http://www.occultopedia.com/s/swedenborg.htm

http://www.swedenborgstudy.com/articles/history-religion/occult.htm

Swedenborg the man may not have been into the occult (some say he was) and the New Church (Swedenborgian church) may not be. But occultists do gravitate to Swedenborg and his teachings. Whether he would appreciate their attention or not, it is a fact that many in the hocus pocus crowd call upon the man and his teaching. That isn't the specific fact that I was referring to--like I said, I was simply drawing attention to the fact of Bush's conversion.

I find Swedenborgianism no stranger than some contemporary Logos resources - simply older and less familiar. But Bush may have better logic

Whatever.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/449312#Comment_449312

I stand by my original observation that "hocus pocus mumbo jumbo" is emotive, evaluative language with no substance relevant to "fact".

I was simply drawing attention to the fact of Bush's conversion.

[:#]

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/449314#Comment_449314

I stand by my original observation that "hocus pocus mumbo jumbo" is emotive, evaluative language with no substance relevant to "fact".

I was simply drawing attention to the fact of Bush's conversion.

...and while that is a nice text book-type response, I stand by the observation that occultism is hocus pocus mumbo jumbo.

Here is as good a place as any to make my point that the practically universal practice among logicians and philosophers of using the words "fact" and "truth" as interchangeable synonyms is a flagrant mistake. It is not true that "Socrates is a man"...it is a fact. Truth has nothing to do with it. What are universally called "truth" statements in philosophy and logic are absolutely NOT statements of truth. They are statements of fact.

A cute and tongue-in-cheek way of putting it is that truth is what facts hope to become in the after-life. [:P]

Here is truth--theosophy, like all idolatry, is hocus pocus mumbo jumbo.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/449317#Comment_449317

practically universal practice among logicians and philosophers of using the words "fact" and "truth" as interchangeable synonyms

Hmmm, you clearly read a different subset of philosophers and logicians that I do and here I thought I was widely read.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/449322#Comment_449322

That said, "universally" might be a bit of an overreach...just a tad. [:P]

Fwiw, I use the following relation sets:

Truth <-----> Reality

Facts <-----> Actuality

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/449324#Comment_449324

Fwiw, I use the following relation sets:

Truth <-----> Reality

Facts <-----> Actuality

The world is all that is the case.
What is the case—a fact—is the existence of states of affairs.

Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Beliefs are also facts. One may wrongly believe something to be the case, but that they believe it to be the case is a fact.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/449324#Comment_449324

Like I say, we read different philosophers. Russell and Moore's slogan "A belief is true if and only if it corresponds to a
fact." is not my cup of tea.

For an introduction to truth, see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/ my standard source for most things philosophical

I tend to agree with William Faulkner, “Facts and truth really don’t have much to do with each other.”

Edit: being somewhat flippant I would give my relation sets as:

Truth <-->God's reality

Facts <--> Humans' current understanding of their reality

but that takes us into theology doesn't it?

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/449346#Comment_449346

I tend to agree with William Faulkner, “Facts and truth really don’t have much to do with each other.”

Well, that actually puts us on the same side of this issue...I guess it's progress of a sort. [:)]

EDIT: I understand truth to be eternal reality, thus YHWH's will in all its manifestations. Though it cuts across the common usage, I don't see the average person's "reality" to be in accord with truth and thus it ultimately isn't "real" in the real sense. That is why I use the term "actuality" instead to describe what the majority of people call reality. Actuality is the condition and state wherein a person "acts" in their environment, i.e. the created order. The actions (and reactions) of an individual, within the created order, is their "actuality". It is only in accord with reality in so much as it "touches" the will of 'Elohhiym.

Actually, that seems pretty close to what you describe.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/449348#Comment_449348

that actually puts us on the same side of this issue

[Y]

Evan Boardman

hocus-pocus

Isn't that Latin? [:$]

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/449440#Comment_449440

Wowus!! I thinkus it izzus! [:O]

Doc B

he became a Swedenborgian

And we will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/449474#Comment_449474

he became a Swedenborgian

And we will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

[:D]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/449440#Comment_449440

Isn't that Latin?

Latin, no. Etymology based on Latin - quite likely although there are differing opinions. I didn't bring it up because it could be taken as insulting and disrespectful.

Quick Links

Recent Posts
Activity
Unanswered