Sometimes a speaker must adapt to their audience rather than wait for the audience to adapt to them. This has come to a real threshold the last couple of months. There is no vigilance by scholars or lay people on the topic of holy - the ability to hold a topic in the attention span long enough for it to make a difference. So this is one of those times that I must adapt to my audience and start equipping them further back in the process.
As I have dealt with holiness, I have noticed that Christian minds especially are not well-equipped to handle the topic. Their emotions and thinking are sloppy. I don't say this to insult anyone. But "the fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom". So in this case, the fear that our thinking may be sloppy is the right place to begin. So I am taking a new approach.
I'm narrowing my focus in TEACHING AND MINISTRY (down from holiness) due to emotional aimlessness and due to a lack of mental focus or over-focus among Christians. So the solution, I figure, is to focus on the first health the US and Christians in the US need - mental health. I'll deal with world mental health later, since the issues are different across the globe. I'll also go back to other health areas under holiness later.
Please don't think that I have lost my vigilance on holiness. I am not at all distracted from the topic, but there comes a time as a teacher when adaption is your only option. Even my supervisor at my current seminary didn't seem to get what I was accomplishing. So I believe that there are basics that are missing. I need to provide those to those I teach.
If you go to my communication basics blog, I will be producing much more there than here for the time being. I am also under a self-imposed deadline to finish the transcript for my book by the end of July - "Mental Health for Everybody". It will focus on the mind and how it is supposed to work and how we should equip our minds as opposed to the current approach. That will then form a basis both emotionally and logically for what holiness means by definition, by implication and by significance.
Go there for more. Thank you for your understanding. I will say this, I have more and more reasons to believe from the biblical text and not from etymology or cognate languages that holy as translated from words in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek means ethical or moral wholeness. Have a blessed day.
In Christ,
Jon
Showing posts with label hallow. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hallow. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 09, 2014
Friday, April 11, 2014
Blessed and Holy: Understanding it Better Through Exodus 34 (Train Actions - Part 4 of 5)
PREFACE
We hear people sing "take time to be holy" and "bless you". Does anyone know what those 2 actions mean? Christians say, "hallowed be your name" in the Lord's Prayer over and over. Does anyone really know how to hallow or how to make holy a name? Does anyone know why to hallow or make holy should happen? I think those, who can answer one or both of these questions, are rare people. If you can get me their addresses and phone #s, then please do so. I'd like to sign them up for my ministry team! Can anyone train me in how to be holy? What does sanctified as an action look like? So based on what I think are the answers out there, it looks like we do need some training.
As a former coach of 5 different sports (and later an athletic director, as well), I cannot possibly overlook the need for the skill of training alongside other skills like teaching. While great coaches can also be great teachers, the one thing that they absolutely must be is an effective trainer. They must teach their players skills or know-how as well as offer motivations for those actions. I cannot imagine being a successful coach without being able to do both. In Scripture, we find both methods and purposes for actions. One simple example, "We love [how] him, because [why] he first loved [how] us". We even learned our training in love from his love of us. But when have we offered love classes? I don't remember that training? When both methods and purposes are taught well, then you find people eager to be trained and to act.
That is what I discovered as a coach. But I also learned a set of criteria for eagerness that was expressed in a real estate training magazine that I found, while I was a part-time real estate agent. It was my way of earning money to pay for studying at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA.
The Entrance to One of the Buildings at Fuller
In the business world, like in the sports world, you get paid for results. The score is kept differently with the currency of money rather than the play money of points, but the goal was still to win. When I ran across the article, I knew the article was a difference maker. It was different from any other training that I had been trained in as either an athlete or as a coach. I'd never even heard this set of words grouped together before like they were in this convenient set. I'd obviously heard them separately many times. Since first hearing the set then, I have repeatedly improved what I learned from the article and I have organized it to be a more effective training tool. If anything, I wish I used it more often.
As a coach, you want players who are eager to play or better yet to work with you and not work against you. As a real estate agent, you want clients who are eager to buy or better yet to work with you and not work against you. In real estate, the criteria for a strong prospect is as follows:
1) ready,
2) willing, and
3) able.
What all Sales People Ought to Know
Back in the early 90s, they were likely in that neat order. I have the article still among my things somewhere. But also the list lacked a critical fourth element. I'd learned to look for that fourth element following my training with Tentmakers, Inc. in Hopkins, MN. There I learned a number of practical tools, but also how to identify complete ones.
The Logo for the Tentmakers organization I am referring to
It took me a long time, but eventually in the last few years, I have added that a strong prospect is someone who is also aware or seeing. They can't be blind to what they are looking for in the process. A real estate prospect, who cannot envision or point to the kind of house they are looking for, could turn out to be a weaker prospect, even if they are ready, willing, and able. In selling, agents are not given much time to train prospects, except by the very best prospects, so they usually get impatient with customers who are not strong ones or who are not able to become strong ones. So I now say that a strong prospect consists of someone who is:
1) ready,
2) willing,
3) able, and
4) seeing.
That kind of prospect is a prime one, just as that kind of player is a prime player for a coach. Both are eager to take action. They are not there to study something more, but to act using the strength that they already possess. That is why they are eager. Strong people by nature are eager people. Weak people by nature are not eager people.
The next closest to these kinds would be those who possess 3 out of 4 of the criteria and are eager to seek the last criteria, the next would possess 2 out of 4 with eagerness too seek the other 2, etc. You get the idea.
I think Scripture also takes those who are eager and frees them for action or it trains those who cannot yet act on their own to act and to also act with a sense of motivation. This is where a second tool (that again, I wish I used more frequently) becomes very useful. It is a chart of pre-effect and post-effect with their respective non-action and action steps.
In Exodus, which is a great action book, by the way, there are a number of actions that can be described in terms of pre-action, pre-effect, during action, developing effect, post-action, and post-effect. I actually got this tool from a computer geek, who noticed how helpful this scheme was for breaking down computer processes. I wish I knew it years ago as a coach. (Since that wish is not possible, maybe I should just go back to coaching and do it better since that is possible.)
EXODUS: DIRECT APPLICATION
[This is being worked out and I will eventually be able to cut and paste to this entry a chart that lists each pre-effect, pre-action, etc. I hope it is not too long before I get it up. Much of what I am writing now is in a draft state, as is this piece, but still needs a little tweaking to even be a first draft.]
Sincerely,
Jon
We hear people sing "take time to be holy" and "bless you". Does anyone know what those 2 actions mean? Christians say, "hallowed be your name" in the Lord's Prayer over and over. Does anyone really know how to hallow or how to make holy a name? Does anyone know why to hallow or make holy should happen? I think those, who can answer one or both of these questions, are rare people. If you can get me their addresses and phone #s, then please do so. I'd like to sign them up for my ministry team! Can anyone train me in how to be holy? What does sanctified as an action look like? So based on what I think are the answers out there, it looks like we do need some training.
As a former coach of 5 different sports (and later an athletic director, as well), I cannot possibly overlook the need for the skill of training alongside other skills like teaching. While great coaches can also be great teachers, the one thing that they absolutely must be is an effective trainer. They must teach their players skills or know-how as well as offer motivations for those actions. I cannot imagine being a successful coach without being able to do both. In Scripture, we find both methods and purposes for actions. One simple example, "We love [how] him, because [why] he first loved [how] us". We even learned our training in love from his love of us. But when have we offered love classes? I don't remember that training? When both methods and purposes are taught well, then you find people eager to be trained and to act.
That is what I discovered as a coach. But I also learned a set of criteria for eagerness that was expressed in a real estate training magazine that I found, while I was a part-time real estate agent. It was my way of earning money to pay for studying at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA.
The Entrance to One of the Buildings at Fuller
In the business world, like in the sports world, you get paid for results. The score is kept differently with the currency of money rather than the play money of points, but the goal was still to win. When I ran across the article, I knew the article was a difference maker. It was different from any other training that I had been trained in as either an athlete or as a coach. I'd never even heard this set of words grouped together before like they were in this convenient set. I'd obviously heard them separately many times. Since first hearing the set then, I have repeatedly improved what I learned from the article and I have organized it to be a more effective training tool. If anything, I wish I used it more often.
As a coach, you want players who are eager to play or better yet to work with you and not work against you. As a real estate agent, you want clients who are eager to buy or better yet to work with you and not work against you. In real estate, the criteria for a strong prospect is as follows:
1) ready,
2) willing, and
3) able.
What all Sales People Ought to Know
Back in the early 90s, they were likely in that neat order. I have the article still among my things somewhere. But also the list lacked a critical fourth element. I'd learned to look for that fourth element following my training with Tentmakers, Inc. in Hopkins, MN. There I learned a number of practical tools, but also how to identify complete ones.
The Logo for the Tentmakers organization I am referring to
It took me a long time, but eventually in the last few years, I have added that a strong prospect is someone who is also aware or seeing. They can't be blind to what they are looking for in the process. A real estate prospect, who cannot envision or point to the kind of house they are looking for, could turn out to be a weaker prospect, even if they are ready, willing, and able. In selling, agents are not given much time to train prospects, except by the very best prospects, so they usually get impatient with customers who are not strong ones or who are not able to become strong ones. So I now say that a strong prospect consists of someone who is:
1) ready,
2) willing,
3) able, and
4) seeing.
That kind of prospect is a prime one, just as that kind of player is a prime player for a coach. Both are eager to take action. They are not there to study something more, but to act using the strength that they already possess. That is why they are eager. Strong people by nature are eager people. Weak people by nature are not eager people.
The next closest to these kinds would be those who possess 3 out of 4 of the criteria and are eager to seek the last criteria, the next would possess 2 out of 4 with eagerness too seek the other 2, etc. You get the idea.
I think Scripture also takes those who are eager and frees them for action or it trains those who cannot yet act on their own to act and to also act with a sense of motivation. This is where a second tool (that again, I wish I used more frequently) becomes very useful. It is a chart of pre-effect and post-effect with their respective non-action and action steps.
In Exodus, which is a great action book, by the way, there are a number of actions that can be described in terms of pre-action, pre-effect, during action, developing effect, post-action, and post-effect. I actually got this tool from a computer geek, who noticed how helpful this scheme was for breaking down computer processes. I wish I knew it years ago as a coach. (Since that wish is not possible, maybe I should just go back to coaching and do it better since that is possible.)
EXODUS: DIRECT APPLICATION
[This is being worked out and I will eventually be able to cut and paste to this entry a chart that lists each pre-effect, pre-action, etc. I hope it is not too long before I get it up. Much of what I am writing now is in a draft state, as is this piece, but still needs a little tweaking to even be a first draft.]
Sincerely,
Jon
Monday, March 24, 2014
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Genesis 1:1 - 2:4a (Translation - Day One of Five)
PREFACE
Welcome to a place where you can learn what holy really means rather than what it supposedly means. I write about the meaning of holy with due seriousness, because it is one of the three most important words for God's identity. This will be my initial post on a Monday for what is now to become my weekly habit. Each week, I will write 5 posts in the following order on a particular biblical passage: Mondays - Translation Topics, Wednesdays - Transfer Topics, Thursdays - Total Topics, Fridays - Training Topics, Saturday - Teaching Topics. Each time you return to this blog, you will grasp even better what I am saying. Rome was not built in a day and neither can the persuasive arguments for the meaning of holy, etc. be built in a day. It will ultimately take a book, like the one that I am writing. and that I hope will be published before the end of the year to straighten out a lot of confusion and blindness.
Each time you visit or receive an email through signing up for emails each time I write, I will explain in greater detail the entire process of understanding a complete unit of Scripture and the meanings of the big three words in Scripture: 1) Yahweh/the LORD, 2) blessed, and 3) holy. None of these three can stand entirely alone, though I have listed them in the order of priority. Each Biblical passage will be able to stand alone as an argument for the meanings of the big three including holy, but also each passage will add more strength and power to the persuasive arguments that came before it.
So today I am going to look at the primary translation issues in our text for today. Every text in translation has an enormous amount of consensus related to it that I will not discuss. There is no point in re-inventing the wheel in places where translators have done a wonderful job. My experience says that the majority of times, they do pretty well. But also my goal is to find those key words that function as very important to the unit of Scripture being explained and where there is some disagreement among translations and then to try to make improvements in those areas.
First, it is important to put my view of translation into context. I believe the goals of a great translation (in its strict or narrow sense) are two primarily: 1) clarity, and 2) meaningfulness. What I mean by strict or narrow sense is that the total of communication is summed up in: 1) translation, 2) transfer, 3) total, 4) train, and 5) teach. So here I am dealing with translation as a PART of the total communication process rather than as the WHOLE of the communication process. You can see the difference?
There is a great way to accomplish each one of these goals of clarity and meaningfulness. For clarity to be enhanced, it is important to keep one word for one thing as much as you can, if it is that way in the original. Unfortunately, it is seldom that this can be done entirely the way it is in the original unless we stick to every use of the original being translated by the exact same word which creates a very literal translation. That ideal may be great in a study bible, but it is not really possible in most cases when we are also talking about being meaningful.
There is also an important issue that needs to be cleaned up. This brings me, to the argument between literal or figurative being the best kind of translation. If these are two opposing opposites, then balance would be admirable. That is the case with the NKJV and the NIV, for the most part. My distinctive view is that clarity is the vertical and greater axis of what we strive for and meaningfulness the horizontal and lesser axis of what we strive for. They are not opposite poles on a horizontal line. Clarity is the more important of the two, but also the lesser is not to be neglected for the sake of only the greater. The greatest translations accomplish both effectively. So literal translations are the greater for clarity, figurative translations are the lesser for meaning, but the greatest is a translation that accomplishes both altogether. That is why I will be using both the NKJV and the NIV, because they come closest to the ideal. What I think would clean up the mess we have with so many translations is to base them on clarity and meaningfulness in the picture I suggested. Clarity is best accomplished when we can answer the question of "How many? with the quantity of "One" . Meaningfulness is best accomplished when we can answer the question of "How much?" with the quality of "Equal". The NKJV accomplishes a bit better clarity, while the NIV accomplishes a bit better meaningfulness.
The other reason that these two translations are my starting point is that many churches with pastors leading them, are using one of these two. My primary target audience is pastors who stand between the specialist scholars and the common person. These two translations work the best on that level. Having said that my primary audience is pastors, I do not mean that many competent common people will find my writing to be over their heads, but rather than occasionally that will be the case. Likewise a scholar can learn from what I will write, but I will be doing my best to avoid seminary jargon that the common person would have a hard time grasping meaningfully. So read on all three groups, there will still be great benefit for all. That is the end of my introductory material today. It is a bit long today and the rest of this week, but it will gradually shorten as I see less and less need to introduce or explain new materials.
INTRODUCTION: TRANSLATION TOPICS
The first step is to determine a natural unit of Scripture . In other words, I must use what the writer considers one natural unit, so I can pick up the clues that are most relevant to the words I am discussing. In most cases, I will be relying on the best sources I have found for what are called (rhetorical) outlines of a text. In the case of Genesis, I will be using Allen P. Ross' Creation & Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis, as my starting point. I also was a student of his at one time. But also this does not mean that I have used only him as a source. Rather, it means that I found his treatment to be among the best that I have read. He points out that Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 is a complete unit as do most others. So I will be dealing with those verses primarily as my one unit of Scripture over the next 5 days.
In Ross' treatment of themes in Genesis, he believes that "blessing" and "cursing" are the significant theme of Genesis. In picking the theme, I tend toward what he considers to be only a structural theme in the word usually translated as "generations". I am convinced that Genesis is a book focused on relationships more than any other general theme and this is manifested specifically through "generations". In any case, all three words are significant enough that they require attention. Also God's name does come up immediately after in the opening story in Genesis 2:4, while holy is in direct connection with blessing in 2:1-3. Also significant is words that have great consensus around them like "divide" that could be seen as near synonyms for the definition of "set apart" that is associated with "holy".
TRANSLATION OF YAHWEH
The opening section or unit of Genesis only tells us "what' kind of person creates the world, God. Sometimes we speak of God as though it were God's name. God is not his name any more than my name is "man". "Man" by the way is not necessarily a term of endearment, so "God" could have the same chilling effect. We do not yet find out God's name in the first section of Genesis. But immediately in the beginning of the second section, we learn who this God is. This God's name is "Yahweh".
Unfortunately, many people end up calling God by a very impersonal name. We also cannot see God's name in the typical translation like the NIV. We see something else in its place.
Here is the explanation from the NIV translators in their preface, p. ix.:
In regard to the divine name YHWH, commonly referred to as the Tetragrammaton,
the translators adopted the device used in most English versions of rendering that
name as "LORD" in capital letters to distinguish it from Adonai, another Hebrew
word rendered "Lord," for which small letters are used. Wherever the two names stand
together in the Old Testament as a compound name of God, they are rendered
"Sovereign LORD. "
I note that we are not given a reason for adopting the device used in most English versions, unless the explanation is that they adopted it for the reason that "most English versions" do what they have done. The problem is that "LORD" in most people's minds means the same thing as "Lord". Also clarity has dropped significantly, because most people do not distinguish "LORD" from "Lord", but instead place one word or idea in place of two words or ideas. On Wednesday, under the topic of Transfer, I will discuss further why this may not be the way to go anymore while it may have been the only way to go in the 1st century.
TRANSLATION OF BLESSING
Back in the early 90's maybe even late 80's, I learned that our definition of blessing as primarily prosperous had a significant problem in its application to certain texts. I learned this initially from Dr. William Bean at the Center for Biblical Research (CSBR) in Pasadena, CA. (He now is part of the same kind of ministry under a different name in Redlands, CA.) The unique aspect of his research was his connection to Dr. David Bivin in Israel along with Dr. David Flusser of Hebrew University.
At that time, I was not necessarily impressed by the new idea for its translation as I was by the idea that there was clearly a problem in how we understood its meaning in certain contexts, especially those that applied to God. Recently, I arrived at a new definition that makes a lot of sense in many (but not all!) contexts. People need to realize that the fact that the primary definition does not apply to all contexts is quite natural. The average English dictionary demonstrates this fact.
But also I think this idea that words typically have more than one meaning beyond its first sense needs some explanation as to why. It may help to realize that ancient alphabets in some cases even developed more meanings from one letter by rotating those letters to different positions. So more than one meaning from one written object has a long tradition. The one can be made into the many within a certain span of meaning.
It is also important to realize that meaning itself has more than one meaning. I found Robert H. Stein's A Basic Guide to Reading the Bible: Playing by the Rules very helpful in this regard. If I clarify what he says just one step beyond his own 3 forms of meaning, I think it is fair to speak of 3 kinds of meaning as: 1) definition, 2) implication, and 3) signification or significance. Now as in any scenario, by having more than one meaning be possible, there becomes room for abuse or confusion, but I as a player in a game of studying my Bible, I always have tried to play within the rules.
With trying to define blessed, I think it is important to point out the various options for its meaning and not just quickly chose one from a set of suggestions and prematurely eliminate the other options. What it boils down to is to ask the question: "What if blessed means: 1) integrity in terms of definition, 2) means holiness by implication, and 3) prosperity by significance. Are we willing to consider what all dictionaries seem to see as inherent, that the great majority of words at least have more than one meaning?
I believe that in the context of Genesis 2;1-3, that blessed is being used in the sense of its definition, since its possible implication is directly connected to it. But I also think in Genesis chapter 1, it can be used in the sense of its significance, where prosperity makes much more sense. The type of meaning, I believe, would be signaled by the context, just like the 22 letters in an ancient alphabet could have more than one meaning through signaling a change by turning the letters to differing positions. Same letter, different meaning is possible and I believe that same word, different meaning is also possible; but also with a clear signal of the change. That is part of the rules. Changing meaning in a whimsical way or to be clever would be outside the rules except in humor and poetry. There the whole point of the rules might be to be whimsical or clever.
TRANSLATION OF HOLY
Back in the early 90's and again maybe early 80's, I remember Dr. Daniel P. Fuller presenting to a class where we used inductive Bible study tools, the idea that holy did not mean what most scholars thought, but rather it had a connection with the definition of "worthy". Here again, I was not convinced by his replacement definition, but I was convinced that "set apart" had a problem in the particular verses we were studying.
I don't know if there is any important word in the Bible other than holy that has suffered more in the effort to find a good definition for it. As I once mentioned in one of my earlier blog posts, I counted something like 20 options for its definition. The good news is that probably 17 of the 20 deserve little or no more effort applied to them. The experts in scholarship in times of uncertainty, seem to sometimes take shots in the dark out of their own sense of urgency. That is what many of the 17 definitions appear to be, but I think they do show up due to underlying uncertainty about what the original text words underlying our English word, holy, mean.
The largest conflict and controversy as a result is about 3 options: 1) moral wholeness, 2) purity, and 3) set apartness. The first thing to consider is that most translators have assumed there can only be one meaning as in one definition. They have not readily considered Dr. Stein's concern that there is more than one kind of meaning, even while there would only be one definition for holy.
The other aspect of this discussion is that Andrew Murray, a rather famous pastor from South Africa near the end of the early 1800s and early 1900s also raised a similar concern about meaning. In his little devotional book, Holy in Christ, he added a little word study at the back of the book on various proposed meanings on holy. He actually labels each definition under a letter of the alphabet A-G (7 possible definitions). His own favorite is C, but he also sees subsets of his view under 1 - 8. I have verified my opinion that he favored C. (since he does not say it directly) in his book from the early 1900s in his book Andrew Murray on Prayer. One of the most important parts of his discussion is where he points out that in general if holy means "set apart", then it does not by itself explain why.
I liken his argument to that of the difference that Dr. Stein drew between definition, implication, and significance. What Murray seems to be saying is that "set apart" fits more in the position of significance or implication, but that it does not have by itself a definition for why it is "set apart", because it is not the definition of holy, but moral wholeness does fit that role. I think that may put Pastor Andrew Murray's point on a more solid footing as far as the rules of interpretation are concerned.
So much for trying to clarify the meaning of holy. There are at least 3 good options that have a strong standing. Now it is important to no longer assume that it has to be 1 of the 3 meanings given. It could be all 3, if they are related to definition, implication, and significance. When I come later to looking at the Transfer aspect of holy, then I will make more of the contextual argument and then later under teaching, I will work more on the referent aspect of meaning. But also I will then make more of the common sense or specialized sense argument for what it is and it is not.
Now let's develop its meaningfulness. I think it is important to define the top 3 proposed meanings for maximum meaning in their usage.
1) moral wholeness - the moral aspect has to do with goodness in conduct or character. Wholeness here refers to containing all the elements or parts, so that it is a complete morality. Jonathan Edwards spoke of a moral wholeness that included right, true, loving, and good.
2) purity - the quality or condition of being pure or clean. It has the quality of not being mixed like pure water or pure gold.
3) set apart - to separate and to keep for a purpose as in reserving a seat for someone in particular.
In each case, these words each have a relatively high level of meaning to us. It is not the case that they are meaningless words. Holy on the other hand, can become rather meaningless when you ask people on the street to define it. In a standard dictionary like Webster's New College Dictionary, we find the idea of dedicated to religious use; consecrated, sacred. The problem is that each of these ideas are nearly completely religious ideas, making them hard to relate to other parts of life. This is why holy can be difficult to understand.
CLOSING
What is really needed is to define holy in terms of the 3 options suggested in order to give it more meaning and clarity. Each of these is somewhat useful in that they have more contexts for use than the purely religious one. Holy can still be found to be useful in terms of being meaningful, if we can define it clearly using 1-3 of these words. Hallow on the other hand and sanctified on the other hand may need to disappear in an English context, because they are even more meaningless than holy is in English. When is the last time anyone realized that "hallowed be your name" is connected to "holy be your name"? Halloween be your name might be closer to the common person's thinking. That is far too meaningless. And when is the last time I've met someone who knows Latin? No time that I know of in recent years.
In Christ,
Jon
Welcome to a place where you can learn what holy really means rather than what it supposedly means. I write about the meaning of holy with due seriousness, because it is one of the three most important words for God's identity. This will be my initial post on a Monday for what is now to become my weekly habit. Each week, I will write 5 posts in the following order on a particular biblical passage: Mondays - Translation Topics, Wednesdays - Transfer Topics, Thursdays - Total Topics, Fridays - Training Topics, Saturday - Teaching Topics. Each time you return to this blog, you will grasp even better what I am saying. Rome was not built in a day and neither can the persuasive arguments for the meaning of holy, etc. be built in a day. It will ultimately take a book, like the one that I am writing. and that I hope will be published before the end of the year to straighten out a lot of confusion and blindness.
Each time you visit or receive an email through signing up for emails each time I write, I will explain in greater detail the entire process of understanding a complete unit of Scripture and the meanings of the big three words in Scripture: 1) Yahweh/the LORD, 2) blessed, and 3) holy. None of these three can stand entirely alone, though I have listed them in the order of priority. Each Biblical passage will be able to stand alone as an argument for the meanings of the big three including holy, but also each passage will add more strength and power to the persuasive arguments that came before it.
So today I am going to look at the primary translation issues in our text for today. Every text in translation has an enormous amount of consensus related to it that I will not discuss. There is no point in re-inventing the wheel in places where translators have done a wonderful job. My experience says that the majority of times, they do pretty well. But also my goal is to find those key words that function as very important to the unit of Scripture being explained and where there is some disagreement among translations and then to try to make improvements in those areas.
First, it is important to put my view of translation into context. I believe the goals of a great translation (in its strict or narrow sense) are two primarily: 1) clarity, and 2) meaningfulness. What I mean by strict or narrow sense is that the total of communication is summed up in: 1) translation, 2) transfer, 3) total, 4) train, and 5) teach. So here I am dealing with translation as a PART of the total communication process rather than as the WHOLE of the communication process. You can see the difference?
There is a great way to accomplish each one of these goals of clarity and meaningfulness. For clarity to be enhanced, it is important to keep one word for one thing as much as you can, if it is that way in the original. Unfortunately, it is seldom that this can be done entirely the way it is in the original unless we stick to every use of the original being translated by the exact same word which creates a very literal translation. That ideal may be great in a study bible, but it is not really possible in most cases when we are also talking about being meaningful.
There is also an important issue that needs to be cleaned up. This brings me, to the argument between literal or figurative being the best kind of translation. If these are two opposing opposites, then balance would be admirable. That is the case with the NKJV and the NIV, for the most part. My distinctive view is that clarity is the vertical and greater axis of what we strive for and meaningfulness the horizontal and lesser axis of what we strive for. They are not opposite poles on a horizontal line. Clarity is the more important of the two, but also the lesser is not to be neglected for the sake of only the greater. The greatest translations accomplish both effectively. So literal translations are the greater for clarity, figurative translations are the lesser for meaning, but the greatest is a translation that accomplishes both altogether. That is why I will be using both the NKJV and the NIV, because they come closest to the ideal. What I think would clean up the mess we have with so many translations is to base them on clarity and meaningfulness in the picture I suggested. Clarity is best accomplished when we can answer the question of "How many? with the quantity of "One" . Meaningfulness is best accomplished when we can answer the question of "How much?" with the quality of "Equal". The NKJV accomplishes a bit better clarity, while the NIV accomplishes a bit better meaningfulness.
The other reason that these two translations are my starting point is that many churches with pastors leading them, are using one of these two. My primary target audience is pastors who stand between the specialist scholars and the common person. These two translations work the best on that level. Having said that my primary audience is pastors, I do not mean that many competent common people will find my writing to be over their heads, but rather than occasionally that will be the case. Likewise a scholar can learn from what I will write, but I will be doing my best to avoid seminary jargon that the common person would have a hard time grasping meaningfully. So read on all three groups, there will still be great benefit for all. That is the end of my introductory material today. It is a bit long today and the rest of this week, but it will gradually shorten as I see less and less need to introduce or explain new materials.
INTRODUCTION: TRANSLATION TOPICS
The first step is to determine a natural unit of Scripture . In other words, I must use what the writer considers one natural unit, so I can pick up the clues that are most relevant to the words I am discussing. In most cases, I will be relying on the best sources I have found for what are called (rhetorical) outlines of a text. In the case of Genesis, I will be using Allen P. Ross' Creation & Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis, as my starting point. I also was a student of his at one time. But also this does not mean that I have used only him as a source. Rather, it means that I found his treatment to be among the best that I have read. He points out that Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 is a complete unit as do most others. So I will be dealing with those verses primarily as my one unit of Scripture over the next 5 days.
In Ross' treatment of themes in Genesis, he believes that "blessing" and "cursing" are the significant theme of Genesis. In picking the theme, I tend toward what he considers to be only a structural theme in the word usually translated as "generations". I am convinced that Genesis is a book focused on relationships more than any other general theme and this is manifested specifically through "generations". In any case, all three words are significant enough that they require attention. Also God's name does come up immediately after in the opening story in Genesis 2:4, while holy is in direct connection with blessing in 2:1-3. Also significant is words that have great consensus around them like "divide" that could be seen as near synonyms for the definition of "set apart" that is associated with "holy".
TRANSLATION OF YAHWEH
The opening section or unit of Genesis only tells us "what' kind of person creates the world, God. Sometimes we speak of God as though it were God's name. God is not his name any more than my name is "man". "Man" by the way is not necessarily a term of endearment, so "God" could have the same chilling effect. We do not yet find out God's name in the first section of Genesis. But immediately in the beginning of the second section, we learn who this God is. This God's name is "Yahweh".
"God" is not his name
any more than my name
is "man".
Unfortunately, many people end up calling God by a very impersonal name. We also cannot see God's name in the typical translation like the NIV. We see something else in its place.
Here is the explanation from the NIV translators in their preface, p. ix.:
In regard to the divine name YHWH, commonly referred to as the Tetragrammaton,
the translators adopted the device used in most English versions of rendering that
name as "LORD" in capital letters to distinguish it from Adonai, another Hebrew
word rendered "Lord," for which small letters are used. Wherever the two names stand
together in the Old Testament as a compound name of God, they are rendered
"Sovereign LORD. "
I note that we are not given a reason for adopting the device used in most English versions, unless the explanation is that they adopted it for the reason that "most English versions" do what they have done. The problem is that "LORD" in most people's minds means the same thing as "Lord". Also clarity has dropped significantly, because most people do not distinguish "LORD" from "Lord", but instead place one word or idea in place of two words or ideas. On Wednesday, under the topic of Transfer, I will discuss further why this may not be the way to go anymore while it may have been the only way to go in the 1st century.
TRANSLATION OF BLESSING
Back in the early 90's maybe even late 80's, I learned that our definition of blessing as primarily prosperous had a significant problem in its application to certain texts. I learned this initially from Dr. William Bean at the Center for Biblical Research (CSBR) in Pasadena, CA. (He now is part of the same kind of ministry under a different name in Redlands, CA.) The unique aspect of his research was his connection to Dr. David Bivin in Israel along with Dr. David Flusser of Hebrew University.
At that time, I was not necessarily impressed by the new idea for its translation as I was by the idea that there was clearly a problem in how we understood its meaning in certain contexts, especially those that applied to God. Recently, I arrived at a new definition that makes a lot of sense in many (but not all!) contexts. People need to realize that the fact that the primary definition does not apply to all contexts is quite natural. The average English dictionary demonstrates this fact.
But also I think this idea that words typically have more than one meaning beyond its first sense needs some explanation as to why. It may help to realize that ancient alphabets in some cases even developed more meanings from one letter by rotating those letters to different positions. So more than one meaning from one written object has a long tradition. The one can be made into the many within a certain span of meaning.
It is also important to realize that meaning itself has more than one meaning. I found Robert H. Stein's A Basic Guide to Reading the Bible: Playing by the Rules very helpful in this regard. If I clarify what he says just one step beyond his own 3 forms of meaning, I think it is fair to speak of 3 kinds of meaning as: 1) definition, 2) implication, and 3) signification or significance. Now as in any scenario, by having more than one meaning be possible, there becomes room for abuse or confusion, but I as a player in a game of studying my Bible, I always have tried to play within the rules.
With trying to define blessed, I think it is important to point out the various options for its meaning and not just quickly chose one from a set of suggestions and prematurely eliminate the other options. What it boils down to is to ask the question: "What if blessed means: 1) integrity in terms of definition, 2) means holiness by implication, and 3) prosperity by significance. Are we willing to consider what all dictionaries seem to see as inherent, that the great majority of words at least have more than one meaning?
I believe that in the context of Genesis 2;1-3, that blessed is being used in the sense of its definition, since its possible implication is directly connected to it. But I also think in Genesis chapter 1, it can be used in the sense of its significance, where prosperity makes much more sense. The type of meaning, I believe, would be signaled by the context, just like the 22 letters in an ancient alphabet could have more than one meaning through signaling a change by turning the letters to differing positions. Same letter, different meaning is possible and I believe that same word, different meaning is also possible; but also with a clear signal of the change. That is part of the rules. Changing meaning in a whimsical way or to be clever would be outside the rules except in humor and poetry. There the whole point of the rules might be to be whimsical or clever.
TRANSLATION OF HOLY
Back in the early 90's and again maybe early 80's, I remember Dr. Daniel P. Fuller presenting to a class where we used inductive Bible study tools, the idea that holy did not mean what most scholars thought, but rather it had a connection with the definition of "worthy". Here again, I was not convinced by his replacement definition, but I was convinced that "set apart" had a problem in the particular verses we were studying.
I don't know if there is any important word in the Bible other than holy that has suffered more in the effort to find a good definition for it. As I once mentioned in one of my earlier blog posts, I counted something like 20 options for its definition. The good news is that probably 17 of the 20 deserve little or no more effort applied to them. The experts in scholarship in times of uncertainty, seem to sometimes take shots in the dark out of their own sense of urgency. That is what many of the 17 definitions appear to be, but I think they do show up due to underlying uncertainty about what the original text words underlying our English word, holy, mean.
The largest conflict and controversy as a result is about 3 options: 1) moral wholeness, 2) purity, and 3) set apartness. The first thing to consider is that most translators have assumed there can only be one meaning as in one definition. They have not readily considered Dr. Stein's concern that there is more than one kind of meaning, even while there would only be one definition for holy.
The other aspect of this discussion is that Andrew Murray, a rather famous pastor from South Africa near the end of the early 1800s and early 1900s also raised a similar concern about meaning. In his little devotional book, Holy in Christ, he added a little word study at the back of the book on various proposed meanings on holy. He actually labels each definition under a letter of the alphabet A-G (7 possible definitions). His own favorite is C, but he also sees subsets of his view under 1 - 8. I have verified my opinion that he favored C. (since he does not say it directly) in his book from the early 1900s in his book Andrew Murray on Prayer. One of the most important parts of his discussion is where he points out that in general if holy means "set apart", then it does not by itself explain why.
I liken his argument to that of the difference that Dr. Stein drew between definition, implication, and significance. What Murray seems to be saying is that "set apart" fits more in the position of significance or implication, but that it does not have by itself a definition for why it is "set apart", because it is not the definition of holy, but moral wholeness does fit that role. I think that may put Pastor Andrew Murray's point on a more solid footing as far as the rules of interpretation are concerned.
So much for trying to clarify the meaning of holy. There are at least 3 good options that have a strong standing. Now it is important to no longer assume that it has to be 1 of the 3 meanings given. It could be all 3, if they are related to definition, implication, and significance. When I come later to looking at the Transfer aspect of holy, then I will make more of the contextual argument and then later under teaching, I will work more on the referent aspect of meaning. But also I will then make more of the common sense or specialized sense argument for what it is and it is not.
Now it is important to no longer
assume that it [holy] has to be
1 of 3 meanings.
Now let's develop its meaningfulness. I think it is important to define the top 3 proposed meanings for maximum meaning in their usage.
1) moral wholeness - the moral aspect has to do with goodness in conduct or character. Wholeness here refers to containing all the elements or parts, so that it is a complete morality. Jonathan Edwards spoke of a moral wholeness that included right, true, loving, and good.
2) purity - the quality or condition of being pure or clean. It has the quality of not being mixed like pure water or pure gold.
3) set apart - to separate and to keep for a purpose as in reserving a seat for someone in particular.
In each case, these words each have a relatively high level of meaning to us. It is not the case that they are meaningless words. Holy on the other hand, can become rather meaningless when you ask people on the street to define it. In a standard dictionary like Webster's New College Dictionary, we find the idea of dedicated to religious use; consecrated, sacred. The problem is that each of these ideas are nearly completely religious ideas, making them hard to relate to other parts of life. This is why holy can be difficult to understand.
CLOSING
What is really needed is to define holy in terms of the 3 options suggested in order to give it more meaning and clarity. Each of these is somewhat useful in that they have more contexts for use than the purely religious one. Holy can still be found to be useful in terms of being meaningful, if we can define it clearly using 1-3 of these words. Hallow on the other hand and sanctified on the other hand may need to disappear in an English context, because they are even more meaningless than holy is in English. When is the last time anyone realized that "hallowed be your name" is connected to "holy be your name"? Halloween be your name might be closer to the common person's thinking. That is far too meaningless. And when is the last time I've met someone who knows Latin? No time that I know of in recent years.
In Christ,
Jon
Monday, March 03, 2014
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Understanding the Arrangement of my Blog Entries
I am sure you came to this blog looking for the definition of holy. Since that is the case, I will begin by saying that I recommend not letting go of the three top possibilities. They are: 1) moral wholeness, 2) pure, and 3) set apart. That is what I recommend until you dig deeper and read more. But to do either the digging or reading on this blog, it will be helpful for you to know how my entries are arranged or organized. You can have the biggest library in the world, but if it is disorganized, it is worth less than a smaller one tightly organized.
I think an effective way to think of their organization is to think in terms of the persuasion or communication cascade found in The Complete Idiot's Guide to Persuasion: 1) reception, 2) processing, 3) response, and 4) behavior. Near the end of last year (Nov. 18, 2013), I became a person persuaded so far in the progress of the cascade that I reached stage 4, behavior. But that is not where I have always been starting with 2004. So let me point out the different kinds of reading that you will find.
RECEPTION POSTS: DID YOU GET IT?
From the beginning of 2004 to mid 2006, my posts are of the reception kind. This is when I first began to get it that holy could mean "moral wholeness". Prior to that time period, I didn't even know that the idea existed. So it was all brand new to me during the first period of reception. By the way, I had times when I really doubted the idea in the early going even if it does not show. If you still need to just receive the idea of a new definition for the first time, then I recommend going back to my earliest writing.
PROCESSING POSTS: DID YOU THINK ABOUT IT?
From mid 2006 to the end of 2008, my posts are of the processing kind. Toward the end of this time I also enrolled in post-graduate studies to process things more fully. I wanted to be able to answer the question: "Did you think about it?" with an affirmative. This is when I did a great deal of digging. It was my time to be thoughtful beyond just receiving the idea of moral wholeness. Here is when I began to dig more thoroughly into Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. If you need to dig more thoroughly, I would look at my posts during that time period.
RESPONSE: DID IT CHANGE YOU?
From 2009 through mid 2001, I began to think more about how I could make my blog posts more easy to use (user friendly), more fun (see the implications from this!), and more popular (to help people see that in the past it was the most popular position and that in the future this idea can rise to a majority view). In geek speak, these motivators for change are called: 1) self efficacy, 2) attitude, and 3) norms. As the saying goes like a rose, regardless of the name it's still the same thing. Don't think that 1) easy, 2) fun, and 3) popular are the whole story. There is a cost before you reach that result. But I've never heard of someone who doesn't appreciate a user friend device over one that is not.
BEHAVIOR: DID YOU HAVE A TACTFUL VIEW?
From mid 2011 through the end of 2013, I began to have a more TACTFUL VIEW of what I was writing. This is primarily seen in trying to cover all ten of the major questions that the mind asks to have answered before proceeding. It is also much more specific and not vague. Good intentions are not what is looked for here, but something that is concrete, observable performance and results that can be seen. It is what allows things to be known through action and results rather than unknown through vague or unclear things that are desired. By asking all ten questions contained in a TACTFUL VIEW (the eleventh letter states all ten are needed), it guarantees a full of answering all the major questions rather than just some.wide open dreams. It also guarantees more tact or class will be used in communication. Tact and class are something we can use more of in discussing conflict and controversy especially.
So depending on where you are in the persuasion cascade that is where you should begin in checking out my posts. My latest are especially more of a wrap-up than a starting point. To see the full effect of what is needed at each stage it can be helpful to consult the dates I suggest. Happy hunting everyone!
In Christ,
Jon
I think an effective way to think of their organization is to think in terms of the persuasion or communication cascade found in The Complete Idiot's Guide to Persuasion: 1) reception, 2) processing, 3) response, and 4) behavior. Near the end of last year (Nov. 18, 2013), I became a person persuaded so far in the progress of the cascade that I reached stage 4, behavior. But that is not where I have always been starting with 2004. So let me point out the different kinds of reading that you will find.
RECEPTION POSTS: DID YOU GET IT?
From the beginning of 2004 to mid 2006, my posts are of the reception kind. This is when I first began to get it that holy could mean "moral wholeness". Prior to that time period, I didn't even know that the idea existed. So it was all brand new to me during the first period of reception. By the way, I had times when I really doubted the idea in the early going even if it does not show. If you still need to just receive the idea of a new definition for the first time, then I recommend going back to my earliest writing.
PROCESSING POSTS: DID YOU THINK ABOUT IT?
From mid 2006 to the end of 2008, my posts are of the processing kind. Toward the end of this time I also enrolled in post-graduate studies to process things more fully. I wanted to be able to answer the question: "Did you think about it?" with an affirmative. This is when I did a great deal of digging. It was my time to be thoughtful beyond just receiving the idea of moral wholeness. Here is when I began to dig more thoroughly into Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. If you need to dig more thoroughly, I would look at my posts during that time period.
RESPONSE: DID IT CHANGE YOU?
From 2009 through mid 2001, I began to think more about how I could make my blog posts more easy to use (user friendly), more fun (see the implications from this!), and more popular (to help people see that in the past it was the most popular position and that in the future this idea can rise to a majority view). In geek speak, these motivators for change are called: 1) self efficacy, 2) attitude, and 3) norms. As the saying goes like a rose, regardless of the name it's still the same thing. Don't think that 1) easy, 2) fun, and 3) popular are the whole story. There is a cost before you reach that result. But I've never heard of someone who doesn't appreciate a user friend device over one that is not.
BEHAVIOR: DID YOU HAVE A TACTFUL VIEW?
From mid 2011 through the end of 2013, I began to have a more TACTFUL VIEW of what I was writing. This is primarily seen in trying to cover all ten of the major questions that the mind asks to have answered before proceeding. It is also much more specific and not vague. Good intentions are not what is looked for here, but something that is concrete, observable performance and results that can be seen. It is what allows things to be known through action and results rather than unknown through vague or unclear things that are desired. By asking all ten questions contained in a TACTFUL VIEW (the eleventh letter states all ten are needed), it guarantees a full of answering all the major questions rather than just some.wide open dreams. It also guarantees more tact or class will be used in communication. Tact and class are something we can use more of in discussing conflict and controversy especially.
So depending on where you are in the persuasion cascade that is where you should begin in checking out my posts. My latest are especially more of a wrap-up than a starting point. To see the full effect of what is needed at each stage it can be helpful to consult the dates I suggest. Happy hunting everyone!
In Christ,
Jon
Friday, February 28, 2014
Holy: Understanding It Better Through Understanding Persuasion Better
We can all be really gullible sometimes. The discussion surrounding the meaning of LORD/Yahweh, blessed, and holy all clearly demonstrate the danger. This danger is aggravated or heightened by the fact that each of these words are critical to understanding God's Word as a whole. When I ask people around me about how they discern an expert opinion from one that is not, they tell me they are very confused by all the different opinions. I personally know the feeling, but I also know a way out from all the different views and how to find a viable agreement among the experts.
Let me first remove some gullibility by explaining how you and I are persuaded by others. When you know how people persuade you, then it dramatically reduces your gullibility and makes you able to make your own decisions. How you are persuaded is not necessarily evil. It is like someone who knows any skill. It can be used or abused. It can be used for people's own selfish ends or for ends that advance not only selfish ends but the other's ends as well. Any skill can become something that conforms to love your neighbor as much as yourself. So persuasion as a skill does not always have to lead to love myself more than I love my neighbor. So what we need to know is when people are abusing persuasion skillfully and when they are using persuasion skillfully.
In The Complete Idiot's Guide to Persuasion, the author uses the analogy of a cascade to illustrate how persuasion works. He identifies this sequence to bring about a communication cascade toward persuasion. The steps are:
1) reception
2) processing
3) response, and
4) behavior.
So if these are the steps, let me give you the simplest explanation of each. I will get you a one sentence definition of each. Here is each one:
1) reception - it is the first dawn of awareness that there is something new out there and it needs to saturate communities with its message (ex. 2004 is when I first heard something new about holy - that it can mean moral wholeness and I found it in lots of communities of faith)
2) processing - it is discerning whether the light bulb in your receiver's mind is bright or dim and realizing that sometimes people are highly willing (the light bulb burns brightly) and other times not so much so (the light bulb burns dimly), so you have to move the dimmer switch to burn more brightly before there will be willing processing to maintain and make time for what is needed (ex. for the next 10 years, I processed the idea of moral wholeness and other ideas related to holy)
3) response - it is that point when the processing turns to action through demonstrating a favorable outcome through key motivators like easy, fun, and popular. The author here recognizes that we are adults, so the geek speak or adult equivalent for each of these is self-efficacy, attitude, and norms. The message has to create strong intentions or goals and strong motivators. (ex. it was easy [I could do it] using Eugene Nida's word classes to play around [attitude] with possible meanings for holy looking for the one that ought to be popular [fit the norm of biblical])
4) behavior - this is where a TACTful view is required according to this author by getting very specific about behavior, not just a generic response. Unfortunately, the author is not specific enough to satisfy a high school level mind, so I will add to their "TACTful view" a more "TACTFUL VIEW". Here it goes:
T) Target - who?
A) Action - how?
C) Context - where?
T) Time - when?
F) Fun - why?
U) Uncommon - which?
L) Label - what?
V) Vigorous - whole?
I) Intense - how many?
E) Enough - how much?
W) Way - all the way through all 10 of these or persuasion behavior will fail
Unfortunately, many people are persuaded even with huge gaps in answering these questions that the mind requires answers to before it finds what it is looking for ultimately. So if you want to avoid gullibility, then avoid persuasion that leaves you feeling these are not questions they answer, but questions they leave out. Even today, as I write, this one entry should not a case make. You need to read other of my entries too (read the newest first!). The only case I am making today that might be fully persuasive is that this is how persuasion works for the good (and unfortunately sometimes to the bad).
So each step of the persuasion cascade is how our words as persuaders cascade all the way into full blown behavior on every level - heart, soul, strength, and mind. So let me move from this common communication cascade of persuasion to one of the specifics of the meanings of LORD/Yahweh, blessed, and holy, It does no good, if nothing if I am not specific at this point about my behavior.
As I look at things, I sense right now (and I am gathering wise counsel at this point) the need to write a book and a paper on the topics of the three most important words in the Bible - LORD/Yahweh, blessed, and holy. The reason is because even though the internet is a wonderful way to gain reception in the world, it does not gain reception in some of the places that I would like my writing to gain reception. I would like scholars to hear what I have to say. I would like pastors to hear what I have to say. I would like lay people to hear what I have to say. Especially the last, since they are so numerous and I want heaven filled with people! Reception is a little harder to get than just writing on the internet alone. You also have to be persuasive!
A more popular book for pastors is where I think I should begin, since that type of speech communication comes easiest to me. The next would be the write to the scholarly community, because they are critical in a discussion of who really has expertise. And by expertise, I hope part of it is persuasive expertise. Finally, I want to speak anytime I can and write to the average person, because there is a lot more of them than the first two categories making them immensely important. But I think that they have the right to see me earn my wings of expertise too. It does no good if they see me ducking the tough (fun!) road of ministry professionals and seminary scholars. There may be other means, but so far it appears those two pieces are needed to be specific enough to get the job done.
In the meantime, keep in your mind the three major scholarly opinions for the biblical meaning of holy: 1) moral wholeness, 2) purity, and 3) set apart. Treasure all three and do not let anyone take any one of the three from your mind of discovery. Receive it don't let anyone steal any of them. I'll need something a little longer to make my case for the biblical understanding of holy (and the others), but Lord willing it is coming given time. May God bless your day.
In Christ,
Jon
Let me first remove some gullibility by explaining how you and I are persuaded by others. When you know how people persuade you, then it dramatically reduces your gullibility and makes you able to make your own decisions. How you are persuaded is not necessarily evil. It is like someone who knows any skill. It can be used or abused. It can be used for people's own selfish ends or for ends that advance not only selfish ends but the other's ends as well. Any skill can become something that conforms to love your neighbor as much as yourself. So persuasion as a skill does not always have to lead to love myself more than I love my neighbor. So what we need to know is when people are abusing persuasion skillfully and when they are using persuasion skillfully.
In The Complete Idiot's Guide to Persuasion, the author uses the analogy of a cascade to illustrate how persuasion works. He identifies this sequence to bring about a communication cascade toward persuasion. The steps are:
1) reception
2) processing
3) response, and
4) behavior.
So if these are the steps, let me give you the simplest explanation of each. I will get you a one sentence definition of each. Here is each one:
1) reception - it is the first dawn of awareness that there is something new out there and it needs to saturate communities with its message (ex. 2004 is when I first heard something new about holy - that it can mean moral wholeness and I found it in lots of communities of faith)
2) processing - it is discerning whether the light bulb in your receiver's mind is bright or dim and realizing that sometimes people are highly willing (the light bulb burns brightly) and other times not so much so (the light bulb burns dimly), so you have to move the dimmer switch to burn more brightly before there will be willing processing to maintain and make time for what is needed (ex. for the next 10 years, I processed the idea of moral wholeness and other ideas related to holy)
3) response - it is that point when the processing turns to action through demonstrating a favorable outcome through key motivators like easy, fun, and popular. The author here recognizes that we are adults, so the geek speak or adult equivalent for each of these is self-efficacy, attitude, and norms. The message has to create strong intentions or goals and strong motivators. (ex. it was easy [I could do it] using Eugene Nida's word classes to play around [attitude] with possible meanings for holy looking for the one that ought to be popular [fit the norm of biblical])
4) behavior - this is where a TACTful view is required according to this author by getting very specific about behavior, not just a generic response. Unfortunately, the author is not specific enough to satisfy a high school level mind, so I will add to their "TACTful view" a more "TACTFUL VIEW". Here it goes:
T) Target - who?
A) Action - how?
C) Context - where?
T) Time - when?
F) Fun - why?
U) Uncommon - which?
L) Label - what?
V) Vigorous - whole?
I) Intense - how many?
E) Enough - how much?
W) Way - all the way through all 10 of these or persuasion behavior will fail
Unfortunately, many people are persuaded even with huge gaps in answering these questions that the mind requires answers to before it finds what it is looking for ultimately. So if you want to avoid gullibility, then avoid persuasion that leaves you feeling these are not questions they answer, but questions they leave out. Even today, as I write, this one entry should not a case make. You need to read other of my entries too (read the newest first!). The only case I am making today that might be fully persuasive is that this is how persuasion works for the good (and unfortunately sometimes to the bad).
So each step of the persuasion cascade is how our words as persuaders cascade all the way into full blown behavior on every level - heart, soul, strength, and mind. So let me move from this common communication cascade of persuasion to one of the specifics of the meanings of LORD/Yahweh, blessed, and holy, It does no good, if nothing if I am not specific at this point about my behavior.
As I look at things, I sense right now (and I am gathering wise counsel at this point) the need to write a book and a paper on the topics of the three most important words in the Bible - LORD/Yahweh, blessed, and holy. The reason is because even though the internet is a wonderful way to gain reception in the world, it does not gain reception in some of the places that I would like my writing to gain reception. I would like scholars to hear what I have to say. I would like pastors to hear what I have to say. I would like lay people to hear what I have to say. Especially the last, since they are so numerous and I want heaven filled with people! Reception is a little harder to get than just writing on the internet alone. You also have to be persuasive!
A more popular book for pastors is where I think I should begin, since that type of speech communication comes easiest to me. The next would be the write to the scholarly community, because they are critical in a discussion of who really has expertise. And by expertise, I hope part of it is persuasive expertise. Finally, I want to speak anytime I can and write to the average person, because there is a lot more of them than the first two categories making them immensely important. But I think that they have the right to see me earn my wings of expertise too. It does no good if they see me ducking the tough (fun!) road of ministry professionals and seminary scholars. There may be other means, but so far it appears those two pieces are needed to be specific enough to get the job done.
In the meantime, keep in your mind the three major scholarly opinions for the biblical meaning of holy: 1) moral wholeness, 2) purity, and 3) set apart. Treasure all three and do not let anyone take any one of the three from your mind of discovery. Receive it don't let anyone steal any of them. I'll need something a little longer to make my case for the biblical understanding of holy (and the others), but Lord willing it is coming given time. May God bless your day.
In Christ,
Jon
Tuesday, February 04, 2014
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Understanding the Meaning of Meaning
No, the title may sound like a riddle, but it is really a fact. There is not one meaning of meaning and it is very important for understanding the meaning of holy. So what does it mean you ask? That is a loaded question. Which kind of meaning are you referring to in your question? Are you asking for its definition? Or are you asking for its implication? Or are you asking for its significance? Or maybe you want to know all three meanings. That is what I want to discuss today is all three meanings, because all three are found in the Bible.
Exodus 19:10- 12 is where you see a great example of this. In it, it suggests three meanings for holy in the order of definition, of implication, and of significance.
Moses is first told to go to the people and make them holy today and tomorrow. We are later today about the people that "the whole of the people in the camp trembled" (Exodus 19:16). It could be that to make holy or sanctify the people meant to assemble the whole or all of the people.
Then we are next told that Moses is to have the people wash their clothes. Further on, it is said that "they washed their clothes" (Exodus 19:14). Then they are told to be ready for the third day and to "not approach a woman" (Exodus 19:15b).
Finally, we are told that Moses is to set limits to the people so no one would touch God's holy mountain. To the trained observer there are three different meanings here rather than three synonymous meanings here. Years ago, Dr. Robert H. Stein trained us to think of all three kinds of meaning and not just definitional meaning.
I see three meanings for holy here corresponding to the three kinds of meaning mentioned above. First, I am persuaded that the definition of holy is seen first in the call to assemble "the whole of the people" as a parallel to "make holy the people". Second, I believe the implication is next brought up with the instructions to have the people wash their clothes and for the men not to have sexual relations with a woman. These both relate to the implication of holy being purity. Finally, the last section discusses a boundary or a limit to the holy mountain. It is set apart from other mountains as unique.
Let me illustrate from my own personal experience how definition, implication, and significance can occur together in a situation. I am now for the first time (this once would have been a big deal) going to reveal a strategy that I used as a football coach to turn around a game at half-time where we were trailing 18-0. What I did not realize then was that I referred to all three kinds of meaning in speaking to my players. First, I realized on my way to our team huddle at half time that I had to keep things simple. I had to make sure that they would purely focus on one thing to correct for the second half. Then I realized I must help them realize that it was possible to have a second half that was entirely different from the first half. And finally I assumed that I was talking to the whole offensive line and the whole defensive line, when I gave them my specific instructions on what to fix. They all had to act together as a whole, not as distinct parts. So, though not in the same order as in Exodus, I referred to purity (of focus - one only), I referred to significance where they needed to believe they could set apart the second half from the first (they could still win the game after losing it the first half). Finally, I defined the whole as the four members of the defensive line as having to act as a unit or as a whole rather than separate parts. In this case, the whole of the lineman needed to discipline themselves to all penetrate to the same depth as a defensive line. So it is not unusual for all three meanings to occur in one space of text or language. (By the way, the Green Bay Packers still haven't figured out this idea of penetrating to the same depth as Larry McCarren, a former Packer, has).
I am going to try my best to publish more entries. They may as a result be shorter like this one. But I want to end with the meanings of holy. I think holy does mean by definition the whole or according to the whole. I think holy does mean by implication that purity is necessary. There must be focus, (not duplicity) when this assembly of people comes together. They must think of only the one thing necessary and not be double-minded or made impure by thinking of many things rather than the one thing necessary. Finally, the significance of God's holiness is that his holy mountain must be set apart as untouchable on the part of the assembly. If it is whole, then the whole cannot be violated. It must then be distinct. So all three of the most popular meanings of holy are found in one place, but my argument is that only one is the definition and that is congregational wholeness (or moral wholeness in other contexts). So keep in mind all three kinds of meaning and do not assume that every meaning you hear about is a definition. May God bless your reading. And may God also bless those who taught me all that I know. Thank you.
In Christ,
Jon
Exodus 19:10- 12 is where you see a great example of this. In it, it suggests three meanings for holy in the order of definition, of implication, and of significance.
Moses is first told to go to the people and make them holy today and tomorrow. We are later today about the people that "the whole of the people in the camp trembled" (Exodus 19:16). It could be that to make holy or sanctify the people meant to assemble the whole or all of the people.
Then we are next told that Moses is to have the people wash their clothes. Further on, it is said that "they washed their clothes" (Exodus 19:14). Then they are told to be ready for the third day and to "not approach a woman" (Exodus 19:15b).
Finally, we are told that Moses is to set limits to the people so no one would touch God's holy mountain. To the trained observer there are three different meanings here rather than three synonymous meanings here. Years ago, Dr. Robert H. Stein trained us to think of all three kinds of meaning and not just definitional meaning.
I see three meanings for holy here corresponding to the three kinds of meaning mentioned above. First, I am persuaded that the definition of holy is seen first in the call to assemble "the whole of the people" as a parallel to "make holy the people". Second, I believe the implication is next brought up with the instructions to have the people wash their clothes and for the men not to have sexual relations with a woman. These both relate to the implication of holy being purity. Finally, the last section discusses a boundary or a limit to the holy mountain. It is set apart from other mountains as unique.
Let me illustrate from my own personal experience how definition, implication, and significance can occur together in a situation. I am now for the first time (this once would have been a big deal) going to reveal a strategy that I used as a football coach to turn around a game at half-time where we were trailing 18-0. What I did not realize then was that I referred to all three kinds of meaning in speaking to my players. First, I realized on my way to our team huddle at half time that I had to keep things simple. I had to make sure that they would purely focus on one thing to correct for the second half. Then I realized I must help them realize that it was possible to have a second half that was entirely different from the first half. And finally I assumed that I was talking to the whole offensive line and the whole defensive line, when I gave them my specific instructions on what to fix. They all had to act together as a whole, not as distinct parts. So, though not in the same order as in Exodus, I referred to purity (of focus - one only), I referred to significance where they needed to believe they could set apart the second half from the first (they could still win the game after losing it the first half). Finally, I defined the whole as the four members of the defensive line as having to act as a unit or as a whole rather than separate parts. In this case, the whole of the lineman needed to discipline themselves to all penetrate to the same depth as a defensive line. So it is not unusual for all three meanings to occur in one space of text or language. (By the way, the Green Bay Packers still haven't figured out this idea of penetrating to the same depth as Larry McCarren, a former Packer, has).
I am going to try my best to publish more entries. They may as a result be shorter like this one. But I want to end with the meanings of holy. I think holy does mean by definition the whole or according to the whole. I think holy does mean by implication that purity is necessary. There must be focus, (not duplicity) when this assembly of people comes together. They must think of only the one thing necessary and not be double-minded or made impure by thinking of many things rather than the one thing necessary. Finally, the significance of God's holiness is that his holy mountain must be set apart as untouchable on the part of the assembly. If it is whole, then the whole cannot be violated. It must then be distinct. So all three of the most popular meanings of holy are found in one place, but my argument is that only one is the definition and that is congregational wholeness (or moral wholeness in other contexts). So keep in mind all three kinds of meaning and do not assume that every meaning you hear about is a definition. May God bless your reading. And may God also bless those who taught me all that I know. Thank you.
In Christ,
Jon
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Lost and Found
Many people look up the definition of holy in an on-line or conventional English dictionary, hoping to discover an accurate definition for the meaning of holy in their English Bible. Scholars and their students take this a step further and look in Hebrew-English or Greek-English lexicons. Both of these tools can help or hinder discovery. They can block discovery, because many people have built their lives around a definition that they were given and so they are fearful of considering another option. Discovery or finding the lost is left for people like Albert Einstein, who once said:
I am thankful to all those who said NO to me.
It's because of them I did it myself.
I am also grateful to scholars saying NO to researching the meaning of holy. Some scholars have built their theologies around the definition of "set apart". So they are fearful of admitting they might be making nonsense of the biblical text. Let's look at whether we live in a time of discovery or concealment. Is what we are given real or fake? Have we found something or lost something?
My entire quest for the definition of holy began when a very good professor suggested a different definition for holy than "set apart", based on his inductive approach to Scripture. It is a method of exegesis or interpretation where Scripture is to speak for itself as much as possible on its own terms without interference from outside sources. He gave me an awareness of other options for the meaning of holy besides "set apart". This was the first crack of light for me toward discovery.
What really caught my attention years later was when I found something that was otherwise lost in other source materials in researching the meaning of holy. It was the English gloss or definition of holy as "wholly" in Strong's Concordance's dictionary. I had never seen or heard of that idea before that eureka moment. It was clear to me that this possible meaning had been lost, since I was then in my forties, I grew up in the church, I attended Christian educational institutions, and yet I had never heard this definition before. I then discovered further that Strong's Concordance was not alone. I found it in many other places in short succession through the power of the internet.
Now something being lost and then found does not mean that the discovery is valuable just because it is found, but it still means that there should be curiosity. Its being lost means concealment was happening whether intentional or not. Discoveries can be worthless and they can be extremely valuable, but either way discovery means that something is found that was previously lost. One of the great motivators behind this blog was to be a place where people could come and discover for themselves the possible meanings of holy and its one primary biblical meaning.
We need to recall a quote from Aristotle at this point: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Unfortunately, the mark of an educated mind today is not the same. Entertaining a thought is seen more and more as synonymous with acceptance. I want you to consider "wholly" as a possible meaning for holy without accepting it prematurely.
We've all heard of "lost and found" where people can pick up lost possessions. The sequence of lost and found looks something like this: 1) in possession, 2) lost or not found, 3) search or retrace steps, 4) discover or uncover, found, 5) in possession again, 6) lost again or re-lost or not re-found, 7) researched or searched again or retrace steps yet again, 8) re-discovered or re-uncovered, found again, 9) in possession yet again, and 10) etc. You probably know this sequence experientially. I hope it is not happening to you right now with things like car keys and house keys!
The hard part is determining which of these 9, etc. situations do we find ourselves in. The situation or season determines what is the course of action that we should take.
I mentioned earlier that the meaning I found in 2004 was a new discovery for me. The meaning of "wholly" had been lost by the time I was on the scene. You could say at the time of discovery what I was doing was retracing the steps of previous translators in determining the meaning of holy. This work was largely found in the translation called the KJV (or King James Version). Translation wars are irrelevant here. The point is what did they think was the meaning of holy at this earlier time of English translation history?
The Bible is significant because it represents holy and its meaning as something the people who heard it at the time possessed. The problem is that since that time, meanings can get lost. The solution is that they also can be re-discovered or researched.
Research is what I am currently doing on the topic of the definition of holy. It is both tedious at times, but also exhilarating. Discoveries are exciting!
Research is not needed, if nothing has ever been lost; but losing things and meanings is a too frequent problem. Because of the problem of people losing things, I am going to do the research only because others who I encouraged to do the research have said "NO" to the project. Saying "YES" is the goal of this blog. It is saying, "YES" to researching the biblical meaning of holy to where I can say the findings are valuable. Please join with me in this quest not for a Holy Grail, but for the biblical meaning of holy as it was once possessed in the time and place the books of the Bible were written. It is the standard for "in possession". God bless you this day.
In Christ,
Jon
I am thankful to all those who said NO to me.
It's because of them I did it myself.
I am also grateful to scholars saying NO to researching the meaning of holy. Some scholars have built their theologies around the definition of "set apart". So they are fearful of admitting they might be making nonsense of the biblical text. Let's look at whether we live in a time of discovery or concealment. Is what we are given real or fake? Have we found something or lost something?
My entire quest for the definition of holy began when a very good professor suggested a different definition for holy than "set apart", based on his inductive approach to Scripture. It is a method of exegesis or interpretation where Scripture is to speak for itself as much as possible on its own terms without interference from outside sources. He gave me an awareness of other options for the meaning of holy besides "set apart". This was the first crack of light for me toward discovery.
What really caught my attention years later was when I found something that was otherwise lost in other source materials in researching the meaning of holy. It was the English gloss or definition of holy as "wholly" in Strong's Concordance's dictionary. I had never seen or heard of that idea before that eureka moment. It was clear to me that this possible meaning had been lost, since I was then in my forties, I grew up in the church, I attended Christian educational institutions, and yet I had never heard this definition before. I then discovered further that Strong's Concordance was not alone. I found it in many other places in short succession through the power of the internet.
Now something being lost and then found does not mean that the discovery is valuable just because it is found, but it still means that there should be curiosity. Its being lost means concealment was happening whether intentional or not. Discoveries can be worthless and they can be extremely valuable, but either way discovery means that something is found that was previously lost. One of the great motivators behind this blog was to be a place where people could come and discover for themselves the possible meanings of holy and its one primary biblical meaning.
We need to recall a quote from Aristotle at this point: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Unfortunately, the mark of an educated mind today is not the same. Entertaining a thought is seen more and more as synonymous with acceptance. I want you to consider "wholly" as a possible meaning for holy without accepting it prematurely.
We've all heard of "lost and found" where people can pick up lost possessions. The sequence of lost and found looks something like this: 1) in possession, 2) lost or not found, 3) search or retrace steps, 4) discover or uncover, found, 5) in possession again, 6) lost again or re-lost or not re-found, 7) researched or searched again or retrace steps yet again, 8) re-discovered or re-uncovered, found again, 9) in possession yet again, and 10) etc. You probably know this sequence experientially. I hope it is not happening to you right now with things like car keys and house keys!
The hard part is determining which of these 9, etc. situations do we find ourselves in. The situation or season determines what is the course of action that we should take.
I mentioned earlier that the meaning I found in 2004 was a new discovery for me. The meaning of "wholly" had been lost by the time I was on the scene. You could say at the time of discovery what I was doing was retracing the steps of previous translators in determining the meaning of holy. This work was largely found in the translation called the KJV (or King James Version). Translation wars are irrelevant here. The point is what did they think was the meaning of holy at this earlier time of English translation history?
The Bible is significant because it represents holy and its meaning as something the people who heard it at the time possessed. The problem is that since that time, meanings can get lost. The solution is that they also can be re-discovered or researched.
Research is what I am currently doing on the topic of the definition of holy. It is both tedious at times, but also exhilarating. Discoveries are exciting!
Research is not needed, if nothing has ever been lost; but losing things and meanings is a too frequent problem. Because of the problem of people losing things, I am going to do the research only because others who I encouraged to do the research have said "NO" to the project. Saying "YES" is the goal of this blog. It is saying, "YES" to researching the biblical meaning of holy to where I can say the findings are valuable. Please join with me in this quest not for a Holy Grail, but for the biblical meaning of holy as it was once possessed in the time and place the books of the Bible were written. It is the standard for "in possession". God bless you this day.
In Christ,
Jon
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Skill and Outcomes
Knowing the definition of holy is second in importance behind only knowing God's personal name. This blog is not about what is God's personal name or how to say God's personal name (I have a separate blog dedicated to that project), but it is still about a very important topic. It is about the definition of the biblical words for holy. The words that are critical for this study are the Hebrew word qadosh, the Aramaic word qaddiysh, and the Greek word hagios (and each of their derivatives - words that originate from them). In this post, I want to talk about the skills necessary for determining the meaning of holy and the outcomes from those skills.
I want to being though with an illustration from last evening (2/18/13). I heard a very good presentation on four skills for health and the four outcomes from those skills. The presentation was well done. I wish everyone concerned with their health could have attended, because the speaker did a much better job than I can of presenting the skills to improve one's health. Let me introduce his ideas for health, as a way to illustrate the ideas behind a healthy definition of holy.
The four key outcomes (the "why?") for health were listed as (with my re-arrangement):
1) Stable
2) Flexible
3) Energetic
4) Aware
The four skills (the "how?") for these four outcomes were listed as (with my re-arrangement as corollaries):
1) Reducing inflammation
2) Journaling a coherent narrative
3) Increasing energy
4) Increasing complicated movements
If I were a doctor and I could tell you that you can have the four improved outcomes related to your physical health, then you would likely be overjoyed. If I could introduce the same for the definition of holy, then we should be even more overjoyed. What if we had a stable, flexible, energetic, and aware definition for holy?
Some may think we already have just that after consulting a number of the major lexicons on-line, but that is a bit short-sighted. Sometimes the internet is a great resource, but also it can vary in the quality of information that is available. If you had a few dusty volumes from a traditional library, then you would discover that some lexicons and other books on the topic of holy acknowledge that there are aspects of defining the word for which we are uncertain (unaware) and that the current most popular definition of "set apart" is actually controversial (unstable).
Wouldn't it be better, if we could reduce the controversy about the meaning of holy like reducing inflammation? Wouldn't it also be better, if we have a narrative addressing all the facts on the history of defining holy like journaling a coherent narrative? Wouldn't it be better still, if more people were devoted to the project like giving increasing energy? And finally, wouldn't it be better yet, if we define the word with a more complex process like being able to do increasing complicated movements that test a brain's awareness?
One problem is that assumed stability in the definition of holy does not substitute for stability without a crutch. It is a crutch to say that their is no controversy about the meaning of holy. That is like saying that my sprained ankle is stable, while I move down the hall using crutches. There is inflammation there rigidly preventing my joint from bending until full healing occurs. The problem is also that without true stability, my ankle join is also chaotic. It can be re-injured very easily since it lacks stability still. The ankle is still unstable, until I am able to remove the crutches during the time of rigidity and until I go through therapy to restore the ankle's own stability that can stand on its own without assistance. It is a crutch to say that the meaning of holy is stable. There exists disagreements. Disagreements or injuries tend to produce fire in the body of those who disputing. Holy has competing definitions that have been offered and it has at least two or three serious competitors for its definition. I am writing this blog, because I think it can be stabilized to one biblical definition that was intended by the original authors. But this comes about by reducing the fire of disagreement and by restoring things to a stable state. Acute disagreement can be a good thing provided chronic disagreement is not acceptable. The first does good like the ankle's inflammation when it is injured. The second is harmful as a problem fester's into a chronic state. I am afraid this is where things are stuck without effort to dislodge disagreement.
Another problem is that collecting the facts of the history of the meaning of holy does not substitute for a coherent narrative of the history of the meaning of holy. Most books I have read on the definition of holy do not include a narrative, but begin from a supposed "true" etymology. The problem is that the etymology involves more speculation than it does contemporary historical record for its meaning. This does not mean etymology is irrelevant as some seem to suppose or that it is worthless as others suppose. (James Barr and D. A. Carson seem to go a bit too far in their criticisms of etymology.) What it does mean is that the narrative for the definition of holy should include not only a speculative narrative about the meaning of holy in ancient times, but also a narrative of meanings given to it over time that is coherent rather than a collection of facts. Concordances and lexicons usually only give a collection of facts of how a word has been translated rather than giving a true definition or a narrative for how each meaning connects with another. A coherent narrative would show more connections over time, rather than just a vast leap back in history or a mere pile of facts (called "glosses" by Eugene A. Nida). That means that the definition of holy as "set apart" has connections that are relevant that need to be disclosed through a coherent narrative as does "whole" or "pure" or even "holy" itself as chosen by early English translators as a perceived connection between Hebrew culture and English culture.
Still another problem is that there does not seem to be an increase in energy in studying the meaning of holy, but a reduced energy. Work and investment to define holy don't seem to have the energy it once had. Exegetical method, however, does seem to have a lot of energy going into it, which is a positive. It is not energetic work to look up the meaning of holy through on-line lexicons. The work has already been done. What is work is carrying out a skillful process of testing the three major different definitions side by side ("pure", "set apart", and "whole"). What is also missing is lively interest and the different kinds of investing. The speaker last evening has written in his notes: "No action, no good outcomes". I don't see how we will get to a better place of defining holy without interest, action, and investment as energies. People need activities that excite them, not that just give them a chance to rest. Rest is our activity for the better part of one day each week, not every day. One of the major objects of my research has been to uncover the basic process used in Nehemiah 8 that should give us new zest and energy for the possibilities that were once impossible. Maybe we just need to believe more in the possibilities of present and future energy. I find Nehemiah's 8's: 1) Translate, 2) Transfer, 3) Total, 4) Train, and 5) Teach process to be energy producing. The body's cellular ability to produce energy declines by 1% per year and is irreversible up to this point, but I don't see that has to be the case with exegetical, interpretative, or hermeneutical method. Let's be energized rather than lethargic.
Finally, another problem is that awareness can slip away easily. A kind of brain fog can overcome the church as well as individuals. It goes beyond just amnesia and Alzheimer's Disease. A person who is totally sleep deprived may fail a test due to their sleep deprivation, but they at least are aware that they failed. More dangerous are those who get a few hours each night and fail the same test, but are not self-aware when failure happens. These results came from a recent study of differing kinds of sleep deprivation. Doing exegesis properly is a complicated process, but it need not be too complicated. It does not consist of just etymology or just word usage. One or the other of those is too simple. The process consists of the total basic method as found in Nehemiah 8. And it is important to be aware that these steps in Nehemiah 8 are basic steps. It is also important to be aware that there are more complex steps like textual criticism that may or may not be necessary in exegesis or interpretation in discussing a particular word's meaning. The basics are themselves complicated in that there is more than one differentiated component to the process, but these basics are also integrated into one total process. The ways to test our brains is by the use of increasing complicated methods. While we might be clumsy at first with complicated movements, our brain can learn new tricks and be better at becoming aware and developing awareness. Let's be aware of outcomes rather than being failures and unaware of our failures. Let's also be wide awake and aware of successes. Greater awareness is available.
In summary, it is important to integrate all the differentiated outcomes of: 1) stability, 2) flexibility, 3) increased energy, and 4) awareness to get health. These combine together to produce not just physical health, but as illustrated above, a healthy definition as well. This is the kind of definition that I am working toward. I believe that the method of translation gives stability to a definition. I also believe that the method of transfer also gives flexibility (as in context) to a definition. I further believe that the basic four or five step method of Nehemiah 8 gives energy to a definition. I finally believe that using a more complicated method than just etymology (with plausibility) or just usage (with possible parallels) is greater in awareness than those methods alone. The brain should be tested for its awareness of differentiated components through a complex method that is able to grow into even more complex methods, as needed. It should never stop at just two possible components for a word study. That shows a general lack of awareness for how language works as a system with differentiated components that need to be integrated together.
Now let's return full circle to my earlier layout on the outcomes and skills for physical health, but this time I will replace the skills with those relating to studying meanings in the Bible. The four key outcomes (the "why?") for definitions were listed earlier as:
1) Stable
2) Flexible
3) Energetic
4) Aware
The four skills (the "how?") for these four outcomes were listed earlier as ("Total" [see above] refers to the four integrated into a whole):
1) Translation
2) Transfer
3) Train
4) Teach
So I was energized by last nights presenter, not just because of insights into my physical health, but also for insights into the health of defining the word holy. In particular, he offers another way to look at outcomes like those I hope to produce from writing in this blog and in my post-graduate paper. I am very committed to a definition of holy that deserves the categorization of it as healthy: one that includes all the four outcomes, not just one or two.
So, if you don't find me giving you the one definition for holy based on a scholarly study right here and right now, it is only because there is a process that I have to follow like anyone else to deserve the name of contemporary scholarship. This does not mean that I don't think that some prior studies are adequate. I think exactly the opposite. But it is important to understand that prior church history (before the last 100 years), gave the definition of "whole", that still deserves recognition, for its classic definition. "Whole" is likely the primary reason why "holy" was chosen to translate qadosh, etc. by early English translators. I prefer to fall back on the well-established (with its two best competitors as still considered) and then move forward to a contemporary study, as a way to prove or disprove the well-established (stable). I prefer not to go with a definition (like "set apart") that is not as highly stable, until I have first completed a contemporary study of holy that has scholarly merit. But make no mistake, I am not waiting without any options for the here and now.
I believe firmly in a "now and not yet" status not only for the kingdom of God, but also for what I know in this present age. The "not yet" completed nature of my study does not hold me back to the point of having no position today. It only means that improvements in stability, flexibility, increased energy, and awareness are potential opportunities in the "not yet" future. That is what I would like to contribute, Lord willing. Many thanks to you for taking time to read my blog. My hope and prayer is that you have benefitted from it.
In Christ,
Jon
I want to being though with an illustration from last evening (2/18/13). I heard a very good presentation on four skills for health and the four outcomes from those skills. The presentation was well done. I wish everyone concerned with their health could have attended, because the speaker did a much better job than I can of presenting the skills to improve one's health. Let me introduce his ideas for health, as a way to illustrate the ideas behind a healthy definition of holy.
The four key outcomes (the "why?") for health were listed as (with my re-arrangement):
1) Stable
2) Flexible
3) Energetic
4) Aware
The four skills (the "how?") for these four outcomes were listed as (with my re-arrangement as corollaries):
1) Reducing inflammation
2) Journaling a coherent narrative
3) Increasing energy
4) Increasing complicated movements
If I were a doctor and I could tell you that you can have the four improved outcomes related to your physical health, then you would likely be overjoyed. If I could introduce the same for the definition of holy, then we should be even more overjoyed. What if we had a stable, flexible, energetic, and aware definition for holy?
Some may think we already have just that after consulting a number of the major lexicons on-line, but that is a bit short-sighted. Sometimes the internet is a great resource, but also it can vary in the quality of information that is available. If you had a few dusty volumes from a traditional library, then you would discover that some lexicons and other books on the topic of holy acknowledge that there are aspects of defining the word for which we are uncertain (unaware) and that the current most popular definition of "set apart" is actually controversial (unstable).
Wouldn't it be better, if we could reduce the controversy about the meaning of holy like reducing inflammation? Wouldn't it also be better, if we have a narrative addressing all the facts on the history of defining holy like journaling a coherent narrative? Wouldn't it be better still, if more people were devoted to the project like giving increasing energy? And finally, wouldn't it be better yet, if we define the word with a more complex process like being able to do increasing complicated movements that test a brain's awareness?
One problem is that assumed stability in the definition of holy does not substitute for stability without a crutch. It is a crutch to say that their is no controversy about the meaning of holy. That is like saying that my sprained ankle is stable, while I move down the hall using crutches. There is inflammation there rigidly preventing my joint from bending until full healing occurs. The problem is also that without true stability, my ankle join is also chaotic. It can be re-injured very easily since it lacks stability still. The ankle is still unstable, until I am able to remove the crutches during the time of rigidity and until I go through therapy to restore the ankle's own stability that can stand on its own without assistance. It is a crutch to say that the meaning of holy is stable. There exists disagreements. Disagreements or injuries tend to produce fire in the body of those who disputing. Holy has competing definitions that have been offered and it has at least two or three serious competitors for its definition. I am writing this blog, because I think it can be stabilized to one biblical definition that was intended by the original authors. But this comes about by reducing the fire of disagreement and by restoring things to a stable state. Acute disagreement can be a good thing provided chronic disagreement is not acceptable. The first does good like the ankle's inflammation when it is injured. The second is harmful as a problem fester's into a chronic state. I am afraid this is where things are stuck without effort to dislodge disagreement.
Another problem is that collecting the facts of the history of the meaning of holy does not substitute for a coherent narrative of the history of the meaning of holy. Most books I have read on the definition of holy do not include a narrative, but begin from a supposed "true" etymology. The problem is that the etymology involves more speculation than it does contemporary historical record for its meaning. This does not mean etymology is irrelevant as some seem to suppose or that it is worthless as others suppose. (James Barr and D. A. Carson seem to go a bit too far in their criticisms of etymology.) What it does mean is that the narrative for the definition of holy should include not only a speculative narrative about the meaning of holy in ancient times, but also a narrative of meanings given to it over time that is coherent rather than a collection of facts. Concordances and lexicons usually only give a collection of facts of how a word has been translated rather than giving a true definition or a narrative for how each meaning connects with another. A coherent narrative would show more connections over time, rather than just a vast leap back in history or a mere pile of facts (called "glosses" by Eugene A. Nida). That means that the definition of holy as "set apart" has connections that are relevant that need to be disclosed through a coherent narrative as does "whole" or "pure" or even "holy" itself as chosen by early English translators as a perceived connection between Hebrew culture and English culture.
Still another problem is that there does not seem to be an increase in energy in studying the meaning of holy, but a reduced energy. Work and investment to define holy don't seem to have the energy it once had. Exegetical method, however, does seem to have a lot of energy going into it, which is a positive. It is not energetic work to look up the meaning of holy through on-line lexicons. The work has already been done. What is work is carrying out a skillful process of testing the three major different definitions side by side ("pure", "set apart", and "whole"). What is also missing is lively interest and the different kinds of investing. The speaker last evening has written in his notes: "No action, no good outcomes". I don't see how we will get to a better place of defining holy without interest, action, and investment as energies. People need activities that excite them, not that just give them a chance to rest. Rest is our activity for the better part of one day each week, not every day. One of the major objects of my research has been to uncover the basic process used in Nehemiah 8 that should give us new zest and energy for the possibilities that were once impossible. Maybe we just need to believe more in the possibilities of present and future energy. I find Nehemiah's 8's: 1) Translate, 2) Transfer, 3) Total, 4) Train, and 5) Teach process to be energy producing. The body's cellular ability to produce energy declines by 1% per year and is irreversible up to this point, but I don't see that has to be the case with exegetical, interpretative, or hermeneutical method. Let's be energized rather than lethargic.
Finally, another problem is that awareness can slip away easily. A kind of brain fog can overcome the church as well as individuals. It goes beyond just amnesia and Alzheimer's Disease. A person who is totally sleep deprived may fail a test due to their sleep deprivation, but they at least are aware that they failed. More dangerous are those who get a few hours each night and fail the same test, but are not self-aware when failure happens. These results came from a recent study of differing kinds of sleep deprivation. Doing exegesis properly is a complicated process, but it need not be too complicated. It does not consist of just etymology or just word usage. One or the other of those is too simple. The process consists of the total basic method as found in Nehemiah 8. And it is important to be aware that these steps in Nehemiah 8 are basic steps. It is also important to be aware that there are more complex steps like textual criticism that may or may not be necessary in exegesis or interpretation in discussing a particular word's meaning. The basics are themselves complicated in that there is more than one differentiated component to the process, but these basics are also integrated into one total process. The ways to test our brains is by the use of increasing complicated methods. While we might be clumsy at first with complicated movements, our brain can learn new tricks and be better at becoming aware and developing awareness. Let's be aware of outcomes rather than being failures and unaware of our failures. Let's also be wide awake and aware of successes. Greater awareness is available.
In summary, it is important to integrate all the differentiated outcomes of: 1) stability, 2) flexibility, 3) increased energy, and 4) awareness to get health. These combine together to produce not just physical health, but as illustrated above, a healthy definition as well. This is the kind of definition that I am working toward. I believe that the method of translation gives stability to a definition. I also believe that the method of transfer also gives flexibility (as in context) to a definition. I further believe that the basic four or five step method of Nehemiah 8 gives energy to a definition. I finally believe that using a more complicated method than just etymology (with plausibility) or just usage (with possible parallels) is greater in awareness than those methods alone. The brain should be tested for its awareness of differentiated components through a complex method that is able to grow into even more complex methods, as needed. It should never stop at just two possible components for a word study. That shows a general lack of awareness for how language works as a system with differentiated components that need to be integrated together.
Now let's return full circle to my earlier layout on the outcomes and skills for physical health, but this time I will replace the skills with those relating to studying meanings in the Bible. The four key outcomes (the "why?") for definitions were listed earlier as:
1) Stable
2) Flexible
3) Energetic
4) Aware
The four skills (the "how?") for these four outcomes were listed earlier as ("Total" [see above] refers to the four integrated into a whole):
1) Translation
2) Transfer
3) Train
4) Teach
So I was energized by last nights presenter, not just because of insights into my physical health, but also for insights into the health of defining the word holy. In particular, he offers another way to look at outcomes like those I hope to produce from writing in this blog and in my post-graduate paper. I am very committed to a definition of holy that deserves the categorization of it as healthy: one that includes all the four outcomes, not just one or two.
So, if you don't find me giving you the one definition for holy based on a scholarly study right here and right now, it is only because there is a process that I have to follow like anyone else to deserve the name of contemporary scholarship. This does not mean that I don't think that some prior studies are adequate. I think exactly the opposite. But it is important to understand that prior church history (before the last 100 years), gave the definition of "whole", that still deserves recognition, for its classic definition. "Whole" is likely the primary reason why "holy" was chosen to translate qadosh, etc. by early English translators. I prefer to fall back on the well-established (with its two best competitors as still considered) and then move forward to a contemporary study, as a way to prove or disprove the well-established (stable). I prefer not to go with a definition (like "set apart") that is not as highly stable, until I have first completed a contemporary study of holy that has scholarly merit. But make no mistake, I am not waiting without any options for the here and now.
I believe firmly in a "now and not yet" status not only for the kingdom of God, but also for what I know in this present age. The "not yet" completed nature of my study does not hold me back to the point of having no position today. It only means that improvements in stability, flexibility, increased energy, and awareness are potential opportunities in the "not yet" future. That is what I would like to contribute, Lord willing. Many thanks to you for taking time to read my blog. My hope and prayer is that you have benefitted from it.
In Christ,
Jon
Monday, February 11, 2013
Holy: Understanding it Better Through the Hebrew for Whole
If you want to know the definition for the word holy, it is important that you also understand the words that are used in its definition. There are a number of words like hallow for the word holy. Some scholars would call "hallow" a gloss (how a word is translated in a particular context) and not a definition. But there is also words that are suggested as its definition that we must also understand clearly from the biblical text. The most important three are: 1) pure, 2) set apart, and 3) whole. These are not just possible definitions for holy, but also words that are found elsewhere in the biblical text in an English translation. What I would like to in this post is help people understand the word "whole" better as a translation for the Hebrew word "kol" (Strong's #s 3605, 3606, [see 3634]).
One of the most significant things about the Hebrew for "whole" is its enormous frequency, but you would not be aware of it unless you know what I am about to explain or you know Hebrew and have checked it out in an exhaustive Hebrew concordance or computer concordance. The difficulty of seeing "whole's" frequency or importance arises out the Greek Septuagint's translation of "kol" from the Hebrew. It uses two Greek words for what is in the original Hebrew one word. This was not necessarily a problem for the original readers or hearers of the text in Greek, but it may now be a problem for us who speak English.
It is always interesting to hear or read something by someone who is writing or speaking in a second language that they learned after their first language. They struggle a little with English grammar. Maybe even more than you or I! This is because the grammar of English is not universal to all languages. There are changes that must be made or adapted to in order to say things fluidly in English.
Likewise in moving from Hebrew to Greek, there are changes in the grammar and not just the change in what word or words is going to express an idea from another language. In the case of translating "whole" from Hebrew to Greek we read in Gesenius' lexicon the following regarding the first definition of kol as "whole":
... in English this has to be expressed either by whole preceded by the article, or by all followed
by it; when the noun is made definite by a pronoun suffixed; it must be rendered in English by all
without the article, or else by the whole of ....
This makes perfect sense to me personally, because I had been practicing putting "the whole of" in place of "all" each time I ran across "kol" in the Hebrew. Gesenius was aware that sometimes in one language adjustments must be made by necessity ("has to be rendered" - a quote from elsewhere in his entry) from another. In this case, the Greek Septuagint and apparently other Western languages like English had to render things differently than the Hebrew text does. But the issue also goes beyond just the translation or rendering to what did the people who read the translation understand. Did the Greeks, Hellenists, or Hellenized Jews understand that "all" can also refer to "the whole of"?
They may have understood that idea. The meaning of "all" may also have been used to refer to the "whole" and the readers may have been aware of this. As an English speaker this does happen where we use "all" to indicate the whole. If someone asks me whether I have finished re-assembling my bike I might reply: "It is all done" rather than stating: The bike is once again whole". "It is all done" does not mean that I would be unaware that the bike is also now "whole", but it could mean that I am weakly aware of it rather than strongly aware of the reference to being whole. Maybe the Hebrews and the Greeks were strongly aware in the biblical text where "whole" is found while we are only weakly aware of the same.
The problem for us in English is that though I may have a slight inclination toward realizing I just said something about the bike being whole, I may not be as aware as those who spoke that way in Greek or in the context of speaking in both Hebrew and Greek. The idea of "whole" may have been more explicit to them than it is to us future Westerners who speak English. So maybe we need to re-think using the word "all" now, though it made perfect sense from the time of the penning of the Septuagint and at least until the first century, So what about the twenty-first century?
I think in the twenty-first century we may need a re-introduction of "the whole of" in place of "all" in our translations. The other alternative would be to train people explicitly that "all" is sometimes used in place of "the whole of", but that might be far more difficult. In any case, if you are reading an English translation, you might be missing "the whole of" as you are reading, even while people in the first century did not.
Here is an example. The word for catholic coming out of the Hebrew and made up of Greek morphemes that are transliterated into English is literally "according to the whole". When you look at the Greek Septuagint translation, you will tend to see it as "according to all". One of the reasons that I prefer catholic over universal is because it shows "whole" in the morpheme (part of a word with meaning) "hol" and universal shows "all" in the morpheme "al". Catholic is properly "according to the whole", when you read the original Hebrew text. I do think that "according to all" could have meant the same thing as "according to the whole" in the first century. I am not sure though that this works in English. We are at least twenty centuries removed!
So let's tend toward clarity and toward being meaningful. Let's say "the whole of", when we mean "whole" and then "all" may have to become a narrower word; unless we can make it clear to English speakers that "all" is also in some contexts a way to speak of the "whole" and we must know the difference. Let's realize that "whole" is very frequent in the Hebrew and that "all" in Greek "pas" sometimes means in the Hebrew "kol", "the whole of". By separating these two ideas by assigning one as part of the part-whole semantic domain (a group of words that are similar in terms of meaning) and the other as part of the amount semantic domain, we may also gain a great deal more meaningfulness behind using the word "whole" in a biblical context and in an English translation. It may also help us see better in the original Hebrew (and translated Greek), if there is a close relationship between "holy" and "whole" not only in English, but also possibly in Hebrew. That is the Hebrew's kol's significance in relation to Hebrew's qadosh. Thank you for taking time to read my post.
In Christ,
Jon
.
One of the most significant things about the Hebrew for "whole" is its enormous frequency, but you would not be aware of it unless you know what I am about to explain or you know Hebrew and have checked it out in an exhaustive Hebrew concordance or computer concordance. The difficulty of seeing "whole's" frequency or importance arises out the Greek Septuagint's translation of "kol" from the Hebrew. It uses two Greek words for what is in the original Hebrew one word. This was not necessarily a problem for the original readers or hearers of the text in Greek, but it may now be a problem for us who speak English.
It is always interesting to hear or read something by someone who is writing or speaking in a second language that they learned after their first language. They struggle a little with English grammar. Maybe even more than you or I! This is because the grammar of English is not universal to all languages. There are changes that must be made or adapted to in order to say things fluidly in English.
Likewise in moving from Hebrew to Greek, there are changes in the grammar and not just the change in what word or words is going to express an idea from another language. In the case of translating "whole" from Hebrew to Greek we read in Gesenius' lexicon the following regarding the first definition of kol as "whole":
... in English this has to be expressed either by whole preceded by the article, or by all followed
by it; when the noun is made definite by a pronoun suffixed; it must be rendered in English by all
without the article, or else by the whole of ....
This makes perfect sense to me personally, because I had been practicing putting "the whole of" in place of "all" each time I ran across "kol" in the Hebrew. Gesenius was aware that sometimes in one language adjustments must be made by necessity ("has to be rendered" - a quote from elsewhere in his entry) from another. In this case, the Greek Septuagint and apparently other Western languages like English had to render things differently than the Hebrew text does. But the issue also goes beyond just the translation or rendering to what did the people who read the translation understand. Did the Greeks, Hellenists, or Hellenized Jews understand that "all" can also refer to "the whole of"?
They may have understood that idea. The meaning of "all" may also have been used to refer to the "whole" and the readers may have been aware of this. As an English speaker this does happen where we use "all" to indicate the whole. If someone asks me whether I have finished re-assembling my bike I might reply: "It is all done" rather than stating: The bike is once again whole". "It is all done" does not mean that I would be unaware that the bike is also now "whole", but it could mean that I am weakly aware of it rather than strongly aware of the reference to being whole. Maybe the Hebrews and the Greeks were strongly aware in the biblical text where "whole" is found while we are only weakly aware of the same.
The problem for us in English is that though I may have a slight inclination toward realizing I just said something about the bike being whole, I may not be as aware as those who spoke that way in Greek or in the context of speaking in both Hebrew and Greek. The idea of "whole" may have been more explicit to them than it is to us future Westerners who speak English. So maybe we need to re-think using the word "all" now, though it made perfect sense from the time of the penning of the Septuagint and at least until the first century, So what about the twenty-first century?
I think in the twenty-first century we may need a re-introduction of "the whole of" in place of "all" in our translations. The other alternative would be to train people explicitly that "all" is sometimes used in place of "the whole of", but that might be far more difficult. In any case, if you are reading an English translation, you might be missing "the whole of" as you are reading, even while people in the first century did not.
Here is an example. The word for catholic coming out of the Hebrew and made up of Greek morphemes that are transliterated into English is literally "according to the whole". When you look at the Greek Septuagint translation, you will tend to see it as "according to all". One of the reasons that I prefer catholic over universal is because it shows "whole" in the morpheme (part of a word with meaning) "hol" and universal shows "all" in the morpheme "al". Catholic is properly "according to the whole", when you read the original Hebrew text. I do think that "according to all" could have meant the same thing as "according to the whole" in the first century. I am not sure though that this works in English. We are at least twenty centuries removed!
So let's tend toward clarity and toward being meaningful. Let's say "the whole of", when we mean "whole" and then "all" may have to become a narrower word; unless we can make it clear to English speakers that "all" is also in some contexts a way to speak of the "whole" and we must know the difference. Let's realize that "whole" is very frequent in the Hebrew and that "all" in Greek "pas" sometimes means in the Hebrew "kol", "the whole of". By separating these two ideas by assigning one as part of the part-whole semantic domain (a group of words that are similar in terms of meaning) and the other as part of the amount semantic domain, we may also gain a great deal more meaningfulness behind using the word "whole" in a biblical context and in an English translation. It may also help us see better in the original Hebrew (and translated Greek), if there is a close relationship between "holy" and "whole" not only in English, but also possibly in Hebrew. That is the Hebrew's kol's significance in relation to Hebrew's qadosh. Thank you for taking time to read my post.
In Christ,
Jon
.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Answering the Question "Why?"
So why does the definition of holy matter? There are fundamentally two answers to that question. The first is the life-relevant answer. The second is the teaching-relevant answer. I have generally spent more time on the second than on the first in this blog. I have a second blog that answers more the first question, but it depends a great deal on answering the teaching-relevant question that this blog focuses on the majority of the time. Today, I want to expand more on both answers to the why questions you might have.
By the way, before I get too far, I want to say that holy can be defined according to the level of adherents for each view, either as: (1) set apart, (2) pure, or (3) whole/wholly. I'll say more on this as I progress, but I know some readers are visiting this blog just for the fast answer and they will not read any further. For those who are reading further, here is what I am up to in my blog and in my paper for my post-graduate work.
My plan is as follows:
I will define holy (Leviticus 19:1-2) as either: 1) set apart, 2) pure, or 3)whole/wholly depending on the evidence that I collect from Scripture in its original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek ....
... using both biblical exegesis and linguistic synthesis & analysis as my tools, including:
1) 5 T's - Translate, Transfer, Total, Train, and Teach - Nehemiah 8 (issue: Whole)
2) clarity and meaning combined (issue: Amount)
3) contextual structural analysis diagrams to identify precise parallels (issue: Relationship)
4) pre-state and post-state diagrams as well as syntactical tools to clarify actions (issue Action)
5) the combination of lexicons based on both classical grammar and scientific linguistics to insure
the best results (issue: Things) ...
... Because:
1) the definition of holy is a potential solution to corporate and individual struggles in the church
and even worldwide, based on its implications
2) other potential solutions that have been tried in recent decades and years have fallen short of
solutions during past periods of church reformation and revival
3) there is a measure of uncertainty or lack of clarity for what holy is by definition, and there is
a likely way to reduce the uncertainty that has been acknowledged by big name scholars (Otto,
Snaith, Kline, etc.)
4) there is a moral obligation to pass on the gifts given to me by my teachers (and I believe the
Holy Spirit) to the wider world
5) the effort to define holy fits with the tools that I received for exegesis and for linguistic
synthesis, so it means that I can contribute something to the discussion because otherwise I should
do nothing, so I don't waste the time of others.
So the first 5 focus on what is the "How?" for what I am doing. The second 5 get at the nitty-gritty part of "Why?" am I doing all this. For me life matters more than teaching, but also teaching is sometimes the means to life change. May God richly bless you this day and may He guide my efforts at teaching, so they have worth and value to others and to myself. Thank you for taking some time to read to the end of my writing today.
In Christ,
Jon
By the way, before I get too far, I want to say that holy can be defined according to the level of adherents for each view, either as: (1) set apart, (2) pure, or (3) whole/wholly. I'll say more on this as I progress, but I know some readers are visiting this blog just for the fast answer and they will not read any further. For those who are reading further, here is what I am up to in my blog and in my paper for my post-graduate work.
My plan is as follows:
I will define holy (Leviticus 19:1-2) as either: 1) set apart, 2) pure, or 3)whole/wholly depending on the evidence that I collect from Scripture in its original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek ....
... using both biblical exegesis and linguistic synthesis & analysis as my tools, including:
1) 5 T's - Translate, Transfer, Total, Train, and Teach - Nehemiah 8 (issue: Whole)
2) clarity and meaning combined (issue: Amount)
3) contextual structural analysis diagrams to identify precise parallels (issue: Relationship)
4) pre-state and post-state diagrams as well as syntactical tools to clarify actions (issue Action)
5) the combination of lexicons based on both classical grammar and scientific linguistics to insure
the best results (issue: Things) ...
... Because:
1) the definition of holy is a potential solution to corporate and individual struggles in the church
and even worldwide, based on its implications
2) other potential solutions that have been tried in recent decades and years have fallen short of
solutions during past periods of church reformation and revival
3) there is a measure of uncertainty or lack of clarity for what holy is by definition, and there is
a likely way to reduce the uncertainty that has been acknowledged by big name scholars (Otto,
Snaith, Kline, etc.)
4) there is a moral obligation to pass on the gifts given to me by my teachers (and I believe the
Holy Spirit) to the wider world
5) the effort to define holy fits with the tools that I received for exegesis and for linguistic
synthesis, so it means that I can contribute something to the discussion because otherwise I should
do nothing, so I don't waste the time of others.
So the first 5 focus on what is the "How?" for what I am doing. The second 5 get at the nitty-gritty part of "Why?" am I doing all this. For me life matters more than teaching, but also teaching is sometimes the means to life change. May God richly bless you this day and may He guide my efforts at teaching, so they have worth and value to others and to myself. Thank you for taking some time to read to the end of my writing today.
In Christ,
Jon
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Textual Studies
I want to begin with an examle from what is today called textual criticism.There are four books that are critical for examining the underlying New Testament Greek text. They are:
1) The Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies
2) A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, written by Bruce M. Metzger
3) The Text of the New Testament, written by Kurt and Barbara Aland.
4) The Identity of the New Testament Text, written by William Pickering
The final one is a controversial addition, because it disagrees on the level of principles with with first three. I've added it, because I believe in fairness toward competing views. The more important issue though is a practice that is common to textual criticism that is unfortunately lacking in biblical translation. I read this recently in Bible Translation and the Spread of the Church: " ... the United Bible Society attempts to help translators by providing a graded evaluation for textual variants that are cited"(p. 42). I would like today to provide grade for he translation of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words behind the English translation of "holy".
First, I have to add one further point from the book that I mention in the previous paragraph about textual critics providing options with grades: "Kurt Aland writes that this feature [a graded evaluation for textual variants; was `insisted upon by Eugene A. Nida against the whole editorial committee, if I may speak out of school, and in retrospect I believe he was right'" (p. 42). I too believe he was right and that the principle can carry over to translation. When there are variants or variations in how a word is translated, why not grade them as a group rather than insist on one option alone without grade A evidence?
Here is what I insist that we need to do in translating holy - we need to show the variations in how "holy" in the original is translated rather than present the evidence as though there is only one option, when we are speaking of more than one possibility. Based on my reading, here is what the committee of scholars would like assign for grades for the different possible translations of the original text whether in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.
There grades for a committee of scholars (if they know the evidence well):
"set apart" B+
"pure" B-
"whole C-
This I think would be the graded evaluation for translation variants. I want to point out that these are not my personal grades on these variants. Notice that I do not think that the best scholars on this topic assign an A grade for any of these definitions. I draw this primarily from the most prominent theologians on the topic in the 20th Century: Rudoph Otto "wholly other", Norman Snaith "set apart" and Klein "probable" for "set apart".
The difficulty for the last entry of "whole" and the reason it receives only a C- is that while the English word for "holy" has a root meaning in English of whole, this only proves what the early English translators and some of its earlier readers thought the Hebrew meant "whole" according to their English translation efforts. That is significant, but it is not the final conclusion in the discussion. The English word "holy" cannot be used to prove what the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek means. It is a translation and not the original. We have to retrace the evidence for "holy" as a valid translation. For myself, if qadosh in Hebrew or hagios in Greek does not mean whole, then I think holy might be better replaced for the sake of meaningfulness and clarity, consistently by the English words "set apart" or "pure". It makes little sense for the sake of meaningfulness to have to always explain what holy means. Holy has historical value, but does it have contemporary value in that case?
The other problem for the meaning of "whole" is that the scholarship of that earlier era going back to at least Tyndale in the history of English transaltion, it does not leave us clear footnotes to trace where the idea of "whole" comes from. We know know what they thought (their conlusions), but we are going to have a hard time knowing why and from what source (their support).
So moving forward from here, it is not only ancient copiers of the text that preseved marginal readings, so do contemporary textual scholars. The old copyists graded their options according ot in the text (higher grade) and in the margin of the text (lower grade). We need to do the same with those words that are translated in most English translations by "holy", "sanctified", or "hallowed". We need to presently grade the different meanings openly for the readers. Give people the graded options they deserve, ratther than one option that suggests a higher certainty than there is in reality.
Reality is refreshing. Anything less is draining.
In Christ,
Jon
1) The Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies
2) A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, written by Bruce M. Metzger
3) The Text of the New Testament, written by Kurt and Barbara Aland.
4) The Identity of the New Testament Text, written by William Pickering
The final one is a controversial addition, because it disagrees on the level of principles with with first three. I've added it, because I believe in fairness toward competing views. The more important issue though is a practice that is common to textual criticism that is unfortunately lacking in biblical translation. I read this recently in Bible Translation and the Spread of the Church: " ... the United Bible Society attempts to help translators by providing a graded evaluation for textual variants that are cited"(p. 42). I would like today to provide grade for he translation of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words behind the English translation of "holy".
First, I have to add one further point from the book that I mention in the previous paragraph about textual critics providing options with grades: "Kurt Aland writes that this feature [a graded evaluation for textual variants; was `insisted upon by Eugene A. Nida against the whole editorial committee, if I may speak out of school, and in retrospect I believe he was right'" (p. 42). I too believe he was right and that the principle can carry over to translation. When there are variants or variations in how a word is translated, why not grade them as a group rather than insist on one option alone without grade A evidence?
Here is what I insist that we need to do in translating holy - we need to show the variations in how "holy" in the original is translated rather than present the evidence as though there is only one option, when we are speaking of more than one possibility. Based on my reading, here is what the committee of scholars would like assign for grades for the different possible translations of the original text whether in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.
There grades for a committee of scholars (if they know the evidence well):
"set apart" B+
"pure" B-
"whole C-
This I think would be the graded evaluation for translation variants. I want to point out that these are not my personal grades on these variants. Notice that I do not think that the best scholars on this topic assign an A grade for any of these definitions. I draw this primarily from the most prominent theologians on the topic in the 20th Century: Rudoph Otto "wholly other", Norman Snaith "set apart" and Klein "probable" for "set apart".
The difficulty for the last entry of "whole" and the reason it receives only a C- is that while the English word for "holy" has a root meaning in English of whole, this only proves what the early English translators and some of its earlier readers thought the Hebrew meant "whole" according to their English translation efforts. That is significant, but it is not the final conclusion in the discussion. The English word "holy" cannot be used to prove what the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek means. It is a translation and not the original. We have to retrace the evidence for "holy" as a valid translation. For myself, if qadosh in Hebrew or hagios in Greek does not mean whole, then I think holy might be better replaced for the sake of meaningfulness and clarity, consistently by the English words "set apart" or "pure". It makes little sense for the sake of meaningfulness to have to always explain what holy means. Holy has historical value, but does it have contemporary value in that case?
The other problem for the meaning of "whole" is that the scholarship of that earlier era going back to at least Tyndale in the history of English transaltion, it does not leave us clear footnotes to trace where the idea of "whole" comes from. We know know what they thought (their conlusions), but we are going to have a hard time knowing why and from what source (their support).
So moving forward from here, it is not only ancient copiers of the text that preseved marginal readings, so do contemporary textual scholars. The old copyists graded their options according ot in the text (higher grade) and in the margin of the text (lower grade). We need to do the same with those words that are translated in most English translations by "holy", "sanctified", or "hallowed". We need to presently grade the different meanings openly for the readers. Give people the graded options they deserve, ratther than one option that suggests a higher certainty than there is in reality.
Reality is refreshing. Anything less is draining.
In Christ,
Jon
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
Holy: Understanding Better Where I am in Studying This Key Word
I want at this point to give all of my readers a better idea of who I am. The internet provides unmatched ability to give you a better sense of who I am personally without my having to travel to where you are today. So today I am providing to you a video to watch that sums up where my project on the definition of holy is and where it is going.
Here it is (simply click on the link below):
http://youtu.be/BV0p9aJs_QU
I hope viewing the video gave you a little more personal insight into who I am and that it also communicates where I am in the process of studying the meaning of holy in the Biblical text. My goal from my studies is to be qualified to also teach on the subject from the Biblical text. Remember from what I said in the video that being a knower is not the same as being a teacher or vice versa. It takes both.
If you have insights, questions, or comments; then feel free to respond to this blog entry and my video. It is my humble wish that this entry is an encouragement to all who need it. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jon
Here it is (simply click on the link below):
http://youtu.be/BV0p9aJs_QU
I hope viewing the video gave you a little more personal insight into who I am and that it also communicates where I am in the process of studying the meaning of holy in the Biblical text. My goal from my studies is to be qualified to also teach on the subject from the Biblical text. Remember from what I said in the video that being a knower is not the same as being a teacher or vice versa. It takes both.
If you have insights, questions, or comments; then feel free to respond to this blog entry and my video. It is my humble wish that this entry is an encouragement to all who need it. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jon
Friday, September 30, 2011
Holy: Understanding its Definition better Through Using a Process
This entry in my blog steps back from directly defining holy to talk more broadly about my views on methods to define holy. In my view the weakness of some of the writing on holiness is a lack of awareness on how important their method is to determining the outcome of their definition of holy.
My point is to say that the process we use to determine the meaning of holy is very important. Our methods have implications and can cause us to draw either correct or incorrect conclusions. My other point is that biases can get in the way of accepting relevant methods for defining it.
The process is important to the effect or outcome, whether it is the process for determining a meaning for a word or whether it is a process for shooting a basketball. The "how" is relevant alongside the "why". If making a basket is my motive, my reason why, then the method, my how I shoot, is relevant. It is the same in determining the meaning of holy.
Now using the basketball analogy, there is room for differences in the method, but not differences that are dramatic. It is one thing for the best shooters to have subtle stylistic differences, but it is far different to violate the four basic fundamental parts of shooting. Whether you take Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan or LeBron James; they all share the same fundamental strengths in the art of shooting. However, all of them do not shoot exactly the same.
Next, it is important to understand some of the attitudes we carry to the table, when it comes to method. I remember this from my days as a coach and I see the same thing in the arena of being a pastor. There are certain biases against method that are even greater in the church than they are on the basketball court.
The first bias, I will call the Holy Spirit objection. It is very simple, we don't need a method, because we have the Holy Spirit. To me, this response lacks balance. I like what St. Augustine said once about prayer and about balance: "Pray as though everything depended on God, work as though everything depended on you." I think the same applies here. I believe wholeheartedly that everything depends on God's Holy Spirit when it comes to interpretation, yet I don't believe this excludes method. The reason I don't think it excludes method is because in the book that records things that people like David said by the Spirit, there methods are described. We are told actions to take.
I cannot live by the Spirit and not do what the Spirit has spoken. I believe in Nehemiah 8, the Spirit has given us a process: teach, translate, total, train and transfer. I believe balance is needed which means having regard for this process that was outlined by the Holy Spirit. By the way, the five words that begin with "T" are my simple way of remembering the HolySpirit's process. The Spirit uses other specific words for these ideas. See my earlier blog that deals with this process for greater detail.
The second bias, I will call the historical objection. It is very simple, we don't need a method, because we have freedom. To me, this method also lacks balance. Many people are trapped in the formerly relevant rules or freedom of a previous period of history. Sometimes the emphasis of some of our ancestors was right on for their time, but not right on for our time. I think our time needs balance in its process as compared to an overemphasis to correct an imbalance to only one side.
This means I find the biases toward a process for defining a word irrelevant at times. I have found a lack of balance between rule and freedom. St. Augustine once wrote three books to define his process for understanding the biblical text. He saw the need for rules. I think we need to think through our process as well and yet allow freedom for improvements in our process. In other words, we need to keep things in balance. I don't think using Nehemiah 8 as a basis for a process is either too restrictive or too free. It can keep a balance.
One of my teachers once said he was overemphasizing his point to correct something. While that may have been a good teaching method at one time, I don't think it is helpful at our present time. Now I think we have to keep a balance to make our point, because otherwise things veer off to one extreme or the other, because of our present times and context. We now have twin dangers to avoid that maybe were not present earlier like they are now.
So I really think we must keep a balance in our process to define words based on the need for relevance. I think the rules of 1) teach, 2) translate, 3) total, 4) train and 5) transfer are very helpful. These rules have a relevance to move things in a helpful direction from the prior processes, like those of Augustine, to determine meaning that are often too limited by rules or too free to be useful.
I wish I had time to develop the full argument here, but I thought I should at least let people know that my method in defining holy is intended to be a balance Spirit & method and rule & freedom. It takes relevance very seriously. It recognizes the dangers on both both sides of its method, because of what is happening in our contemporary times rather than what has happened in the past.
In my next entry, I want to again step back a little bit and talk about my expertise. This will also be relevant to explaining the different kinds of entries you will find on this blog. It will help you understand both what you can hope to find here and what you will not find here. The point is that I want to contribute what expertise I have to defining holy, but also I do not want to mislead people either as to what my expertise is. Thank you for taking a few minutes to read this entry.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
My point is to say that the process we use to determine the meaning of holy is very important. Our methods have implications and can cause us to draw either correct or incorrect conclusions. My other point is that biases can get in the way of accepting relevant methods for defining it.
The process is important to the effect or outcome, whether it is the process for determining a meaning for a word or whether it is a process for shooting a basketball. The "how" is relevant alongside the "why". If making a basket is my motive, my reason why, then the method, my how I shoot, is relevant. It is the same in determining the meaning of holy.
Now using the basketball analogy, there is room for differences in the method, but not differences that are dramatic. It is one thing for the best shooters to have subtle stylistic differences, but it is far different to violate the four basic fundamental parts of shooting. Whether you take Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan or LeBron James; they all share the same fundamental strengths in the art of shooting. However, all of them do not shoot exactly the same.
Next, it is important to understand some of the attitudes we carry to the table, when it comes to method. I remember this from my days as a coach and I see the same thing in the arena of being a pastor. There are certain biases against method that are even greater in the church than they are on the basketball court.
The first bias, I will call the Holy Spirit objection. It is very simple, we don't need a method, because we have the Holy Spirit. To me, this response lacks balance. I like what St. Augustine said once about prayer and about balance: "Pray as though everything depended on God, work as though everything depended on you." I think the same applies here. I believe wholeheartedly that everything depends on God's Holy Spirit when it comes to interpretation, yet I don't believe this excludes method. The reason I don't think it excludes method is because in the book that records things that people like David said by the Spirit, there methods are described. We are told actions to take.
I cannot live by the Spirit and not do what the Spirit has spoken. I believe in Nehemiah 8, the Spirit has given us a process: teach, translate, total, train and transfer. I believe balance is needed which means having regard for this process that was outlined by the Holy Spirit. By the way, the five words that begin with "T" are my simple way of remembering the HolySpirit's process. The Spirit uses other specific words for these ideas. See my earlier blog that deals with this process for greater detail.
The second bias, I will call the historical objection. It is very simple, we don't need a method, because we have freedom. To me, this method also lacks balance. Many people are trapped in the formerly relevant rules or freedom of a previous period of history. Sometimes the emphasis of some of our ancestors was right on for their time, but not right on for our time. I think our time needs balance in its process as compared to an overemphasis to correct an imbalance to only one side.
This means I find the biases toward a process for defining a word irrelevant at times. I have found a lack of balance between rule and freedom. St. Augustine once wrote three books to define his process for understanding the biblical text. He saw the need for rules. I think we need to think through our process as well and yet allow freedom for improvements in our process. In other words, we need to keep things in balance. I don't think using Nehemiah 8 as a basis for a process is either too restrictive or too free. It can keep a balance.
One of my teachers once said he was overemphasizing his point to correct something. While that may have been a good teaching method at one time, I don't think it is helpful at our present time. Now I think we have to keep a balance to make our point, because otherwise things veer off to one extreme or the other, because of our present times and context. We now have twin dangers to avoid that maybe were not present earlier like they are now.
So I really think we must keep a balance in our process to define words based on the need for relevance. I think the rules of 1) teach, 2) translate, 3) total, 4) train and 5) transfer are very helpful. These rules have a relevance to move things in a helpful direction from the prior processes, like those of Augustine, to determine meaning that are often too limited by rules or too free to be useful.
I wish I had time to develop the full argument here, but I thought I should at least let people know that my method in defining holy is intended to be a balance Spirit & method and rule & freedom. It takes relevance very seriously. It recognizes the dangers on both both sides of its method, because of what is happening in our contemporary times rather than what has happened in the past.
In my next entry, I want to again step back a little bit and talk about my expertise. This will also be relevant to explaining the different kinds of entries you will find on this blog. It will help you understand both what you can hope to find here and what you will not find here. The point is that I want to contribute what expertise I have to defining holy, but also I do not want to mislead people either as to what my expertise is. Thank you for taking a few minutes to read this entry.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Overcoming Barriers to Understanding
For my post-graduate studies I am writing on the definition of holy, but as part of that I have to present my method for discovering the meaning of holy in the Bible. This turns out to be more critical than might be imagined. Like a car's suspension that effects the outcome in terms of a car's ride, so the method for defining a word can effect the outcome in terms of the definition arrived at by myself or anyone else. So what is my method?
In discussing methods to use for my thesis, I found that the discussion got very complicated. It was too complicated for anyone who does not have my educational background. But it also got too complicated for those who have my level of education. There simply was not a lot of common ground between different methods and I felt that any choice would limit who would read what I had to say, because of the divisions over the method to use. So I needed something better.
I think I have found a better method. I want to first state it, then where I found it and then I will demonstrate some of its usefulness with regard to defining holy in a beginning way. The method consists of five steps (not necessarily locked into this order): 1) total, 2) translate, 3) teach, 4) train and 5) transfer.
I found this method in Nehemiah 8. In Nehemiah 8:1-7, I find the idea of 1) total - "all" the people and "the book" of the law of Moses." The total of the people who could understand and the total of the book of the Law. Neither part of the process was less than the total of it. In Nehemiah 8:8, I find the keys to 2) translating - clarity and meaning. Something is clear when it is one rather than many. Many causes confusion. Imagine many voices saying a differen word in the same room. Now imagine everyone in unison saying one word. A one to one correspondence in translating is clearest, if it is possible. Moving from a dead language, like Hebrew was in Nehemiah, to a livinglanguage like Aramaic gave meaning in translation. In Nehemiah 8:7, 8:9-12, I find 3) teaching in the idea of "instruct" which I have understood as teaching to keep a pattern of T's going for memory's sake. I also think it is important to understand teachers as skilled in recognizing a time of joy and a time of sorrow. They are wise to time and place. In Nehemiah 8:13-17, I see 4) training because the people's inability to understand is replaced by their ability to understand. Understanding is an action, so it requires training. We see many actions performed by the people in this section that reflect their ability to undrestand. Finally, in Nehemiah 8:18, I see 5) transfer because they did things in accordance with regulation. It is important with regulations to transfer the same things rather than different things. Witness as an example the difficult case of circumcision in the New Testament in relationship to Gentiles.
So to communicate across barriers effectively, like in this example in Nehemiah, a method needs to involve not just a few or parts of a book, but the total of both. A method also needs to give clarity through keeping things simple or singular and through using a live language that has meaning. A method needs through instruction to make a bad situation better like a move from weeping to joy as appropriate for the time. A method also needs to replace inability to understand with ability through training. Finally, it must transfer the things in accordance with regulations, not extraneous things nor with things left out.
Let's look at this method's usefulness when dealing with defining holy. The implications for defining holy are many, but here I would like to scratch the surface.
First, I think it is unfortunate that many of the people involved in defining holy are left out of the discussion. Most writers on the topic do not think it is important to address what the total of God's people think on this word. They especially don't address the thoughts of many in church history, even though they are people who had the ability to understand. They do not take seriously those who would disagree with them. They also limit the contexts from which they define the word. Actually parallel passages where the word is used and close synonyms are found in separate parts of the Law are significant. So to limit oneself to just Deuteronomy or just the immediate context can be misleading.
Second, I think it is unfortunate that in the argument among translators and translations over form and meaning, few stopped to take seriously the balanced counsel of Nehemiah 8:8. We need to consider not just meaningfulness, but also clarity. Often meaning is greatly enhanced through a meaning to meaning translation, but at the expense of clarity. I think it is possible to keep a balance. In the case of holy, clarity has been compromised in the past by the use of many words for what is one word in Hebrew and one word to translate it from Hebrew into Greek. It is expressed not just through holy or holiness, but also through sancification, sanctify, saint, holy one, hallow, wholly, consecrate and set apart. It is hardly clear to the average reader that these all express the same basic word in both Hebrew or Greek. Also holy, if it does mean set apart should be replaced, since it does not carry meaningfulness like set apart. If on the other hand it means whole, it coud be retained because the close relationship is visible through their respective similar spellings.
Third, I think it is important to understand that teaching is important in terms of a change of place and time. Holy was not hard to understand in its own day. It is a change in time and place that partly explains the possibility of misunderstanding it in our day. These issues need to be addressed like Nehemiah and the others did, so that the opposite understanding does not occur on this word. Should we maybe be more joyful than sorrowful when we hear this word?
Fourth, I think it is important to train people in the method of understanding. We must replace the inability to understand with the ability. The test of our training is the ease with which someone can perform a task before or after training. Training does not mean that everything is equally easy. It does mean that after training, a task should be easier rather than harder. Nehemiah 8 should be heavily mined for its insights on understanding. This is only a beginning in what I am writing now.
Fifth, I think we need to be sure we are transferring the right things. Each word refers to a referent and while our translation of words is significant, so is the issue of whether the things transferred are the same as the things in the Word of God. Holy may be the translation, but does it refer to the transfer of wholeness into our lives or does it refer to the separateness of our lives from those who are sinners? Which fits in accord with God's regulations? Have we transferred the right things. One of my professors referred to this as transculturation, something different from just translation.
These are the tips of the iceberg in terms of implications. Over time, I will develop each of these separately more in-depth along with showing other angles on the vital topic of what holy means. I am convinced it must mean one of two things. Either holy means whole or it means separate. This method from Nehemiah 8 will help me and you sort this out. We face barriers to understanding holy, but so did they face barriers to understanding in their time. These barriers can be overcome through 1) total, 2) translate, 3) teach, 4) train and 5) transfer.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
In discussing methods to use for my thesis, I found that the discussion got very complicated. It was too complicated for anyone who does not have my educational background. But it also got too complicated for those who have my level of education. There simply was not a lot of common ground between different methods and I felt that any choice would limit who would read what I had to say, because of the divisions over the method to use. So I needed something better.
I think I have found a better method. I want to first state it, then where I found it and then I will demonstrate some of its usefulness with regard to defining holy in a beginning way. The method consists of five steps (not necessarily locked into this order): 1) total, 2) translate, 3) teach, 4) train and 5) transfer.
I found this method in Nehemiah 8. In Nehemiah 8:1-7, I find the idea of 1) total - "all" the people and "the book" of the law of Moses." The total of the people who could understand and the total of the book of the Law. Neither part of the process was less than the total of it. In Nehemiah 8:8, I find the keys to 2) translating - clarity and meaning. Something is clear when it is one rather than many. Many causes confusion. Imagine many voices saying a differen word in the same room. Now imagine everyone in unison saying one word. A one to one correspondence in translating is clearest, if it is possible. Moving from a dead language, like Hebrew was in Nehemiah, to a livinglanguage like Aramaic gave meaning in translation. In Nehemiah 8:7, 8:9-12, I find 3) teaching in the idea of "instruct" which I have understood as teaching to keep a pattern of T's going for memory's sake. I also think it is important to understand teachers as skilled in recognizing a time of joy and a time of sorrow. They are wise to time and place. In Nehemiah 8:13-17, I see 4) training because the people's inability to understand is replaced by their ability to understand. Understanding is an action, so it requires training. We see many actions performed by the people in this section that reflect their ability to undrestand. Finally, in Nehemiah 8:18, I see 5) transfer because they did things in accordance with regulation. It is important with regulations to transfer the same things rather than different things. Witness as an example the difficult case of circumcision in the New Testament in relationship to Gentiles.
So to communicate across barriers effectively, like in this example in Nehemiah, a method needs to involve not just a few or parts of a book, but the total of both. A method also needs to give clarity through keeping things simple or singular and through using a live language that has meaning. A method needs through instruction to make a bad situation better like a move from weeping to joy as appropriate for the time. A method also needs to replace inability to understand with ability through training. Finally, it must transfer the things in accordance with regulations, not extraneous things nor with things left out.
Let's look at this method's usefulness when dealing with defining holy. The implications for defining holy are many, but here I would like to scratch the surface.
First, I think it is unfortunate that many of the people involved in defining holy are left out of the discussion. Most writers on the topic do not think it is important to address what the total of God's people think on this word. They especially don't address the thoughts of many in church history, even though they are people who had the ability to understand. They do not take seriously those who would disagree with them. They also limit the contexts from which they define the word. Actually parallel passages where the word is used and close synonyms are found in separate parts of the Law are significant. So to limit oneself to just Deuteronomy or just the immediate context can be misleading.
Second, I think it is unfortunate that in the argument among translators and translations over form and meaning, few stopped to take seriously the balanced counsel of Nehemiah 8:8. We need to consider not just meaningfulness, but also clarity. Often meaning is greatly enhanced through a meaning to meaning translation, but at the expense of clarity. I think it is possible to keep a balance. In the case of holy, clarity has been compromised in the past by the use of many words for what is one word in Hebrew and one word to translate it from Hebrew into Greek. It is expressed not just through holy or holiness, but also through sancification, sanctify, saint, holy one, hallow, wholly, consecrate and set apart. It is hardly clear to the average reader that these all express the same basic word in both Hebrew or Greek. Also holy, if it does mean set apart should be replaced, since it does not carry meaningfulness like set apart. If on the other hand it means whole, it coud be retained because the close relationship is visible through their respective similar spellings.
Third, I think it is important to understand that teaching is important in terms of a change of place and time. Holy was not hard to understand in its own day. It is a change in time and place that partly explains the possibility of misunderstanding it in our day. These issues need to be addressed like Nehemiah and the others did, so that the opposite understanding does not occur on this word. Should we maybe be more joyful than sorrowful when we hear this word?
Fourth, I think it is important to train people in the method of understanding. We must replace the inability to understand with the ability. The test of our training is the ease with which someone can perform a task before or after training. Training does not mean that everything is equally easy. It does mean that after training, a task should be easier rather than harder. Nehemiah 8 should be heavily mined for its insights on understanding. This is only a beginning in what I am writing now.
Fifth, I think we need to be sure we are transferring the right things. Each word refers to a referent and while our translation of words is significant, so is the issue of whether the things transferred are the same as the things in the Word of God. Holy may be the translation, but does it refer to the transfer of wholeness into our lives or does it refer to the separateness of our lives from those who are sinners? Which fits in accord with God's regulations? Have we transferred the right things. One of my professors referred to this as transculturation, something different from just translation.
These are the tips of the iceberg in terms of implications. Over time, I will develop each of these separately more in-depth along with showing other angles on the vital topic of what holy means. I am convinced it must mean one of two things. Either holy means whole or it means separate. This method from Nehemiah 8 will help me and you sort this out. We face barriers to understanding holy, but so did they face barriers to understanding in their time. These barriers can be overcome through 1) total, 2) translate, 3) teach, 4) train and 5) transfer.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
