Holy: Understandigng it Better Through Understanding the Translation of Whole and All in the Bible

I love translations and translators.  They deserve a lot of credit in making the Word of God accessible to millions of people who will never find the time to learn other languages like Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.  So please, if I offer a correction or a challenge to them, then remember too that at the same time I challenge them using their own principles that would not be known to me if it wasn't for their hard work.  I am not someone that enjoys challenging others.  It is just that sometimes the way things are requires it.  Also recall that deceased translators can't tell us now what they would do without us speculating somewhat from their principles.  The really good ones always aim at clarity and meaningfulness, so let's not sell the deceased short.  They knew what they were doing more often than not.  That said, I must offer a clarification and meaning correction on the broader topic of wholeness.  The latter part of this entry will connect that wholeness with the meaning of holy.   

In the case of the common word for whole in Hebrew (kol) or even Greek (meros), it is often inserted into our English translations as "all" rather than "whole".   The reason is that translators tend to follow the Greek translation of the Hebrew, since English is part of the Indo-European family of languages.  While there is no doubt that is true on the surface level of language, I have a problem with the way things are then translated based on the broader level of philosophy or worldview. 

In translation, the most important thing is to be clear and to be meaningful.  To be clear and meaningful, sometimes we need to go beyond the "etymology" of a language and look also at cultural influences on the level of worldview.  The United States especially is a link between East and West, when it comes to the two worldviews colliding.  It cannot any longer claim one influence as being primary for everyone and everything. 

Hebrew is not just a language, it also has a worldview that places the "whole" before "all" the parts in its language's tendency.  In Greek, it is the opposite.   That language starts from "all" the parts and then arrives at the "whole".    They seem to head in opposite directions. 

The easiest way to imagine the opposite directions is to imagine the Greek arrow as beginning from the left and moving to the right and the Hebrew arrow as beginning on the right and moving to the left.  To match these two up in terms of meaning, I think it is essential to alert Greek speakers explicitly (Hebrew speakers know it implicitly) that the "whole is greater than the parts".  This makes the Hebrew dynamically equivalent through Greek without altering its language tendency.  There is a different grammar and layout, but the two messages are essentially the same in both clarity and meaningfulness.  All should understand that the whole is greater than the parts, but that neither is to be favored to the extent that the other is excluded. 

So now, returning to the topic of moral wholeness, I want to point out that a lot of "wholeness" may be invisible or not seen in our translations that is screaming out in the original text to be seen.  I have even seen cases in my interlinear Bible where the Greek translators used meros for "whole" and the translators decided to translate it as "all".  .What if we translated each of these as whole instead? 

I think we are also going to need to take some of the Hebrew texts (around 5000) that even the Septuagint translated as "all" and put "whole" back in because of the need to address or match  the worldview question having to do with being wholistic or reductionistic or both. 

This would then demonstrate how common the idea of something being whole arises.  Also with holy not being understood as "moral wholeness", there might be plenty of other times that it is not recognized (seen!) that the Bible addresses the Age of Healthy (Rick Warren's idea) in the 21st Ct.  To miss this opportunity to address the entire world's problems may turn out to be the great tragedy of the 20th Ct.   We'll wait an see if the worldview watchers and the movement watchers like Peter Drucker and Rick Warren are right about healthy.  But I for one want to have the full power of the English translation behind me, if they are right!

In Christ,

Jon

Holy: Understanding It Better Through Understanding Another Biblical Concept

[Please note that due to time constraints this piece needs lots of editing with citing sources and it is likely to be divided into parts, but I think this first half of part one is valuable, as it stands alone.  I will eventually be adding more source references, citing them and Scripture, and I will finish the part on meaningful.  I expect it to be very helpful when complete.  Thank you for your patience.   Glean what you can for now.]

There are only three primary possible meanings for holy as the English translation of qadosh (Hebrew), qad …. (Aramaic), and hagios (Greek) in the Biblical text.  They are: 1) set apart, 2) pure, and 3) (moral) wholeness.   I find that those who have resolved it down to one definition are a bit premature at this moment in time (we still have to wait for a better resolution) and that those who keep coming up with more definitions outside the main three (twenty plus) are a bit post-mature (I hope the resolution to the meaning of qadosh, etc. is not as far off as they make it appear).  But before we define a biblical term by any of these English words, we need to also make sure we understand these popular English ideas in their Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek biblical context.  In this blog entry, I am going to start with looking into the meaning of wholeness, because it is such a hot topic in popular education and in the realm of worldview discussions among philosophers, anthropologists, futurists, theologians, and church planters.   So here is the opening question: “How is the concept of being whole viewed in the wider biblical context outside of the words qadosh, qad …, and hagios?”  

The first thing to note is that wholeness or the whole in English translation appears to be quite infrequent in the biblical text, when viewed through an English translation.  This is despite the fact that current worldviews like that of Integral theory, or an integrative vision, or a spokesperson like popular philosopher Ken Wilber indicate that it is a very important aspect of worldview.   Wilber in particular is expressing a form of holism or wholism as opposed to atomism or reductionism in his “theory of everything”.   It is also surprising that it does not show up in the biblical text more frequently, because of the views of Christian writers like Pastor Rick Warren, who see healthy as the theme for the next Great Awakening of Christianity.  I see a little influence on the central theme from his mentor, Peter Drucker, who was a pretty good futurist besides being a management guru.   So does the Bible not address the issue of wholeness as a significant part of worldview or is it not as central as some holists or wholists think?

I think this is a great question.  I was troubled by this question myself.  If wholeness is important and I believe that Yahweh God is the Bible’s primary author, then God would not miss its importance.  So what is going on in the biblical text and in our understanding of the world?  Are they out of sync with each other or not?   Is here a problem with the worldview or the Bible  in relation to reality?  Is there yet another place where the deficiency in addressing the issue of wholeness might arise? 

Since I know Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek well enough to at least spot check the major words in translations, as I read them; I elected years ago to go to an interlinear bible for reading the Bible in my devotions.   This helped me begin to notice that the Hebrew word kol that properly means “whole” according to Strong and others, is not translated as such into English, except infrequently.  So the question arises as to why is it not translated as “whole”, except infrequently when that is its proper meaning?  This also holds true to some extent also for the Greek word holos that means primarily whole.  You might also note that holism or holistic are derived from this Greek word holos. 

So why is “whole” found infrequently in English translations of the Bible?  The answer I found to this question is very intriguing for two reasons.   First, it begins with an historical difference between Eastern and Western languages.    I am not sure this can be placed on a worldview level, but there does appear to be a difference of some kind in speech with regard to tendencies or starting points.  In language or speaking at least, the West seems to begin from the parts making the word “all” as in” all of the parts” central, while the East, in the Hebrew language at least, seems to begin from the whole as in the “whole of the congregation”.  We must, however, be careful and stick to language and not make broader conclusions on worldview quite yet.  Second, the Hebrew word kol (especially) and the Greek word holos are not infrequent words in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek biblical text and in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, so the implications for translation could be significant for addressing worldview concerns.   So the biblical text and the worldviews that say holism or wholism is important may not be deficient except in translation, but not in the original languages.  The problem with not finding texts dealing with the whole in an English translation might have to do more with the loss of total communication, beginning with various English translations. 

The first clue for me on a translation level that something might be amiss came from Gesenius’ Hebrew and English Lexicon.  In it, he points out: “In Western languages it [kol] has to be rendered by adjectives”.  He is also implying by this that in Eastern languages, that this is not the case, and that Hebrew would be included as part of the list of Eastern languages.   Note especially his choice of the words “has to be”.   That is significant, because he is suggesting it is a rule of Western languages including English.  He explains this further in terms of when it is used for one continuous thing and of English in particular: “… in English this has to be expressed either by the 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 quote is a bit technical, but it caught my attention, because I had begun to substitute “of the whole” in place of “all” in my devotions based on the Hebrew word kol.  I started to do this substitution, because I knew that kol properly meant the” whole, totality” according to Gesenius and not just James Strong.  This substituting process of “the whole of”, worked seamlessly hundreds of times with occasional exceptions due to change in context.

Now I want to go beyond just this first clue and just the process of translation and look at the total communication involved.  I believe translation gets its prominence from the fact that it is the starting point for total communication.  But I also believe that one of my mentors, Dr. William A. Smalley, who was a brilliant translator and teacher, saw that translation of the Bible and the church go hand in hand in the case of communication.  So I want to organize what I refer to as total communication around the following steps, as related to the biblical concepts of the Hebrew  word kol, the Aramaic … or the Greek word holos.  They are the 5 T’s: 1) translation, 2)transfer, 3) total, 4)train, and 5)teach.  We need all five of these for total communication!  Anything less on a fundamental level is less than adequate.  Just think of this process as “Mr. T”, as a memory tool.  He after all regarded himself as the total package.  The five T’s are the total package for communication.  As an aside, I found all five of these in Nehemiah 8, the chief text in the Jewish tradition for the Ezra school of exegetical method. 

So looking at wholeness from a translation standpoint.  The very best way to translate it is to produce clear meaningful communication.   There are two parts to this.  The first is addressed through quantity and the second through quality. 

We arrive at the goal of clear communication through minimizing the quantity of options.  Let me illustrate.  Imagine you enter a room filled with one third of the people shouting “yes”, another thirds saying “no”, and another third saying “maybe”.  Is it likely to be clear what they are saying assuming all voices equal?  The simple answer is “no”.  Now imagine walking into a room filled with all of the people saying “yes”.  Is it likely to be clear that what they are saying assuming all voices equal?  The simple answer is “yes”. 

So now let’s approach the biblical text with the question:  How many? 

In the Hebrew context there is one word used in many contexts.  It is clear to the original audience that it means properly “whole” unless some of the many contexts are clear it is otherwise.  That is how kol can have more than one meaning.  It borrows the clarity of another word or other words in the context.    So the “one” remains clear even with more than one definition in a supposed dictionary, because some other word makes things clear.  That is how I speak to others everyday with near effortlessness and the majority of times my communication is clear. 

In the Greek context of the Septuagint and the Hebrew Scriptures in a synagogue, things get less clear in one sense.  Kol , one Hebrew word, is now translated by two Greek words, pas and holos.  This is where the beginning of clarity can become less clear.  Without the knowledge that Gesenius possessed about the rules of Western languages, some begin to assume that pas is the primary meaning of kol and then say that kol means primarily “all”.  Eugene Nida rightly points out that one language’s glosses (ways of translating a word) are not themselves definitions within the primary or other language.  A word must be defined in its own language system and not in the context of the language it is translated into.  Gesenius and Nida, though separated by time are largely agreeing with each other.   The other key here is to realize that Moses and so the Hebrew was still present in the synagogues to correct any misunderstandings due to translation.  The original continued to keep things clearer. 

In English translation things get less clear and so a little more complicated.  Kol, one Hebrew word , is now translated by three or more.  Kol in the Hebrew is translated by “all” (majority) or “whole” mainly depending on the Septuagint’s Greek translation influence.   In the New Testament the Greek pas and the Greek holos are both used where kol would appear in Hebrew.  Pas is mainly translated as “all” while holos is translated by “whole” or “all” adding another layer of complexity and lack of clarity.  It is now as though kol primarily means “all” and holos means primarily “whole”, but this meaning is further diminished in English translation. 

A concession must be made here so that no one understands me to think that a wooden (without context) literalism (proper meaning) is in order.  The statements above apply to primary contexts mostly.   As the contexts become more marginalized then the use of “holos” or “whole” in English, etc. becomes less acceptable.  In English, “any, every, etc. are very appropriate in the more marginal cases of meaning or definition. 

I hinted at this earlier, but one of the main things translators should consider is the bilingual or even trilingual context of the 1^st century.  There are advantages here because the original has more explicit influence than it does in a context today in which most only access an English translation based on their monolingual status.  The proper meaning of “whole” for kol would have had an easier way of sticking around and the people could have known about the difference in rules or tendencies as Gesenius suggests.  Translators or commentators today frequently quote “all” as the first or proper meaning of Hebrew kol.  This betrays their monolingual spectacles.  So how should the word kol be translated now for clarity? 

I personally think clarity would be enhanced by adjusting to two contexts.  The context of the 1^st century and the 21^st century.  First the two are not the same, kol’s presence would have kept the proper meaning of whole more in focus.  So now I think we must translate kol and even pas and holos with the English word “whole” where appropriate to the Hebrew context and our own.  There is no bilingualism in churches to balance both “whole and “all the parts”.  We might as well realize that Hebrew is not likely to be read out loud at church.  It might still be read at synagogue, but not many (basically none!) Christians know that!  For clarity’s sake, we do not need to follow the wooden rules of Western languages of old.  English is now adaptable to either and “whole” would give greater clarity.  This whole discussion matters because of the goal of clarity.  So what about being meaningful? 

                Change information load

                From three languages to one language

                                Explicit when bilingual and even implicit.

                                Unknown to monolingual. 

 How much? (high quality)

                Kol – poor quality (transliteration) for an English speaker

Holos/holistic/holism – holistic carries a great deal of extra meaning beyond whole.  So this option may have to be tempered. 

All – while necessary in a Western language only context (Greek, Latin, English), in a wider one context of both West and East, it may no longer be the best.  In the latter, it may be more paramount to address wholeness directly in translation following the hippie movement especially. 

Whole – the best understood by English speakers in the context of a debate between wholism (wary of holism overstatement) and atomism, reductionism and fragmentism.  It is also possible because it is not necessary any longer to only speak from the tendency or angle of “all the parts” as opposed to the “the whole of it”.  I think the rules equally allow the latter and to better understand the biblical text it is now superior. 

 Why it matters?  Meaningfulness!  From meaningless (“all [of the parts of the] of the congregation”= the whole congregation) to meaningful “the whole of the congregation”).  The latter is better understood in terms of making everything explicit and of addressing current issues that people understand due to the topic of wholeness being a hot topic of debate.

In Christ, 

Jon 

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Biblical Words

We all need to understand the meaning of holy in the Bible.  But equally important is the words that are used for its definition.  Do we understand them?  Are they more basic, so that they add clarity and meaning rather than more confusion and meaninglessness?  There are 3 definitions in particular whose biblical understandings can be important.  They are: 1) "pure", 2) "set apart", and 3) "whole".  In this entry, I want to say something from a biblical perspective about the 3rd option listed: "whole".  The reason this is important is because it occurs in the context of holy quite frequently.  In fact, if you only read an English translation, "whole" occurs far more frequently than translators make you aware; because English (like the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible) speaks of the whole in a way that is different from that of Hebrew.  It does not translate kol as "whole" very frequently, but instead as "all".  Why is that? 

The English word "whole" has been getting a lot of attention lately.  I'm not too interested in those many debates.  They are far ranging and they are sometimes misleading.  What I want to do is exegetically and linguistically understand what "whole" means in a biblical text and how frequently this concept appears not in a translation, but in the original texts of Scripture. 

For me, a very basic definition of "whole" is something in which all the parts of the whole are present.  Stated in a negative way, none of the parts are missing.  That really does not face much debate.  This definition is fairly clear and meaningful.  For example, my bike in the garage is whole.  Since the season of Spring begins tomorrow, that is meaningful. 

What is more controversial is how frequently the concept of "whole" is introduced into Scripture and also how important it is.  The reason this is controversial is because of the issue of how to translate the Hebrew word kol into clear and meaningful English.  It properly means, according to Strong's dictionary in Strong's Concordance, "whole".   But kol's frequency in Hebrew is not matched by the frequency of"whole" in an English translation.  Instead, it is often translated as "all".  So why is that the case in translation and how can the average English reader of a translation know that kol's proper meaning of "whole" is behind the use of "all"? 

The first step to take in resolving this issue is to examine concordances for word frequency.  The easy way to examine this on-line for yourself is to look for Strong's # 3605 (kol) (there are other associated #s as well, but I am keeping things simpler for now).   The problem is that word frequency lists for kol or "whole" will not all be the same in all concordances.  The biggest problem for the KJV and for Strong's concordance will be that very frequently kol is translated as "all" and the word "all" only appears in the appendix, which does not list the Strong's # behind the translation of "all".  This does not mean both the translation and concordance are not valuable, but it does mean that sometimes they have limitations that must be overcome through another concordance or translation. 

In the case of kol, the solution came from looking in the NASB concordances on-line, where the frequency for kol [Strong's # H3606 (H stands for Hebrew) is ranked much higher.  In Concordances associated with the KJV the number is approximately 223 doing my own rough count with taking into consideration of Strong's # H3605.  With the use of the NASB concordance on-line, it rises to 5000 [This is an idealized # from memory - I will be putting a more accurate figure here, when I can confirm the # from a few sources.]  That is quite a difference in frequency!  But the bigger issue is also how many times kol appears in the context of qadosh (the Hebrew for holy), because the greatest promise for defining holy is finding a parallel word to holy in the biblical text.  The higher frequency may greatly change our awareness of "whole" being in the context of qadosh or hagios or holy".  I will say more on this later, but this is the implication from the frequency increasing for kol. 

The second implication from this higher frequency might also be that the bible has more to say about the current issues of our day regarding holism or being wholistic (holistic).  It may make us more equipped to handle these issues and their implications.  It may also cause us to shift our priorities, since frequency can sometimes say something about how important or significant an issue is.  Those issues I cannot work out in this entry without doing a disservice to the main objective which is pointing out the frequency of "whole" in the biblical text and in the context of holy.  So what happened that English translations and Greek translations (used in the 1st century) did not translate the Hebrew word kol as "whole"? 

How this happens and why this happens seems to be fairly straightforward.  Hebrews and Greeks don't speak the same way about wholeness.  The available literal equivalent in Greek (holos means "whole") does not fit with the natural way in Western languages the concept of the "whole" is expressed.  To put it another way, saying "of the whole of the people" seems rather awkward in both good Greek and in good English compared to "all  the people".   If nothing else the latter is more efficient (requiring fewer words) than the former and in the end it does say the same thing.  So that perhaps explains the answer to the question, "How?"; but what is the answer to "Why?"? 

The question of "Why?" might be explained by having different starting points, though both languages end up at the same ending point.  I studied philosophy just enough to have a suggestion here.  I think the Greeks appear to begin not from the whole, but from the parts and so they are focused on saying "all the parts" as an equivalent for "whole".  English, also being a Western language, seems to have the same starting point and ending point, so "all" can also be used to speak of the "whole".  This might be shifting though in our time with all the study of parts and wholes.  Hebrew, on the other hand, perhaps begins from the whole and works toward the parts.  You start from "the whole of the people" and then mention if any parts are missing as a concession.  I recall witnessing a number of examples like it in the biblical text where the whole of the people assemble and then the writer points out that a part of the whole of the people is not part of the whole as, for example, in the case of infants.   

The proof or support that I have for these differences between Hebrew ways of saying something and Greek ways of saying the equivalent began with Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon in his entry for kol.  He says that by definition, it is properly "the whole, totality ... from the root kolal to complete".  Then he goes on the say that to this meaning in Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac, Samaritan and Ethiopian, there is a number of words in Western languages.  He says it this way: "In Western languages it has to be rendered by adjectives."  Notice "it has to be rendered by", in other words, a change in how it is said from an Eastern or Middle Eastern language to a Western language.  He explains this still further, he (or perhaps the translator) says:"...[in English this has to be expressed either by whole preceded by the article, or by all without the article or else by the whole of]; ...."  This statement is followed by many examples like "the whole earth", "all the earth", the whole people, etc. 

For Gesenius, the first definition for kol as "whole" fits the context of "one continuous thing" and the second definition he gives is usually translated by "all" refers to a context of "many things, many individuals."  I use an interlinear with the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek for my devotions and I have for some time on my own substituted "the whole of" for "all" in the translation and have found what Gesenius is saying very accurate.  The proper meaning of "whole" fits many contexts in which translators have preferred instead to use "all". 

For our 21st century, we need to realize that unlike the 1st century, where the Greek is only one language removed from the Hebrew and the Hebrew is read on the Sabbath likely in many synagogues even as it is today; with English we are a third (or even a fourth) language removed from the Hebrew; if you consider Greek, Latin, and English in that order for how we have decided to render "whole" from the Hebrew into English.  So perhaps using the language of "whole" in translation might make the original more accessible to us.  It is also true that "whole" or "wholeness" is a hot topic in our day and we might be better prepared as English speakers to handle a less efficient, yet more clear way of rendering kol as "whole" from the Hebrew. 

Also another issue is that I noticed recently in the case of Luke's Gospel and Acts, that he uses "all" in his Greek where many times "whole" would fit in a Hebrew context.  That is perhaps just fine.  But what is troubling is that when Luke uses holos, the Greek for "whole", the translators used "all" as though the original Greek used pas, the Greek for "all".  This issue of translation and where we should use continuity and change needs to be revisited.  I would be in favor of less change from the Hebrew into English and maybe even making the New Testament Greek to reflect a more Hebraic pattern where it makes sense in English.  We don't have to follow the translators of the Greek Septuagint to determine what is the meaning of kol in Hebrew.  We can reach back into the Hebrew attempt to be clear and meaningful and then try to make it clear and meaningful for today. 

One last point, before I conclude this entry.  The presence of kol near qadosh is significant and so we may need to make "whole" especially explicit in the case of contexts having to do with "holy".  I plan on doing that when I make my argument for holy's meaning from elements in its context.  This might be the only way that we can fairly evaluate in English whether holy means "pure", "set apart", or "whole".  It is by seeing holy in clear and meaningful translation and in a true and relevant context that then we can evaluate what meaning best fits holy.  I think understanding the Hebrew word kol, its frequency, and its context (in the proximity of holy) is the only way we can fairly evaluate all three plausible definitions for holy. 

Finally, our concern should be that the definition that is given is a biblical definition.  That is why I will not be just evaluating the biblical meaning of "whole", but I will also be evaluating the biblical meaning of "pure" and "set apart".  All of these are biblical concepts.  The only two questions are whether these concepts are also seen morally in the word "holy" and are we then giving them enough priority in how we view God and in how we live our lives.  Thank you for reading this post.  I hope and pray that it was beneficial for you.  Please feel to comment, if you desire. 


In Christ,

Jon. 

Holy: Understanding it Better Through the Biblical Words for Whole

I'm sure you have arrived at my blog in search for the meaning of holy.  Let me say this from the top.  If you want your questions answered like "snappy answers to stupid questions", then you have arrived at the wrong place.  It is my intention to give thoughtful answers to great questions.  The answer to your great question: "What is the meaning of holy in the Bible?" requires more than a snappy (clever) answer.  It requires that you be aware of more than one option (pure, set apart, whole), that you research the topic, and that you draw a conclusion based on principles (not banners or bandwagons).  This entry, I think, will be one of the most important entries, because it is not just important to understand the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek behind the words translated as holy; but it is also important to understand the biblical meanings for each of the three options listed above.  The option that  I will explore in this case is the biblical meaning of whole and the biblical words for it. 

Let's start out with the Hebrew word kol (Strong's # 3605) and Greeke word holos (Strong's # ...).  

(I'll get back to this as time allows.  Thank you for your patience.  Please examine some of my other entries.  Thank you.)

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Understanding Perfect Better

At times the biblical word for holy is defined by scholars and theologians by the word "perfect".  This is a word many people have come to avoid, if not to also hate.  They will recite perfectionism and the harm it did to them personally.  The way we define it in English, it is something unattainable.  But what if biblical perfection is something different from our definition and what if that can help us understand holy better?  So what I want to do in this post is to define perfect and also relate it to holy. 

Perfect means per-the-goal.  Perfection is relative or absolute depending on the goal attached to it in a particular context.  It is not always referring to a final goal.  It can refer to other goals along the way to a final goal. 

Perfect in this life 

Perfect in the next life 


Love and perfection

Perfect love 


Perfect is related to Hebrew words translated as whole. 



[This is still in process  ... please check other entries in the meantime. ] 

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
     .