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 Staying on Course

"There is no shortcut. But there is a path. The path is based on principles revered throughout history. If there is one message to glean from this wisdom, it is that a meaningful life is not a matter of speed or efficiency. It's much more a matter of what you do and why you do it than how fast you get it done."  This quote on wisdom and method is from Stephen R. Covey.  I quote it, because the path to understanding holy is filled with pitfalls that can be described as shortcuts.  But also I am convinced that there is a very reliable path to understanding holy that will raise the level of certainty about its meaning to a new level. 

In this entry, I will outline the five steps in that process and follow up with short descriptions.  I have mentioned these steps before, but I now understand them better and I have a new commitment to this method after hearing and then reading Covey's quote.  They are: 1) Translating, 2) Transfering, 3) Totaling, 4)Training, and 5) Teaching. 

Please don't get overly hung up on terminology.  These five could also be called the following names, based on terminology drawn from biblical study and linguistics: 1) Comparing translations, 2)  Textual displaying, 3) Exegesis 4) Action and Post-Action charting, and 5) Universal classifying of words.  I have tried to use the most everyday language and the most principle centered language that I found in the literature of biblical exegesis and interpretation or in the literature of linguistics (the scientific study of languages).  To varying degrees, the steps are universal to all the major books on exegesis. 

Let me use one book as a specific example from the field of linguistics.  It is: Translating the Word of God by John Beekman and John Callow.  On the contents page (p. 7), they outline their principles of translation.  I would like to grade their book like a teacher does an assignment based on each of the five steps above. 

1) Translating: C+  (reason why: they do not balance both meaning and clarity as equals)

2) Transferring: B+ (reason why: they add to the traditional science of sentence diagramming)

3) Totaling: C+  (reason why: this is largely left implict rather than explicit, but they do practice it)

4) Training:  C+ (reason why: this is not covered in any real depth in this book)

5)  Teaching: A (reason why: the analysis of the universal classes of meaning is superb)

The book's overall score is: B.   It has for years been a very valuable addition to my library.  I could even upgrade it's overall score to B+, based on the fact that the teaching portion could be given an A+ (if I added that to my scale). 

Let's look again at the purpose for this entry on my blog.  It is to clarify and commit to how I am going to approach the meaning of holy.  It is only fair that my readers understand the principles of the method that I am using to get the results that I will arrive at. 

There are many tempting short cuts to avoid. The first is reading a greater volume of contemporary lexicons on Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek to be sure the meaning of holy is correctly understood.  The second is to read the greats of church history to make sure that the meaning of the word holy has not been lost in moving from a period of revival to a period of decline.  The third is to keep digging deeper into the etymology of the word for holy in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.  These are all good, but they can become the enemy of the best method for determining the meaning of holy. 

So going forward, even while I will use these other methods on occasion, I have to make sure that my focus is on the 5 step method that I proposed at the beginning.  Again, the terminology may differ, but the method is universal.  This method may also be better in some books than others.  Again, what matters most is staying with the method rather than getting side-tracked.  I feel like I could have used my blog entries better in the past with the 5 steps being more of a primary focus.  Again, this does not say the other methods are bad, though it may still mean they are enemies of the very best.  So while I will still use these methods, I hope to use them more sparingly. 

In addition, I think each passage I write about will have to be broken up into each of these 5 steps, so that my each of my entries is not too long.  That is one of the limitations in communicating by blog rather than by article or book.  So please be aware that in the near future that I may be dividing my entries up in this way in order to keep things short enough for those who want a quick answer, but also long enough through labeling for the person who wants to go into greater depth. 

Returning to part of my earlier quote: "If there is one message to glean from this wisdom, it is that a meaningful life is not a matter of speed or efficiency. It's much more a matter of what you do and why you do it than how fast you get it done."   Reading lexicon entries is fast, dictionaries entries are even faster; but I am in this to solve the problem of a fair level of uncertainty, and not to gloss over any uncertainty.  Here we go in embarking on a path, rather than on a short cut!

In Christ,

Pastor Jon 

 

Holy Means Whole: According to Its Hebrew Etymology (Sort of)

I have read that Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888) believed that holy means whole from a secondary source. Recently, I found another secondary source that takes me closer to what his view was on the meaning of holy and in another later blog, I will add to these comments from Hirsch's own primary sources, when I have more time for research. His definition in this secondary source is interpreted to be "to prepare." This is seen as in contrast to "sanctified" or "separate."

His principles tell me that his material is worthy of more research. I'll deal with two of his principles in this blog. In the Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew: Based on the Commentaries of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, the compiler, Rabbi Matityahu Clark, mentions in his introduction that "by using his etymological system, Hirsch provides unusual insights on common Biblical words and phrases" (p. xi). To quote him further, using holy as one example of unusual insights, he says:

The word [qadosh] is usually translated as `sanctified' or `separated.' But Hirsch explains (in his commentary to Num. 11:18) that the root [qadosh] means `to prepare'
or `to be at the very height of being absolutely ready for all that is good' (p. xii).

This is very close to my understanding of holy as whole, because this is a major implication from it. To further this argument, it fits well with the ideas of the 1800s scholar, Richard Trench, when he develops a group of Greek words that are related both to preparedness and to being whole. I can't develop this fully now, but after reading Hirsch's commentary and going back over Trench's insights, I hope to develop this further in a later blog.

At this point, what I find most fanscinating is the description of Hirsch's principles for understanding the meaning of Hebrew words. Clark says that Hirsch repeatedly said that one should not look to foreign languages to find the meanings of words in Torah (the Law in Hebrew). It is also said that he does not deny borrowing from other languages, but he insists that Hebrew is a "self-contained entity" (p. xii). He also believed Torah (the Law in Hebrew) contained clear and not obscure language.

When I studied LAMP (Language Acquistion Made Practical), one of the most important aspects of the course was the emphasis on connecting with others. Some succeeded at this while others failed, as primarily illustrated on the mission field and as outlined by Dr. Donald Larson, one of the key thinkers behind the LAMP method developed by the Brewsters.

Larson recognized five core principles toward success or failure in connecting: 1) connection and disconnection, 2) someone else and you, 3) insiders and outsiders, 4) ease and difficulty and 5) learning and studying. Each of the these five areas has two options and principles that were reflected by both those who succeeded and by those who failed.

Those who emphasized the former principle in each case, as in connection rather than disconnection, succeeded in connecting with others. Those who emphasized the latter principle in each case, as in disconnection rather than connection, failed in connecting with others. Now relevant to our purpose are two of these success principles. The principles of insiders and outsiders and the principles of ease and difficulty.

Rabbi Hirsch recognizes an insider or internal integrity in Hebrew. He recognizes the need to connect with the language from an insider's perspective on their language rather than relying too much on an outsider's perspective on their language. I think the advantages are perhaps best illustrated by the dangers of an outsider's interpretation.

For example, Moses Ibn Ezra is a significant interpreter of the Hebrew language especially preceding the Middle Ages and the state of Hebrew scholarship in his day. He clearly asserts at that time that the greatest breakthroughs in scholarship of Biblical Hebrew are attributable to Arabic influence. His method relies heavily on Arabic and Aramaic cognates. Some of this was likely due to Arabic being a living language at that time, while Hebrew was not a living language. That means Arabic had the advantage of being a language you can learn and not just study. This advantage according to Larson's principles may have resulted though in a distortion in violation of other principles of connecting. That may be why some say Moses Ibn Ezra overstated a shared Hebrew-Arabic cultural heritage. Hirsch is able to avoid this overstatement by taking more seriously an insider's perspective.

Rabbi Hirsch also reflects a commitment to the idea of ease in his idea that Scripture is clear rather than obscure in its language. This means that one understands that for the native speaker things are not as obscure as they seem to the foreigner. But the foreigner must maintain a firm belief that another person's language is an easy as their own, given the same circumstances. Otherwise motivation drops and a connection with another culture is compromised. That person who is failing in connecting then relies more and more on the ease of their own language while stressing also the difficulty of another's language. Hirsch is able to avoid this problem as well.

Through these twin commitments, Hirsch's work reflects more of an insider's view of Hebrew and an ease of working with the language itself rather than a commitment to other languages being easier or less obscure. I think that is why his etymological system and his commitment to the meaning of individual letters needs to be taken seriously. It has an ease about it in using the language. Hebrew's etymology may not be like our own, but instead easier to use for those who grew up with it.

In any case, his study of etymology opens a new door to understanding Hebrew that may move us from an obliviousness about what holy means, beyond controversy over what it means and finally to an obvious position on what it means. If the ease at which he arrives at some definitions is any indication, then an easy insider meaning of holy may be just around a near corner.

In Christ,

Jon

Holy Means Whole:Yahweh is Holy

Psalm 99 has been called the holiness chapter and Leviticus has been called the holiness book. In Psalm 99:9, we read: “Exalt Yahweh our God, And worship at His holy hill: For Yahweh our God is holy.” In Leviticus 20:26, we read in part: “I Yahweh am holy.” If I asked you what is more important, God’s personal name of Yahweh or God’s character of being holy, how would you answer?

Recently, I was taken to task for not keeping the main thing the main thing in a sermon I preached. This criticism was done graciously and I was able to accept it graciously, I am happy to report. Similarly, in seminary we were supposed to write a topic paper for our master’s degree that identified the main unifying theme of Scripture. At that time, I chose the word holy, but I was left dissatisfied with my definition of holy and my placing holy as a character trait next to God Himself. I wanted the main thing to be the main thing then, even as that was my intention when I preached more recently.

In the last 2 months, I learned a great deal about priorities when it comes to categories of parts and wholes. I want to chart this out, using bold letters to indicate what is the main thing or what is more important and more urgent. And I've grouped tightly together and have italicized those parts and wholes that are less important than the first kind of parts and wholes. That same grouping is also those parts and wholes that are to be seen as equal to each other. The chart then looks like this:


Component(s) – Integrated Person (ex. funny, chubby, member of 3 Stooges - Curly)

Portion(s) – Mass (ex. slice - pie)
Member(s) – Collection (ex. players - team)
Feature(s) – Activity (ex. round wheel - smooth ride)
Material(s) – Object (ex. china - vase)


Having seen this chart, I think all will agree that God’s name of Yahweh or God’s name of Yahshua (Jesus) is more important than the components that make up God. Yet Yahweh is by his name an integrated person. And it is no small thing to say that “Yahweh our God is holy.”

Names mean more than just one thing. A name for God says more than that God is god and not man. It says something about even ourselves in a comprehensive way. So I now acknowledge that not only did my sermon not keep the main things the main things, but I did not do it either, when I was in seminary and wrote about holy. In my weak defense, neither did many systematic theologies or sermons that I studied.

Now I realize I must write about holy as a description of the wholeness of Yahweh God’s components as a person, but I must write even more about His name and the name of His son who died on the cross for my sins. The personal things must remain the main things even as they were for me as a young Christian. So I will eventually have to create another blog titled: http://yahwehisholy.blogspot.com/.

An integrated name is more significant than the whole of components. Being whole in components is more significant than each of the components, but a name is what best expresses that integration. If you must choose between a person who is integrated and having the whole of the parts, choose the integrated person who is identified by their personal name.

We use names all the time, so we sometimes take them for granted. But people who study names say that they are positively descriptive. They make sense in terms of the person or nonsense in terms of the person. A name is positively joined to some features and negatively separated from some other features.

For example, to say that Yahweh is God does not tell you everything about Yahweh, but certainly one of the central components of who Yahweh is. Yet the trait of being God and not man does not match the integration of all who Yahweh is as a person. For one He is not just God, He is the One God. God tells us what Yahweh is, but does not fully tell us who God is.

We can be steered off course by placing God’s character of holiness ahead of His personal name. The main thing must remain the main thing.

Yahweh as a name is mentioned nearly 7000 times in the Old Testament (Covenant Writings) alone. Then we need to add to that the number of times that Jesus appears in the New Testament (Covenant Writings), because Jesus’ name in Hebrew is Yahshua (or shortened, Yeshua), which means “Yahweh saves.” Then we need to add to that the number of times that LORD appears in an English translation of the Greek New Testament as a substitute for Yahweh, and we will find His name is very important. I will need to add up the full numbers some day. But frequency often says a lot about importance.

So let’s all keep the main thing the main thing even as we learn about holiness and wholeness. And let’s then also keep holiness ahead of things like justice, truth, love and goodness. Yet like Jesus, Yahshua, once said, “Do the former without neglecting the latter.” So God's name of Yahweh comes before all else, including the trait of holiness, yet it is not His name without His holiness.


In Yahshua (Jesus),

Pastor Jon