Holy: Understanding it Better through Genesis 2:1-3, Part 1(of 5)

“Words are like eggs dropped from great heights. You could no more call them back than ignore the mess they left when they fell" says Stephen R. Covey.  The same applies to "holy" as it is used in a Bible translation.  It is a bit messy historically as it has fallen to our own day.  There are many ways that people in the English speaking world define this one word as it is used to translate qadosh or hagios in our Bibles.  Some define it as "whole", some as "set apart", some as "pure", and some many other sometimes ridiculous ways.  So I want to look more deeply into the topic of translation and use it to enlighten people so that there is both more clarity and more meaning in this word. 

I'm sure translators have sometimes regretted their choices in their translations, but it is hard to pull back from those words once they are published, even if they created a mess.  To expand Coveys' analogy, they are as hard to call back as the shell of Humpty Dumpty after his great fall.  This blog entry will deal primarily with the text containing the Hebrew word for "made holy" from the standpoint of word choices used to translate the ancient Hebrew words of Moses' day.  I will also dive a little bit too into meaning categories (semantic classes that are boader or semantic domains that are narrower).  

I will discuss what makes a good translation and then I will present a translation of Genesis 1:1-2:3 that I think best fits those principles.  This is a very important first step in interpreting a text correctly.  The latter part of this same step will be to dive into what words in that context might fall into the same meaning categories as the word translated "holy". 
An important part of the entire process of understanding "made holy" is choosing a cohesive section of text and not breaking apart that unit on the level that we are examining.  I am not examining the very large entire book of Genesisor all the Law of Moses, but I am looking mainly at 2:1-3.  That by itself though is not a cohesive unit, so I had to expand my examination a little further.  As a result we will be looking at the translation of Genesis 1:1-2:3. 

Scholars sometimes use a technical term for a section like this, called "pericope".  It is simply a technical word for cohesive unit relationally within a text.  There are clues that indicate either continuity and change so that a single unit can be determined. 

The reason again that I am examing these verses together is that I and others consider these verses to be part of a cohesive unit of text including Genesis 2:1-3.  This is significant, so that the context can be considered complete enough in order to be able draw conclusions for Genesis 2:1-3.  In other words, Genesis 2:1-3 belongs to the unit of Genesis 1:1-2:3 and should not be cut off from it on that level of textual units. 

The primary issue is this: "How do I know I am reading the right translation?"  As a person, who has formally studied both exegetical methods in Bible classes and linguistic methods in the general study of language, I have heard a lot of theories about what criteria measures a good translation.  A popular discussion of the possible criteria is found in So Many Versions by Sakae Kubo and Walter F. Specht.  There is also a more recent title that I have not read as a whole, but that sounds promising, if you are curious to learn a lot more than I will cover here. 

I will limit my discussion to my views on what is called "dynamic equivalence" translation.  I'll limit my discussion to this theory as my starting point, because it is discussed by both sides of the pond - both biblical scholars and linguists.  But also I want to discuss it because my teachers have been both biblical exegetes and linguistic scholars. 

The main proponent of this view was Eugene Nida, a brilliant linguist and language scholar.  For this view, he has both great fans and equally strong opponents.  (Unfortunately, he died just last year).  I will simply say to begin that I find the "dynamic equivalence" approach to be incomplete.  It lacks another dynamic that is equally important, even while it does a very excellent job of performing the task of dealing with meaning.  Please here me out on this. 

I am persuaded that the very best translation tries to accomplish two things: (1) clarity and (2) meaning.  The second is where I believe Nida's method shines.  Dynamic equivalence is excellent in method for finding meaningfulness.  But let's look at both principles. 

I base my two principles on Nehemiah 8:8 (as my mom taught me, "chapter and verse"), where we read in the NIV:

They read from the Book of the Law of God,
making it clear
and giving the meaning
so that the people could understand
what was being read.

You will notice here two things are actively happening: (1) making it clear and (2) giving the meaning.  You will notice also one purpose: (1) so that the people could understand what was being read.  In other words, if either of these principles falls down, then the people will not be able to understand.. 

For the sake of clarity and meaning, let me diagram this for you.  It appears as:

In contract to this happening in step one, there is the opposite.  It appears as:

Now some will argue with the use of the NIV (1984) at this point.  You will say this is a circular argument, because I am using a translation to argue for the principles of translation .  First, let's be clear on one thing.  All translations that I have read so far have two actions and one purpose.  So clarity is not the issue on that point.  So where they differ seems to be in meaning.  They do vary in what they think is most meaningful.  I hear you.  Yet I think this issue belongs in a footnote (your comments and my responses) rather than in this part of my writing, because my main concern is to deal with Genesis 1:1-2:3, not Nehemiah 8:8 (not that it is unimportant!).  But I do have to deal with space limits and my main point must remain my main point.  Comment on this piece if you would like to and there we can debate the merits of the NIV (1984)!

I also think that an easy way to think of the difference between clarity ("making it clear") and meaning ("giving the meaning") is to ask two different questions.  For the sake of clarity, it is important to aks the question: "How many?" (Quantity).  For the sake of meaning, it is important to ask the question: "How much?" (Quality).  Let me illustrate.

If I speak from a podium and instruct the crowd as I randomly split them up into three parts to say three different things like "yes," or "no" or "maybe" simulaneously, then what is heard is quite unclear.  I only have a clue from my podium because I gave the instructions.  But if I asked a person who just came out of a sound proof room to tell me what they said, she would somewhat puzzled.  It sounds like gibberish.  It lacks clarity.  One is clearer than three, so the quantity of one produces the most clarity. 

Likewise, if I were to choose a newer English word like "health" and ask an adult to give me its meaning, chances are they would reasonably succeed at that task.  On the other hand, if I chose an older English word like "hale" and ask an adult to define it, they would likely fail.  It has less meaning that healthy even if there two meanings overlap in history.  One is newer than the other, so the quality of one produces more meaning. 

The problem with most translating theories is that they answer only one of the two questions really well, while answering the other a little more weakly or in some cases a lot more weakly.  That is why I prescribe the NIV (1984) or the NKJV to most of the people who ask me the question, because they do one of the tasks better than the other, but the other task they only do a little more weakly.  What the NIV has over the NKJV in meaning, the NKJV has over the NIV in clarity.   Maybe that explains the success of both as the most popular contemporary translations in sales (I believe this still holds).

So now let's move to Genesis 1:1-2:3 and look at it from a translation standpoint. 

spare entry: one of many as related to "How many" and how clear. 
spare entry: equal or equivalent to the original as related to "How much?" and how meaningful. 

 [This entry is in development.  You need to understand these are the hard ones to develop and yet also the most important!]

Sincerely,

Jon