One of the hardest parts of my writing is making sure I understand a text there and then before I leap to the here and now. The goal is to free myself as much as possible from an outsider's point of view and instead put on an insider's hat. Only then can transfer from insider to outsider really happen in a way that is true and humble.
One of the greatest errors in the past for trying to understand blessed or holy inside the Bible is the habit of falling back on two methods that have to do with relationships of place and time or transfer between differences of place and time. One method is the use of etymology. The other method is the use of using cognate languages. While there are times that both of these methods are essential, I think in the case of blessed and holy this is not the case. In fact, I would even suggest that a person is better off to avoid each method as much as possible based on what we know about deciphering unknown languages.
I base my view on my own revised version of the five fundamental pillars identified by Michael Coe, a highly regarded expert on Mayan decipherment, for all successful decipherments of unknown languages.
Those pillars are:
·
The language must be a presently known language in at least one of three ways. As a whole, the method requires some connection with known languages to be effective.
·
There should be a large enough database and texts of the language. This addresses the amount of text that is needed to be effective.
·
There should be a connected cultural context of the language. This addresses the issue of relationship where there must be a connection to be effective.
·
There should be understood parallel or
bilingual inscriptions of the language. The key action in this case is understanding a less well understood from a parallel that is even better understood.
·
There should be pictorial or concrete references with the text of the language. The thing that can really help is a referent to go with meaning and both kinds are very helpful.
I will limit my discussion mostly to the meaning of holy here, because I have studied it far more extensively than I have blessed. Many of the same things, though, could be use for finding the meaning of any words in the text.
If you were to pick up a typical lexicon of Hebrew, you would likely arrive at the idea that qadosh (the Hebrew word for holy), is best defined as "set apart". This is largely derived from an etymological argument for the Hebrew word that we typically translate as holy.
There are two problems with the argument for its etymology. One is that this etymology is more theory than model. Second is that the uncertainty of the theory is usually not opening acknowledged. It is known, but only to those who have studied the word to the extent of writing a more lengthy word study.
Regarding the first concern, there is not a contemporary like the leader of the Hebrews, Moses, who wrote that this word is derived from the meanings of each of these letters or from another word similar to qadosh. If we had that, then we would have a model description of the meaning of holy that could be very helpful. Sometimes ancient writers give to us a legitimate etymology for a word that we know is reliable. The problem in the case of the Hebrew word for holy, is that there is no historical example of this, which makes an etymology for Hebrew word of qadosh highly speculative.
That leads us to the second problem. Most of the time the speculative nature of trying to come up with a meaning either contemporary or previous to the word qadosh in the text, is not even acknowledged. You have to open the most contemporary Hebrew lexicon or dictionary to see that acknowledged in a Hebrew lexicon. Clines' Dictionary of Classical Hebrew is the most straightforward in acknowledging the uncertainty. Otherwise, you have to look it up in a book devoted at length to discussing the meaning of holy like Jo Bailey Wells' book, God's Holy People: A Theme in Biblical Theology.
Now I would like to discuss the problem of what are called cognate languages. These are words that are related by a common origin. This is usually recognized by the common forms of words from related languages. There are a number of ancient languages that have apparently related words deriving from a similar QDS root pattern. There are issues though that can be raised based on Coe's principles.
First, Hebrew is a much larger volume of text than are many of the cognate languages that are relied upon to define qadosh. Second, there is no doubt that these languages are more closely connected to Hebrew than many others, yet sometimes these languages that are being relied upon are not contemporaneous but prior or later. So the close connection is not as close as one might hope. Third, I have not seen a lot of data for parallels. The best here would be the Septuagint where Greek is parallel as opposed to what is found in examples of ancient cognate languages. Finally, there are no spectacular finds of pictures or concrete examples in many of these texts. If they do exist, I have never heard of anything of that sort in these other cognate languages when it comes to holy. The closest I have seen to anything like that is the work of Mary Douglas inside the Hebrew Biblical text rather than any reference to some related language on the outside looking in.
Photo of Mary Douglas
What is really needed, and it is what I am attempting to provide, is an argument from the Hebrew itself. The reason is because there is much more to learn from the large database of text in Hebrew. And there is also a very parallel example of another language in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew. These are far more in value due to their overwhelming database sizes and the fact that the Greek in this case can function like a Rosetta Stone in discerning the meaning of obscure words in Hebrew where we don't have a lot to work with. But the words for blessed or holy are far from obscure words. To me, using etymology and cognate languages are quite unnecessary.
But really the biggest issue is that each of these methods, etymology and cognates, have each undercut rather than enhanced the direct study of Hebrew in its own right. The great majority of the time in reading a word study on qadosh/holy, the decision on the meaning of holy is made way before the Hebrew text is even encountered. Qadosh is often treated like we have a really small data base to work with instead of huge one that indicates that etymology and cognate words will not be very valuable in the end. It is encountering qadosh and its other forms inside the text that I think is the most valuable of all.
Mary Douglas' treatment of holy from inside the Biblical text begins things in the right direction. Let's study first the text that has come down to us. After all, the insider may know more than the outsider!
TRANSFER FROM THEN AND THERE TO HERE AND NOW
You may wonder about my process of the 5 T's. Let me shed some light on each of these, by defining each one. The central concept is a relationship that changes from there and then to here and now (and even to elsewhere and later). So here is how each compares in my effort to relate things from there and then of Scripture to the here and now of our lives:
The Five T's of Transfer (Relationships of different kinds):
Translation is a transfer of amounts from there and then to here and now
Transfer is a transfer of relationships from there and then to here and now
Total is a transfer of wholes from there and then to here and now
Training is a transfer of actions from there and then to here and now
Teaching is a transfer of things from there and then to here and now.
Exodus
[diagram of text]
[contemporary outline of text]
[This piece is still being worked on due to an interruption today. I hope to revisit it fairly soon.
In Christ,
Jon
No comments:
Post a Comment