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 from ALL Lexicons

Your primary reason for visiting my blog is most likely that you want to know the meaning of the word holy in English as a translation of the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.  (The latter is important, even if person does not recognize the importance of the New Testament, because the Old Testament was translated into Greek also.)  I wish I could give you the stock answer of "set apart", because one possibility is simpler than multiple possibilities.   But that would make me dishonest.  Based on my reading of the lexicons and dictionaries out there, I think there are three great possible answers. The first is "pure", the second is "set apart", and the third is "whole" (listed in alphabetical order to avoid bias).  The reason for that is that I am basing my research on "all" the dictionaries and lexicons that are available.  I will further explain what I mean by "all", so I don't appaer unrealistic. 

My reason or motivation for this method of using "all" dictionaries and lexicons is simple.  It is the method to follow for the person who is trying to make sure they understand a word in another language correctly.  Mildred Larson, a trained linguist, has this to say about dictionaries and lexicons:

       Dictionaries "unpack" the meanings of words.  That is why a good translator will use all the
       dictionaries and lexicons available in his study of the source language text.

Please note carefully her use of the word "all".  This is of course the ideal or the goal, but sometimes it is simply not possible at the time, so a person has to settle for a little more modest goal until a later time.  Quite honestly, I could not possibly examine "all" the lexicons for Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek that are out there at this time even with a focus only on the words that are translated as "holy".  With a greater access using computers this might be possible someday, but not today.  So in place of "all" of them, I think I have found a worthwhile way to achieve Larson's goal. 

My method toward her goal is to make sure that from among "all" the dictionaries and lexicons, I at least begin from representatives for "all" the major definitions of holy.  Jesus once said in paraphrase form: "Do the greatest first, but also do not neglect the least."  . So "all" has to come later rather than suffer neglect with the greatest things first.  That is how I understand that Larson's goal might eventually be reached.  You've maybe seen the illustration of a jar and different sizes of things to put in that jar.  Usually there are large rocks, smaller rocks, sand and water.  The person who does the greatest first is able to fit more of the "all" possible things into the jar than those who start with the smallest objects first.  So that is my strategy.

I am beginning from dictionaries and lexicons that pre-date our time and that of the late 1800s.  I want to go beyond Gesenius' Hebrew and English Lexicon.   This is my way of including "all" the major lexicons and possibities in my research toward Larson's high end goal.  Those who leave out Moses Kimchi's/Kimhi's work, David Kimchi's/Kimhi's work or Johann Reuchlin's work on Hebrew are not even aiming at getting the biggest stones in the jar first.  They instead are assuming advances at the end of the 19th century and later through the 20th century that make Gesenius' work and that of those following the greatest rather than anything previous.  They assume this made the other prior lexicons obsolete.  Why not instead include "all" the major optoins and test them instead in the 21st century?  Why assume correctness rather than testing it?  Is testing now that difficult for us?  So now you should understand my motive behind my method. 

I want to see "all" dictionaries and lexicons to be considered.  That (eventurally) also goes for Jeff A. Benner's The Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible.  I'm not saying by including him in the list of "all" that the credentials of a scholar don't matter (he seems to lack them and to have been a self-study person in his final product), but I am saying that he has proposed some things that those credentialed as scholars need to consider as part of "all" lexcions, because he is handling words as "bundles" of meaning as Larson says in her title for the section that I quoted earlier.  What he is bringing to the table, that sometimes is not made explicit in other research, is the issue of letters being bundled together to form meanings, and not just other morphemes made up of more than one letter.  He's not the only one to ever do this, but he is the only one to take a comphrensive approach like his to the whole language of Hebrew.  He at least makes explicit what others are doing implicitly in their etymologies (the study of the true roots of words).  Also he is not wrong just because he uses the older method of etymology rather than lexical analysis.   The fact that he could sometimes be wrong from the use of the etymological method does not say that he is always wrong. 

So what you will find in my research is an attempt to deal with "all" the dictionaries and lexicons with the greatest being placed out front.  That is a critical part of my method.  Though I am not a Latin scholar, I do know what conclusions were drawn from Reuchlin, the Kimchis and the others.  There was a meaning given that in English means "whole".  That is why I consider it an important option.  Now as I say elsewhere, it is only a matter of finishing my exegetical paper using what is called or named "Linguistic Analysis".  Please pray that I can finish this soon!  My goal is to graduet in May 2013.  Thank you for your prayers. 


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