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 Context Errors

Perhaps no other discipline than anthropology warns about importing outsider ideas into insider ideas to interpret a context.  Just yesterday, I read a fascinating article on how the Ancient Hebrew alphabet of 22 letters could possibly have been expanded into 66 letters at one time in its history.  In other words, each letter could have been written 3 different ways to enhance communication.  I don't think we do that in our context (English in my case).  We can easily miss patterns like this one and then substitute our own. 

My special concern when I mention that is the idea that we see words as synonymously parallel that may instead have a different relationship.  I first became aware of this through a commentator (I'm sorry this older commentator now eludes me -- it could have been Adam Clarke) who explained the way our English translators dealt with the translation of righteousness and justice from the Hebrew and which contexts would the form for justice be translated instead as judgment and that judgment meant both righteousness and justice altogether. 

The pattern here is somewhat rare in our contemporary thinking.  I know I never was made aware of this pattern before.  I had heard of the idea that the lesser can be used to refer to or mean the greater, but I had never thought of things in quite this way. 

Then add to this that a Hebrew scholar years ago that had pointed out that righteousness and justice were not the same things.  Suddenly, I began to see a pattern that did not come from my culture. 

Two different words side by side that were not synonymous.  That is not Shakespearean.  Then these two words, I later discovered were actually perpendicular measurements to one another, not synonymous measurements through the analogy of carpentry and the plumb line and level line. 

Then add to this the context of Hebrew where righteousness seems so far to always appear before justice and then Aramaic where justice seems to appear first instead.  Here I am reminded how the Bible is able to cope in translation with grammatical systems that have different requirements and yet still send the same message. 

All of this adds up to a different context than my own, with the danger that my context cannot be read into theirs.  It appears now that there is a pattern that Hebrew at least likes to honor even on the surface level: 1) greater, 2) lesser, and 3) greatest (the two altogether).  Righteousness would then be the greater, justice the lesser, and judgment the greatest.

So now let's apply that context rule to holy.  What if blessed is the greater, what if holy is the lesser and what if "holiness" (the two altogether) is the greatest.  Could that be the contextual rule that we have been lacking in place of synonymous parallelism too frequently applied?  Could we be missing a major contextual indicator?  I'm just asking in the spirit of my anthropology professors.

Sincerely,

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 Sound Method and Key Biblical Texts

I am willing to guess that you are visiting my blog to learn the meaning of holy.  I will not disappoint you.  The first question is how many (quantity) possible definitions are there and then of those which one is the right one?  The second question is how much (quality) is the support for each definition and can one gain all the support while the others lose their support?   My answer to the first question is three (out of twenty+) that deserve consideration: "set apart", "pure", or "whole".   The answer to the second question of how much (quality) is the support for each of these definitions is why I am writing posts for this blog.  The quality of support for one of these three definitions I believe can be higher.  I also am convinced that through a better exegetical method or word study or linguisic analysis, one definition can be presented with a higher quality of support rather than the worst case scenario of the wrong one, a little better option of still having three possibilities, or better still just two possibilities.  The one with high quality support is what I want.  This post will begin to answer the question of the definition of holy in the Bible at a higher level of quality by introducing the outline or arrangment of my method of exegeis or analysis that will increase the support for one of these three definitions. 

One of the five canons (rules) of rhetoric for public speaking is arrangment.  In grammar, the parallel rule for writing or journalism is outlining.  Mrs. Buchberger tired to teach me English grammar in junior high and Mr. Rass tried to straighten me out further on outlining in high school.  Today, I want to introduce a probable arrangment or outline for the thesis I am currently writing.

It is as follows:

Preface: The How Many and How Much

     The Scope of this Paper: Using One Method over All the Others

Part One: Method - The How and the Why

     Introduction

          Looking at the Total Picture: It is About More than Translation

               Nehemiah 8

     Unit One  

          Translation  and Semantic Analysis

     Unit Two
  
          Transfer and Structural Analysis

     Unit Three

          Total and Linguistic (or Grammatical) Analysis

     Unit Four

          Train and Syntactic Analysis

     Unit Five

          Teach and Lexical Analysis

     Conclusion: A Total Method is Superior to a Translation Method


Part Two:  Biblical Texts - The What and the Which: Testing Three Theories Not Just One

     Introduction: We Cannot Rely So Much on One Method

          Etymology is in the Bible?

          Introducing Complete Linguistic Analysis

     Unit One: The Linguistic Analysis of Isaiah 6 (and Revelation 4)

     Unit Two: The Linguistic Analysis of Genesis 2:1-3 (and Deuteronomy 5)

     Unit Three: The Linguistic Analysis of Leviticus 19 (and 1 Peter 1)

     Unit Four: The Linguistic Analysis of Exodus (?) (and Acts (?))

     Unit Five: The Linguistic Analysis of Deuteronomy (?)

    Conclusion:  One Definition from Multiple Possible Definitions for Holy


Part Three: The Significance and Implications - The Where and the When (Relevance)

     Introduction: The Defining of Significance and Implications
    
     Unit One: The Significance and Implications for Our Priorities

     Unit Two: The Significance and Implications for Relevance

     Unit Three: The Significance and  Implications for Yourself and Life

     Unit Four: The Significance and Implications for Work

     Unit Five: The Significance and Implications for Learning

     Conclusion: One Definition that is Biblical Can Change Many Things


Epilogue: The Who and the Whole

     Who is the Holy One (what is His name)? 

     Who are the Saints (the Holy Ones)? 




This I believe is the arrangement thats is growing within my thesis paper.  Throughout this blog you will be able to read preliminary parts and pieces of what eventually will be a complete mosaic or tapestry on the definition of holy.  Right now these bits and pieces do not have the advantage of full arrangement, but I am looking forward to the day to say that the above is complete.  In this blog, I am also trying to produce a better definition of holy in the sense of better support.  But part of that is keeping all the top possibilites on the table until my thesis paper is complete and reviewed by a committee.  May God grant me speed in this process!


In Christ,

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Linguistic Analysis

The first question for anyone searching on the internet for the definition of holy is:  "What is the definition of holy as it is used in the Bible?"  Let me give first a short answer to that question.  It means one of three major possible definitions: 1) pure, 2) set apart, and/or 3) moral wholeness.  (These are listed in alphabetical order to avoid bias.)  I know you want the one definition.  So do I, but I have to complete my linguistic analysis before I can say its meaning has been re-discovered accurately in the 21st Century.

"There's a method in his madness".  The definition given for this saying is that there is often a plan or method hidden behind a person's apparently inexplicable behavior.  In my last entry, I explained that part of the method behind some of my entries was to remove both presuppositions and historical fallacies about what "holy" (quadosh or hagios) means.  This entry is to lay out explicitly what method I am going to use to define holy in its biblical context.  The method is called "Linguistic Analysis", if we use the terminology of Michael Gorman in his book Elements of Biblical Exegesis.

The first question is the right question: "What does holy mean?"  But another question is also important.  That question is this: "What is your method for determining the meaning of holy?"  You can go to many places on the internet and you will find a definition for holy in the biblical text, but you quite often are left in the dark as to how they re-discovered that meaning found in the Law of Moses and in Ancient Hebrew (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy).  So ltet's replace a little of the madness in trying to define holy with some clarity of method. 

The Linguistic Analysis method consists of the following parts:

1) Semantic Analysis
2) Discourse Analysis
3) Grammatical Analysis (another word for the method, included within Linguistic Analysis)
4) Syntactical Analysis
5) Lexical Analysis

The order in which these are placed and the breaking out of some of these into separate parts is not the work of Michael Gorman.  Instead, he provided me with a very good list from which I forged these 5 distinct parts in my method.  I re-worked all of Gorman's categories based on 5 classes of definition: 1) Amount, 2) Relationship, 3) Whole, 4) Action, and 5) Thing. 

Let me say a little about each part of my method.  In each case, I will be using insights from linguists like Eugene Nida and from biblical exegetes like D. A. Carson and others. Here is each of the methods separately:

1) Semantic analysis normally has focused on meaning.  I will be pursuing a course that considers first clarity and then second meaning.  This is a course correction from Nida's dynamic equivalence that primarily looks at meaning.  I will use his insights, but as a first step also take steps to preserve clarity where possible.  A balance of both needs to be maintained.  It is like using a plumb line for the vertical axis and then also using a level for the horizontal axis.  That analogy is in fact how I picture the relationship between clarity and meaning and in that order. 

2) Discourse analysis is used all the time by many linguists and biblical exegetes.  Linguistics usually refer to the method they use as structural analysis.  Biblical exegetes usually use a method that combines sentence diagramming and outlining.  I also am aware of the method called arcing that was first developed by Daniel P. Fuller and later made more popular by Dr. John S. Piper (today a well-known pastor known mainly through Desiring God Ministries on-line).   Arcing is mainly an off shoot from biblical exegesis and traditional grammar.  I prefer myself the method referred to as disourse analysis or structural analysis, because it is more comprehensive than the other methods.  It's main weakness in the past came from its prior step of semantic analysis.  I have already suggested what I will change in the previous paragraph on semantic analysis to correct the weakness there.

3) Grammatical analysis is all the other types of analysis combined.  Traditionally this was the method that was taught in most of our earlier years in learning "grammar".   Its traditional major categories or divsions are:

a) orthography
b) etymology
c) syntax
d) prosody

I was not taught about these major divisions when I was in junior high school, but I do know that there are much longer lists of what grammar includes and there is a lot  more detail.  This often tneds toward confusion!  I will be handling linguistic or grammatical analysis on the level of its major divsions as:

a) semantical analysis
b) discourse analysis
c) syntactical analysis
d) lexical analysis

These categories I consider to be much better major divisions for understanding grammar and they also include the older categories.  They are not necessarily anti-grammar as some suppose from reading things written by scholars like James Barr in Biblical Semantics.  I would say it this way:  "The problem with Barr is that he goes too far".  I mean this in the context of his criticisms of things like etymology.  While etymology has weaknesses for word study, it can be helpful as one part of the larger picture of grammatical analysis. 

3) Syntactical analysis is very important and it is often shown using sentence diagramming.  This method is often useful, because it helps in isolating the actions or events of the text and those aspects that fit around that action in the form of a sentence.  But I also like to use another tool for analyzing action in a text that looks wider than the sentence level.  It does this by looking at the pre-state and post-state of an action.  I learned this method from James J. Odell.  He is a unique source, because he is neither a linguist nor a biblical exegete, but he is a very important computer search engine expert.  You can find some excellent things written by him on-line.   But the best way to understand this method will be the results from the fruit of t his method as I put this method into action on the meaning of qadosh and hagios as actions and in their usual translation of "sanctify".

4) Lexical analysis will be where the majority of work needs to be done including insights from etymology.  But etymology cannot be used alone separate from the other forms of analysis.  That has been the major weakness of etymology in the past as well as in the case of lexical analysis.  Word studies, as they are sometimes referred to in exegetical literature, often do not take seriously enough the need for accurate discourse analysis.  I see this especially, when words are seen as parallel without examiing the connective words in the text.  So no etymologies or word studies without context!  Context needs to be examined through discourse analysis! 

Now that I have  mainly layed out the positive methods I will be using, let me say a little about the weakness in previous methods in general.  The biggest issue has been the presumpotion of meaning using the traditional grammatical analysis method of etymology as opposed to a more complete  lexical analysis .  Lexical analysis includes etymology, but it is also on guard against errors made using this method.  In some cases, such as those of the Greek philosophers like Plato, there are some significant examples of errors from etymology alone.  Lexical analysis also does not stand alone nor should word studies and therefore also has more than just a contextual (discourse analysis) advantage over etymology.  It is designed to work with support from the other forms of analysis alongside of it.  In some cases, it is not necesary to do these others, but that is only when the other methods and results are already well-estbalished. 

So in conclusion, while I will be doing a study of the meaning of the words in the biblical text that are translated by holy, etc., I will be careful to include all the major forms or divisions in my study.  One of these methods or divisions by itself has value and can sometimes stand alone when the other parts are already well-established, but the checks and balances of the other methods are needed whenever there is a question of parallels or context or meaning or clarity, etc.  That is why my overall method is best called linguistic analysis for my fellow linguistis out there or grammatical analysis for my fellow biblical exegetes.  Please keep watching for my conclusions as my desire it to finish things by the late spring 2013. 

In Christ,

Jon