Holy: Understanding it Better Through Levitics 19 (Translate Amounts - Part 1 of 5)

Leviticus is one of the most overlooked books in the entire Hebrew Scriptures.  To the Jews traditionally, this is the most important of the 5 Books of the Law.  Yet in Christian circles today, it is the most forgotten book of all the 5 Books of the Law and maybe even of the entirety of the Hebrew Scriptures.  When was there a rush to the Christian bookstores to get the latest commentary on Leviticus?  Did I miss it? 

How is it that the most important Book of the Law of Moses can become the least?  Pastor Ray Stedman, a number of years ago, tried to explain this in a commentary on Leviticus titled The Way to Wholeness (published posthumously).  His explanation of the lack of interest in Christian circles had to do with the popular understanding of holy as set apart rather than as wholeness.  While most scholars would disagree with his definition, most scholars agree with Stedman that holiness is a key concept in the book of Leviticus.  So what does it mean?

Where there is a difference between Stedman and the majority of scholars is the translation of the Hebrew qadosh (holy in most translations).  The current difficulty with holy is that it is amendable in English to either the idea of "set apart" or to the idea of "whole".   There is a silly argument that the scholar James "Too Far" Barr once tried to present that holy in the Bible does not mean "whole", based on the English etymology where it clearly is connected to hale, healthy, and whole.  First, in all of my reading on holiness (and it is extremely extensive), I have never read someone argue that because an English word means something in its etymology, therefore the Hebrew means the same. 

I think it what we used to call a "wet paper sack" ("he can't even fight his way out of a wet paper sack") argument.  Who would ever think that?  It is absurd. 

The logic does not go this way:

Holy is the translation for qadosh (the original in Hebrew) and hagios (the original in Greek),
therefore if holy means whole in English,
then therefore qadosh and hagios mean whole in their respective languages. 


No, that logic does not work and none of those like Ray Stedman, Leonard Ravenhill, or Charles Haddon Spurgeon ever would have dreamed up such a notion.  What they are trying to say is something that does make sense.  Here is what I think they are trying to argue when the point out that holy means or is connected to whole.  One of their major premises is being skipped over by Barr.

Their logic does go more like this:

The King James translators (and English translators before them) chose the word holy primarily to translate qadosh from Hebrew and hagios from Greek into our language.
The King James translators chose the word holy, because they believed that qadosh and hagios had connections to moral wholeness.
When we point out that holy means whole in its etymology, we mean to point out what was obvious to earlier translators when they chose holy as the word for their translation into English of qadosh and hagios. 
Therefore, since I am not questioning their translation of qadosh and hagios from their respective languages by these earlier translators, then I am supporting their translation into my language that holy means moral wholeness.

What Barr does not make explicit in the other parties' argument is the highlighted line and also his own line that:

We, as Biblical scholars, do not take seriously earlier Biblical scholarship or translation work relying or dating back at least to the Middle Ages.

That is what the argument is really about with regard to the translation from the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek.  It is about the reliability or quality of earlier translation work.  Without really making it an explicit premise, there is an assumption than older scholarship is inferior. 

I, as a translator, take a much more objective view now that it is possible to stand apart from the arguments about scholarship that were at their peak near the end of the 1800's and continued throughout the entire 20th century.  I don't by default automatically consider an older viewpoint the inferior view.  Rather I like to look at the evidence for both sides in arguments over a translation.  I keep my choices open and then only by the evidence do I close doors to those choices. 

I keep my choices open

and then only by the evidence

do I close doors to those choices. 

I think that David J. A. Clines, the editor for the most up to date Hebrew dictionary called The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, possesses a keen mind when he says two things about the challenges for making an adequate Hebrew dictionary:

First, he says, regarding the challenges of constructing a Hebrew dictionary including Biblical Hebrew:  "It takes a long time to make a Hebrew dictionary that is more than a recapitulation of dictionaries of the past" (p. 88).   This is a critical point.  The number of dictionaries that say the same thing about the meaning of Hebrew qadosh does not mean that each dictionary has evaluated the work of the previous dictionary.  Instead, due to time constraints, it may only be "a recapitulation of the dictionaries of the past".  This totally makes sense, since they are trying to cover some 300,000 words in Biblical Hebrew alone according to Cline (p. 90).  That does not even consider the next 100,000 Non-Biblical Hebrew words that Cline also mentions.  It would be a massive task to re-evaluate every word's meaning and translation. 

Second, he says regarding one further challenges for more recent Hebrew dictionaries including Biblical Hebrew :

    How to draw upon the rich resources of mediaeval Hebrew lexicographers [dictionary
    makers], which are almost totally absent from all our contemporary lexica.  I do not
    mean to suggest that all philological [linguistic] observations by these mediaeval
    authors deserve a place in a modern dictionary of Hebrew, but that some undoubtedly do. 
    The systematic evaluation of such proposals would be a highly technical undertaking, and
    stands as a challenge to lexicographers of the future (p. 92).

Here I believe that Cline is much more objective than James "Too Far" Barr, who in all likelihood would see no value in the task that Cline has suggested.  Notice too how careful Cline is to avoid two errors and not just one error as in the case of Barr.  He avoids saying that "all [linguistic] observations by these mediaeval authors deserve a place in a modern dictionary of Hebrew".  But he also thinks that "some undoubtedly do". 

This leaves the door open then to considering the work of people like Johannes Reuchlin, the influential Hebrew scholar in the case of Martin Luther's and Phillip Melancthon's scholarship.  It does not by default register an endorsement, but rather an evaluation.  That is what I want to plead for in the case of trying to decide the meaning of holy.  Too often older scholarship by default registers the opposite of an endorsement, a denial. 

I also want to support Cline's statement that this "would be a highly technical undertaking", because I have tried to do this on the just the meaning of holy and knowledge of Latin is a major requirement, besides the fact that footnotes were not popular with the Reformers like Luther, who do not always point out whether it was Reuchlin, one of the Kimchi's, or Nicholas of Lyra who was his source.  The difficulty of the job, however, does not mean it should not be undertaken, but rather undertaken with a due sense of  qualifications for doing it well. 

Having said all this about translation, you probably have guessed already that I will be focusing primarily on statement from Leviticus 19:2 New King James Version (NKJV):

² “Speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy."


The key words to look at in terms of translation in this passage are the following:

1) "all" - more properly translated as "the whole of" in this verse
2) "holy" - no surprise here: "What does it mean in the original text?"
3) the LORD - more properly translated as "Yahweh", the question is: "Why is it not transliterated as Yahweh as found in the original text?"

So my personal translation of this verse would read:

 “Speak to the whole of the congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘You shall be holy, for I Yahweh your God am holy."

The remaining question will be, during the 5 steps of 1)translation, 2)transfer, 3)total, 4)train, and 5)teach; whether holy should be understood as 1) morally whole, 2) pure, or 3) set apart.  As I go through the series of steps, I hope at each step the issues will be clearer and clearer as to which definition the text supports.   Remember to keep your choice of definition open long enough to evaluate the evidence.  Also an additional word to watch for is the Hebrew word for blessed.  I will be examining that also in the context of holy.  May you have a great finish to the rest of your day. 



In Christ,

Jon





 

Holy: Understanding It Better Through Genesis 1:1 - 2:4a (Teach Things - 5 of 5 parts/days)

This post may be the most important of the five posts for Genesis 1:1 - 2:4a.  Despite or perhaps because of the level of education available in the United States, the more important part of education has been neglected.  I like to call that part "common sense".  Now note carefully my choice of "more important" and not most important.  My reason is because the most important thing is common sense together with a specialized sense.  The ideal education is both of these together.  The creation story itself supports this distinction.   What was really missing for me, as I came up through the educational system called school, is the more important part called common sense.  That is where I want to begin to define three key words in the passage I am examining, but first let's examine the big picture in picture form. 

[I had problems with the picture for this post. I think I have resolved it and will finish this post on Monday.  I had to help out someone today which was a good thing, but I ran out of time today.]

Sincerely,

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Genesis 1:1 - 2:4a (Translation - Day One of Five)

PREFACE

Welcome to a place where you can learn what holy really means rather than what it supposedly means.  I write about the meaning of holy with due seriousness, because it is one of the three most important words for God's identity.  This will be my initial post on a Monday for what is now to become my weekly habit.  Each week, I will write 5 posts in the following order on a particular biblical passage: Mondays - Translation Topics, Wednesdays - Transfer Topics, Thursdays - Total Topics, Fridays - Training Topics, Saturday - Teaching Topics.  Each time you return to this blog, you will grasp even better what I am saying.  Rome was not built in a day and neither can the persuasive arguments for the meaning of holy, etc. be built in a day.  It will ultimately take a book, like the one that I am writing. and that I hope will be published before the end of the year to straighten out a lot of confusion and blindness. 

Each time you visit or receive an email through signing up for emails each time I write, I will explain in greater detail the entire process of understanding a complete unit of Scripture and the meanings of the big three words in Scripture: 1) Yahweh/the LORD, 2) blessed, and 3) holy.  None of these three can stand entirely alone, though I have listed them in the order of priority.  Each Biblical passage will be able to stand alone as an argument for the meanings of the big three including holy, but also each passage will add more strength and power to the persuasive arguments that came before it. 

So today I am going to look at the primary translation issues in our text for today.  Every text in translation has an enormous amount of consensus related to it that I will not discuss.  There is no point in re-inventing the wheel in places where translators have done a wonderful job.  My experience says that the majority of times, they do pretty well.  But also my goal is to find those key words that function as very important to the unit of Scripture being explained and where there is some disagreement among translations and then to try to make improvements in those areas. 

First, it is important to put my view of translation into context.  I believe the goals of a great translation (in its strict or narrow sense) are two primarily: 1) clarity, and 2) meaningfulness.   What I mean by strict or narrow sense is that the total of communication is summed up in: 1) translation, 2) transfer, 3) total, 4) train, and 5) teach.  So here I am dealing with translation as a PART of the total communication process rather than as the WHOLE of the communication process.  You can see the difference? 

There is a great way to accomplish each one of these goals of clarity and meaningfulness.  For clarity to be enhanced, it is important to keep one word for one thing as much as you can, if it is that way in the original.  Unfortunately, it is seldom that this can be done entirely the way it is in the original unless we stick to every use of the original being translated by the exact same word which creates a very literal translation.  That ideal may be great in a study bible, but it is not really possible in most cases when we are also talking about being meaningful. 

There is also an important issue that needs to be cleaned up.  This brings me, to the argument between literal or figurative being the best kind of translation.  If these are two opposing opposites, then balance would be admirable.  That is the case with the NKJV and the NIV, for the most part.  My distinctive view is that clarity is the vertical and greater axis of what we strive for and meaningfulness the horizontal and lesser axis of what we strive for.  They are not opposite poles on a horizontal line.  Clarity is the more important of the two, but also the lesser is not to be neglected for the sake of only the greater.  The greatest translations accomplish both effectively.  So literal translations are the greater for clarity, figurative translations are the lesser for meaning, but the greatest is a translation that accomplishes both altogether.  That is why I will be using both the NKJV and the NIV, because they come closest to the ideal.  What I think would clean up the mess we have with so many translations is to base them on clarity and meaningfulness in the picture I suggested.  Clarity is best accomplished when we can answer the question of "How many? with the quantity of "One"  .  Meaningfulness is best accomplished when we can answer the question of "How much?" with the quality of "Equal".  The NKJV accomplishes a bit better clarity, while the NIV accomplishes a bit better meaningfulness. 

The other reason that these two translations are my starting point is that many churches with pastors leading them, are using one of these two.  My primary target audience is pastors who stand between the specialist scholars and the common person.  These two translations work the best on that level.  Having said that my primary audience is pastors, I do not mean that many competent common people will find my writing to be over their heads, but rather than occasionally that will be the case.  Likewise a scholar can learn from what I will write, but I will be doing my best to avoid seminary jargon that the common person would have a hard time grasping meaningfully.  So read on all three groups, there will still be great benefit for all.  That is the end of my introductory material today.  It is a bit long today and the rest of this week, but it will gradually shorten as I see less and less need to introduce or explain new materials. 

INTRODUCTION: TRANSLATION TOPICS

The first step is to determine a natural unit of Scripture .  In other words, I must use what the writer considers one natural unit, so I can pick up the clues that are most relevant to the words I am discussing.  In most cases, I will be relying on the best sources I have found for what are called (rhetorical) outlines of a text.  In the case of Genesis, I will be using Allen P. Ross' Creation & Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis, as my starting point.  I also was a student of his at one time.  But also this does not mean that I have used only him as a source.  Rather, it means that I found his treatment to be among the best that I have read.  He points out that Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 is a complete unit as do most others.  So I will be dealing with those verses primarily as my one unit of Scripture over the next 5 days. 

In Ross' treatment of themes in Genesis, he believes that "blessing" and "cursing" are the significant theme of Genesis.  In picking the theme, I tend toward what he considers to be only a structural theme in the word usually translated as "generations".  I am convinced that Genesis is a book focused on relationships more than any other general theme and this is manifested specifically through "generations".  In any case, all three words are significant enough that they require attention.  Also God's name does come up immediately after in the opening story in Genesis 2:4, while holy is in direct connection with blessing in 2:1-3.  Also significant is words that have great consensus around them like "divide" that could be seen as near synonyms for the definition of "set apart" that is associated with "holy". 


TRANSLATION OF YAHWEH

The opening section or unit of Genesis only tells us "what' kind of person creates the world, God.  Sometimes we speak of God as though it were God's name.  God is not his name any more than my name is "man".  "Man" by the way is not necessarily a term of  endearment, so "God" could have the same chilling effect.  We do not yet find out God's name in the first section of Genesis.  But immediately in the beginning of the second section, we learn who this God is.  This God's name is "Yahweh".   

                                                                                             "God" is not his name

                                                                                             any more than my name

                                                                                              is "man".

Unfortunately, many people end up calling God by a very impersonal name.  We also cannot see God's name in the typical translation like the NIV.  We see something else in its place. 

Here is the explanation from the NIV translators in their preface, p. ix.:

     In regard to the divine name YHWH, commonly referred to as the Tetragrammaton,   
     the translators  adopted the device used in most English versions of rendering that
     name as "LORD" in capital letters to distinguish it from Adonai, another Hebrew
     word rendered "Lord," for which small letters are used.  Wherever the two names stand
     together in the Old Testament as a compound name of God, they are rendered
     "Sovereign LORD. "

I note that we are not given a reason for adopting the device used in most English versions, unless the explanation is that they adopted it for the reason that "most English versions" do what they have done.  The problem is that "LORD" in most people's minds means the same thing as "Lord".  Also clarity has dropped significantly, because most people do not distinguish "LORD" from "Lord", but instead place one word or idea in place of two words or ideas.  On Wednesday, under the topic of Transfer, I will discuss further why this may not be the way to go anymore while it may have been the only way to go in the 1st century. 



TRANSLATION OF BLESSING

Back in the early 90's maybe even late 80's, I learned that our definition of blessing as primarily prosperous had a significant problem in its application to certain texts.  I learned this initially from Dr. William Bean at the Center for Biblical Research (CSBR) in Pasadena, CA.  (He now is part of the same kind of ministry under a different name in Redlands, CA.)   The unique aspect of his research was his connection to Dr. David Bivin in Israel along with Dr. David Flusser of Hebrew University. 

At that time, I was not necessarily impressed by the new idea for its translation as I was by the idea that there was clearly a problem in how we understood its meaning in certain contexts, especially those that applied to God.  Recently, I arrived at a new definition that makes a lot of sense in many (but not all!) contexts.  People need to realize that the fact that the primary definition does not apply to all contexts is quite natural.  The average English dictionary demonstrates this fact. 

But also I think this idea that words typically have more than one meaning beyond its first sense needs some explanation as to why.  It may help to realize that ancient alphabets in some cases even developed more meanings from one letter by rotating those letters to different positions.  So more than one meaning from one written object has a long tradition.  The one can be made into the many within a certain span of meaning. 

It is also important to realize that meaning itself has more than one meaning.  I found Robert H. Stein's A Basic Guide to Reading the Bible: Playing by the Rules very helpful in this regard.  If I clarify what he says just one step beyond his own 3 forms of meaning, I think it is fair to speak of 3 kinds of meaning as: 1) definition, 2) implication, and 3) signification or significance.  Now as in any scenario, by having more than one meaning be possible, there becomes room for abuse or confusion, but I as a player in a game of studying my Bible, I always have tried to play within the rules. 

With trying to define blessed, I think it is important to point out the various options for its meaning and not just quickly chose one from a set of suggestions and prematurely eliminate the other options.  What it boils down to is to ask the question: "What if blessed means: 1) integrity in terms of definition, 2) means holiness by implication, and 3) prosperity by significance.  Are we willing to consider what all dictionaries seem to see as inherent, that the great majority of words at least have more than one meaning? 

I believe that in the context of Genesis 2;1-3, that blessed is being used in the sense of its definition, since its possible implication is directly connected to it.  But I also think in Genesis chapter 1, it can be used in the sense of its significance, where prosperity makes much more sense.  The type of meaning, I believe, would be signaled by the context, just like the 22 letters in an ancient alphabet could have more than one meaning through signaling a change by turning the letters to differing positions.  Same letter, different meaning is possible and I believe that same word, different meaning is also possible; but also with a clear signal of the change.  That is part of the rules.  Changing meaning in a whimsical way or to be clever would be outside the rules except in humor and poetry.  There the whole point of the rules might be to be whimsical or clever. 
 
TRANSLATION OF HOLY

Back in the early 90's and again maybe early 80's, I remember Dr. Daniel P. Fuller presenting to a class where we used inductive Bible study tools, the idea that holy did not mean what most scholars thought, but rather it had a connection with the definition of "worthy".  Here again, I was not convinced by his replacement definition, but I was convinced that "set apart" had a problem in the particular verses we were studying. 

I don't know if there is any important word in the Bible other than holy that has suffered more in the effort to find a good definition for it.  As I once mentioned in one of my earlier blog posts, I counted something like 20 options for its definition.  The good news is that probably 17 of the 20 deserve little or no more effort applied to them.  The experts in scholarship in times of uncertainty, seem to sometimes take shots in the dark out of their own sense of urgency.  That is what many of the 17 definitions appear to be, but I think they do show up due to underlying uncertainty about what the original text words underlying our English word, holy, mean. 

The largest conflict and controversy as a result is about 3 options: 1) moral wholeness, 2) purity, and 3) set apartness.  The first thing to consider is that most translators have assumed there can only be one meaning as in one definition.  They have not readily considered Dr. Stein's concern that there is more than one kind of meaning, even while there would only be one definition for holy. 

The other aspect of this discussion is that Andrew Murray, a rather famous pastor from South Africa near the end of the early 1800s and early 1900s also raised a similar concern about meaning.  In his little devotional book, Holy in Christ, he added a little word study at the back of the book on various proposed meanings on holy.  He actually labels each definition under a letter of the alphabet A-G (7 possible definitions).  His own favorite is C, but he also sees subsets of his view under 1 - 8.  I have verified my opinion that he favored C. (since he does not say it directly) in his book from the early 1900s in his book Andrew Murray on Prayer.  One of the most important parts of his discussion is where he points out that in general if holy means "set apart", then it does not by itself explain why. 

I liken his argument to that of the difference that Dr. Stein drew between definition, implication, and significance.  What Murray seems to be saying is that "set apart" fits more in the position of significance or implication, but that it does not have by itself a definition for why it is "set apart", because it is not the definition of holy, but moral wholeness does fit that role.  I think that may put Pastor Andrew Murray's point on a more solid footing as far as the rules of interpretation  are concerned.

So much for trying to clarify the meaning of holy.  There are at least 3 good options that have a strong standing.  Now it is important to no longer assume that it has to be 1 of the 3 meanings given.  It could be all 3, if they are related to definition, implication, and significance.  When I come later to looking at the Transfer aspect of holy, then I will make more of the contextual argument and then later under teaching, I will work more on the referent aspect of meaning.  But also I will then make more of the common sense or specialized sense argument for what it is and it is not. 

                                             Now it is important to no longer

                                             assume that it [holy] has to be

                                             1 of 3 meanings.

 Now let's develop its meaningfulness.  I think it is important to define the top 3 proposed meanings for maximum meaning in their usage.

1) moral wholeness - the moral aspect has to do with goodness in conduct or character.  Wholeness here refers to containing all the elements or parts, so that it is a complete morality.  Jonathan Edwards spoke of a moral wholeness that included right, true, loving, and good. 

2) purity - the quality or condition of being pure or clean.  It has the quality of not being mixed like pure water or pure gold. 

3) set apart - to separate and to keep for a purpose as in reserving a seat for someone in particular. 

In each case, these words each have a relatively high level of meaning to us.  It is not the case that they are meaningless words.  Holy on the other hand, can become rather meaningless when you ask people on the street to define it.  In a standard dictionary like Webster's New College Dictionary, we find the idea of dedicated to religious use; consecrated, sacred.  The problem is that each of these ideas are nearly completely religious ideas, making them hard to relate to other parts of life.  This is why holy can be difficult to understand. 

CLOSING

What is really needed is to define holy in terms of the 3 options suggested in order to give it more meaning and clarity.  Each of these is somewhat useful in that they have more contexts for use than the purely religious one.  Holy can still be found to be useful in terms of being meaningful, if we can define it clearly using 1-3 of these words.  Hallow on the other hand and sanctified on the other hand may need to disappear in an English context, because they are even more meaningless than holy is in English.  When is the last time anyone realized that "hallowed be your name" is connected to "holy be your name"?  Halloween be your name might be closer to the common person's thinking.  That is far too meaningless.  And when is the last time I've met someone who knows Latin?  No time that I know of in recent years.    


In Christ,

Jon