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 (Training - Day/Step 4 of 5)

The thing that cannot be overlooked is that the meanings of words can in fact determine what we must do practically as well.  If "blessed" in the Bible means prosperity, then we will take someone's prosperity to mean that they are "blessed" and we will flock to hear them speak.  If "blessed" in the Bible instead means integrity, as in a person being consistent between their perception of themselves and who they actually are, then we will flock to hear the person who demonstrates integrity the most.

Likewise with the meaning of "holy" in the Bible.  If it means set apart, we will flock to meet or hear the person that demonstrates a morality that is out of this world.  If it means moral wholeness (holy consists of more than righteousness, but also includes truth, etc.), then we will try to live morally healthy lives consisting of more than one moral character trait.  If on the other hand, it means pure, we will practice keeping ourselves pure from contamination as one of our highest goals and activities. 

My next post (planned for tomorrow) will point to what blessed and holy are.  In this post, I will assume [if you are uncomfortable with assuming temporarily. then jump to the next post] the meaning of "blessed" as being integrity, based on a working definition.  A specific example of this is: "I am who I am".   In this post, I will also assume [again, jump ahead if you like] the meaning of "holy" as being moral wholeness.  The next post will answer the question of definition, but for this entry I hope you will allow me some indulgence in working out the practical actions with regard to treating the beginning days of generations and the six days of work and the Sabbath rest appropriately.

The first thing in deriving practical applications from this unit of Scripture is to be aware that this is primarily a relationship text.  In turn, this also means it has a large portion of the text that is narrative.  Genesis as a whole is laying out for us the beginnings and endings of some things and also the ongoing relationship of many generations in places and times.  In telling us about the opening days of generations for the heavens and the earth and ourselves, it tells us also what God did and also what we should do.

Besides the practical relationship advice a person can pick up from the stories of Biblical characters in Genesis, there is in this story of creation the opening of work or action by God.  He both creates and makes.  So here is where we might be able to learn some great action lessons. 

First, I wonder, if the creation story does not mean that each time we work we are creating and we are making and that without our working, the world reverts back to a kind of chaos and void.  Is that perhaps why the world of neglected buildings tells a story of reverting back to chaos and nothingness to the point of needing even demolishing?  Is our work part of the necessary part of sustaining creation beyond its beginning?  Are we in any way supposed to be imitators of God and pumped up about going to work rather than reluctant to get to it?   What obviously separates us from God is that we in no way started things at the beginning.  Rather we ourselves are a part of the beginning.  But should we see human work in a much more positive manner? 

Let me give you a classic example from my own love of nature as to how work has become a negative rather than a positive.  When I was in my junior high years, I acquired a book from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.  That pamphlet is my Bible on trout stream habitat.  In there, it showed how to do thing with regard to developing trout habit and how not to do things.  But in the last decade or more, the DNR has taken a much less active role in creating trout habit in trout streams.  As a result, just the other day, I witnessed a former trout brook that no longer supported even one trout in its entire stretch of water.  I mean not even one!  The entire day that I spent walking (not fishing) the stream, as I scouted this stream for good opportunities to fish later, I never witnessed one fish darting from my approach.  What I did  see were three major and old "log jams" that I knew would prevent trout from being able to survive in the stretch that I was investigating.  By doing no work on this stream, rather than basic regular maintenance, it had led to the death of that stream in terms of trout.  It was an instance where our fear of working and of making a mistake on behalf of the trout had led to our entire failure to work and therefore create and make habit for a species who would thrive in these waters.  That is a great illustration of why work needs to be seen more positively, like what I saw in playing football where doing something correctly was supposed to replace doing something incorrectly rather than either being replaced by doing nothing.

Second, I think this passage teaches a relationship component, when it comes to work.  There should be a limit on the work week or better perhaps a line drawn between weeks.  Work it appears is not supposed to be endless.  The other day, I ran into a person who bragged to me that she worked every single day.  She was a great person and I admire her hard work ethic.  But I think one danger is like the danger for Jack in the old saying, "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy".   Another danger is that one becomes a slave.  Working all seven days in ancient times was considered to be the mark of a slave.  Right now, this person is being enslaved without seeing it. 

A further danger is the obvious danger of burnout.  For me, working six days a week for about seven hours per day seems to be the best schedule.  That one day break is just enough to re-invigorate me and also only seven hours per day allows me other things in each day besides work.  I don't have any idea that I would ever work something like ten to eleven hours per day for four days and take the next three off.  I find that when I work that long each day, things like my capacity for quality work diminish.  I can work, but the mind is not there.  So I think that God's work pattern should be ours.  Six days on, one day off is  my personal favorite and I think I like it because God liked it.  Again, I love work as much as I loved playing football.  As long as I accomplish something in reasonable time, leaving time for other things every day, what is not to like?  And this little vacation each week maybe is the pattern for all the longer ones as well.  Check out the Hebrew Old Testament sometime for all their times off.  I think ample time off is part of the practical outcome of the creation story. 

Third, because God blesses and makes holy the Sabbath Day, we should do the same.  If bless means to call a person by a name that fits them (or has integrity with who they are), then that action likely needs to be part of our day.  I would think that it would have the effect of what we call affirmations.  God in this day, called his rest day by a name that means rest day.  Maybe we should be more thoughtful in choosing names for children or nicknames for friends. 

God in this day, called his rest day

by a name that means rest day.

Also in making the day holy, if holy means moral wholeness, this would then mean observing the whole day as a day of rest without any mixture of work in it (impurity), and as seeing it as distinct (set apart) from the others in that they are work days while this is a rest day the entire day and maybe not just the better part of it like our work days.  I think the idea of keeping the Sabbath a Sabbath for the entire day can do the whole of who we are a lot of good.  God seemed to be pleased by it in not doing any work that day.  He did not seem the least displeased with having to end his work for the week, before moving on to the next week.  I got a feeling God is not done working or making each week until his own Sabbath arrives.  The question is not what God is doing now however, but what are we doing.  Do we work and rest?  Or do we work and work?  Or do we rest and work?  Or do we rest and rest?  Are we like God in our actions? 

So ask yourself first, "Do I love working - creating and making?"  Ask second, "Do I know when to work and when to take a break?"  Ask third, "Do I affirm others in a way that fits with who they are?  And do I not work at all for a whole day as far as my wage earning job is concerned? " 

I hope you have answer affirmatively to some of those questions, because then you are living out this passage, not just reading it and never looking in the mirror at yourself.  Take a good look.  Do you have God's demeanor when it comes to creating and making?  Get out there and do something! 

In Christ,

Jon












  

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Hesychius

You have come to this site to find the meaning of holy.  I will not disappoint you in that regard, but before I give an answer to that question you need to know that the definition of holy or qadosh (Hebrew) or hagios (Greek) requires a little extra research, to put it very kindly.  Fortunately, the high quality options are only three.  They are: 1) moral wholeness, 2) pure, or 3) set apart.  The lexicographer Hesychius is not a household name, but he has been very important in trying to determine the meaning of holy.  His lexicon written around the third to fourth century time range is regarded as a great treasure for determining the meaning of many Greek words.  In this case, we are talking about the meaning of hagioi or hagios.  I want to tell you what I have found in examining the evidence from his lexicon. 


[Under construction]


Sincerely,

Jon