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 on the Map (the Bible)

So you are exploring the meaning of holy as it is found in the Bible.  That is wonderful.  It is extremely important, as is pointed out by those famous words  in Isaiah: "Holy, holy, holy ...."   Perhaps the best way to think of words is to think of them as tools to map out the territory.  In tandem, the territory equals real life.  Imagine having to go to new locations all the time with no map let alone without your GPS!  Worse yet, let's say your map was dated a bit and MapQuest did not show the street that you were looking for but instead a close equivalent!  I know the experience with MapQuest personally.  It can be frustrating, because it was supposed to make the trip easier rather than more difficult.  If we misunderstand the meaning of holy, then frustration and difficulty will be the outcome.  That is why the meaning of holy is not only important, but also relevant.  What if we are losing our way?   Let's look at the maps that are available for finding your destination. 

Well, there are three maps out there that have been used for the last 500 plus years.  The first map put in the bin historically grew out of the Protestant Reformation.  The definition of holy on that map is that holy means morally whole, but there is also a secondary definition.  The primary (or broad) definition is moral wholeness.  The secondary (narrow) definition is set apart.  The second map to be put in the bin historically was made mostly by Puritans.  The definition of holy on that map is pure.  The third map was made popular at the end of the 1800s and became more popular during the 1900s (20th century).  The definition of holy on that map is set apart.  This map also remains the most popular at the present moment.  That is what you find in most of the books and on most of the internet as you search.  There are other maps available with other definitions, but I have given you only the top three to simplify your decision-making. 

Understanding the Bible correctly is very important, when you consider that the effect of errant maps.  You can get lost, frustrated, or arrive late.  It is important to know the implications or effects isn't it?  This is the "why" behind my blog. I believe the Bible clearly teaches that even the best of us will face affliction.   Life is difficult enough without adding to the territory of life a bad map! 

So please know that these three maps are out there.  I am presently testing each one for accuracy.  The one that I have tested the most experientially since 2004 is the idea that holy means whole.   Before that and from my childhood, I was given the map that said holy means set apart.  So I was unintentionally testing that option the entire time.  I guess that I also tested the idea that holy means pure in my first 3 years of college.  I am also testing these three maps through writing a scholarly paper, where I will be using a linguistic and grammatical synthesis as my method. 

Please pray that God would grant me more resources to finish this task yet this spring (before May).  Then I will announce to everyone the results of that work.  Don't threw out any of the above maps away quite yet.  There are elements of truth in each one.  I'll let you know when you can settle in with the best one or a better replacement than any of the three. Do wisely as the ancient Jewish copyists did.  Place one definition as central in your life and keep the other two in your life's margin.  Thank you for reading this post. 


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 

 

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Genesis 2:1-3, cont.

How can we know for certain what holy means?  Is it by reading a great number of lexicons written by scholars?  I've discovered that this method is applied more than most of us realize.   In February, I posted an entry on Genesis 2:1-3 dealing with holy's use in context.  I plugged both possible meanings into the context rather than testing only one alternative with a heavy reliance on etymology (the root meaning for a word).   I would like to re-visit this text and add some things to what I said then.  My simple answer to the opening question is using context along with the other methods like etymology that have been applied to holy's meaning in the original languages. 

If you have not read my February post yet, you may want to start there first and then return to this post.  The key that can open many doors to certainty about the meaning of holy is to look at the very large number of contexts of holy's use in the Bible.   This is sometimes referred to as a large corpus and that is a big advantage in solving the problems of the unknown or the uncertain.  Other methods of trying to solve this problem are valuable togther with looking at context, but I think this method has to be a big contributor for the possibility of producing confidence or certainty about its meaning. 

Some begin the discussion of the meaning of holy by refusing to admit uncertainty about its meaning.  It could be that this is because eternity is on the line and holy is an extremely important word.  They are correct!  It is not a word on the periphery of biblical language. 

This unwillingness to admit uncertainty is generally driven by fear associated with the question of eternal salvation and the failure to recognize a very healthy way to deal with this instance of uncertainty.  It is also driven by the fear of questioning the experts in the field, biblical scholars, that sometimes fails to recognize that questioning can be done very respectfully and in a context of trust.  There is an ancient method used by biblical scholars or scribes, who recorded the original texts in Hebrew to deal with both concerns of respect and trust.

Their method was to preserve both options (one in the text and another in the margin) until the uncertainty is removed perhaps at a later date.  So step one is that we have to get past the fear of uncertainty or the fear of questioning experts by producing certainty or security in another more healthy way, like the way used by the ancient scribes.  That is what those early copyists did and thank goodness that they used that method!  They made a very robust decision rather than avoiding risk altogether or accepting risk that is unacceptable.  They wrapped certainty around uncertainty by keeping both options, knowing with higher certainty that one of the options is correct.  Lives are on the line, when we refer to a word like holy that has to do with God's character and our own. 

This entry along with my previous one on Genesis 2:1-3 focuses on plugging both possible meanings ("set apart" or "whole") equally into the contexts of holy's use in the Bible.   But also I need to comment further on context, because sometimes context is used in a way that does not observe the best rules for context. 

Context can give us clues that also wraps certainty around uncertainty.  It can contain highly important clues, but there has to be rules for this method or otherwise too many definitions can be assigned to one word. 

Here are the rules I have learned over the years from widespread teaching and reading on the topic:

• Contexts that have a fixed parallel that is certain in its meaning are most valuable.  Contexts in general are not as valuable as those that have well understood parallels.  (ex. The Rosetta Stone where a known language helped in the discovery of meaning for an unknown language.  ex. The parallels used to find the meaning of many Mayan glyphs [meaning like that in hieroglyphs].) 

• Some contexts are not very valuable because of the context working with more than one plausible meaning.  (ex. Johann [John] Bengel's use of the context of name to define the word "holy" in Hebrew and Greek.  Did the comprehensiveness of a name support his idea or does name more centrally focus on the personhood of the name?)

• In using the information found in a context, the more immediate context takes precedent over more remote contexts.  (ex.  Dr. Daniel P. Fuller used this rule extensively in his inductive bible study classes and I experienced its value many times over.  The best clues are right there in the immediate context, while those furthest away had the greatest likelihood of producing error, because the meaning of words is not always the same, even if related.)

• These twin rules are related to the prior rule.  It is easier to solve problems using the most immediate context.  It is more difficult using the more remote context.  This is because the possibility of corruption from outside sources increases.  I have found that the more immediate context simply needs more observation and more focus.  This is easier once you discipline yourself to do it.  (ex. The story of a student who was to observe a fish in his lab and record his observations.  After thinking early on that he had completed all the observations he could make, the professor told him to continue to examine the fish.  With continued time and effort the number of observations that the student made from observing a dead fish on a tray increased dramatically.  It was astounding.)

• There is a reason why the immediate context is more helpful.  If the is from the same same location and time - immediate, there is then more of a connection or more of a bond in that context.   There is also a reason why the remote context is less helpful.  If the context is from a different location and time - remote, there is less of a connection or more of a barrier in that context.  (ex. You see an illustration of this every day, when history is lost because of the greater distance in time or when people from different distant parts of the world have a harder time understanding cultural practices.)

• Change is likely greater or more likely over a longer distance and a longer time leaving open an increasing possibility of corruption.  This can be overcome, but it most be consciously addressed as a potential problem rather than ignored as not an issue.  (ex. In linguistics time and location are important factors in language change)

• The synonyms in a context can be very helpful, because words of the same class of meaning (amount, relationship, whole, action, and thing) will behave or function like other words in the same class, when it comes to he elements of the context around it.  (ex. If holy  means whole, then it will behave or function like other words for whole that are in that same class of meanings.  If it means set apart or separate, then it will behave or function like other words of that same class.)

These rules applied to the context of Genesis 2:1-3, yield some interesting results.  The first is that Genesis 2:1-3 is more immediate and perhaps more valuable than all of chapter 1 and the first 3 verses of chapter 2.  Yet there are things in chapter 1 that are significant, when it comes to days and when it comes to the meaning of blessing. 

Blessing as it is used in Genesis 2:1-3 seems to be best understood from blessing's use in chapter 1 and its immediately connected concept of "be fruitful and multiply".  So you can't leave out the full context of Genesis 1:1 -2:3.   These 7 days of creation seem to make together a full unit and story.  So 2:1-3 is not a separate unit as far as the first full account of creation is concerned. 

But also in the larger context, we also find words that could be called synonyms for both possible meanings of holy.   We find the word "divide" feartured in the creation story as a potential synonym for "holy".  Yet we also find potential synonyms for "holy" that mean "whole" in the context of 2:1-3. 

So this context is going to require more observation.  It is a context that on the surface of context can be argued from the rules of context in both directions.  This is no worse than a textual variant, provided we keep both plausible ideas in mind and we continue to search deeper. 

In the future, I hope to approach this passage from 5 different angles by creating 5 separate entries on this porton of Scriptjure.  This entry has focused mainly on the relational or "transering" (see my May entty and other entries) angle of this passage.  It will likely take the other angles to solve this problem in a way that advances either argument.  Don't worry in the meatime.  It can be solved and you are likely already better off, because at least you know the two most plausible definitions already for holy in Genesis 2:1-3 and are not eliminating either one prematurely. 


In Christ,

Pastor Jon