When it comes to language, it is important to realize that some words get used extremely frequently. Sometimes due to that frequency, we take them for granted. In reading the scholarly articles or books written about the Bible, you frequently find writers trying to find the next seldom used word that needs to be better defined. In the business world, they would call this looking for the unique rather than the common. I've come to the conclusion that sometimes we spend way too much time on the infrequently used words in the Bible text and way too little time on the frequently used ones. "Blessed" and "holy" are not themselves the most commonly found words in the biblical text, but does that have to mean we cannot ground their meanings in those that are the most common? I think that the correct answer is that we CAN ground the meaning of blessed and holy in common sense language. We just have to do it.
What this means is that I and many of us have to break some old habits in reading a text of Scripture. My tendency is to look for the key unique words in a text, but to ignore those that are more widely known or common. We see this too in an exhaustive concordance, where words like "and", "the", "but", "a" and many others like them are relegated to an appendix. We also see this in older lexicons (and maybe even some newer ones), where at one time in the history of their creation, only the less well-known words were included and the most commonly words were left out. The thinking was: "Why have a dictionary for those?". Even in a children's picture dictionary that I own, the word "strong" gets a picture dedicated to its definition, but the word "the" does not have a picture assigned to it. The authors seem to assume that a child will grasp the meaning of "the" from a couple of example sentences.
This situation reminds me of the Biblical principle that "the greatest shall be the least and the least shall be the greatest". It also reminds me of another principle where Jesus warned people that "what you have done to the least of these, you have done to me". These principles seem to apply only to people, but what if they also extend to our words? Are we paying a big price for not paying attention to the common words as much as the special words? Do those who read the Bible as scholars need a reprimand like the chiding Lincoln gave to the elite politicians that he understood the democratic principle to mean to pay attention to the common people, because there were so many of them? Do we need to do the same with the least of the words in the text that are so incredibly frequent? It is my view that we do.
Some very scholarly writing from a cutting edge linguistic model called "cognitive linguistics", in paraphrasing their point, says that the words we see or hear more frequently than others become more entrenched in our minds and tend to shape more our way of thinking more and even effect things more at the expense of the less frequent and therefore the less entrenched in our thinking. In other words, these least words are the words that are greater than the greatest words. The great words, the last heard at the spelling bee or the words hardest to define on the ACT or SAT are in fact the least when it comes to grounding or entrenching our views.
So what I am going to begin doing overall is looking at a text through this set of words in English:
the, a(n)
on, as (so)
and, but (not)
with, at
I (be), to (not)
of (have), had
by (do), use
for, said
this, that
or, each
So what I am going to begin doing overall is looking at a text through this set of words in Greek:
So what I am going to begin doing overall is looking at a text through this set of words in Aramaic:
So what I am going to begin doing overall is looking at a text through this set of words in Hebrew:
This is how I will be able to approach a biblical text in a way that is not only healthy, but also incredibly grounded or entrenched (in a good sense!). the good news in all of this is that this will make the common person and all of those above them in expertise to have a common ground from which to begin. Right now what happens is the expert is given the advantage and also the loopholes to escape accountability for their ways of thinking.
[this deserves a lot more work and it will get it and so will Isaiah 6 ]
In Christ,
Jon
Showing posts with label sanctified. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sanctified. Show all posts
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Friday, April 11, 2014
Blessed and Holy: Understanding it Better Through Exodus 34 (Train Actions - Part 4 of 5)
PREFACE
We hear people sing "take time to be holy" and "bless you". Does anyone know what those 2 actions mean? Christians say, "hallowed be your name" in the Lord's Prayer over and over. Does anyone really know how to hallow or how to make holy a name? Does anyone know why to hallow or make holy should happen? I think those, who can answer one or both of these questions, are rare people. If you can get me their addresses and phone #s, then please do so. I'd like to sign them up for my ministry team! Can anyone train me in how to be holy? What does sanctified as an action look like? So based on what I think are the answers out there, it looks like we do need some training.
As a former coach of 5 different sports (and later an athletic director, as well), I cannot possibly overlook the need for the skill of training alongside other skills like teaching. While great coaches can also be great teachers, the one thing that they absolutely must be is an effective trainer. They must teach their players skills or know-how as well as offer motivations for those actions. I cannot imagine being a successful coach without being able to do both. In Scripture, we find both methods and purposes for actions. One simple example, "We love [how] him, because [why] he first loved [how] us". We even learned our training in love from his love of us. But when have we offered love classes? I don't remember that training? When both methods and purposes are taught well, then you find people eager to be trained and to act.
That is what I discovered as a coach. But I also learned a set of criteria for eagerness that was expressed in a real estate training magazine that I found, while I was a part-time real estate agent. It was my way of earning money to pay for studying at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA.
The Entrance to One of the Buildings at Fuller
In the business world, like in the sports world, you get paid for results. The score is kept differently with the currency of money rather than the play money of points, but the goal was still to win. When I ran across the article, I knew the article was a difference maker. It was different from any other training that I had been trained in as either an athlete or as a coach. I'd never even heard this set of words grouped together before like they were in this convenient set. I'd obviously heard them separately many times. Since first hearing the set then, I have repeatedly improved what I learned from the article and I have organized it to be a more effective training tool. If anything, I wish I used it more often.
As a coach, you want players who are eager to play or better yet to work with you and not work against you. As a real estate agent, you want clients who are eager to buy or better yet to work with you and not work against you. In real estate, the criteria for a strong prospect is as follows:
1) ready,
2) willing, and
3) able.
What all Sales People Ought to Know
Back in the early 90s, they were likely in that neat order. I have the article still among my things somewhere. But also the list lacked a critical fourth element. I'd learned to look for that fourth element following my training with Tentmakers, Inc. in Hopkins, MN. There I learned a number of practical tools, but also how to identify complete ones.
The Logo for the Tentmakers organization I am referring to
It took me a long time, but eventually in the last few years, I have added that a strong prospect is someone who is also aware or seeing. They can't be blind to what they are looking for in the process. A real estate prospect, who cannot envision or point to the kind of house they are looking for, could turn out to be a weaker prospect, even if they are ready, willing, and able. In selling, agents are not given much time to train prospects, except by the very best prospects, so they usually get impatient with customers who are not strong ones or who are not able to become strong ones. So I now say that a strong prospect consists of someone who is:
1) ready,
2) willing,
3) able, and
4) seeing.
That kind of prospect is a prime one, just as that kind of player is a prime player for a coach. Both are eager to take action. They are not there to study something more, but to act using the strength that they already possess. That is why they are eager. Strong people by nature are eager people. Weak people by nature are not eager people.
The next closest to these kinds would be those who possess 3 out of 4 of the criteria and are eager to seek the last criteria, the next would possess 2 out of 4 with eagerness too seek the other 2, etc. You get the idea.
I think Scripture also takes those who are eager and frees them for action or it trains those who cannot yet act on their own to act and to also act with a sense of motivation. This is where a second tool (that again, I wish I used more frequently) becomes very useful. It is a chart of pre-effect and post-effect with their respective non-action and action steps.
In Exodus, which is a great action book, by the way, there are a number of actions that can be described in terms of pre-action, pre-effect, during action, developing effect, post-action, and post-effect. I actually got this tool from a computer geek, who noticed how helpful this scheme was for breaking down computer processes. I wish I knew it years ago as a coach. (Since that wish is not possible, maybe I should just go back to coaching and do it better since that is possible.)
EXODUS: DIRECT APPLICATION
[This is being worked out and I will eventually be able to cut and paste to this entry a chart that lists each pre-effect, pre-action, etc. I hope it is not too long before I get it up. Much of what I am writing now is in a draft state, as is this piece, but still needs a little tweaking to even be a first draft.]
Sincerely,
Jon
We hear people sing "take time to be holy" and "bless you". Does anyone know what those 2 actions mean? Christians say, "hallowed be your name" in the Lord's Prayer over and over. Does anyone really know how to hallow or how to make holy a name? Does anyone know why to hallow or make holy should happen? I think those, who can answer one or both of these questions, are rare people. If you can get me their addresses and phone #s, then please do so. I'd like to sign them up for my ministry team! Can anyone train me in how to be holy? What does sanctified as an action look like? So based on what I think are the answers out there, it looks like we do need some training.
As a former coach of 5 different sports (and later an athletic director, as well), I cannot possibly overlook the need for the skill of training alongside other skills like teaching. While great coaches can also be great teachers, the one thing that they absolutely must be is an effective trainer. They must teach their players skills or know-how as well as offer motivations for those actions. I cannot imagine being a successful coach without being able to do both. In Scripture, we find both methods and purposes for actions. One simple example, "We love [how] him, because [why] he first loved [how] us". We even learned our training in love from his love of us. But when have we offered love classes? I don't remember that training? When both methods and purposes are taught well, then you find people eager to be trained and to act.
That is what I discovered as a coach. But I also learned a set of criteria for eagerness that was expressed in a real estate training magazine that I found, while I was a part-time real estate agent. It was my way of earning money to pay for studying at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA.
The Entrance to One of the Buildings at Fuller
In the business world, like in the sports world, you get paid for results. The score is kept differently with the currency of money rather than the play money of points, but the goal was still to win. When I ran across the article, I knew the article was a difference maker. It was different from any other training that I had been trained in as either an athlete or as a coach. I'd never even heard this set of words grouped together before like they were in this convenient set. I'd obviously heard them separately many times. Since first hearing the set then, I have repeatedly improved what I learned from the article and I have organized it to be a more effective training tool. If anything, I wish I used it more often.
As a coach, you want players who are eager to play or better yet to work with you and not work against you. As a real estate agent, you want clients who are eager to buy or better yet to work with you and not work against you. In real estate, the criteria for a strong prospect is as follows:
1) ready,
2) willing, and
3) able.
What all Sales People Ought to Know
Back in the early 90s, they were likely in that neat order. I have the article still among my things somewhere. But also the list lacked a critical fourth element. I'd learned to look for that fourth element following my training with Tentmakers, Inc. in Hopkins, MN. There I learned a number of practical tools, but also how to identify complete ones.
The Logo for the Tentmakers organization I am referring to
It took me a long time, but eventually in the last few years, I have added that a strong prospect is someone who is also aware or seeing. They can't be blind to what they are looking for in the process. A real estate prospect, who cannot envision or point to the kind of house they are looking for, could turn out to be a weaker prospect, even if they are ready, willing, and able. In selling, agents are not given much time to train prospects, except by the very best prospects, so they usually get impatient with customers who are not strong ones or who are not able to become strong ones. So I now say that a strong prospect consists of someone who is:
1) ready,
2) willing,
3) able, and
4) seeing.
That kind of prospect is a prime one, just as that kind of player is a prime player for a coach. Both are eager to take action. They are not there to study something more, but to act using the strength that they already possess. That is why they are eager. Strong people by nature are eager people. Weak people by nature are not eager people.
The next closest to these kinds would be those who possess 3 out of 4 of the criteria and are eager to seek the last criteria, the next would possess 2 out of 4 with eagerness too seek the other 2, etc. You get the idea.
I think Scripture also takes those who are eager and frees them for action or it trains those who cannot yet act on their own to act and to also act with a sense of motivation. This is where a second tool (that again, I wish I used more frequently) becomes very useful. It is a chart of pre-effect and post-effect with their respective non-action and action steps.
In Exodus, which is a great action book, by the way, there are a number of actions that can be described in terms of pre-action, pre-effect, during action, developing effect, post-action, and post-effect. I actually got this tool from a computer geek, who noticed how helpful this scheme was for breaking down computer processes. I wish I knew it years ago as a coach. (Since that wish is not possible, maybe I should just go back to coaching and do it better since that is possible.)
EXODUS: DIRECT APPLICATION
[This is being worked out and I will eventually be able to cut and paste to this entry a chart that lists each pre-effect, pre-action, etc. I hope it is not too long before I get it up. Much of what I am writing now is in a draft state, as is this piece, but still needs a little tweaking to even be a first draft.]
Sincerely,
Jon
Monday, March 24, 2014
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".
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 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
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
Tuesday, February 04, 2014
Holy: Understanding it Better through Better Understanding the Greater, the Lesser, and the Greatest
The problem with a lot of Biblical scholarship is that it presumes the principle of synonymous parallelism in the Hebrew language too often. It is assumed that to witness something parallel in a text is to witness the synonymous supposedly. While in some contexts this may in fact be very true, I think it has been over applied to texts that actually are not trying to present a synonymous pair, but instead a set of two or three that are based on the distinctions between greater, lesser, and greatest.
My favorite example of this error is the idea that righteous and just are the same thing. Sometimes the greatest enemy to knowledge is not ignorance, but presumed knowledge. It is a laughable error, because no contemporary carpenter would argue that plumb and level are the same. The most novice carpenter quickly learns the obvious lesson that plumb and level are not the same thing. In Isaiah, the level of the carpenter is the illustration for the principle of justice. Likewise, the plumb line is used to illustrate the principle of righteous.
Maybe we need to bring carpenters into seminaries and lecture the Biblical scholars rather than the reverse. What do you think? In the early 80s, the idea that righteous and just are not synonymous, was expressed by one lone scholar of Hebrew. Now we can use one concrete example drawn from carpentry and publicized by the Bible to overturn what is not very good scholarship.
In Scripture, there is a set of principles that clear up some of the confusion both in determining the meaning of righteousness, etc. and also in determining the meaning of holy.
[This piece will be continued tomorrow. Sorry for the slight delay. Please stop back late tomorrow.]
In Christ,
Jon
My favorite example of this error is the idea that righteous and just are the same thing. Sometimes the greatest enemy to knowledge is not ignorance, but presumed knowledge. It is a laughable error, because no contemporary carpenter would argue that plumb and level are the same. The most novice carpenter quickly learns the obvious lesson that plumb and level are not the same thing. In Isaiah, the level of the carpenter is the illustration for the principle of justice. Likewise, the plumb line is used to illustrate the principle of righteous.
Maybe we need to bring carpenters into seminaries and lecture the Biblical scholars rather than the reverse. What do you think? In the early 80s, the idea that righteous and just are not synonymous, was expressed by one lone scholar of Hebrew. Now we can use one concrete example drawn from carpentry and publicized by the Bible to overturn what is not very good scholarship.
In Scripture, there is a set of principles that clear up some of the confusion both in determining the meaning of righteousness, etc. and also in determining the meaning of holy.
[This piece will be continued tomorrow. Sorry for the slight delay. Please stop back late tomorrow.]
In Christ,
Jon
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
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
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
Friday, December 21, 2012
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
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
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Holy: Understanding it Better from ALL Lexicons
Your primary reason for visiting my blog is most likely that you want to know the meaning of the word holy in English as a translation of the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. (The latter is important, even if person does not recognize the importance of the New Testament, because the Old Testament was translated into Greek also.) I wish I could give you the stock answer of "set apart", because one possibility is simpler than multiple possibilities. But that would make me dishonest. Based on my reading of the lexicons and dictionaries out there, I think there are three great possible answers. The first is "pure", the second is "set apart", and the third is "whole" (listed in alphabetical order to avoid bias). The reason for that is that I am basing my research on "all" the dictionaries and lexicons that are available. I will further explain what I mean by "all", so I don't appaer unrealistic.
My reason or motivation for this method of using "all" dictionaries and lexicons is simple. It is the method to follow for the person who is trying to make sure they understand a word in another language correctly. Mildred Larson, a trained linguist, has this to say about dictionaries and lexicons:
Dictionaries "unpack" the meanings of words. That is why a good translator will use all the
dictionaries and lexicons available in his study of the source language text.
Please note carefully her use of the word "all". This is of course the ideal or the goal, but sometimes it is simply not possible at the time, so a person has to settle for a little more modest goal until a later time. Quite honestly, I could not possibly examine "all" the lexicons for Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek that are out there at this time even with a focus only on the words that are translated as "holy". With a greater access using computers this might be possible someday, but not today. So in place of "all" of them, I think I have found a worthwhile way to achieve Larson's goal.
My method toward her goal is to make sure that from among "all" the dictionaries and lexicons, I at least begin from representatives for "all" the major definitions of holy. Jesus once said in paraphrase form: "Do the greatest first, but also do not neglect the least." . So "all" has to come later rather than suffer neglect with the greatest things first. That is how I understand that Larson's goal might eventually be reached. You've maybe seen the illustration of a jar and different sizes of things to put in that jar. Usually there are large rocks, smaller rocks, sand and water. The person who does the greatest first is able to fit more of the "all" possible things into the jar than those who start with the smallest objects first. So that is my strategy.
I am beginning from dictionaries and lexicons that pre-date our time and that of the late 1800s. I want to go beyond Gesenius' Hebrew and English Lexicon. This is my way of including "all" the major lexicons and possibities in my research toward Larson's high end goal. Those who leave out Moses Kimchi's/Kimhi's work, David Kimchi's/Kimhi's work or Johann Reuchlin's work on Hebrew are not even aiming at getting the biggest stones in the jar first. They instead are assuming advances at the end of the 19th century and later through the 20th century that make Gesenius' work and that of those following the greatest rather than anything previous. They assume this made the other prior lexicons obsolete. Why not instead include "all" the major optoins and test them instead in the 21st century? Why assume correctness rather than testing it? Is testing now that difficult for us? So now you should understand my motive behind my method.
I want to see "all" dictionaries and lexicons to be considered. That (eventurally) also goes for Jeff A. Benner's The Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible. I'm not saying by including him in the list of "all" that the credentials of a scholar don't matter (he seems to lack them and to have been a self-study person in his final product), but I am saying that he has proposed some things that those credentialed as scholars need to consider as part of "all" lexcions, because he is handling words as "bundles" of meaning as Larson says in her title for the section that I quoted earlier. What he is bringing to the table, that sometimes is not made explicit in other research, is the issue of letters being bundled together to form meanings, and not just other morphemes made up of more than one letter. He's not the only one to ever do this, but he is the only one to take a comphrensive approach like his to the whole language of Hebrew. He at least makes explicit what others are doing implicitly in their etymologies (the study of the true roots of words). Also he is not wrong just because he uses the older method of etymology rather than lexical analysis. The fact that he could sometimes be wrong from the use of the etymological method does not say that he is always wrong.
So what you will find in my research is an attempt to deal with "all" the dictionaries and lexicons with the greatest being placed out front. That is a critical part of my method. Though I am not a Latin scholar, I do know what conclusions were drawn from Reuchlin, the Kimchis and the others. There was a meaning given that in English means "whole". That is why I consider it an important option. Now as I say elsewhere, it is only a matter of finishing my exegetical paper using what is called or named "Linguistic Analysis". Please pray that I can finish this soon! My goal is to graduet in May 2013. Thank you for your prayers.
In Christ,
Jon
My reason or motivation for this method of using "all" dictionaries and lexicons is simple. It is the method to follow for the person who is trying to make sure they understand a word in another language correctly. Mildred Larson, a trained linguist, has this to say about dictionaries and lexicons:
Dictionaries "unpack" the meanings of words. That is why a good translator will use all the
dictionaries and lexicons available in his study of the source language text.
Please note carefully her use of the word "all". This is of course the ideal or the goal, but sometimes it is simply not possible at the time, so a person has to settle for a little more modest goal until a later time. Quite honestly, I could not possibly examine "all" the lexicons for Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek that are out there at this time even with a focus only on the words that are translated as "holy". With a greater access using computers this might be possible someday, but not today. So in place of "all" of them, I think I have found a worthwhile way to achieve Larson's goal.
My method toward her goal is to make sure that from among "all" the dictionaries and lexicons, I at least begin from representatives for "all" the major definitions of holy. Jesus once said in paraphrase form: "Do the greatest first, but also do not neglect the least." . So "all" has to come later rather than suffer neglect with the greatest things first. That is how I understand that Larson's goal might eventually be reached. You've maybe seen the illustration of a jar and different sizes of things to put in that jar. Usually there are large rocks, smaller rocks, sand and water. The person who does the greatest first is able to fit more of the "all" possible things into the jar than those who start with the smallest objects first. So that is my strategy.
I am beginning from dictionaries and lexicons that pre-date our time and that of the late 1800s. I want to go beyond Gesenius' Hebrew and English Lexicon. This is my way of including "all" the major lexicons and possibities in my research toward Larson's high end goal. Those who leave out Moses Kimchi's/Kimhi's work, David Kimchi's/Kimhi's work or Johann Reuchlin's work on Hebrew are not even aiming at getting the biggest stones in the jar first. They instead are assuming advances at the end of the 19th century and later through the 20th century that make Gesenius' work and that of those following the greatest rather than anything previous. They assume this made the other prior lexicons obsolete. Why not instead include "all" the major optoins and test them instead in the 21st century? Why assume correctness rather than testing it? Is testing now that difficult for us? So now you should understand my motive behind my method.
I want to see "all" dictionaries and lexicons to be considered. That (eventurally) also goes for Jeff A. Benner's The Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible. I'm not saying by including him in the list of "all" that the credentials of a scholar don't matter (he seems to lack them and to have been a self-study person in his final product), but I am saying that he has proposed some things that those credentialed as scholars need to consider as part of "all" lexcions, because he is handling words as "bundles" of meaning as Larson says in her title for the section that I quoted earlier. What he is bringing to the table, that sometimes is not made explicit in other research, is the issue of letters being bundled together to form meanings, and not just other morphemes made up of more than one letter. He's not the only one to ever do this, but he is the only one to take a comphrensive approach like his to the whole language of Hebrew. He at least makes explicit what others are doing implicitly in their etymologies (the study of the true roots of words). Also he is not wrong just because he uses the older method of etymology rather than lexical analysis. The fact that he could sometimes be wrong from the use of the etymological method does not say that he is always wrong.
So what you will find in my research is an attempt to deal with "all" the dictionaries and lexicons with the greatest being placed out front. That is a critical part of my method. Though I am not a Latin scholar, I do know what conclusions were drawn from Reuchlin, the Kimchis and the others. There was a meaning given that in English means "whole". That is why I consider it an important option. Now as I say elsewhere, it is only a matter of finishing my exegetical paper using what is called or named "Linguistic Analysis". Please pray that I can finish this soon! My goal is to graduet in May 2013. Thank you for your prayers.
In Christ,
Jon
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Genesis 2:1-3, Part 4 (of 5)
"The first choice we make everyday is will we act upon life or will be acted upon", according to Stephen R. Covey. Likewise understanding the actions within a unit of biblical text is very significant. It is not just though a matter of active or passive, it is also a matter of examing both the pre-state before an action and the post-state after an action that tell a person a great deal about two primary aspects of action. Both the means by which the state of life is changed and also sometimes the natural or passive motive or the active motive behind the action.
This part will focus on the actions within the text. It will look at charting what are referred to as the pre-state and post-state of actions. It is helpful for seeing how something is done, but also why it is done. I learned this from a great expert in the area of computers, James J. Odell, who used it for different a different purpose having to do with search engines. I have found this tool to be invaluable for focusing on the actions in the text.
If you wish to know more about Odell's ideas, I suggest picking up his book, Advanced Object-Oriented Analysis and Design Using UML. The book I am drawing from is from 1998. He should not be held liable for my use of his ideas in dealing with a biblical text, but he should be credited for anything new I am able to contribute. I find his way of seeing things to be truly unique and beneficial.
This uniqueness may end up making this my most exciting entry on Genesis 2:1-3, just because you may have never seen this approach before. Also an analogy from Stephen R. Covey may help clear up why God is staid to "make holy"/"Sanctify" the seventh day and also why God blessed it as well.
Until I am able to update this entry further, please enjoy the following chart inspired by Odell's work:
I'm hoping to use "smart art" in this entry. I will try to take what I have charted above and make it even more clear though the use of this application within Word 2007. If I am able, you will enjoy the clarity of the lay out for how the different actions relate to outcomes, purposes and other actions. [This entry is in process, awaiting when I have substantial time to complete it.
This part will focus on the actions within the text. It will look at charting what are referred to as the pre-state and post-state of actions. It is helpful for seeing how something is done, but also why it is done. I learned this from a great expert in the area of computers, James J. Odell, who used it for different a different purpose having to do with search engines. I have found this tool to be invaluable for focusing on the actions in the text.
If you wish to know more about Odell's ideas, I suggest picking up his book, Advanced Object-Oriented Analysis and Design Using UML. The book I am drawing from is from 1998. He should not be held liable for my use of his ideas in dealing with a biblical text, but he should be credited for anything new I am able to contribute. I find his way of seeing things to be truly unique and beneficial.
This uniqueness may end up making this my most exciting entry on Genesis 2:1-3, just because you may have never seen this approach before. Also an analogy from Stephen R. Covey may help clear up why God is staid to "make holy"/"Sanctify" the seventh day and also why God blessed it as well.
Until I am able to update this entry further, please enjoy the following chart inspired by Odell's work:
Blessed and
sanctified
Pre-state Post-state
Finished Unfinished Finished
(complete action)
Ended Not
over Ended
(complete action)
[Work] Working Work
(complete action)
Had done Had
not done (incomplete action) Had
done (complete action)
Rested Worked
(completed action) Rested
(complete action)
[Work] Working Work
(completed action)
Had done Had
not done Had
done (complete action)
Blessed Becoming
fruitful, multiplying, and filling Fruitful,
multiply, and fill
(becoming
fruitful, not yet completed
action by his other multiplying, not
yet full) actions
being complete)
Sanctified Becoming
set apart or whole Is set apart or whole
(completed
action by his other actions
being complete)
if set apart, then (day
not separate from the other six) (day
separated from other six)
if whole, then (partial
day of incomplete rest) (whole day of complete rest)
Rested worked rested (complete action)
(didn’t
rest the next day)
[Work] Working Work
(complete action)
Had created Creating Created
(complete action)
Had made Making Made
(complete action)
The problem with the idea of separate is that there is no immediate direct
reference to the other days of the week in this discussion in Genesis 2:1-3. Instead the focus in the more immediate context is not on separating days
or on separating work from rest, but instead on complete action versus
incomplete action. Of course, there is a
distinction between (a separation of) pre-state and post-state, but the point is to describe and
identify the post-state, not to focus on this very natural separation. The idea of separation is natural to the
context, but it is not the focus of the context. In fact, as Andrew Murray implied many years ago there are other Hebrew words that point to the idea of separation as biblical and so be holy or sanctified would not have to be one of them.
Jon Westlund 1/1/11 (revised slightly since this date)
I'm hoping to use "smart art" in this entry. I will try to take what I have charted above and make it even more clear though the use of this application within Word 2007. If I am able, you will enjoy the clarity of the lay out for how the different actions relate to outcomes, purposes and other actions. [This entry is in process, awaiting when I have substantial time to complete it.
Holy: Understanding it Better through Genesis 2:1-3, Part 3 (of 5)
Stephen R. Covey is rather famous for saying: "The main thing is to keep the main thing, the main thing." In the process of studying the meaning of a passage through language tools (linguistics as the study of language) and through exegetical tools (biblical hermeneutics or exegesis), it is the main thing to be reminded from the beginning to the end of the total process and again in the middle to use all the major tools for grasping the meaning of a passage and not just one or two of them. I call this the total process. The total process is the main thing.
In one distinct way this blog entry on Genesis 2:1-3, is not like the others. It is a reminder of the main importance of seeing the other 4 entries (out of 5) as equal parts of the whole and that keeping them together as a total is of main importance through the entire process and not just at the beginning or the end. That is why I place this entry about the total process in the middle.
I can't tell you how many times I have read writings on the meaning or definition of holy and they rely almost exclusively on just one of a total of 4 separate methods to be used to understand the meaning of word in the text. The one that gets the most use is the method of etymology (tracing a word's history or it's similar roots with other words with similar letters or graphemes). I'm not against this method as some appear to be (James Barr), but I want us to see its limitations. So let's begin by looking at a diagram of the total process.
My diagram of the total process is as follows:
Even though I have increased the image's size, I don't want to assume yet that it is all of the print is readable, so let me at least list off the main names for each stage from the arrows on your left hand side. They are: 1)Translate, 2) Transfer, 3) Total, 4) Train, and 5) Teach. You can also righ click on the image and choose "open this link" and it will appear in slightly larger print.
I've begun all of their names with "T" just to make things more memorable. It also happens to be the case that in English these 5 names work well together as a description for each stage.
There is also a biblical precedant for this process as well. It is found in Nehemiah 8 and especially in verses 1- 12. The situation is one in which the audience cannot understand Hebrew as well as Aramaic, so they require some assistance. This sets then a precedent for our own time in which Hebrew from that time is not our first language. So let's flesh this out a bit.
[This entry is in process.]
Sincerely,
Jon
In one distinct way this blog entry on Genesis 2:1-3, is not like the others. It is a reminder of the main importance of seeing the other 4 entries (out of 5) as equal parts of the whole and that keeping them together as a total is of main importance through the entire process and not just at the beginning or the end. That is why I place this entry about the total process in the middle.
I can't tell you how many times I have read writings on the meaning or definition of holy and they rely almost exclusively on just one of a total of 4 separate methods to be used to understand the meaning of word in the text. The one that gets the most use is the method of etymology (tracing a word's history or it's similar roots with other words with similar letters or graphemes). I'm not against this method as some appear to be (James Barr), but I want us to see its limitations. So let's begin by looking at a diagram of the total process.
My diagram of the total process is as follows:
Even though I have increased the image's size, I don't want to assume yet that it is all of the print is readable, so let me at least list off the main names for each stage from the arrows on your left hand side. They are: 1)Translate, 2) Transfer, 3) Total, 4) Train, and 5) Teach. You can also righ click on the image and choose "open this link" and it will appear in slightly larger print.
I've begun all of their names with "T" just to make things more memorable. It also happens to be the case that in English these 5 names work well together as a description for each stage.
There is also a biblical precedant for this process as well. It is found in Nehemiah 8 and especially in verses 1- 12. The situation is one in which the audience cannot understand Hebrew as well as Aramaic, so they require some assistance. This sets then a precedent for our own time in which Hebrew from that time is not our first language. So let's flesh this out a bit.
[This entry is in process.]
Sincerely,
Jon
Holy: Understanding it Better through Genesis 2:1-3, Part 1(of 5)
“Words are like eggs dropped from great heights. You could no more call them back than ignore the mess they left when they fell" says Stephen R. Covey. The same applies to "holy" as it is used in a Bible translation. It is a bit messy historically as it has fallen to our own day. There are many ways that people in the English speaking world define this one word as it is used to translate qadosh or hagios in our Bibles. Some define it as "whole", some as "set apart", some as "pure", and some many other sometimes ridiculous ways. So I want to look more deeply into the topic of translation and use it to enlighten people so that there is both more clarity and more meaning in this word.
I'm sure translators have sometimes regretted their choices in their translations, but it is hard to pull back from those words once they are published, even if they created a mess. To expand Coveys' analogy, they are as hard to call back as the shell of Humpty Dumpty after his great fall. This blog entry will deal primarily with the text containing the Hebrew word for "made holy" from the standpoint of word choices used to translate the ancient Hebrew words of Moses' day. I will also dive a little bit too into meaning categories (semantic classes that are boader or semantic domains that are narrower).
I will discuss what makes a good translation and then I will present a translation of Genesis 1:1-2:3 that I think best fits those principles. This is a very important first step in interpreting a text correctly. The latter part of this same step will be to dive into what words in that context might fall into the same meaning categories as the word translated "holy".
An important part of the entire process of understanding "made holy" is choosing a cohesive section of text and not breaking apart that unit on the level that we are examining. I am not examining the very large entire book of Genesisor all the Law of Moses, but I am looking mainly at 2:1-3. That by itself though is not a cohesive unit, so I had to expand my examination a little further. As a result we will be looking at the translation of Genesis 1:1-2:3.
Scholars sometimes use a technical term for a section like this, called "pericope". It is simply a technical word for cohesive unit relationally within a text. There are clues that indicate either continuity and change so that a single unit can be determined.
The reason again that I am examing these verses together is that I and others consider these verses to be part of a cohesive unit of text including Genesis 2:1-3. This is significant, so that the context can be considered complete enough in order to be able draw conclusions for Genesis 2:1-3. In other words, Genesis 2:1-3 belongs to the unit of Genesis 1:1-2:3 and should not be cut off from it on that level of textual units.
The primary issue is this: "How do I know I am reading the right translation?" As a person, who has formally studied both exegetical methods in Bible classes and linguistic methods in the general study of language, I have heard a lot of theories about what criteria measures a good translation. A popular discussion of the possible criteria is found in So Many Versions by Sakae Kubo and Walter F. Specht. There is also a more recent title that I have not read as a whole, but that sounds promising, if you are curious to learn a lot more than I will cover here.
I will limit my discussion to my views on what is called "dynamic equivalence" translation. I'll limit my discussion to this theory as my starting point, because it is discussed by both sides of the pond - both biblical scholars and linguists. But also I want to discuss it because my teachers have been both biblical exegetes and linguistic scholars.
The main proponent of this view was Eugene Nida, a brilliant linguist and language scholar. For this view, he has both great fans and equally strong opponents. (Unfortunately, he died just last year). I will simply say to begin that I find the "dynamic equivalence" approach to be incomplete. It lacks another dynamic that is equally important, even while it does a very excellent job of performing the task of dealing with meaning. Please here me out on this.
I am persuaded that the very best translation tries to accomplish two things: (1) clarity and (2) meaning. The second is where I believe Nida's method shines. Dynamic equivalence is excellent in method for finding meaningfulness. But let's look at both principles.
I base my two principles on Nehemiah 8:8 (as my mom taught me, "chapter and verse"), where we read in the NIV:
They read from the Book of the Law of God,
making it clear
and giving the meaning
so that the people could understand
what was being read.
You will notice here two things are actively happening: (1) making it clear and (2) giving the meaning. You will notice also one purpose: (1) so that the people could understand what was being read. In other words, if either of these principles falls down, then the people will not be able to understand..
For the sake of clarity and meaning, let me diagram this for you. It appears as:
In contract to this happening in step one, there is the opposite. It appears as:
Now some will argue with the use of the NIV (1984) at this point. You will say this is a circular argument, because I am using a translation to argue for the principles of translation . First, let's be clear on one thing. All translations that I have read so far have two actions and one purpose. So clarity is not the issue on that point. So where they differ seems to be in meaning. They do vary in what they think is most meaningful. I hear you. Yet I think this issue belongs in a footnote (your comments and my responses) rather than in this part of my writing, because my main concern is to deal with Genesis 1:1-2:3, not Nehemiah 8:8 (not that it is unimportant!). But I do have to deal with space limits and my main point must remain my main point. Comment on this piece if you would like to and there we can debate the merits of the NIV (1984)!
I also think that an easy way to think of the difference between clarity ("making it clear") and meaning ("giving the meaning") is to ask two different questions. For the sake of clarity, it is important to aks the question: "How many?" (Quantity). For the sake of meaning, it is important to ask the question: "How much?" (Quality). Let me illustrate.
If I speak from a podium and instruct the crowd as I randomly split them up into three parts to say three different things like "yes," or "no" or "maybe" simulaneously, then what is heard is quite unclear. I only have a clue from my podium because I gave the instructions. But if I asked a person who just came out of a sound proof room to tell me what they said, she would somewhat puzzled. It sounds like gibberish. It lacks clarity. One is clearer than three, so the quantity of one produces the most clarity.
Likewise, if I were to choose a newer English word like "health" and ask an adult to give me its meaning, chances are they would reasonably succeed at that task. On the other hand, if I chose an older English word like "hale" and ask an adult to define it, they would likely fail. It has less meaning that healthy even if there two meanings overlap in history. One is newer than the other, so the quality of one produces more meaning.
The problem with most translating theories is that they answer only one of the two questions really well, while answering the other a little more weakly or in some cases a lot more weakly. That is why I prescribe the NIV (1984) or the NKJV to most of the people who ask me the question, because they do one of the tasks better than the other, but the other task they only do a little more weakly. What the NIV has over the NKJV in meaning, the NKJV has over the NIV in clarity. Maybe that explains the success of both as the most popular contemporary translations in sales (I believe this still holds).
So now let's move to Genesis 1:1-2:3 and look at it from a translation standpoint.
spare entry: one of many as related to "How many" and how clear.
spare entry: equal or equivalent to the original as related to "How much?" and how meaningful.
[This entry is in development. You need to understand these are the hard ones to develop and yet also the most important!]
Sincerely,
Jon
I'm sure translators have sometimes regretted their choices in their translations, but it is hard to pull back from those words once they are published, even if they created a mess. To expand Coveys' analogy, they are as hard to call back as the shell of Humpty Dumpty after his great fall. This blog entry will deal primarily with the text containing the Hebrew word for "made holy" from the standpoint of word choices used to translate the ancient Hebrew words of Moses' day. I will also dive a little bit too into meaning categories (semantic classes that are boader or semantic domains that are narrower).
I will discuss what makes a good translation and then I will present a translation of Genesis 1:1-2:3 that I think best fits those principles. This is a very important first step in interpreting a text correctly. The latter part of this same step will be to dive into what words in that context might fall into the same meaning categories as the word translated "holy".
An important part of the entire process of understanding "made holy" is choosing a cohesive section of text and not breaking apart that unit on the level that we are examining. I am not examining the very large entire book of Genesisor all the Law of Moses, but I am looking mainly at 2:1-3. That by itself though is not a cohesive unit, so I had to expand my examination a little further. As a result we will be looking at the translation of Genesis 1:1-2:3.
Scholars sometimes use a technical term for a section like this, called "pericope". It is simply a technical word for cohesive unit relationally within a text. There are clues that indicate either continuity and change so that a single unit can be determined.
The reason again that I am examing these verses together is that I and others consider these verses to be part of a cohesive unit of text including Genesis 2:1-3. This is significant, so that the context can be considered complete enough in order to be able draw conclusions for Genesis 2:1-3. In other words, Genesis 2:1-3 belongs to the unit of Genesis 1:1-2:3 and should not be cut off from it on that level of textual units.
The primary issue is this: "How do I know I am reading the right translation?" As a person, who has formally studied both exegetical methods in Bible classes and linguistic methods in the general study of language, I have heard a lot of theories about what criteria measures a good translation. A popular discussion of the possible criteria is found in So Many Versions by Sakae Kubo and Walter F. Specht. There is also a more recent title that I have not read as a whole, but that sounds promising, if you are curious to learn a lot more than I will cover here.
I will limit my discussion to my views on what is called "dynamic equivalence" translation. I'll limit my discussion to this theory as my starting point, because it is discussed by both sides of the pond - both biblical scholars and linguists. But also I want to discuss it because my teachers have been both biblical exegetes and linguistic scholars.
The main proponent of this view was Eugene Nida, a brilliant linguist and language scholar. For this view, he has both great fans and equally strong opponents. (Unfortunately, he died just last year). I will simply say to begin that I find the "dynamic equivalence" approach to be incomplete. It lacks another dynamic that is equally important, even while it does a very excellent job of performing the task of dealing with meaning. Please here me out on this.
I am persuaded that the very best translation tries to accomplish two things: (1) clarity and (2) meaning. The second is where I believe Nida's method shines. Dynamic equivalence is excellent in method for finding meaningfulness. But let's look at both principles.
I base my two principles on Nehemiah 8:8 (as my mom taught me, "chapter and verse"), where we read in the NIV:
They read from the Book of the Law of God,
making it clear
and giving the meaning
so that the people could understand
what was being read.
You will notice here two things are actively happening: (1) making it clear and (2) giving the meaning. You will notice also one purpose: (1) so that the people could understand what was being read. In other words, if either of these principles falls down, then the people will not be able to understand..
For the sake of clarity and meaning, let me diagram this for you. It appears as:
In contract to this happening in step one, there is the opposite. It appears as:
I also think that an easy way to think of the difference between clarity ("making it clear") and meaning ("giving the meaning") is to ask two different questions. For the sake of clarity, it is important to aks the question: "How many?" (Quantity). For the sake of meaning, it is important to ask the question: "How much?" (Quality). Let me illustrate.
If I speak from a podium and instruct the crowd as I randomly split them up into three parts to say three different things like "yes," or "no" or "maybe" simulaneously, then what is heard is quite unclear. I only have a clue from my podium because I gave the instructions. But if I asked a person who just came out of a sound proof room to tell me what they said, she would somewhat puzzled. It sounds like gibberish. It lacks clarity. One is clearer than three, so the quantity of one produces the most clarity.
Likewise, if I were to choose a newer English word like "health" and ask an adult to give me its meaning, chances are they would reasonably succeed at that task. On the other hand, if I chose an older English word like "hale" and ask an adult to define it, they would likely fail. It has less meaning that healthy even if there two meanings overlap in history. One is newer than the other, so the quality of one produces more meaning.
The problem with most translating theories is that they answer only one of the two questions really well, while answering the other a little more weakly or in some cases a lot more weakly. That is why I prescribe the NIV (1984) or the NKJV to most of the people who ask me the question, because they do one of the tasks better than the other, but the other task they only do a little more weakly. What the NIV has over the NKJV in meaning, the NKJV has over the NIV in clarity. Maybe that explains the success of both as the most popular contemporary translations in sales (I believe this still holds).
So now let's move to Genesis 1:1-2:3 and look at it from a translation standpoint.
spare entry: one of many as related to "How many" and how clear.
spare entry: equal or equivalent to the original as related to "How much?" and how meaningful.
[This entry is in development. You need to understand these are the hard ones to develop and yet also the most important!]
Sincerely,
Jon
Monday, October 31, 2011
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Expertise
It is very important to understand my expertise in writing on the definition or meaning of holy, because it helps you to know whether you can trust what I say is true or not. It is also important to understand both what I can contribute to the discussion, and also what I cannot contribute.
I have to remain humble. There are many experts in the scholarly world that I cannot compete with on their terms, because their type of expertise is better than mine in their specialty area. Yet, I think, I still have something to contribute that is significant to the discussion.
The way to visualize what I contribute is to imagine that most scholars on the meaning of holy contribute along a vertical axis of depth at the same time I contribute along a horizontal axis of breadth. Our strengths can be complementary in that I can rely upon them for depth, while I am more of a generalist, who can spot parallels between the different specialists. These parallels are where I get most of my insights on the topic of holy.
Let me explain all of this further. In Matthew 7:15-20 in the NIV, we read: 15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
Here the non-prophet can recognize or know a "false prophet" from a true one through "bad fruit." These instructions are not just for specialists in the field of prophesy during Jesus' day. Everyone in his day needed to know how to recognize the true from the false. Likewise I think the analogy of the tree can be used by everyone to discern false experts from true ones.
Let's look at ourselves through Jesus' analogy. We are not all tree experts or good tree growers, yet we can know a good tree from a bad one by the fruit we eat from the tree. So we are not all technical experts, but we are all friendly users of apples for food. We all can recognize user-friendly "APPLE" technology, even if we cannot create a high tech "APPLE" gadget to speak of computer technology in the same way.
My educational experience allows me to be somewhat of a technical expert, but I do not claim to be a technical expert on the level of some of the experts that I rely upon for their expertise in Hebrew, as one example. I have abilities in the area of preaching, translating, teaching and transferring; but I do not have the depth that those who only preach or only teach, etc. have. What I am able to do is to discern across these specialities certain parallels that help me discern what translators or teachers, etc. I can trust. One of the primary areas to rely upon is that of preaching, because the primary measure here is its effect or fruit.
I am a preacher (though not on the level of Warren, Keller and Swindoll, etc.) and so from the beginning of my work on the meaning of holy, I have been concerned about the fruit in ministry from the popular meaning of holy in the last 100 years versus the fruit from the popular meaning of holy in the prior 600 years (and the combined prior 1900 years that I am more recently investigating more thoroughly). From the prior 600 years up to about 1900, the massive effect of the preaching of Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Wesley and Spurgeon is something to weigh against the effect or preaching by Warren, Keller, Swindoll, etc. I first became aware of this as a young child under the preaching of Lowell Anderson. I witnessed the fruit of his preaching as compared to other pastors. As a college student, I was introduced to the major Protestant reformers by John S. Piper (now a preacher himself) and James E. Johnson, who helped me broaden Piper's perspective. Warren W. Wiersbe's book Walking with the Giants took me a step further. It was primarily through them that I was introduced to the fruit of preaching in the past. The fruit, or what we now call effect, matters. The effect can be something as simple as being friendly in the case of user-friendly technology. I take exception to those who make the exception the rule in biblical history, when people do not respond to a preacher (like in the case of Jeremiah). I am well aware of the danger of not seeing the exception, like some ear tickling preachers do not. Luther's broad definition of holy as tied to whole or Spurgeon's were not from ear tickling types of preachers. Nor is the prior 1300 years before the reformers from preachers of that kind. (I will be developing this material more in the future after the enlightening teaching of Steven A. Peay). So some of my blog entries do raise the question of whether less effective results from the now popular understanding of holy should not be part of the test for whether we have the meaning of holy correct. These entries usually pull in the views of people like Luther, Calvin, etc. in their headings, because of the effect of their preaching with a different understanding of holy. The effect or fruit is after all, how you tell a good tree from a bad tree.
I am a translator in a limited sense, and by no means to be compared to the great translators or translation team members on earth. I have not published a translation like J.B Phillips nor am I associated with a team of translators like those that worked on the NIV. Instead, I value their expertise. Most of my acquaintance with translation is through the materials of Wycliffe Bible Translators, but I have not served overseas on a translation team. In the English tradition of translation, I value the views of John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, James Strong and many translation experts including those who worked on the King James Version as well as those who come much later right up to the present. What distinguishes my views on translation comes from Nehemiah 8:8, where there are the twin qualities of clarity and meaning. From these twin quality principles, I discern my choice of translation. That means I am not only a meaning for meaning or a dynamic equivalence translator, because I place clarity as a principle that is equal to meaning. That means I balance these two qualities in discerning what is a good translation. I also think that the quality of clarity is being compromised by the multiplicity of translations as opposed to one translation. In addition, I think the use of the word "holy" in its day was a wise choice by the older translators for its clarity and meaning. Yet from the beginning of its use in English, if there was a problem with this choice, it was a problem of clarity. In the English language, the one word in Hebrew and its one word Greek replacement was replaced by multiple words in English translation like holy, sanctify, hallow, consecrate and saints, etc. This copiousness ("many ways to say the same thing"), pushed perhaps by the influence of Erasmus or maybe still later Shakespeare, made things complex rather than simple. The word also was understood to have a dual meaning that was broadly defined as whole and narrowly defined as set apart. Clarity is best achieved through one word as was done by the Greek for the Hebrew, when the sense of the original word is not changed. The more options that are available, then the less is the clarity. To illustrate, if everyone in a room of 99 people shouts yes together, then you can hear clearly what they say, if equally among them some also say no and others say maybe, then the message is less clear. So you will see that some of my entries deal with translation principles, as they relate to holy. I try mainly to clarify things from the complex of confusion that has developed due to differing translation conclusions. I didn't create the lack of clarity, I only try to point it out, and I try to argue that we need to replace it with the clarity of one central meaning. Clarity and meaning are the qualities of a good translation like an expert on trees can assign the primary qualities of a good tree.
I am a teacher in some measure. Usually people say I have this gift along with others. Yet I am not a teacher, like some of those who I have had as teachers in seminary or who I had in my undergraduate years. They are true specialists in teaching. I think of Walter C. Kaiser, Allen P. Ross, Gary V. Smith, Daniel P. Fuller, etc. here. They are expert teachers, who know what things are being referred to by a word in a foreign language or know how to precisely pronounce it. They know their original languages on a higher level than I do. Yet I do not stop with their insights, as valuable as they are and as much as I value their direct teaching of me in the classroom. I also have sought out other experts like them, who are members of top ten research universities. I am thinking here of Ronald S. Hendel, University of California, Berkeley; (Margaret) Mary (Tew) Douglas [now deceased], Oxford University; Saul M. Olyan, Brown University; Ralph W. Klein, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago [that I think is connected with the University of Chicago]; and Gordon J. Wenham, Trinity College, Bristol [formerly a student at Cambridge] and others. All of these people mentioned in this list have either past or current associations with a top ten research school I think research is very important and the very best of research is important. So that is why in some of my entries, I bring up the expert teachers out there, who work at some of the best research facilities. I am considering the possibility of finishing up my post-graduate studies at one of the top ten schools myself, if necessary and helpful. If I avoid their work, then I think I am shrinking from the challenges of the best teachers. Likewise I would never ask a fruit taster for their mastery of tree science or tree farming. I remember my dad going to the eperimental [research] farms to get his soil tested. He knew that a tree or a garden plant needed their special nutrients in the soil depending on the type of plant.
I am a missonary of sorts, but certainly not on the level of a foreign missionary with overseas experience. Some might say I am a home missionary. I am able to transfer things from one place and time to another. My directional orientation is going out and is not coming in. I enjoy moving from one culture to another. Yet what I am doing is examining the move from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek culture into English culture. In many ways, my steps on the meaning of holy are re-tracing the work of the earliest missionaries to the English-speaking world and asking questions about how the transfer from one culture to the next went. Has it gone well or has it gone not so well in connecting Hebrew culture to the nations that speak English? I was deeply influenced in this specialty by specialists like William A. Smalley, R. Daniel Shaw, Paul G. Hiebert, Tom Correll, James Hurd, Donald N. Larson, Betty Sue Brewster, Kenneth L. Pike, etc. Through their direct influence, I read also in the areas of anthropology and worldview study. This includes again Mary Douglas among others. I also studied under David A. Rausch, E.William Bean, Larry R. Brandt, Avi Snyder (occasionally) and Daniel Lancaster (D. Thomas Lancaster) to better understand Jewish roots. This latter list drew from rabbinical literature. All of the people in my earlier list have direct experience as missionaries in foreign contexts. They all taught me about the relationship of transferring from one place and time to another place and time. How does one connect in a new place and time? That was their pursuit and they taught it to others like me as they moved from practitioners to mentors. In Nehemiah 8, this transfer referred to the transfer of regulations or culture from one place and time to another. This is the ability to connect with others across the cultural barriers of place and time. When it comes to Hebrew, are we allowing that place and time to speak for itself or are we bringing in outside influence, when it is the root and we are the branches grafted into the tree? Sometimes supposed Hebrew scholarship lets a later time speak for an earlier time as in the case of some later Hebrew rabbinical writings. Sometimes supposed scholarship also allows another culture like Arabic culture to speak for it. I am more concerned to let Hebrew culture from the most ancient time of then and there, when it was penned, to speak for itself and then let it speak to us in the here and now. Then it is going from then and there to all the nations including those speaking English. So that is why some of my entries deal with cultural connections, as I am concerned that the going is coming from the that place and time to our place and time. That is why the etmology arguments also get my attention, since some of these arguments that are only probable are treated as definite and sometimes the significance of the letters in the original word for holy are undervalued. We have to know the truth of whether our understanding of holy is connected to the past and place assigned found in Scipture, not elsewhere. The test here, as it is for trees, is to know the truth or falseness of claims. Is there a connection or not between the fruit and the tree or between the text and the claims?
So now you know more about my general expertise as compared to the special deeper expertise of others that I rely upon. Somehow through the course that God has set for my life and sometimes despite me, I have become the kind of broad expert that I am. The deeper experts above are not responsible for all my views, since sometimes I use one speciality to correct another through a parallel point of view whether it be from preachers, translators, teachers or missionaries. Those parallel insights I have to take responsibility for, but the experts I learned from do get a major portion of credit that I can never take. You cannot trust me, if I am not humble in this way. You also can only trust my insights on holy as far as it fits with the idea that "a good tree is known by its fruit". A good tree can be known by a fruit eater.
What I am eventually hoping for from this blog or maybe from an eventual book, Lord willing, is an impact from the definition or meaning of holy that makes a real difference. The impact word for Luther was righteousness and likewise holy is another quality word that may be the word that is needed to really turn things around for the church. The same was true in the case of Calvin where his measure was that of humility as a sub-set of the quality of being true. He focused like Luther on another quality term. That is one of the reasons for why I think "holy" is so important. The same goes for the other major Reformers in the last 600 years all the way to Spurgeon. We need a new announcement like was made in their respective times. Could the meaning of holy be that quality that makes the difference the church needs?
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
I have to remain humble. There are many experts in the scholarly world that I cannot compete with on their terms, because their type of expertise is better than mine in their specialty area. Yet, I think, I still have something to contribute that is significant to the discussion.
The way to visualize what I contribute is to imagine that most scholars on the meaning of holy contribute along a vertical axis of depth at the same time I contribute along a horizontal axis of breadth. Our strengths can be complementary in that I can rely upon them for depth, while I am more of a generalist, who can spot parallels between the different specialists. These parallels are where I get most of my insights on the topic of holy.
Let me explain all of this further. In Matthew 7:15-20 in the NIV, we read: 15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
Here the non-prophet can recognize or know a "false prophet" from a true one through "bad fruit." These instructions are not just for specialists in the field of prophesy during Jesus' day. Everyone in his day needed to know how to recognize the true from the false. Likewise I think the analogy of the tree can be used by everyone to discern false experts from true ones.
Let's look at ourselves through Jesus' analogy. We are not all tree experts or good tree growers, yet we can know a good tree from a bad one by the fruit we eat from the tree. So we are not all technical experts, but we are all friendly users of apples for food. We all can recognize user-friendly "APPLE" technology, even if we cannot create a high tech "APPLE" gadget to speak of computer technology in the same way.
My educational experience allows me to be somewhat of a technical expert, but I do not claim to be a technical expert on the level of some of the experts that I rely upon for their expertise in Hebrew, as one example. I have abilities in the area of preaching, translating, teaching and transferring; but I do not have the depth that those who only preach or only teach, etc. have. What I am able to do is to discern across these specialities certain parallels that help me discern what translators or teachers, etc. I can trust. One of the primary areas to rely upon is that of preaching, because the primary measure here is its effect or fruit.
I am a preacher (though not on the level of Warren, Keller and Swindoll, etc.) and so from the beginning of my work on the meaning of holy, I have been concerned about the fruit in ministry from the popular meaning of holy in the last 100 years versus the fruit from the popular meaning of holy in the prior 600 years (and the combined prior 1900 years that I am more recently investigating more thoroughly). From the prior 600 years up to about 1900, the massive effect of the preaching of Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Wesley and Spurgeon is something to weigh against the effect or preaching by Warren, Keller, Swindoll, etc. I first became aware of this as a young child under the preaching of Lowell Anderson. I witnessed the fruit of his preaching as compared to other pastors. As a college student, I was introduced to the major Protestant reformers by John S. Piper (now a preacher himself) and James E. Johnson, who helped me broaden Piper's perspective. Warren W. Wiersbe's book Walking with the Giants took me a step further. It was primarily through them that I was introduced to the fruit of preaching in the past. The fruit, or what we now call effect, matters. The effect can be something as simple as being friendly in the case of user-friendly technology. I take exception to those who make the exception the rule in biblical history, when people do not respond to a preacher (like in the case of Jeremiah). I am well aware of the danger of not seeing the exception, like some ear tickling preachers do not. Luther's broad definition of holy as tied to whole or Spurgeon's were not from ear tickling types of preachers. Nor is the prior 1300 years before the reformers from preachers of that kind. (I will be developing this material more in the future after the enlightening teaching of Steven A. Peay). So some of my blog entries do raise the question of whether less effective results from the now popular understanding of holy should not be part of the test for whether we have the meaning of holy correct. These entries usually pull in the views of people like Luther, Calvin, etc. in their headings, because of the effect of their preaching with a different understanding of holy. The effect or fruit is after all, how you tell a good tree from a bad tree.
I am a translator in a limited sense, and by no means to be compared to the great translators or translation team members on earth. I have not published a translation like J.B Phillips nor am I associated with a team of translators like those that worked on the NIV. Instead, I value their expertise. Most of my acquaintance with translation is through the materials of Wycliffe Bible Translators, but I have not served overseas on a translation team. In the English tradition of translation, I value the views of John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, James Strong and many translation experts including those who worked on the King James Version as well as those who come much later right up to the present. What distinguishes my views on translation comes from Nehemiah 8:8, where there are the twin qualities of clarity and meaning. From these twin quality principles, I discern my choice of translation. That means I am not only a meaning for meaning or a dynamic equivalence translator, because I place clarity as a principle that is equal to meaning. That means I balance these two qualities in discerning what is a good translation. I also think that the quality of clarity is being compromised by the multiplicity of translations as opposed to one translation. In addition, I think the use of the word "holy" in its day was a wise choice by the older translators for its clarity and meaning. Yet from the beginning of its use in English, if there was a problem with this choice, it was a problem of clarity. In the English language, the one word in Hebrew and its one word Greek replacement was replaced by multiple words in English translation like holy, sanctify, hallow, consecrate and saints, etc. This copiousness ("many ways to say the same thing"), pushed perhaps by the influence of Erasmus or maybe still later Shakespeare, made things complex rather than simple. The word also was understood to have a dual meaning that was broadly defined as whole and narrowly defined as set apart. Clarity is best achieved through one word as was done by the Greek for the Hebrew, when the sense of the original word is not changed. The more options that are available, then the less is the clarity. To illustrate, if everyone in a room of 99 people shouts yes together, then you can hear clearly what they say, if equally among them some also say no and others say maybe, then the message is less clear. So you will see that some of my entries deal with translation principles, as they relate to holy. I try mainly to clarify things from the complex of confusion that has developed due to differing translation conclusions. I didn't create the lack of clarity, I only try to point it out, and I try to argue that we need to replace it with the clarity of one central meaning. Clarity and meaning are the qualities of a good translation like an expert on trees can assign the primary qualities of a good tree.
I am a teacher in some measure. Usually people say I have this gift along with others. Yet I am not a teacher, like some of those who I have had as teachers in seminary or who I had in my undergraduate years. They are true specialists in teaching. I think of Walter C. Kaiser, Allen P. Ross, Gary V. Smith, Daniel P. Fuller, etc. here. They are expert teachers, who know what things are being referred to by a word in a foreign language or know how to precisely pronounce it. They know their original languages on a higher level than I do. Yet I do not stop with their insights, as valuable as they are and as much as I value their direct teaching of me in the classroom. I also have sought out other experts like them, who are members of top ten research universities. I am thinking here of Ronald S. Hendel, University of California, Berkeley; (Margaret) Mary (Tew) Douglas [now deceased], Oxford University; Saul M. Olyan, Brown University; Ralph W. Klein, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago [that I think is connected with the University of Chicago]; and Gordon J. Wenham, Trinity College, Bristol [formerly a student at Cambridge] and others. All of these people mentioned in this list have either past or current associations with a top ten research school I think research is very important and the very best of research is important. So that is why in some of my entries, I bring up the expert teachers out there, who work at some of the best research facilities. I am considering the possibility of finishing up my post-graduate studies at one of the top ten schools myself, if necessary and helpful. If I avoid their work, then I think I am shrinking from the challenges of the best teachers. Likewise I would never ask a fruit taster for their mastery of tree science or tree farming. I remember my dad going to the eperimental [research] farms to get his soil tested. He knew that a tree or a garden plant needed their special nutrients in the soil depending on the type of plant.
I am a missonary of sorts, but certainly not on the level of a foreign missionary with overseas experience. Some might say I am a home missionary. I am able to transfer things from one place and time to another. My directional orientation is going out and is not coming in. I enjoy moving from one culture to another. Yet what I am doing is examining the move from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek culture into English culture. In many ways, my steps on the meaning of holy are re-tracing the work of the earliest missionaries to the English-speaking world and asking questions about how the transfer from one culture to the next went. Has it gone well or has it gone not so well in connecting Hebrew culture to the nations that speak English? I was deeply influenced in this specialty by specialists like William A. Smalley, R. Daniel Shaw, Paul G. Hiebert, Tom Correll, James Hurd, Donald N. Larson, Betty Sue Brewster, Kenneth L. Pike, etc. Through their direct influence, I read also in the areas of anthropology and worldview study. This includes again Mary Douglas among others. I also studied under David A. Rausch, E.William Bean, Larry R. Brandt, Avi Snyder (occasionally) and Daniel Lancaster (D. Thomas Lancaster) to better understand Jewish roots. This latter list drew from rabbinical literature. All of the people in my earlier list have direct experience as missionaries in foreign contexts. They all taught me about the relationship of transferring from one place and time to another place and time. How does one connect in a new place and time? That was their pursuit and they taught it to others like me as they moved from practitioners to mentors. In Nehemiah 8, this transfer referred to the transfer of regulations or culture from one place and time to another. This is the ability to connect with others across the cultural barriers of place and time. When it comes to Hebrew, are we allowing that place and time to speak for itself or are we bringing in outside influence, when it is the root and we are the branches grafted into the tree? Sometimes supposed Hebrew scholarship lets a later time speak for an earlier time as in the case of some later Hebrew rabbinical writings. Sometimes supposed scholarship also allows another culture like Arabic culture to speak for it. I am more concerned to let Hebrew culture from the most ancient time of then and there, when it was penned, to speak for itself and then let it speak to us in the here and now. Then it is going from then and there to all the nations including those speaking English. So that is why some of my entries deal with cultural connections, as I am concerned that the going is coming from the that place and time to our place and time. That is why the etmology arguments also get my attention, since some of these arguments that are only probable are treated as definite and sometimes the significance of the letters in the original word for holy are undervalued. We have to know the truth of whether our understanding of holy is connected to the past and place assigned found in Scipture, not elsewhere. The test here, as it is for trees, is to know the truth or falseness of claims. Is there a connection or not between the fruit and the tree or between the text and the claims?
So now you know more about my general expertise as compared to the special deeper expertise of others that I rely upon. Somehow through the course that God has set for my life and sometimes despite me, I have become the kind of broad expert that I am. The deeper experts above are not responsible for all my views, since sometimes I use one speciality to correct another through a parallel point of view whether it be from preachers, translators, teachers or missionaries. Those parallel insights I have to take responsibility for, but the experts I learned from do get a major portion of credit that I can never take. You cannot trust me, if I am not humble in this way. You also can only trust my insights on holy as far as it fits with the idea that "a good tree is known by its fruit". A good tree can be known by a fruit eater.
What I am eventually hoping for from this blog or maybe from an eventual book, Lord willing, is an impact from the definition or meaning of holy that makes a real difference. The impact word for Luther was righteousness and likewise holy is another quality word that may be the word that is needed to really turn things around for the church. The same was true in the case of Calvin where his measure was that of humility as a sub-set of the quality of being true. He focused like Luther on another quality term. That is one of the reasons for why I think "holy" is so important. The same goes for the other major Reformers in the last 600 years all the way to Spurgeon. We need a new announcement like was made in their respective times. Could the meaning of holy be that quality that makes the difference the church needs?
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
