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:

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

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

Holy: Understanding it Better Through One Word Versus Many

I don't like confusion and I would guess you don't either.  Recently, I ran across an explanation that I never heard before for why there are so many words that translate the one word in Hebrew and the corresponding one word in Greek that are usually translated as holy.  Desiderius Erasmus, of Reformation fame, understood copiousness to be a distinct advantage in rhetoric or persuasive communication.   What he meant by copiousness is saying one thing in many different ways.  This is probably the best explanation for why translators translate one word in Hebrew and its corresponding one word in Greek by so many words. 

The one root or word in Hebrew can be translated in English by saint, sacred, sanctified, sanctuary, consecrated, hallowed, hallow, Holy One or holy.  Someone could easily see a Latin influence here, but the bigger question is why those words were kept alongside the more Anglo-Saxon words.  In some recent translations, the list gets even longer with set apart or separate.  In some older translations there was also halig and wholly.  Then you can add to this the theological vocabulary of sanctification or holiness.  Then to make matters more confusing saint can be replaced by santa in more popular usage.  At Christmas time it is interesting to realize this last connection. 

For clarity's sake, I would argue that it would have been far more effective to have used one word like holy each time for the one word in Hebrew and its corresponding one word in Greek.  Clarity is there in the original that simply is lacking in many translations because one word is replaced by many words. 

The way to create clarity is to have just one word for one word, where clearly the basic context is the same.  The way to create confusion is to have more than one option, when the context does not demand a different basic meaning.  This is more likely to cause connections to be missed by the average reader.

My own favorite example of this is my missing the connection between holy and "hallowed be Your Name" in the Lord's Prayer.  "Holy be your name" would be much clearer for showing the connection between that statement and "Yahweh [His name] your God is holy." 

I used to think the variety in words for one word came from William Shakespeare and poetic influence.  Maybe some of it did, but Desiderius Erasmus now seems to me a better explantion for an influence on translators.  So while I greatly admire Erasmus for most of what he contributed to scholarship, I think his idea of copiousness for persuasive speech or writing may have been applied inappropriately and it may have created unnecessary confusion in the ordinary English reader's mind. 

So I hope, if nothing else, by understanding this tendency in translation, you will be able to realize that in the majority of cases, the many words for "holy" are really one word.  The most common one word in English translation is holy.  I'd love to see a translation that used only this one word in its different forms, like the original did and like the Greek translation of the Hebrew did in the New Testament.  I think this would eliminate some, but not all, of the confusion out there over what "holy" means, because the connections between different parts of Scripture would be clear.  This would be a small step forward. 

In Christ,

Pastor Jon

Holy: Understanding its Definition better Through Using a Process

This entry in my blog steps back from directly defining holy to talk more broadly about my views on methods to define holy.  In my view the weakness of some of the writing on holiness is a lack of awareness on how important their method is to determining the outcome of their definition of holy.   

My point is to say that the process we use to determine the meaning of holy is very important.   Our methods have implications and can cause us to draw either correct or incorrect conclusions.  My other point is that biases can get in the way of accepting relevant methods for defining it. 

The process is important to the effect or outcome, whether it is the process for determining a meaning for a word or whether it is a process for shooting a basketball.  The "how" is relevant alongside the "why".  If making a basket is my motive, my reason why, then the method, my how I shoot, is relevant.  It is the same in determining the meaning of holy. 

Now using the basketball analogy, there is room for differences in the method, but not differences that are dramatic.  It  is one thing for the best shooters to have subtle stylistic differences, but it is far different to violate the four basic fundamental parts of shooting.  Whether you take Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan or LeBron James; they all share the same fundamental strengths in the art of shooting.  However, all of them do not shoot exactly the same. 

Next, it is important to understand some of the attitudes we carry to the table, when it comes to method.  I remember this from my days as a coach and I see the same thing in the arena of being a pastor.  There are certain biases against method that are even greater in the church than they are on the basketball court. 

The first bias, I will call the Holy Spirit objection.  It is very simple, we don't need a method, because we have the Holy Spirit.  To me, this response lacks balance.  I like what St. Augustine said once about prayer and about balance: "Pray as though everything depended on God, work as though everything depended on you."  I think the same applies here.  I believe wholeheartedly that everything depends on God's Holy Spirit when it comes to interpretation, yet I don't believe this excludes method.  The reason I don't think it excludes method is because in the book that records things that people like David said by the Spirit, there methods are described.  We are told actions to take. 

I cannot live by the Spirit and not do what the Spirit has spoken.  I believe in Nehemiah 8, the Spirit has given us a process: teach, translate, total, train and transfer.  I believe balance is needed which means having regard for this process that was outlined by the Holy Spirit.  By the way, the five words that begin with "T" are my simple way of remembering the HolySpirit's process.  The Spirit uses other specific words for these ideas.  See my earlier blog that deals with this process for greater detail. 

The second bias, I will call the historical objection.  It is very simple, we don't need a method, because we have freedom.  To me, this method also lacks balance.  Many people are trapped in the formerly relevant rules or freedom of a previous period of history.  Sometimes the emphasis of some of our ancestors was right on for their time, but not right on for our time.  I think our time needs balance in its process as compared to an overemphasis to correct an imbalance to only one side.   

This means I find the biases toward a process for defining a word irrelevant at times.  I have found a lack of balance between rule and freedom.  St. Augustine once wrote three books to define his process for understanding the biblical text.  He saw the need for rules.  I think we need to think through our process as well and yet allow freedom for improvements in our process.  In other words, we need to keep things in balance.  I don't think using Nehemiah 8 as a basis for a process is either  too restrictive or too free.  It can keep a balance. 

One of my teachers once said he was overemphasizing his point to correct something.  While that may have been a good teaching method at one time, I don't think it is helpful at our present time.  Now I think we have to keep a balance to make our point, because otherwise things veer off to one extreme or the other, because of our present times and context.  We now have twin dangers to avoid that maybe were not present earlier like they are now. 

So I really think we must keep a balance in our process to define words based on the need for relevance.  I think the rules of 1) teach, 2) translate, 3) total, 4) train and 5) transfer are very helpful.  These rules have a relevance to move things in a helpful direction from the prior processes, like those of Augustine, to determine meaning that are often too limited by rules or too free to be useful. 

I wish I had time to develop the full argument here, but I thought I should at least let people know that my method in defining holy is intended to be a balance Spirit & method and rule & freedom.  It takes relevance very seriously.  It recognizes the dangers on both both sides of its method, because of what is happening in our contemporary times rather than what has happened in the past. 

In my next entry, I want to again step back a little bit and talk about my expertise.  This will also be relevant to explaining the different kinds of entries you will find on this blog.  It will help you understand both what you can hope to find here and what you will not find here.  The point is that I want to contribute what expertise I have to defining holy, but also I do not want to mislead people either as to what my expertise is.  Thank you for taking a few minutes to read this entry. 

In Christ,

Pastor Jon