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