Holy: Understanding it Better Through Linguistic Analysis

The first question for anyone searching on the internet for the definition of holy is:  "What is the definition of holy as it is used in the Bible?"  Let me give first a short answer to that question.  It means one of three major possible definitions: 1) pure, 2) set apart, and/or 3) moral wholeness.  (These are listed in alphabetical order to avoid bias.)  I know you want the one definition.  So do I, but I have to complete my linguistic analysis before I can say its meaning has been re-discovered accurately in the 21st Century.

"There's a method in his madness".  The definition given for this saying is that there is often a plan or method hidden behind a person's apparently inexplicable behavior.  In my last entry, I explained that part of the method behind some of my entries was to remove both presuppositions and historical fallacies about what "holy" (quadosh or hagios) means.  This entry is to lay out explicitly what method I am going to use to define holy in its biblical context.  The method is called "Linguistic Analysis", if we use the terminology of Michael Gorman in his book Elements of Biblical Exegesis.

The first question is the right question: "What does holy mean?"  But another question is also important.  That question is this: "What is your method for determining the meaning of holy?"  You can go to many places on the internet and you will find a definition for holy in the biblical text, but you quite often are left in the dark as to how they re-discovered that meaning found in the Law of Moses and in Ancient Hebrew (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy).  So ltet's replace a little of the madness in trying to define holy with some clarity of method. 

The Linguistic Analysis method consists of the following parts:

1) Semantic Analysis
2) Discourse Analysis
3) Grammatical Analysis (another word for the method, included within Linguistic Analysis)
4) Syntactical Analysis
5) Lexical Analysis

The order in which these are placed and the breaking out of some of these into separate parts is not the work of Michael Gorman.  Instead, he provided me with a very good list from which I forged these 5 distinct parts in my method.  I re-worked all of Gorman's categories based on 5 classes of definition: 1) Amount, 2) Relationship, 3) Whole, 4) Action, and 5) Thing. 

Let me say a little about each part of my method.  In each case, I will be using insights from linguists like Eugene Nida and from biblical exegetes like D. A. Carson and others. Here is each of the methods separately:

1) Semantic analysis normally has focused on meaning.  I will be pursuing a course that considers first clarity and then second meaning.  This is a course correction from Nida's dynamic equivalence that primarily looks at meaning.  I will use his insights, but as a first step also take steps to preserve clarity where possible.  A balance of both needs to be maintained.  It is like using a plumb line for the vertical axis and then also using a level for the horizontal axis.  That analogy is in fact how I picture the relationship between clarity and meaning and in that order. 

2) Discourse analysis is used all the time by many linguists and biblical exegetes.  Linguistics usually refer to the method they use as structural analysis.  Biblical exegetes usually use a method that combines sentence diagramming and outlining.  I also am aware of the method called arcing that was first developed by Daniel P. Fuller and later made more popular by Dr. John S. Piper (today a well-known pastor known mainly through Desiring God Ministries on-line).   Arcing is mainly an off shoot from biblical exegesis and traditional grammar.  I prefer myself the method referred to as disourse analysis or structural analysis, because it is more comprehensive than the other methods.  It's main weakness in the past came from its prior step of semantic analysis.  I have already suggested what I will change in the previous paragraph on semantic analysis to correct the weakness there.

3) Grammatical analysis is all the other types of analysis combined.  Traditionally this was the method that was taught in most of our earlier years in learning "grammar".   Its traditional major categories or divsions are:

a) orthography
b) etymology
c) syntax
d) prosody

I was not taught about these major divisions when I was in junior high school, but I do know that there are much longer lists of what grammar includes and there is a lot  more detail.  This often tneds toward confusion!  I will be handling linguistic or grammatical analysis on the level of its major divsions as:

a) semantical analysis
b) discourse analysis
c) syntactical analysis
d) lexical analysis

These categories I consider to be much better major divisions for understanding grammar and they also include the older categories.  They are not necessarily anti-grammar as some suppose from reading things written by scholars like James Barr in Biblical Semantics.  I would say it this way:  "The problem with Barr is that he goes too far".  I mean this in the context of his criticisms of things like etymology.  While etymology has weaknesses for word study, it can be helpful as one part of the larger picture of grammatical analysis. 

3) Syntactical analysis is very important and it is often shown using sentence diagramming.  This method is often useful, because it helps in isolating the actions or events of the text and those aspects that fit around that action in the form of a sentence.  But I also like to use another tool for analyzing action in a text that looks wider than the sentence level.  It does this by looking at the pre-state and post-state of an action.  I learned this method from James J. Odell.  He is a unique source, because he is neither a linguist nor a biblical exegete, but he is a very important computer search engine expert.  You can find some excellent things written by him on-line.   But the best way to understand this method will be the results from the fruit of t his method as I put this method into action on the meaning of qadosh and hagios as actions and in their usual translation of "sanctify".

4) Lexical analysis will be where the majority of work needs to be done including insights from etymology.  But etymology cannot be used alone separate from the other forms of analysis.  That has been the major weakness of etymology in the past as well as in the case of lexical analysis.  Word studies, as they are sometimes referred to in exegetical literature, often do not take seriously enough the need for accurate discourse analysis.  I see this especially, when words are seen as parallel without examiing the connective words in the text.  So no etymologies or word studies without context!  Context needs to be examined through discourse analysis! 

Now that I have  mainly layed out the positive methods I will be using, let me say a little about the weakness in previous methods in general.  The biggest issue has been the presumpotion of meaning using the traditional grammatical analysis method of etymology as opposed to a more complete  lexical analysis .  Lexical analysis includes etymology, but it is also on guard against errors made using this method.  In some cases, such as those of the Greek philosophers like Plato, there are some significant examples of errors from etymology alone.  Lexical analysis also does not stand alone nor should word studies and therefore also has more than just a contextual (discourse analysis) advantage over etymology.  It is designed to work with support from the other forms of analysis alongside of it.  In some cases, it is not necesary to do these others, but that is only when the other methods and results are already well-estbalished. 

So in conclusion, while I will be doing a study of the meaning of the words in the biblical text that are translated by holy, etc., I will be careful to include all the major forms or divisions in my study.  One of these methods or divisions by itself has value and can sometimes stand alone when the other parts are already well-established, but the checks and balances of the other methods are needed whenever there is a question of parallels or context or meaning or clarity, etc.  That is why my overall method is best called linguistic analysis for my fellow linguistis out there or grammatical analysis for my fellow biblical exegetes.  Please keep watching for my conclusions as my desire it to finish things by the late spring 2013. 

In Christ,

Jon