Blessed and Holy: A Quick Exciting Update

There was a saying I used to hear that never made much sense to me, when I was very young.  Maybe now this saying has some meaning - "You will know, when you know".  I sort of feel that way now about the meaning of holy (and blessed).  Things have come full circle for me after a lot of study, but the key study has been for my book Mental Health for Everyone: In Captivating, Motivating, Inspiring, Meaningful Pictures.  (That book is the main reason you have not seen me posting here regularly in this last year.)  So I now am convinced that holy does in fact mean whole, but in a different sense than the materials that I have presented previously in this blog.

Let me explain this in short version today, because my ultimate goal is to write as my final Ph.D. paper on the topic of the definitions for both blessed and holy.  The paper could end up with a title something like this: Blessed and Holy is Yahweh and His Followers.

Let me give you a glimpse first into my start into the race of knowing the meaning of these two key biblical words - blessed and holy.  Let me define what I mean by a classical and traditional definition of holy before I talk about the history of the definition of holy.

When I speak of the classical definition of holy, I am talking about its definition beginning no later than the 1500s (16th ct.) and extending into the 1900s (20th ct.).   During this time, beginning from the Reformation, scholars relied heavily on the renaissance (renewal) of classical thinking.

The traditional definition refers to a definition that began in the late 1800s to gain a real foothold among scholars and it extends into the 1900s (20th ct.).  It is a movement that primarily tries to remove the errors of classical thinking, dating back to the Greeks and Romans and including the Renaissance.

Each of these has a longer history, I am sure.  What I am doing here is limiting it to the scholarship of these times.  The evidence outside of these time periods is much more susceptible to different interpretations.  The emergence of another renewal of science in the late 1800s removed some of the mist surrounding the meanings that biblical scholars were expressing.  This made the separation of the two definitions much more clear and meaningful.  A little book on holy, by Andrew Murray, a pastor and not a scholar technically, summaries the benefits of the work of scholarship in the late 1800s (19th ct.).

With those imposed limits, the history of the definition of holy can be boiled down to this:

• Classical definition of holy (16th - 20th ct.) - whole as in righteous, just, true, loving, and good.  Whole as perfect; whole as the summation of God's character, etc.  

• Traditional (19th-20th ct.) definition of holy - set apart; separate; relational separation; moral separation; object separation; etc.  

These were the two competing views, when I started my best efforts to settle the issue of the definition of holy.

I have now arrived at a definition for holy that uses the insights from the classical definition of holy, but also applies a corrective.  I likewise am convinced that elements of the traditional view are helpful here, though its helpfulness varies from scholar to scholar.

My goal is to arrive at a definition for blessed and holy that is both natural (fits with all of nature) and Scriptural (fits with all of Scripture).  That is a very tall order, but I think a worth finish line.

I am not at all interested in classical view or traditional views unless they first meet those criteria.  In some ways they do not.  That is the main reason why I depart from their views.  I find good among the efforts under each umbrella, but where I find unnatural things I remove them.  I do the same, when I find un-scriptural things as well.  I eliminate them.

So here are my preliminary definitions:

blessed . blessed as in righteous, true, loving, and good.  (ex. Abraham has many sons)

holy - whole as in wholly just, wholly humble, wholly perfect, wholly great.  (ex. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - the whole of the day)

The proof of all this will be mainly in my first book to be published soon, Mental Health for Everyone and it will be further supported by my final paper for my S.T.M. Degree (a 2 year doctoral program).  It too will be titled Mental Health for Everyone, but it will have a different subtitle like - The Evidence from the Original Languages of Scripture.

The reason for the proof being separate is that my advisers in seminary recognized that I had two projects going in my thesis proposal.  These two projects are each big enough alone to merit individual treatment.  So I am doing my mind-related work first, because the mind is the natural thing to address when we are working on definitions.  Without first thinking well, it will be very hard to define blessed and holy well.  It will end up very sloppy.  Mental health eliminates the basic errors in definition that we otherwise make.

I am very excited about the definitions that I give.  My mental health material which addresses the mind more naturally also addresses the mind more scripturally or biblically.  Those two sources furnish a ton of evidence for those willing to give up being classical and traditional when it contradicts nature or Scripture.  I am willing.

So I am now speaking from the finish line of my first race on the definition of blessed and holy. I will enter another race soon after I am done writing on mental health for seminary.

That race will then be run for a minimum of 2 years.  I can't wait to start the next leg of my journey.  I know that I know at the first finish line, if you know what I mean!  May God truly bless you and make you holy even as he is blessed and holy.


In Christ,

Jon

Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better Through Luke 10:25-28 (Relationship - Part 2 of 5)

RELATIONSHIP

There is no more important time to define holy correctly than RIGHT NOW.  And the best people to have on your team to reach the correct definition are those who possess both common sense and a specialized sense.  It is also good to have on your side commonly known passages like Luke 10:25-28 to make sure your point of view is well-supported.  (More on this part later this week.)  When it comes to understanding the definition of holy in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, surprisingly the biggest problem is not that people do not know Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.  I still wish more did! The bigger problem is that the specialists who know Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek lack too often common sense in their own language.

When people lack common sense, they are undependable.  That can leave us running scared.  That is a very big problem.  It can result in what are called "random catastrophic failures" by yourself and those who are around you.  You need brains that don't have this problem.  You need a brain that has common sense.  It is like a computer with a dependable microprocessor. We have got computer integrated circuits that have overcome this issue, but do we have the brains too?  These kinds of errors need to be taken care of and fast as learned in the computer industry years ago. Again, brains with those kinds of mistakes can leave people running scared.

Let me give you a concrete example.  I once was coaching on a sideline, when the head coach sent into the quarterback a signal from the sidelines for the next play.  The quarterback took the signal to mean that we wanted to do a quick kick.  That wasn't nearly so bad until the rest of the team lined up with him and did just that. It made absolutely no sense whatsoever.  We had time outs to use.  It ended up costing us the game. We were driving at the time for a potential score.  The quarterback had a great sense of his mechanics as a quarterback, which is a specialized knowledge that other players don't possess, but he also lacked common sense.  That made him at a critical point in the game undependable.  It was really costly.  But that was only a game.  In the case of holy, its wrong definition is much more costly.  It can cost us our lives.

So how can "random catastrophic failures" be avoided?  I think I know how.  First, there has to be no opposition to continuing to grow in our specialized knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.  That has to be a GIVEN right now.  What is not a GIVEN is that those with this specialized knowledge are dependable.

The problem of their lack of dependability seems to keep growing.  They keep pointing out what is not dependable (ex. James Barr), but they do a weak job of replacing what is not dependable with something that is dependable.  I'm afraid that a major part of this problem goes back to the place where our schools that were designed to give us sense failed to do so.

Don't get me wrong, I am strongly in favor of schools.  I believe in "sense and schools" as much as I believe in "rules and freedom".  They are inseparable.  But the point of schools is to provide sense and eliminate nonsense. Nonsense is what I believe is resulting in "random catastrophic failure".  Something is wrong. Elimination of what is wrong is not happening frequently enough.  We have got a problem right NOW.

What I would like to do is have everyone take a deep breath (in football we call this a "time out") and take some time to find out to text if they possess common sense.  That goes for everyone who wants to know the meaning of holy or blessed or any biblical words for that matter.  The problem is that there has not been a good test for common sense.  (While there are a lot of tests for whether you know Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek).

Reading Thomas Paine's Common Sense won't do it.  That is somewhat of a dead end.  Common sense is something that you can't study for once you are asked, because then you are admitting you don't HAVE it. Relationally, you either HAVE or you DON'T' HAVE it, when you are asked the question.   So here is the big test.  By the way, I would have struggled to come up with the answer not that long ago myself. So don't feel bad, rather get yourself tested.  That is the first step to getting it, if we don't have it already.

I want you to answer a simple essay question without any studying.  I want to find out whether you have it right NOW (not later).  I want everyone who is going to read my definition of holy or give me their definition of holy to at least possess common sense BEFORE they or I speak on the topic.  (I have already given my definition in earlier posts, if you trust my common sense.)

To do this testing of common sense, I am offering a series of tests.  It will have three parts over the remaining days of this week (the week starting Sunday, April 20, 2014).  Remember to really prove you have common sense right now you have to avoid cheating.  This is all based on a honesty system.  I can't check all the cheaters at the door, but you can check yourself.  By the way, God is checking you at the door (according to my mother).

I want you to post your answers in the comment sections below.  You can write out the answer in as little as 5 to 10 words in a list or you can expand on it.  The question is whether you are among the HAVES or the HAVE NOTS in the place and time you are RIGHT NOW.  There is no better timing.

I will not be posting answers, until there is enough interacting with the question (100 + people), but I will let you know if you get 100 % as soon as I can without giving the answer away to everyone else.  (I will be open to common sense suggestions on how to do this process better. I also have never done this process quiet like this before. You know what that means.  )

So here is the question:  "Tell me in as short of a manner as you can, the common sense words in your language?"  Please time yourself and give yourself a full 15 minute time period, if needed.  I hope you do well!  Thank you for taking part.  

Don't worry, I'll giving the definition of holy to all who possess common sense without "random catastrophic failures!  Again, thank you for taking an active part.


Sincerely,

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Understanding Context Errors

Perhaps no other discipline than anthropology warns about importing outsider ideas into insider ideas to interpret a context.  Just yesterday, I read a fascinating article on how the Ancient Hebrew alphabet of 22 letters could possibly have been expanded into 66 letters at one time in its history.  In other words, each letter could have been written 3 different ways to enhance communication.  I don't think we do that in our context (English in my case).  We can easily miss patterns like this one and then substitute our own. 

My special concern when I mention that is the idea that we see words as synonymously parallel that may instead have a different relationship.  I first became aware of this through a commentator (I'm sorry this older commentator now eludes me -- it could have been Adam Clarke) who explained the way our English translators dealt with the translation of righteousness and justice from the Hebrew and which contexts would the form for justice be translated instead as judgment and that judgment meant both righteousness and justice altogether. 

The pattern here is somewhat rare in our contemporary thinking.  I know I never was made aware of this pattern before.  I had heard of the idea that the lesser can be used to refer to or mean the greater, but I had never thought of things in quite this way. 

Then add to this that a Hebrew scholar years ago that had pointed out that righteousness and justice were not the same things.  Suddenly, I began to see a pattern that did not come from my culture. 

Two different words side by side that were not synonymous.  That is not Shakespearean.  Then these two words, I later discovered were actually perpendicular measurements to one another, not synonymous measurements through the analogy of carpentry and the plumb line and level line. 

Then add to this the context of Hebrew where righteousness seems so far to always appear before justice and then Aramaic where justice seems to appear first instead.  Here I am reminded how the Bible is able to cope in translation with grammatical systems that have different requirements and yet still send the same message. 

All of this adds up to a different context than my own, with the danger that my context cannot be read into theirs.  It appears now that there is a pattern that Hebrew at least likes to honor even on the surface level: 1) greater, 2) lesser, and 3) greatest (the two altogether).  Righteousness would then be the greater, justice the lesser, and judgment the greatest.

So now let's apply that context rule to holy.  What if blessed is the greater, what if holy is the lesser and what if "holiness" (the two altogether) is the greatest.  Could that be the contextual rule that we have been lacking in place of synonymous parallelism too frequently applied?  Could we be missing a major contextual indicator?  I'm just asking in the spirit of my anthropology professors.

Sincerely,

Jon

Holy: Understanding It Better By Uncovering the Hidden

When I was a child my parents had two sets of books below our television in the living room.  One was a set of books about the stories in the Bible.  The other was a set of books about science.  I actually now possess both sets.  For me what was most intriguing in the science books was the things that had been recovered through archaeology about dinosaurs.  These discoveries uncovered the hidden knowledge of dinosaurs.  Likewise in studying the meaning of holy, what is intriguing is what I have uncovered about the meaning of holy that I never knew before and still millions of people do not know. 

Before I go any further, I want to include a visual of what I am saying. 

The bones of dinosaurs are not the only hidden truths in our world and often these hidden truths can become "bones of contention".   The first real discovery for me in 2004 pointed out to me that there exists bones of contention when it comes to the meaning of holy.  There is not only one possibility for its definition.  At that time, I came to terms with the idea that there might be two good possibilities (three later): "set apart" and "moral wholeness".  I added "pure" later.

So let me disclose a few "hidden truths" for you.  Here is a partial list:

1) Strong's dictionary (lexicon) in the back of his exhaustive concordance lists "wholly" as one of the glosses or translations for the meaning of holy.  This is quite different from the other glosses or translations that he lists.  This was my first hidden truth that started me out on my quest.  Please see that the start of things is not that complicated.  We can all do this, if we can read and have a library to draw books from. 

2) What you discover after learning that the KJV uses "wholly" as a translation for qadosh, hagios, etc. is that this translation accurately reflects prior scholarship and prior theology in the Reformation traditions of Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Wesley, and Spurgeon.  Each of them are historically famous because they each uncovered something hidden, so it would not be surprising if the  next Great Awakening or revival began with another discovery of something hidden. 

3) You will then discover that one of the most important historical documents on the meaning of holy is no longer accessible and appears to be likely laying on a shelf in Germany.  Johann (John) Bengel had an introductory presentation on holy he offered his students.  I have not been able to find even a German copy of this and to the best of my knowledge it remains hidden.  This scholarship may be critical to understanding a lost view of the meaning of holy.  He understood qadosh and hagios in the sense of moral wholeness.  You will discover too that due to the lack of footnotes in the older tradition of scholarship, it is hard digging to know where older Protestant Reformers have gone when it comes to word definitions. 

4) You will also discover that the meaning of "wholly" attached to the translation of "holy" in English does have a legitimate etymology in English and in terms of having to do with the concept of being whole.  You will also discover that this is why some people consider the meaning of holy as whole as relevant as far as what a translations means (not what the original means).  They are stating their case not from the Hebrew original, but from a tradition of translation going back to 1611 and beyond.  By itself, this is harmless as long as we understand that we then must also examine the original words of qadosh, hagios, etc. after examining differing translations. 

5) You will discover that the lexicons we use for determining the meaning of qadosh, hagios, etc. are largely built off of a single tradition of earlier lexicons.  So while there is a large QUANTITY of lexicons for N.T. Greek for example, the QUALITY of the entries does not change too much.  The best evidence for this is found in A History of New Testament Lexicography by John A. L. Lee.  You will find this further reinforced in Studies in New Testament Lexicography by David S. Hasselbrook.  I am currently working on the same issue from the Old Testament side and so far much appears the same.  More will be said on this in future blog entries.

6) You will discover that the etymology for the meaning of qadosh or hagios are not certain and are controversial in some of the better lexicons like Clines' lexicon of Hebrew.  You will also find that this is not the case in most lexicons.  They list meanings as though they are certain.  That I discovered is misleading, based on deeper study.  So lexicons don't help as much as could be hoped. 

7)  You will discover that lexicography is such a large task covering so many words that word studies are more helpful than lexicons.  They go deeper on one word rather than wider over many words.  This is a real advantage. 

8) You will discover that when you read the various word studies (which I am collecting as a set currently) that they still rely more on etymology than they realize and that by testing only one option, the word studies are limited in their value.  Because JUSTICE to all three major possible translations: is not done, the QUALITY of both lexicons and word studies are compromised while QUANTITY  of lexicons and word studies is still growing. 

9) You will now have reached a point that you realize that there is a lot you did not know that has been hidden from you and others.  You will realize that you where unaware of CATEGORIES  of meaning that are possible for holy.  You will realize that there is more than one KIND that is possible.  This is shock you, if you have been kept in isolation from information.  Why were you not informed from the start about three possible meanings for holy as a translation rather than just one?  I found the internet to be valuable in breaking out of a view that only gave me one option to consider rather than various KINDS.  God after all created variety and different kinds of things, not one kind of thing.  So when it comes down to words and their meanings, it is good to test the best options of different KINDS that you can.  You may have known two ("set apart", "pure") from contemporary lexicons and word studies, but not all three (adding "moral wholeness" to the first two).  Fortunately, Strong's Concordance (and dictionary/lexicon) is easily found by anyone.  You just have to slow down and read it carefully. 

10)  You can also discover that while some panic at the possibility that Christians and Jews may misunderstand the meaning of holy that this is a false panic or worry.  With three possibilities you simply need to make sure you don't exclude any of them as possible, while functioning with what you consider the most probable and then follow this up by test, test, test to uncover what is currently hidden.  This is done with textual variants all the time dating back to ancient copiers of the Hebrew text.  Why not do this with definitions too?  Can't we play safe, by considering all three until there is stronger evidence?  I haven't discovered yet why we can't.  . 

11)  You will discover that advances in linguistics gives us an advantage over Reformation exegesis provided you also understand and don't lose or hide the strengths of their method.  What I have discovered is a careful balance of continuity and change is what should apply to biblical exegesis and to scientific linguistics as working together.  James "Too Far" Barr, opened the door to linguistic semantics, though he overstates himself at times in favor of change.  Still this is a move forward in the majority of instances where semantics or linguistics has been applied.  I learned this largely from Dr. William A. Smalley, Dr. Donald N. Larson, and Dr. Daniel P. Shaw.  You can discover this for yourself if you read David Alan Black, Moises Silva, etc  There writings relevant to word meanings are listed all over the internet. 

12) You will discover my one major caveat with James Barr and his book Semantics and Biblical Language is his remarks directly concerning the etymology of holy.  He creates a false logic in saying that some are moving from holy to whole and then back to qadosh and its meaning as the original in Hebrew.  He implies that some were arguing that qadosh means whole based on the meaning of the English word holy meaning whole.  What he misses (lies hidden from his view) is that holy as meaning whole is what earlier English translators meant in choosing holy as a translation.  This was not as a way to determine the meaning in the original, but as a way to express its meaning in English.  It may not be an accurate translation, but it could be.  The major caveat also means that Barr is hiding from our view (whether intentional or not - I think it is the latter) the historic (diachronic) meaning of the word holy in English that was hidden from my generation at least.  I never knew it had ties to another English word whole as in "moral wholeness".  What Barr does is block this from people's view, right when they had a chance to be more aware rather than less aware.  I like to think that this full knowledge or better yet fuller knowledge or above (previous) knowledge is helpful as long as we remain committed to the original text.  This is one of the reasons, I am so happy to have studied under Daniel P. "Fuller Knowledge" Fuller rather than "too far Barr".  Better yet would have been studying under both at the same school.   So equipped with a fuller knowledge of the English word holy's meaning in translation,  the problem of qadosh's meaning should be solved by testing holy's English meaning as one of the possible meanings in the original text, and not by keeping it hidden from being one of the possibilities.  It is ironic that Barr in this instance hides knowledge from our view rather than advancing it as he does with the introduction of linguistic and semantic principles for word studies, etc.  WE must remember that not all progress or change is progress just because of the progress of time. 

13)  You will discover that while Louw and Nida made some mistakes in their Greek-English lexicon, they also performed a great service.  You can also find much of their work on-line.  They were smart enough to distinguish between "definitions" and "glosses".  You will then discover what this distinction is.  In an English dictionary, we are given a full definition and not just synonyms, antonyms, and the parts of speech.  The tendency in lexicons is to given a list of "glosses" or words that are used in English translations and then identify their contexts.  The problem is that sometimes these short examples from translation can be misleading, because they are very dependent on the language the word is being translated into.  My favorite example is kol in Hebrew.  It properly or seminally means "whole", but in English it is mostly translated into "all".  Gesenius and others point out that this is because of the nature of Western languages (including English), where we like to speak of "all the parts of" rather than "the whole of" which is more awkward grammatically for us.  This awkwardness, however, is changing to where we might be able to more frequently list the proper or seminal meaning as "whole".  That would help more people uncover the hidden presence of "whole" in the original Hebrew. 

14)  You will discover that taking a more historical (diachronic) approach to both Hebrew and Greek and including their modern usage for some words can be fruitful.  This is demonstrated in my own personal experience of learning Hebrew from Dr. William Bean and from Hasselbrook's book that I mentioned previously.  I think Hasselbrook has clearly uncovered something like Dr. Bean did for me personally. 

15) You will discover that future lexicons need to take into consideration even more later discoveries in both Hebrew and Greek of sources more closely tied to oral speech on the street.  Older lexicons tend to rely more on literary Greek rather than koine or oral Greek.  I still am investigating Hebrew in this regard to see if there is a parallel issue. 

16) You will discover that Louw's and Nida's method of using domains has a great deal to commend it.  While their execution of it in their lexicon can be confusing, it was progressive according to scholars like Lee.  I personally think that it would be more helpful to return to an alphabetic listing and then put the semantic domains organization in the back of the book.  Their reversal of that order is I think what keeps many of my fellow scholars from using it more frequently.  What is more needed is to uncover their underlying four major semantic or reference categories that are used listed as: 1) things, 2) events, 3) attributes, and 4) relations.  These two men used a new terminology in their book that explains their lexicon which perhaps made their discussion less understood rather than more understood.  I have been able, through students in my bible classes, to simplify their terms down to: 1) things, 2) actions, 3) amounts, and 4) relationships.  I also have re-ordered them to match with the order of heart, soul, strength, and mind from Luke's gospel; so that now I list them as:         1) amounts, 2) relationships, 3) actions, and 4) things.  I also have added identity as a way to unite all four kinds together as self does the various parts of heart, etc. in Luke's gospel.  That identity would also reflect the whole of kinds or classes of meaning or referents.  Discovering that this is the foundation of Louw's and Nida's work is critical to understanding the greatest possible advance from their work and their lexicon.  By the way, I have discovered that it is much wiser to judge Nida by this foundation of four classes of meaning and by his lexicon than by his work on the issues of translation that played out in the TEV (or Good News Bible). 

So after reading this blog entry, I hope you sense that I have uncovered a lot that you did not know previously.  Keep in mind that I too once was not aware of this full list of hidden things.  It has taken a lot of digging, but I feel that my digging through new books and old books is beginning to really pay off.  I sense a fruitful end to a long journey may not be that far off in "discovering the hidden past" of the meaning of holy.  If you want to join with me in digging, please feel free to contact me.  I am sure you can find me through the web.  Otherwise, I hope you will do some digging of your own.  It is safest to observe for yourself, when you can and it is possible to make rich observations that you previously missed just by extending the time you allow for observation.  Give my findings "soak time".  If you decide to be a discoverer yourself, then you can start with your own translation and Strong's concordance.  It is a good point from which to launch your initial search.  Happy digging and uncovering of hidden things.  Take care. 


In Christ,

Jon

Holy: Understanding It Better Through Understanding Another Biblical Concept

[Please note that due to time constraints this piece needs lots of editing with citing sources and it is likely to be divided into parts, but I think this first half of part one is valuable, as it stands alone.  I will eventually be adding more source references, citing them and Scripture, and I will finish the part on meaningful.  I expect it to be very helpful when complete.  Thank you for your patience.   Glean what you can for now.]

There are only three primary possible meanings for holy as the English translation of qadosh (Hebrew), qad …. (Aramaic), and hagios (Greek) in the Biblical text.  They are: 1) set apart, 2) pure, and 3) (moral) wholeness.   I find that those who have resolved it down to one definition are a bit premature at this moment in time (we still have to wait for a better resolution) and that those who keep coming up with more definitions outside the main three (twenty plus) are a bit post-mature (I hope the resolution to the meaning of qadosh, etc. is not as far off as they make it appear).  But before we define a biblical term by any of these English words, we need to also make sure we understand these popular English ideas in their Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek biblical context.  In this blog entry, I am going to start with looking into the meaning of wholeness, because it is such a hot topic in popular education and in the realm of worldview discussions among philosophers, anthropologists, futurists, theologians, and church planters.   So here is the opening question: “How is the concept of being whole viewed in the wider biblical context outside of the words qadosh, qad …, and hagios?”  

The first thing to note is that wholeness or the whole in English translation appears to be quite infrequent in the biblical text, when viewed through an English translation.  This is despite the fact that current worldviews like that of Integral theory, or an integrative vision, or a spokesperson like popular philosopher Ken Wilber indicate that it is a very important aspect of worldview.   Wilber in particular is expressing a form of holism or wholism as opposed to atomism or reductionism in his “theory of everything”.   It is also surprising that it does not show up in the biblical text more frequently, because of the views of Christian writers like Pastor Rick Warren, who see healthy as the theme for the next Great Awakening of Christianity.  I see a little influence on the central theme from his mentor, Peter Drucker, who was a pretty good futurist besides being a management guru.   So does the Bible not address the issue of wholeness as a significant part of worldview or is it not as central as some holists or wholists think?

I think this is a great question.  I was troubled by this question myself.  If wholeness is important and I believe that Yahweh God is the Bible’s primary author, then God would not miss its importance.  So what is going on in the biblical text and in our understanding of the world?  Are they out of sync with each other or not?   Is here a problem with the worldview or the Bible  in relation to reality?  Is there yet another place where the deficiency in addressing the issue of wholeness might arise? 

Since I know Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek well enough to at least spot check the major words in translations, as I read them; I elected years ago to go to an interlinear bible for reading the Bible in my devotions.   This helped me begin to notice that the Hebrew word kol that properly means “whole” according to Strong and others, is not translated as such into English, except infrequently.  So the question arises as to why is it not translated as “whole”, except infrequently when that is its proper meaning?  This also holds true to some extent also for the Greek word holos that means primarily whole.  You might also note that holism or holistic are derived from this Greek word holos. 

So why is “whole” found infrequently in English translations of the Bible?  The answer I found to this question is very intriguing for two reasons.   First, it begins with an historical difference between Eastern and Western languages.    I am not sure this can be placed on a worldview level, but there does appear to be a difference of some kind in speech with regard to tendencies or starting points.  In language or speaking at least, the West seems to begin from the parts making the word “all” as in” all of the parts” central, while the East, in the Hebrew language at least, seems to begin from the whole as in the “whole of the congregation”.  We must, however, be careful and stick to language and not make broader conclusions on worldview quite yet.  Second, the Hebrew word kol (especially) and the Greek word holos are not infrequent words in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek biblical text and in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, so the implications for translation could be significant for addressing worldview concerns.   So the biblical text and the worldviews that say holism or wholism is important may not be deficient except in translation, but not in the original languages.  The problem with not finding texts dealing with the whole in an English translation might have to do more with the loss of total communication, beginning with various English translations. 

The first clue for me on a translation level that something might be amiss came from Gesenius’ Hebrew and English Lexicon.  In it, he points out: “In Western languages it [kol] has to be rendered by adjectives”.  He is also implying by this that in Eastern languages, that this is not the case, and that Hebrew would be included as part of the list of Eastern languages.   Note especially his choice of the words “has to be”.   That is significant, because he is suggesting it is a rule of Western languages including English.  He explains this further in terms of when it is used for one continuous thing and of English in particular: “… in English this has to be expressed either by the whole preceded by the article or by all followed by it; when the noun is made definite by a pronoun suffixed, it must be rendered in English by all without the article, or else by the whole of….”.   This quote is a bit technical, but it caught my attention, because I had begun to substitute “of the whole” in place of “all” in my devotions based on the Hebrew word kol.  I started to do this substitution, because I knew that kol properly meant the” whole, totality” according to Gesenius and not just James Strong.  This substituting process of “the whole of”, worked seamlessly hundreds of times with occasional exceptions due to change in context.

Now I want to go beyond just this first clue and just the process of translation and look at the total communication involved.  I believe translation gets its prominence from the fact that it is the starting point for total communication.  But I also believe that one of my mentors, Dr. William A. Smalley, who was a brilliant translator and teacher, saw that translation of the Bible and the church go hand in hand in the case of communication.  So I want to organize what I refer to as total communication around the following steps, as related to the biblical concepts of the Hebrew  word kol, the Aramaic … or the Greek word holos.  They are the 5 T’s: 1) translation, 2)transfer, 3) total, 4)train, and 5)teach.  We need all five of these for total communication!  Anything less on a fundamental level is less than adequate.  Just think of this process as “Mr. T”, as a memory tool.  He after all regarded himself as the total package.  The five T’s are the total package for communication.  As an aside, I found all five of these in Nehemiah 8, the chief text in the Jewish tradition for the Ezra school of exegetical method. 

So looking at wholeness from a translation standpoint.  The very best way to translate it is to produce clear meaningful communication.   There are two parts to this.  The first is addressed through quantity and the second through quality. 

We arrive at the goal of clear communication through minimizing the quantity of options.  Let me illustrate.  Imagine you enter a room filled with one third of the people shouting “yes”, another thirds saying “no”, and another third saying “maybe”.  Is it likely to be clear what they are saying assuming all voices equal?  The simple answer is “no”.  Now imagine walking into a room filled with all of the people saying “yes”.  Is it likely to be clear that what they are saying assuming all voices equal?  The simple answer is “yes”. 

So now let’s approach the biblical text with the question:  How many? 

In the Hebrew context there is one word used in many contexts.  It is clear to the original audience that it means properly “whole” unless some of the many contexts are clear it is otherwise.  That is how kol can have more than one meaning.  It borrows the clarity of another word or other words in the context.    So the “one” remains clear even with more than one definition in a supposed dictionary, because some other word makes things clear.  That is how I speak to others everyday with near effortlessness and the majority of times my communication is clear. 

In the Greek context of the Septuagint and the Hebrew Scriptures in a synagogue, things get less clear in one sense.  Kol , one Hebrew word, is now translated by two Greek words, pas and holos.  This is where the beginning of clarity can become less clear.  Without the knowledge that Gesenius possessed about the rules of Western languages, some begin to assume that pas is the primary meaning of kol and then say that kol means primarily “all”.  Eugene Nida rightly points out that one language’s glosses (ways of translating a word) are not themselves definitions within the primary or other language.  A word must be defined in its own language system and not in the context of the language it is translated into.  Gesenius and Nida, though separated by time are largely agreeing with each other.   The other key here is to realize that Moses and so the Hebrew was still present in the synagogues to correct any misunderstandings due to translation.  The original continued to keep things clearer. 

In English translation things get less clear and so a little more complicated.  Kol, one Hebrew word , is now translated by three or more.  Kol in the Hebrew is translated by “all” (majority) or “whole” mainly depending on the Septuagint’s Greek translation influence.   In the New Testament the Greek pas and the Greek holos are both used where kol would appear in Hebrew.  Pas is mainly translated as “all” while holos is translated by “whole” or “all” adding another layer of complexity and lack of clarity.  It is now as though kol primarily means “all” and holos means primarily “whole”, but this meaning is further diminished in English translation. 

A concession must be made here so that no one understands me to think that a wooden (without context) literalism (proper meaning) is in order.  The statements above apply to primary contexts mostly.   As the contexts become more marginalized then the use of “holos” or “whole” in English, etc. becomes less acceptable.  In English, “any, every, etc. are very appropriate in the more marginal cases of meaning or definition. 

I hinted at this earlier, but one of the main things translators should consider is the bilingual or even trilingual context of the 1^st century.  There are advantages here because the original has more explicit influence than it does in a context today in which most only access an English translation based on their monolingual status.  The proper meaning of “whole” for kol would have had an easier way of sticking around and the people could have known about the difference in rules or tendencies as Gesenius suggests.  Translators or commentators today frequently quote “all” as the first or proper meaning of Hebrew kol.  This betrays their monolingual spectacles.  So how should the word kol be translated now for clarity? 

I personally think clarity would be enhanced by adjusting to two contexts.  The context of the 1^st century and the 21^st century.  First the two are not the same, kol’s presence would have kept the proper meaning of whole more in focus.  So now I think we must translate kol and even pas and holos with the English word “whole” where appropriate to the Hebrew context and our own.  There is no bilingualism in churches to balance both “whole and “all the parts”.  We might as well realize that Hebrew is not likely to be read out loud at church.  It might still be read at synagogue, but not many (basically none!) Christians know that!  For clarity’s sake, we do not need to follow the wooden rules of Western languages of old.  English is now adaptable to either and “whole” would give greater clarity.  This whole discussion matters because of the goal of clarity.  So what about being meaningful? 

                Change information load

                From three languages to one language

                                Explicit when bilingual and even implicit.

                                Unknown to monolingual. 

 How much? (high quality)

                Kol – poor quality (transliteration) for an English speaker

Holos/holistic/holism – holistic carries a great deal of extra meaning beyond whole.  So this option may have to be tempered. 

All – while necessary in a Western language only context (Greek, Latin, English), in a wider one context of both West and East, it may no longer be the best.  In the latter, it may be more paramount to address wholeness directly in translation following the hippie movement especially. 

Whole – the best understood by English speakers in the context of a debate between wholism (wary of holism overstatement) and atomism, reductionism and fragmentism.  It is also possible because it is not necessary any longer to only speak from the tendency or angle of “all the parts” as opposed to the “the whole of it”.  I think the rules equally allow the latter and to better understand the biblical text it is now superior. 

 Why it matters?  Meaningfulness!  From meaningless (“all [of the parts of the] of the congregation”= the whole congregation) to meaningful “the whole of the congregation”).  The latter is better understood in terms of making everything explicit and of addressing current issues that people understand due to the topic of wholeness being a hot topic of debate.

In Christ, 

Jon 

Holy: Understanding it Better Through the Biblical Words for Whole

I'm sure you have arrived at my blog in search for the meaning of holy.  Let me say this from the top.  If you want your questions answered like "snappy answers to stupid questions", then you have arrived at the wrong place.  It is my intention to give thoughtful answers to great questions.  The answer to your great question: "What is the meaning of holy in the Bible?" requires more than a snappy (clever) answer.  It requires that you be aware of more than one option (pure, set apart, whole), that you research the topic, and that you draw a conclusion based on principles (not banners or bandwagons).  This entry, I think, will be one of the most important entries, because it is not just important to understand the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek behind the words translated as holy; but it is also important to understand the biblical meanings for each of the three options listed above.  The option that  I will explore in this case is the biblical meaning of whole and the biblical words for it. 

Let's start out with the Hebrew word kol (Strong's # 3605) and Greeke word holos (Strong's # ...).  

(I'll get back to this as time allows.  Thank you for your patience.  Please examine some of my other entries.  Thank you.)

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
 

Holy: Understanding Better the Value of Education

In Peter F. Drucker's (arguably the best management writer of the 20th entury) writings, you may find that one of his predictions for the future, based on what is already a known fact (a change) and then also what is the pattern of past history (how long it takes before the change takes effect or people recognize it as valid)  is that "we are clearly in the middle of this transformation (from the Knowledge Age), indeed, if history is any guide, it will not be completed until 2010 to 2020".  I find this quote telling, because it shows that though a shift may be present, it may take a long time in coming.  That is important, because we then cannot be simply satisfied with the current majority view in a controversy or in the face of uncertainty.  We must dig deeper into issues to see if the only issue is that the time has not yet arrived in human understanding for what is already acknowledged by others including a minority.

Drucker was referring to the transformation in society that is coming from the G.I. Bill which resulted in a national shift in the level of education beginning with the WWII generation who returned from war and then enrolled in higher education at previously unknown levels.  He seems to think that the effect of this education combined with other lesser events of the time set up the time of transformation or change to begin around 1960.

I am writing about this, because it is also interesting that in the scholarship of determing the meaning of holy, there were also four major names who made major statements about biblical understanding during the '60s.  This might be only coincidence or it could be that the increase in education began a slow movement toward us discovering things that had previously been lost. 

First, there was the biblical scholar, James Barr, who created a major change in biblical exegesis that still has not ceased in its effect.  He introduced biblical scholarship to modern linguistics and its insights into language.  He especially took aim at some exegetical fallicies committed in biblical scholarship.  This is hard for some of the more traditional minds to accept.  Its culmination is still in front of us and part of the reason for the delay in time might also be due to some of Barr's own excesses. 

Second, there was a very important anthropologist, Mary Douglas, who tried to better understand biblical laws when it came to things like dietary laws.  She expressed the idea that the laws must somehow be explained better than it had been previously.   She suggested that the underlying concept could be that of being whole as opposed to somehow having a blemish or a shortcoming.  In her initial idea, the idea was that certain animals were less than whole according to a comparison with the animals considered kosher.  She then suggested that holy might mean whole also based on the whole stones used for an altar.  Many biblical scholars will admit, if they are honest, that any writing on Leviticus must now at least take into consideration her view.  Jacob Milgrom, who wrote a major commentary on Leviticus, for one interacted with her though he never seems to quite accept her view entirely.  Yet he understood well Mary's challenge to take these ancient laws seriously and not just write them off as primitive in the same way older schools of anthropology and archaeology tended to do. 

Third, there was a systematic theologian, R. A. Finlayson, who seems to have discovered in Andrew Murray that the so-called conservatives of the 1960s were in fact not conservative or fundamentalist theologians.  Rather they were the innovators when it came to the meaning of holy, based on the writings of Andrew Murray.  Murray wrote during the changes occuring both in the late 1800s and in the early 1900s.  Murray had compiled in his volume Holy in Christ, a very simple history of interpreting holy's meaning up until his own day and pointed out that our popular defintion of holy as separate did not fit with the views of theologians like Jonathan Edwards.  R. A. Finlayson tried to also ground Edwards' and Murray's position in his discussions of the holy's Hebrew etymology.  For a while his ideas caught on in scholarly literature like biblical dictionaries, but then later faded. 

Fourth, a pastor on the West Coast and living in California, recognized that our English word holy, as used by the older translators, had the idea of wholeness behind it when it was selected as the word best qualified to translate the Hebrew word qadosh.  He may have relied on some of the popular etymological insights into English, using an older volume by Sweate.  Whatever he did, he without hesitation made this known to his flock.  As a pastor, he thought that the word holy had been turned into a negative term from the beautiful term it was according to biblical writers.  His commentary on Leviticus, The Way of Wholeness, points out in its title the meaning of holy as whole. 

Each of these people were making an impact in the 60s.  The most problematic impact is that of Barr, because his view in some people's minds dismisses the meaning of holy as whole, simply because  he said so himself, but also because etymology is a tool that must be used with utmost care and he was not sure it was used carefully in the case of defining holy.  Here he seems to differ with the other three.  Yet this is where my own work takes off.  I am trying to take a hard look at the  meaning of holy through his insights primarily.  That may mean learning from his cautions while disagreeing with some of his conclusions.  That might in part in explain the slowness in gaining insight from his ideas.  He was after all a little hyper-critical at times. 

Let me summarize the gains from each of these four people. From Barr and semantics and linguists, we can learn to be more careful with the method of etymology. From Douglas, we can learn to be more careful in judging the past as primitive or nonsensical, instead it is our job to make sense in their terms. From Finlayson, we can learn to not judge a book by its cover. Just saying you are a conservative, does not make you a conservative (or a fundamentalist). From Stedman, we can learn that preacher have a responsibility to preach or herald a concept, even while others might be scornful of the idea. Some may have scorned his idea (including Barr!), but that does not mean he was not correct at the level he was operating at as a pastor (and as a mentor to Chuck Swindoll) in talking to the masses who entered his door. Remember many of us never learned of the remotest possibility that holy in the Bible could mean whole (I learned it in my forties). Isn't that a sad thing, not to at least be aware of the option?  Didn't Stedman do people a great favor by at least giving them another option to look for in the biblical text?  Didn't he in fact enrich their lives more?  Isn't it sad that in many places there was only one option to chose from because the other was an unknown due to higher than mighty attitude?  

So we are now left in the wake of a coming transformation with the task of sorting out this legacy that we have been handed from the 1960s.  I wish I had more time to write about this on-line, but the need for making a living will not allow it.  But given the time the bigger question is this: "Will we benefit from the efforts of these people or will we in stubborn resistance to the past squander a wonderful opportunity?" 

That is yet to be answered.  But somewhere in the world, I expect Drucker's words may prove prophetic though he never claimed to be a prophet.  He just looked at what had already changed and then looked to past history to see how long it took for an idea to become a transformation. 

I personally did not directly benefit from the G.I Bill.  I'm not part of that generation.  But I have stuck with the huge investment in education as a way to move forward in our own time through fresh discoveries (including that of the past).  I have learned a great deal from my studies at the university level, the graduate school level and now at the post-graduate level.  They have all taught  me things I did not know existed before. 

So look out, you might be surprised or excited during the decade we are in and following.  And the meaning of holy may turn out to be the key to all of it.  Please feel free to respond to any of my posts.  I try to be generous in publishing them.  I have only one that I still need to understand before I publish it.  I want more than anything for my blog to be more of a dialogue and less of a monologue.  Take care. 

Sincerely,

Jon. 

 

Holy: Understanding it Better By Matching the Method to the Issue

Yesterday, while working in my garage, I used a variety of tools depending on what I was trying to accomplish.  To remove most nails, I was able to use a standard finishing hanmer, but in some cases I had to use a heavier wrecking hammer to remove some of the more stubborn nails from the 2 x 4s..  In one case, I even had to switch to a long crow bar.  But besiders removing nails, I had to remove a few screws and for these I switched to a power drill.  To learn the meaning of words in the biblical text, it is also very important to match the method to the issue.  If I were to try to use the wrong tool, each of these projects would have resulted in wasted effort and time and maybe even failure.  This likewise can happen in biblical study.  One of the keys to understanding the meaning of holy is to use a method that fits the issue.  The issue is that there is uncertainty about the meaning of holy in the original language(s) of the Bible.

When striving to deal with uncertainty as to what holy means, it is a challenge to select the best method to use.  The method needs to address the issue of uncertainty directly or it won't be the very best.  There is not just the problem of people defining the word for holy differently.  The other is the difficulty that there are a number of exegetical (reading and interpreting) methods that different biblical scholars use.  But these difficulties are not a reason for despair.  The uncertainty can be addressed, just like the nails and the screws in my garage wall.  The only question is whether we have chosen the best tool for the project to be able to feel confident about success. 

As an undergrad, I was trained initially in two methods of biblical study: (1) inductive biblical study and (2) linguistic analysis.  My primary method today is a blend of both of these methods.  The inductive method that I learned initially was that of Dr. Daniel P. Fuller, who also was a mentor of Dr. John S. Piper and I had the good fortune of studying under Piper during my undergrad years and Fuller during my seminary years.  I found the inductive method to be very helpful for gathering fresh insights.  Yet I also found inconsistencies between it and the linguistic analysis that I learned from Dr. William A. Smalley during my undergraduate years and Dr. Daniel P. Shaw during my seminary years.  The advance for me today is that I now have brought both these methods full circle to where those inconsistencies are no longer present and the organization of my method is primarily responsible for removing any supposed inconsistencies.  This did not happen overnight!

So lets talk more about matching a method to the issue.   The first thing to realize is that there are not shortcuts you can take, but there is a very real path we can all take.  Besides the authors or teachers above, I have seven very valuable books (and some were also my teachers) on exegesis or Bible study on my shelf.  They are from easiest to most difficult:

1)  Rick Warren's Bible Study Methods:12 Ways You Can Unlock God's Word by Rick Warren, 2006
2)  How to Study Your Bible: The Lasting Rewards of the Inductive Approach by Kay Arthur, 1994
3) Living By the Book by Howard G Hendricks and William D. Hendricks, 1991
4) Methodical Bible Study by Robert. A. Trainia, 1980
5) A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible: Playing by the Rules by Robert H. Stein, 1994
6) Toward an Exegetical Theology: Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and Teaching by Walter C. Kaiser Jr., 2009
7) Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Basic Guide for Students and Ministers, Revised and Expanded Edition by Michael J. Gorman

(The only one that I am really not sure how to rank is Kay Arthur's book.  Somehow it is more complicated than it looks on the surface.)

 The method I am going to use to define holy in my post-graduate studies and for my post-graduate paper is clearly on the level of Gorman's book or should I say has to be on that level.  (In my blog and in this entry, I try to drop nuggets from more than one level.)  I find his method to be very well-organized and that might be his main advance over the others.  I do though think his method needs to be supplemented.

First, he needs to realize that while he outlines a very complete method for interpreting the text, he is not equally complete in his method of laying writing a paper or structuring a sermon.  He leaves that side to be supplemented by the materials written by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. who deals equally with "text" and with "sermon" sides or both sides of the bridge. 

Second, his main strength is in the "elements" of the process of exegesis, but he is not equally effective in putting together the whole.  Related to my last suggested supplement, his outline is not balanced, so that the whole picture gets obscured.  I mainly correct this also through my "Linguistic Analysis" tools that I learned and studied.  For this, I credit Dr. William A. Smalley (and Dr. Donald N. Larson, his colleague) and Dr. Daniel P. Shaw.  They are how I will be able to create a better outline of my exegetical (read and interpret) method. 

The main point I want to make for people on all ewvery levels is that the method that is chosen is not just a matter of ease or difficulty, it is also a matter of directly addressing the issues involved.  A very easy method like Rick Warren's might address the issues or a very difficult one like Michael Gorman's might as well, but the question remains: "Do they address the central issue?"  The central issue is that there is a measure of uncertainty even among top scholars as to what holy means.  (I'll explain later (again) the interim method to follow while the uncertainty exists).

Warren's book could deal with this topic through his section on character qualities.  Uncertainty would likely fall under his banner of negative character qualities.  This would be a great place for the simplest person to begin to understand the issues.  Gorman's more complex book also does address uncertainty, but I am not real happy with his discusion, because in the end he does not aim to reduce uncertainty, but to accept it as somewhat natural or positive (Gorman, p. 131-137).   I think he overstates his case and I think people like Walter C. Kaiser Jr. from my list above would also be troubled by his overstated view. 

To deal with this same issue on the same level as Gorman (no offense to Warren), I have found a supplement in the writings of David G. Ullman who has written a number of articles and books on the subject of "Robust Decisions".  He has this to say about robust decisions:

Robust decision making extends ... to general decision making with uncertainty considered from the beginning: controlling what uncertainty you can and finding the best possible solution that is insensitive as possible to the remaining uncertainty.  A robust decision is the best possible choice, found by eliminating all the uncertainty possible within available resources, and chosen with known and acceptable satisfaction and risk.  www.realinnovation.com/content/c070122a.asp

What I like is that Ullman sees nothing wrong with the effort to "minimize uncertainty" (while Gorman might) and at the same time he is not ignoring uncertainty from the beginning of a process as though a negative trait does not exist, but rather he faces into it like a robust sailor facing into the wind.  There has been a dual problem in dealing with the meaning of holy: 1) one side assumes the postive quality of certainty and 2) another side assumes the negative quality of uncertainty.  Many biblical exegetical (reading and interpreting) methods assume certainty rather than buidlling it through a process that seeks to minimize posssible uncertainty.  . 

I think uncertainty can be reduced to a very satisfactory level, but it is good to know how this is done.  It is also important to realize the different types of uncertainty.  Ullman outlines four types of possible conditions with information.  It can be: 1) uncertain, 2) incomplete, 3) evolving (I prefer "changing", because it lacks scientific baggage), and 4) conflicting.  If all these conditions are present without any reductions in them, it means the situation is quite risky.

The reason why these types of conditions are important is precisely because we don't want to be taking excessive risks with who it is we worship and whether we have eternal life or not.  We want an alternative with "known and acceptable satisfaction and risk".  This goes beyond Michael Gorman's satisfaction point.  So I will be using a method that addresses the issue: the issue of uncertainty.  I cannot side-step it by simply reading a popular lexicon (foreign language dictionary).  

Finally, the big task in front of me is to finish my thesis or dissertation paper for seminary, because by using that method (largely outlined in Gorman), I can successfully reduce the amount of uncertainty about the three most probable definitions of holy: 1) set apart or separate, 2) pure or 3) whole. 

In the meantime (until I or someone else finishes our scholarly work), as I say elsewhere, do as the ancient Jews did when facing uncertainty as a reality with the precious ancient biblical Hebrew (and Aramaic) manuscripts.  They recorded the most likely alternative in the body of the text and any variants in the margin, until some later time in which new information might later eliminate alternatives. 

That is what I am doing now in order to keep me from prematurely latching on to one alternative without giving the others their just opportunity.  This is one of the great blunders in decision making or in interpreting the meaning of a word.  It is the premature acceptance of an alternative without the testing of others. 

So when working in the garage, you might be able to get the job done using a regular finishing hammer while I may need a heavier wrecking hammer.  It does not matter as long as the tool fits the issue.  So make sure whether you use a simple method like Warren's or a tougher one like Gorman's method that you don't avoid the negative quality of uncertainty, but rather you deal with it.  Method needs to fit the issue(s).  May God grant the entire human world greater certainty on what holy means!  And may we also use the best methods available to us to face the issues! 

Sincerely,

Jon





 

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

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Concrete Objects

You may not be aware previously that the meaning of holy is uncertain. There are many words in the Bible whose meanings are not difficult to determine. Holy does not fall into that category. So in light of this uncertainty, I have decided to work on the issue from a position that is certain.


Holy in the bible means either whole or separate. I would rank the meaning of whole at 70% and the meaning of separate at 30%. Many would reverse those two percentages, yet I have the advantage of a great deal of unpublished material these other people have never seen. I am doing my best to get all of this unpublished material on the internet, but my time is limited at this point in the course of my ministry.


Only in the face of uncertainty, do I think it is wise to hold onto two definitions of holy. I believe we live in one of those times. So it is wise, to "not throw the baby out with the bathwater", but to be sure you've separated the two of them first. This same sage advice is foolish, when no reasonable uncertainty exists.

I am also aware that these promising definitions for holy are polar opposites. So my goal is to remove any reasonable uncertainty about the meaning of holy and to then introduce a definition with a reasonable amount of certainty to support it.


There are four keys to solving any issue of decipherment for an unknown language or for an uncertain word in a language according to the experts in deciphering unknown languages:


· There should be a large enough database and texts of the language (Amount)
· There should be a connected cultural context of the language (Relationship)
· There should be understood parallel or bilingual inscriptions of the language (Action)
· There should be pictorial or concrete references with the text of the language (Thing)

This is where the proof must be gathered to prove the meaning of holy. Fortunately, we are able to find evidence for all four of these keys. For our limited purposes in this blog, I would like to look at the last key of finding a pictorial or concrete reference for the word of holy.

In a concrete sense, for something to be "cut" (the root idea behind separate) or "uncut" (an analogy for whole) is very pictorial. It is easy to separate the two of them visually. Just take out your steak knife and cut a carrot. You have a very good visual of cut. Now magine another carrot that remains uncut. They are picture perfect polar opposites.

When we look at the concrete objects closely associated with holy, we find these as a beginning list: days, stones, ground, moutain, sacrifice and body. I will later talk about the more abstract concepts of self, name and morality as extensions of these concrete or literal meanings of cut or uncut.

If holy means "to set apart" or "to separate", then its literal or concrete idea is as follows for each concrete object:

• a day cut off from six other days (Geneis 2:1-3)
• altar stones cut off from other stones (Deuteronomy 27:6)
• ground/area cut off from other ground/area (Exodus 3:5)
• a mountain cut off from other mountains or land (Exodus 19:3, Deuteronomy 4:11)
• a sacrifice cut off from other sacrifices (Leviticus 1:3, Romans 12:1-2)
• a body cut off from other bodies (Leviticus 21:15-20, 1 Corinthians 6:19)

If holy means "to make or to keep whole", then its literal or concrete idea is as follows for each concrete object:

• an uncut day of evening to evening (Genesis 2:1-3)
• an uncut/whole altar stone (Deuteronomy 27:6 )
• an uncut ground/area (Exodus 3:5)
• an uncut mountain of the entire thing (Exodus 19:3; Deuteronomy 4:11 )
• an uncut/unblemished sacrifice (Leviticus 1:3; Romans 12:1-2 )
• an uncut/unmaimed body (Leviticus 21:15-20; 1 Corinthians 6:19)

If we extend the literal or concrete meanings of "cut" into more figurative or abstract meaning, then the idea by implication in various contexts (even where it is not used directly):

• a self cut off from other selves (Luke 10:26-28)
• a name cut off from other names (Matthew 6:9; Luke 11:2)
• a morality cut off from immorality (Romans 7:12 and all contexts dealing with holy, righteous, true, loving and good)

Every single one of these concepts is biblical, the question is whether they are biblical through the use of the word holy. If they are not, then by adding the instances of holy to the list of even a correct biblical idea, increases the magnitude of importance beyond the importance the bible assigns to them. In other words, we distort the message of the Bible. On the flip-side, we also diminish the importance of being whole in relationship to each of these things. That may be the great crime.

If we extend the literal or concrete meanings of "uncut" into more figurative or abstract meaning, then the idea is by implication in various contexts (even where it is not used directly):

• an uncut self - heart, soul, strength and mind are all essentials (Luke 10:26-28)
• an uncut/corporate/comprehensive name - no word is more comprehensive of personality (Matthew 6:9; Luke 11:2)
• an uncut morality - righteous, true, loving and good are all included (Romans 7:12 and all contexts dealing with holy, righteous, true, loving and good)

Every single one of these concepts is also biblical. The problem is the same as we see with the other meaning of separate, if it is not biblically accurate in its understanding of holy. We distort and diminish the other concept in a way that is not biblical.

In either case, the implications are large because holy is such a large concept in the bible. That is why we cannot afford to get it wrong. If it were a minor concept, then there would be no serious implication from error.

I hope these concrete objects in the context of holy help you make sense of the two ideas of "set apart" and "whole." They are diametrically opposed to each other in concrete meaning and the weighty importance of the meaning of the word holy potentially distorts things in a large way. This is not a small thing because decipherment is only the beginning. The implications are far greater because they effect our view of the world.

In future pieces of writing, I will further develop the other important pillars for deciphering the definite meaning of holy. It is the combination of them that I believe will give us reasonable certainty about what the word means. But for now I hope you are able to make sense of things in terms of meaning, because that is an important first step.

It is paramount that every real Christian take this very seriously. It has grave or momentous consequences, because biblical words have big implications far beyond any other words on this planet.

In Christ,

Jon