You have come to this site to find the meaning of holy. I will not disappoint you in that regard, but before I give an answer to that question you need to know that the definition of holy or qadosh (Hebrew) or hagios (Greek) requires a little extra research, to put it very kindly. Fortunately, the high quality options are only three. They are: 1) moral wholeness, 2) pure, or 3) set apart. The lexicographer Hesychius is not a household name, but he has been very important in trying to determine the meaning of holy. His lexicon written around the third to fourth century time range is regarded as a great treasure for determining the meaning of many Greek words. In this case, we are talking about the meaning of hagioi or hagios. I want to tell you what I have found in examining the evidence from his lexicon.
[Under construction]
Sincerely,
Jon
Showing posts with label define. Show all posts
Showing posts with label define. Show all posts
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Wednesday, October 09, 2013
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
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
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Holy: Understanding it Better through Awarness
For anyone coming to this blog, I am sure the #1 question is: "What is the meaning of holy?". But I think there is also a second question behind the first question: "Why are there different definitions for this central word of the Bible?" For example, this evening I heard a member of the Christian band, Petra, define holy as "totally unique" on YouTube. It is maybe a more contemporary version of Rudolph Otto's definition of "wholly other" from early in the 20th century. So, do I think these definitions are correct? The simple answer is that I think they fall wide of the mark despite their agreement. The lack that I see is a lack of awareness. The more and more I research the topic of the meaning of qadosh (translated into English as holy), the more aware I have become of things that I was not aware of previously. So let me tell you about some of these new discoveries.
The first is that the quality of a Hebrew-English, Aramaic-English, or Greek-English lexicon is not improved by the number of them that agree with each other. Rather this may rather indicate that one source is behind the many lexicons. While the many agreeing is a positive quantity, the many does not change the quality of the first that is copied by all the others. John A. L. Lee (A History of New Testament Lexicology) has probably argued this the best. So Petra's agreement with Rudolph Otto does not mean that the quality of Otto's argument for his meaning of holy is improved.
The second is that the etymology of qadosh in Hebrew is both over-rated and under-rated as a tool to learn the meaning of holy. James Barr, as a scholar, really helped biblical scholarship by making a great argument for the need for the insights of linguistics and semantics. In the case of what is called etymology (the true history of a word), though, he throws the baby out with the bathwater. On the other hand, many scholarly articles begin with etymology and then after downplaying its value don't really downplay it in fact. They do not test its meaning beyond that point, but rather use a plausible meaning from the etymology that is uncertain. The best example of this is in Jo Bailey-Wells' argument that the etymology of qadosh as being "set apart" is no longer supported by recent scholarship and yet she uses that definition in the following discussion without a different kind of test to determine holy's meaning.
The third is that the method needed for determining the meaning of holy goes beyond a lexicon. A lexicon is an enormous project and falls under what is called lexicology. The problem is that when a lexicon is constructed, it cannot look into every word entry with great depth. What is needed for that is what is called a "word study". Here though there is another distinction that must be made. There are small-scale word studies and then there are in-depth word studies. If you look on-line you will find numerous shorter word studies on qadosh (the Hebrew behind the English word holy) like that of the scholar, Dr. Allen P. Ross. I studied under Dr. Ross and he is a top-notch biblical scholar, but the study he offers on-line is not on the depth of word studies like those offered by TDOT (The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament) and NIDOTT (New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology (William A. VanGemeren, General Editor). What is needed is a focused study on the set of words that are translated into English as "holy". These books mentioned have studies that have the right depth and length, but also need a solid method added to them. What I now realize is that I need to use the method of doing a word study to really contribute something on the meaning of holy. It will likely be in the 80-100 page category and so be enough in-depth to really contribute something to the discussion. Unfortunately, most lexicons with the exception of Klein's do not mention the quality of the definition that is offered. It would be nice to someday have a letter system like that associated with textual variants that makes explicit a quality rating.
The fourth is that awareness is itself a very important value. Lack of awareness is the primary reason for the need for education. Yet with all the education that is offered, there can still be large gaps in awareness or the need to slow down and really consider what is taught. Many of the things that I was taught at the university level, I did not realize until later what was meant. In other words, I finally became aware of something that I was not aware of previously, though I was already taught the topic. The need to really observe and keep observing as part of inductively studying the Bible was taught to me at the university level and then in Seminary by three great teachers: Tom Stellar, Dr. John S. Piper, and Dr. Daniel P. Fuller. The latter is the one who most applied this principle of observation. I was fortunate to have hung on to old notebooks from my college years, so I could re-read what I read before and have continued observation pay off. I then got the pay off of greater awareness!
Finally, it takes awareness of all four of these to really have a great opportunity to understand the meaning of holy in our English translations. They again are: 1) quantity though it comes before quality, does not replace it when it comes to lexicons, 2) that etymology has value though it must not be allowed to have undue influence on how holy is defined, 3) a word study of some length is what is needed at present to resolve the problem of differing definitions for qadosh, and 4) awareness is itself the value behind each of these things I have learned through "getting an education".
I like to put awareness on the level of the traits of being "ready, willing, and able". I say a person needs to be "ready, willing, able, and aware". If any of these is missing, then a decision is likely to falter in the future. If they are all present, then the future is likely to match with the present. I hope what I have written today has at least raised your awareness about the meaning of holy. I am presently working on sorting out which of three English words best defines holy: 1) pure, 2) set apart, or 3) moral wholeness. Please check back to see my further work on my word study for this incredibly important word. I would also appreciate your prayers that I have ample time and that I use my time well to finish a large word study on qadosh and its translations down to the English language and beyond.
Thank you.
In Christ,
Jon
The first is that the quality of a Hebrew-English, Aramaic-English, or Greek-English lexicon is not improved by the number of them that agree with each other. Rather this may rather indicate that one source is behind the many lexicons. While the many agreeing is a positive quantity, the many does not change the quality of the first that is copied by all the others. John A. L. Lee (A History of New Testament Lexicology) has probably argued this the best. So Petra's agreement with Rudolph Otto does not mean that the quality of Otto's argument for his meaning of holy is improved.
The second is that the etymology of qadosh in Hebrew is both over-rated and under-rated as a tool to learn the meaning of holy. James Barr, as a scholar, really helped biblical scholarship by making a great argument for the need for the insights of linguistics and semantics. In the case of what is called etymology (the true history of a word), though, he throws the baby out with the bathwater. On the other hand, many scholarly articles begin with etymology and then after downplaying its value don't really downplay it in fact. They do not test its meaning beyond that point, but rather use a plausible meaning from the etymology that is uncertain. The best example of this is in Jo Bailey-Wells' argument that the etymology of qadosh as being "set apart" is no longer supported by recent scholarship and yet she uses that definition in the following discussion without a different kind of test to determine holy's meaning.
The third is that the method needed for determining the meaning of holy goes beyond a lexicon. A lexicon is an enormous project and falls under what is called lexicology. The problem is that when a lexicon is constructed, it cannot look into every word entry with great depth. What is needed for that is what is called a "word study". Here though there is another distinction that must be made. There are small-scale word studies and then there are in-depth word studies. If you look on-line you will find numerous shorter word studies on qadosh (the Hebrew behind the English word holy) like that of the scholar, Dr. Allen P. Ross. I studied under Dr. Ross and he is a top-notch biblical scholar, but the study he offers on-line is not on the depth of word studies like those offered by TDOT (The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament) and NIDOTT (New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology (William A. VanGemeren, General Editor). What is needed is a focused study on the set of words that are translated into English as "holy". These books mentioned have studies that have the right depth and length, but also need a solid method added to them. What I now realize is that I need to use the method of doing a word study to really contribute something on the meaning of holy. It will likely be in the 80-100 page category and so be enough in-depth to really contribute something to the discussion. Unfortunately, most lexicons with the exception of Klein's do not mention the quality of the definition that is offered. It would be nice to someday have a letter system like that associated with textual variants that makes explicit a quality rating.
The fourth is that awareness is itself a very important value. Lack of awareness is the primary reason for the need for education. Yet with all the education that is offered, there can still be large gaps in awareness or the need to slow down and really consider what is taught. Many of the things that I was taught at the university level, I did not realize until later what was meant. In other words, I finally became aware of something that I was not aware of previously, though I was already taught the topic. The need to really observe and keep observing as part of inductively studying the Bible was taught to me at the university level and then in Seminary by three great teachers: Tom Stellar, Dr. John S. Piper, and Dr. Daniel P. Fuller. The latter is the one who most applied this principle of observation. I was fortunate to have hung on to old notebooks from my college years, so I could re-read what I read before and have continued observation pay off. I then got the pay off of greater awareness!
Finally, it takes awareness of all four of these to really have a great opportunity to understand the meaning of holy in our English translations. They again are: 1) quantity though it comes before quality, does not replace it when it comes to lexicons, 2) that etymology has value though it must not be allowed to have undue influence on how holy is defined, 3) a word study of some length is what is needed at present to resolve the problem of differing definitions for qadosh, and 4) awareness is itself the value behind each of these things I have learned through "getting an education".
I like to put awareness on the level of the traits of being "ready, willing, and able". I say a person needs to be "ready, willing, able, and aware". If any of these is missing, then a decision is likely to falter in the future. If they are all present, then the future is likely to match with the present. I hope what I have written today has at least raised your awareness about the meaning of holy. I am presently working on sorting out which of three English words best defines holy: 1) pure, 2) set apart, or 3) moral wholeness. Please check back to see my further work on my word study for this incredibly important word. I would also appreciate your prayers that I have ample time and that I use my time well to finish a large word study on qadosh and its translations down to the English language and beyond.
Thank you.
In Christ,
Jon
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Holy: Understanding it Better on the Map (the Bible)
So you are exploring the meaning of holy as it is found in the Bible. That is wonderful. It is extremely important, as is pointed out by those famous words in Isaiah: "Holy, holy, holy ...." Perhaps the best way to think of words is to think of them as tools to map out the territory. In tandem, the territory equals real life. Imagine having to go to new locations all the time with no map let alone without your GPS! Worse yet, let's say your map was dated a bit and MapQuest did not show the street that you were looking for but instead a close equivalent! I know the experience with MapQuest personally. It can be frustrating, because it was supposed to make the trip easier rather than more difficult. If we misunderstand the meaning of holy, then frustration and difficulty will be the outcome. That is why the meaning of holy is not only important, but also relevant. What if we are losing our way? Let's look at the maps that are available for finding your destination.
Well, there are three maps out there that have been used for the last 500 plus years. The first map put in the bin historically grew out of the Protestant Reformation. The definition of holy on that map is that holy means morally whole, but there is also a secondary definition. The primary (or broad) definition is moral wholeness. The secondary (narrow) definition is set apart. The second map to be put in the bin historically was made mostly by Puritans. The definition of holy on that map is pure. The third map was made popular at the end of the 1800s and became more popular during the 1900s (20th century). The definition of holy on that map is set apart. This map also remains the most popular at the present moment. That is what you find in most of the books and on most of the internet as you search. There are other maps available with other definitions, but I have given you only the top three to simplify your decision-making.
Understanding the Bible correctly is very important, when you consider that the effect of errant maps. You can get lost, frustrated, or arrive late. It is important to know the implications or effects isn't it? This is the "why" behind my blog. I believe the Bible clearly teaches that even the best of us will face affliction. Life is difficult enough without adding to the territory of life a bad map!
So please know that these three maps are out there. I am presently testing each one for accuracy. The one that I have tested the most experientially since 2004 is the idea that holy means whole. Before that and from my childhood, I was given the map that said holy means set apart. So I was unintentionally testing that option the entire time. I guess that I also tested the idea that holy means pure in my first 3 years of college. I am also testing these three maps through writing a scholarly paper, where I will be using a linguistic and grammatical synthesis as my method.
Please pray that God would grant me more resources to finish this task yet this spring (before May). Then I will announce to everyone the results of that work. Don't threw out any of the above maps away quite yet. There are elements of truth in each one. I'll let you know when you can settle in with the best one or a better replacement than any of the three. Do wisely as the ancient Jewish copyists did. Place one definition as central in your life and keep the other two in your life's margin. Thank you for reading this post.
In Christ,
Jon
Well, there are three maps out there that have been used for the last 500 plus years. The first map put in the bin historically grew out of the Protestant Reformation. The definition of holy on that map is that holy means morally whole, but there is also a secondary definition. The primary (or broad) definition is moral wholeness. The secondary (narrow) definition is set apart. The second map to be put in the bin historically was made mostly by Puritans. The definition of holy on that map is pure. The third map was made popular at the end of the 1800s and became more popular during the 1900s (20th century). The definition of holy on that map is set apart. This map also remains the most popular at the present moment. That is what you find in most of the books and on most of the internet as you search. There are other maps available with other definitions, but I have given you only the top three to simplify your decision-making.
Understanding the Bible correctly is very important, when you consider that the effect of errant maps. You can get lost, frustrated, or arrive late. It is important to know the implications or effects isn't it? This is the "why" behind my blog. I believe the Bible clearly teaches that even the best of us will face affliction. Life is difficult enough without adding to the territory of life a bad map!
So please know that these three maps are out there. I am presently testing each one for accuracy. The one that I have tested the most experientially since 2004 is the idea that holy means whole. Before that and from my childhood, I was given the map that said holy means set apart. So I was unintentionally testing that option the entire time. I guess that I also tested the idea that holy means pure in my first 3 years of college. I am also testing these three maps through writing a scholarly paper, where I will be using a linguistic and grammatical synthesis as my method.
Please pray that God would grant me more resources to finish this task yet this spring (before May). Then I will announce to everyone the results of that work. Don't threw out any of the above maps away quite yet. There are elements of truth in each one. I'll let you know when you can settle in with the best one or a better replacement than any of the three. Do wisely as the ancient Jewish copyists did. Place one definition as central in your life and keep the other two in your life's margin. Thank you for reading this post.
In Christ,
Jon
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Skill and Outcomes
Knowing the definition of holy is second in importance behind only knowing God's personal name. This blog is not about what is God's personal name or how to say God's personal name (I have a separate blog dedicated to that project), but it is still about a very important topic. It is about the definition of the biblical words for holy. The words that are critical for this study are the Hebrew word qadosh, the Aramaic word qaddiysh, and the Greek word hagios (and each of their derivatives - words that originate from them). In this post, I want to talk about the skills necessary for determining the meaning of holy and the outcomes from those skills.
I want to being though with an illustration from last evening (2/18/13). I heard a very good presentation on four skills for health and the four outcomes from those skills. The presentation was well done. I wish everyone concerned with their health could have attended, because the speaker did a much better job than I can of presenting the skills to improve one's health. Let me introduce his ideas for health, as a way to illustrate the ideas behind a healthy definition of holy.
The four key outcomes (the "why?") for health were listed as (with my re-arrangement):
1) Stable
2) Flexible
3) Energetic
4) Aware
The four skills (the "how?") for these four outcomes were listed as (with my re-arrangement as corollaries):
1) Reducing inflammation
2) Journaling a coherent narrative
3) Increasing energy
4) Increasing complicated movements
If I were a doctor and I could tell you that you can have the four improved outcomes related to your physical health, then you would likely be overjoyed. If I could introduce the same for the definition of holy, then we should be even more overjoyed. What if we had a stable, flexible, energetic, and aware definition for holy?
Some may think we already have just that after consulting a number of the major lexicons on-line, but that is a bit short-sighted. Sometimes the internet is a great resource, but also it can vary in the quality of information that is available. If you had a few dusty volumes from a traditional library, then you would discover that some lexicons and other books on the topic of holy acknowledge that there are aspects of defining the word for which we are uncertain (unaware) and that the current most popular definition of "set apart" is actually controversial (unstable).
Wouldn't it be better, if we could reduce the controversy about the meaning of holy like reducing inflammation? Wouldn't it also be better, if we have a narrative addressing all the facts on the history of defining holy like journaling a coherent narrative? Wouldn't it be better still, if more people were devoted to the project like giving increasing energy? And finally, wouldn't it be better yet, if we define the word with a more complex process like being able to do increasing complicated movements that test a brain's awareness?
One problem is that assumed stability in the definition of holy does not substitute for stability without a crutch. It is a crutch to say that their is no controversy about the meaning of holy. That is like saying that my sprained ankle is stable, while I move down the hall using crutches. There is inflammation there rigidly preventing my joint from bending until full healing occurs. The problem is also that without true stability, my ankle join is also chaotic. It can be re-injured very easily since it lacks stability still. The ankle is still unstable, until I am able to remove the crutches during the time of rigidity and until I go through therapy to restore the ankle's own stability that can stand on its own without assistance. It is a crutch to say that the meaning of holy is stable. There exists disagreements. Disagreements or injuries tend to produce fire in the body of those who disputing. Holy has competing definitions that have been offered and it has at least two or three serious competitors for its definition. I am writing this blog, because I think it can be stabilized to one biblical definition that was intended by the original authors. But this comes about by reducing the fire of disagreement and by restoring things to a stable state. Acute disagreement can be a good thing provided chronic disagreement is not acceptable. The first does good like the ankle's inflammation when it is injured. The second is harmful as a problem fester's into a chronic state. I am afraid this is where things are stuck without effort to dislodge disagreement.
Another problem is that collecting the facts of the history of the meaning of holy does not substitute for a coherent narrative of the history of the meaning of holy. Most books I have read on the definition of holy do not include a narrative, but begin from a supposed "true" etymology. The problem is that the etymology involves more speculation than it does contemporary historical record for its meaning. This does not mean etymology is irrelevant as some seem to suppose or that it is worthless as others suppose. (James Barr and D. A. Carson seem to go a bit too far in their criticisms of etymology.) What it does mean is that the narrative for the definition of holy should include not only a speculative narrative about the meaning of holy in ancient times, but also a narrative of meanings given to it over time that is coherent rather than a collection of facts. Concordances and lexicons usually only give a collection of facts of how a word has been translated rather than giving a true definition or a narrative for how each meaning connects with another. A coherent narrative would show more connections over time, rather than just a vast leap back in history or a mere pile of facts (called "glosses" by Eugene A. Nida). That means that the definition of holy as "set apart" has connections that are relevant that need to be disclosed through a coherent narrative as does "whole" or "pure" or even "holy" itself as chosen by early English translators as a perceived connection between Hebrew culture and English culture.
Still another problem is that there does not seem to be an increase in energy in studying the meaning of holy, but a reduced energy. Work and investment to define holy don't seem to have the energy it once had. Exegetical method, however, does seem to have a lot of energy going into it, which is a positive. It is not energetic work to look up the meaning of holy through on-line lexicons. The work has already been done. What is work is carrying out a skillful process of testing the three major different definitions side by side ("pure", "set apart", and "whole"). What is also missing is lively interest and the different kinds of investing. The speaker last evening has written in his notes: "No action, no good outcomes". I don't see how we will get to a better place of defining holy without interest, action, and investment as energies. People need activities that excite them, not that just give them a chance to rest. Rest is our activity for the better part of one day each week, not every day. One of the major objects of my research has been to uncover the basic process used in Nehemiah 8 that should give us new zest and energy for the possibilities that were once impossible. Maybe we just need to believe more in the possibilities of present and future energy. I find Nehemiah's 8's: 1) Translate, 2) Transfer, 3) Total, 4) Train, and 5) Teach process to be energy producing. The body's cellular ability to produce energy declines by 1% per year and is irreversible up to this point, but I don't see that has to be the case with exegetical, interpretative, or hermeneutical method. Let's be energized rather than lethargic.
Finally, another problem is that awareness can slip away easily. A kind of brain fog can overcome the church as well as individuals. It goes beyond just amnesia and Alzheimer's Disease. A person who is totally sleep deprived may fail a test due to their sleep deprivation, but they at least are aware that they failed. More dangerous are those who get a few hours each night and fail the same test, but are not self-aware when failure happens. These results came from a recent study of differing kinds of sleep deprivation. Doing exegesis properly is a complicated process, but it need not be too complicated. It does not consist of just etymology or just word usage. One or the other of those is too simple. The process consists of the total basic method as found in Nehemiah 8. And it is important to be aware that these steps in Nehemiah 8 are basic steps. It is also important to be aware that there are more complex steps like textual criticism that may or may not be necessary in exegesis or interpretation in discussing a particular word's meaning. The basics are themselves complicated in that there is more than one differentiated component to the process, but these basics are also integrated into one total process. The ways to test our brains is by the use of increasing complicated methods. While we might be clumsy at first with complicated movements, our brain can learn new tricks and be better at becoming aware and developing awareness. Let's be aware of outcomes rather than being failures and unaware of our failures. Let's also be wide awake and aware of successes. Greater awareness is available.
In summary, it is important to integrate all the differentiated outcomes of: 1) stability, 2) flexibility, 3) increased energy, and 4) awareness to get health. These combine together to produce not just physical health, but as illustrated above, a healthy definition as well. This is the kind of definition that I am working toward. I believe that the method of translation gives stability to a definition. I also believe that the method of transfer also gives flexibility (as in context) to a definition. I further believe that the basic four or five step method of Nehemiah 8 gives energy to a definition. I finally believe that using a more complicated method than just etymology (with plausibility) or just usage (with possible parallels) is greater in awareness than those methods alone. The brain should be tested for its awareness of differentiated components through a complex method that is able to grow into even more complex methods, as needed. It should never stop at just two possible components for a word study. That shows a general lack of awareness for how language works as a system with differentiated components that need to be integrated together.
Now let's return full circle to my earlier layout on the outcomes and skills for physical health, but this time I will replace the skills with those relating to studying meanings in the Bible. The four key outcomes (the "why?") for definitions were listed earlier as:
1) Stable
2) Flexible
3) Energetic
4) Aware
The four skills (the "how?") for these four outcomes were listed earlier as ("Total" [see above] refers to the four integrated into a whole):
1) Translation
2) Transfer
3) Train
4) Teach
So I was energized by last nights presenter, not just because of insights into my physical health, but also for insights into the health of defining the word holy. In particular, he offers another way to look at outcomes like those I hope to produce from writing in this blog and in my post-graduate paper. I am very committed to a definition of holy that deserves the categorization of it as healthy: one that includes all the four outcomes, not just one or two.
So, if you don't find me giving you the one definition for holy based on a scholarly study right here and right now, it is only because there is a process that I have to follow like anyone else to deserve the name of contemporary scholarship. This does not mean that I don't think that some prior studies are adequate. I think exactly the opposite. But it is important to understand that prior church history (before the last 100 years), gave the definition of "whole", that still deserves recognition, for its classic definition. "Whole" is likely the primary reason why "holy" was chosen to translate qadosh, etc. by early English translators. I prefer to fall back on the well-established (with its two best competitors as still considered) and then move forward to a contemporary study, as a way to prove or disprove the well-established (stable). I prefer not to go with a definition (like "set apart") that is not as highly stable, until I have first completed a contemporary study of holy that has scholarly merit. But make no mistake, I am not waiting without any options for the here and now.
I believe firmly in a "now and not yet" status not only for the kingdom of God, but also for what I know in this present age. The "not yet" completed nature of my study does not hold me back to the point of having no position today. It only means that improvements in stability, flexibility, increased energy, and awareness are potential opportunities in the "not yet" future. That is what I would like to contribute, Lord willing. Many thanks to you for taking time to read my blog. My hope and prayer is that you have benefitted from it.
In Christ,
Jon
I want to being though with an illustration from last evening (2/18/13). I heard a very good presentation on four skills for health and the four outcomes from those skills. The presentation was well done. I wish everyone concerned with their health could have attended, because the speaker did a much better job than I can of presenting the skills to improve one's health. Let me introduce his ideas for health, as a way to illustrate the ideas behind a healthy definition of holy.
The four key outcomes (the "why?") for health were listed as (with my re-arrangement):
1) Stable
2) Flexible
3) Energetic
4) Aware
The four skills (the "how?") for these four outcomes were listed as (with my re-arrangement as corollaries):
1) Reducing inflammation
2) Journaling a coherent narrative
3) Increasing energy
4) Increasing complicated movements
If I were a doctor and I could tell you that you can have the four improved outcomes related to your physical health, then you would likely be overjoyed. If I could introduce the same for the definition of holy, then we should be even more overjoyed. What if we had a stable, flexible, energetic, and aware definition for holy?
Some may think we already have just that after consulting a number of the major lexicons on-line, but that is a bit short-sighted. Sometimes the internet is a great resource, but also it can vary in the quality of information that is available. If you had a few dusty volumes from a traditional library, then you would discover that some lexicons and other books on the topic of holy acknowledge that there are aspects of defining the word for which we are uncertain (unaware) and that the current most popular definition of "set apart" is actually controversial (unstable).
Wouldn't it be better, if we could reduce the controversy about the meaning of holy like reducing inflammation? Wouldn't it also be better, if we have a narrative addressing all the facts on the history of defining holy like journaling a coherent narrative? Wouldn't it be better still, if more people were devoted to the project like giving increasing energy? And finally, wouldn't it be better yet, if we define the word with a more complex process like being able to do increasing complicated movements that test a brain's awareness?
One problem is that assumed stability in the definition of holy does not substitute for stability without a crutch. It is a crutch to say that their is no controversy about the meaning of holy. That is like saying that my sprained ankle is stable, while I move down the hall using crutches. There is inflammation there rigidly preventing my joint from bending until full healing occurs. The problem is also that without true stability, my ankle join is also chaotic. It can be re-injured very easily since it lacks stability still. The ankle is still unstable, until I am able to remove the crutches during the time of rigidity and until I go through therapy to restore the ankle's own stability that can stand on its own without assistance. It is a crutch to say that the meaning of holy is stable. There exists disagreements. Disagreements or injuries tend to produce fire in the body of those who disputing. Holy has competing definitions that have been offered and it has at least two or three serious competitors for its definition. I am writing this blog, because I think it can be stabilized to one biblical definition that was intended by the original authors. But this comes about by reducing the fire of disagreement and by restoring things to a stable state. Acute disagreement can be a good thing provided chronic disagreement is not acceptable. The first does good like the ankle's inflammation when it is injured. The second is harmful as a problem fester's into a chronic state. I am afraid this is where things are stuck without effort to dislodge disagreement.
Another problem is that collecting the facts of the history of the meaning of holy does not substitute for a coherent narrative of the history of the meaning of holy. Most books I have read on the definition of holy do not include a narrative, but begin from a supposed "true" etymology. The problem is that the etymology involves more speculation than it does contemporary historical record for its meaning. This does not mean etymology is irrelevant as some seem to suppose or that it is worthless as others suppose. (James Barr and D. A. Carson seem to go a bit too far in their criticisms of etymology.) What it does mean is that the narrative for the definition of holy should include not only a speculative narrative about the meaning of holy in ancient times, but also a narrative of meanings given to it over time that is coherent rather than a collection of facts. Concordances and lexicons usually only give a collection of facts of how a word has been translated rather than giving a true definition or a narrative for how each meaning connects with another. A coherent narrative would show more connections over time, rather than just a vast leap back in history or a mere pile of facts (called "glosses" by Eugene A. Nida). That means that the definition of holy as "set apart" has connections that are relevant that need to be disclosed through a coherent narrative as does "whole" or "pure" or even "holy" itself as chosen by early English translators as a perceived connection between Hebrew culture and English culture.
Still another problem is that there does not seem to be an increase in energy in studying the meaning of holy, but a reduced energy. Work and investment to define holy don't seem to have the energy it once had. Exegetical method, however, does seem to have a lot of energy going into it, which is a positive. It is not energetic work to look up the meaning of holy through on-line lexicons. The work has already been done. What is work is carrying out a skillful process of testing the three major different definitions side by side ("pure", "set apart", and "whole"). What is also missing is lively interest and the different kinds of investing. The speaker last evening has written in his notes: "No action, no good outcomes". I don't see how we will get to a better place of defining holy without interest, action, and investment as energies. People need activities that excite them, not that just give them a chance to rest. Rest is our activity for the better part of one day each week, not every day. One of the major objects of my research has been to uncover the basic process used in Nehemiah 8 that should give us new zest and energy for the possibilities that were once impossible. Maybe we just need to believe more in the possibilities of present and future energy. I find Nehemiah's 8's: 1) Translate, 2) Transfer, 3) Total, 4) Train, and 5) Teach process to be energy producing. The body's cellular ability to produce energy declines by 1% per year and is irreversible up to this point, but I don't see that has to be the case with exegetical, interpretative, or hermeneutical method. Let's be energized rather than lethargic.
Finally, another problem is that awareness can slip away easily. A kind of brain fog can overcome the church as well as individuals. It goes beyond just amnesia and Alzheimer's Disease. A person who is totally sleep deprived may fail a test due to their sleep deprivation, but they at least are aware that they failed. More dangerous are those who get a few hours each night and fail the same test, but are not self-aware when failure happens. These results came from a recent study of differing kinds of sleep deprivation. Doing exegesis properly is a complicated process, but it need not be too complicated. It does not consist of just etymology or just word usage. One or the other of those is too simple. The process consists of the total basic method as found in Nehemiah 8. And it is important to be aware that these steps in Nehemiah 8 are basic steps. It is also important to be aware that there are more complex steps like textual criticism that may or may not be necessary in exegesis or interpretation in discussing a particular word's meaning. The basics are themselves complicated in that there is more than one differentiated component to the process, but these basics are also integrated into one total process. The ways to test our brains is by the use of increasing complicated methods. While we might be clumsy at first with complicated movements, our brain can learn new tricks and be better at becoming aware and developing awareness. Let's be aware of outcomes rather than being failures and unaware of our failures. Let's also be wide awake and aware of successes. Greater awareness is available.
In summary, it is important to integrate all the differentiated outcomes of: 1) stability, 2) flexibility, 3) increased energy, and 4) awareness to get health. These combine together to produce not just physical health, but as illustrated above, a healthy definition as well. This is the kind of definition that I am working toward. I believe that the method of translation gives stability to a definition. I also believe that the method of transfer also gives flexibility (as in context) to a definition. I further believe that the basic four or five step method of Nehemiah 8 gives energy to a definition. I finally believe that using a more complicated method than just etymology (with plausibility) or just usage (with possible parallels) is greater in awareness than those methods alone. The brain should be tested for its awareness of differentiated components through a complex method that is able to grow into even more complex methods, as needed. It should never stop at just two possible components for a word study. That shows a general lack of awareness for how language works as a system with differentiated components that need to be integrated together.
Now let's return full circle to my earlier layout on the outcomes and skills for physical health, but this time I will replace the skills with those relating to studying meanings in the Bible. The four key outcomes (the "why?") for definitions were listed earlier as:
1) Stable
2) Flexible
3) Energetic
4) Aware
The four skills (the "how?") for these four outcomes were listed earlier as ("Total" [see above] refers to the four integrated into a whole):
1) Translation
2) Transfer
3) Train
4) Teach
So I was energized by last nights presenter, not just because of insights into my physical health, but also for insights into the health of defining the word holy. In particular, he offers another way to look at outcomes like those I hope to produce from writing in this blog and in my post-graduate paper. I am very committed to a definition of holy that deserves the categorization of it as healthy: one that includes all the four outcomes, not just one or two.
So, if you don't find me giving you the one definition for holy based on a scholarly study right here and right now, it is only because there is a process that I have to follow like anyone else to deserve the name of contemporary scholarship. This does not mean that I don't think that some prior studies are adequate. I think exactly the opposite. But it is important to understand that prior church history (before the last 100 years), gave the definition of "whole", that still deserves recognition, for its classic definition. "Whole" is likely the primary reason why "holy" was chosen to translate qadosh, etc. by early English translators. I prefer to fall back on the well-established (with its two best competitors as still considered) and then move forward to a contemporary study, as a way to prove or disprove the well-established (stable). I prefer not to go with a definition (like "set apart") that is not as highly stable, until I have first completed a contemporary study of holy that has scholarly merit. But make no mistake, I am not waiting without any options for the here and now.
I believe firmly in a "now and not yet" status not only for the kingdom of God, but also for what I know in this present age. The "not yet" completed nature of my study does not hold me back to the point of having no position today. It only means that improvements in stability, flexibility, increased energy, and awareness are potential opportunities in the "not yet" future. That is what I would like to contribute, Lord willing. Many thanks to you for taking time to read my blog. My hope and prayer is that you have benefitted from it.
In Christ,
Jon
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Basics
You are likely checking out this site to find out the definition of holy. There are many proposed definitions, but probably only three that deserve serious consideration. In alphabetic order they are:
1) pure, 2) set apart, or 3) whole. One of the great challenges in defining holy is knowing the basic choices for its definition. Even if it is complex word, what is it on the most basic level or core?
A number of years ago, I was challenged as an assistant basketball coach by the head coach to tell him the basics of the game. I uttered what I knew were basic things from my experience as a basketball player. Most of what I told him had to do with skills. I now know that I blew it. I really didn't have my basics down, as I should have.
I'm sure I could have recited more basics and somewhere in the mix I would have covered all of them. But it would have been very complex and it would have been disorganized. So from that point on, I listened carefully when any coach started to talk about the basics (or fundamentals).
The basics of basketball I now know very well. I may not know many of the complex parts of basketball like the many drills or plays that there are to chose from, but I now know the basics and can spout them quickly and in order. Basics though should have been clearly taught to me before I reached adulthood some time ago. Basics to be called that are usually things that a 12 or 13 year old can grasp. But my list to my head coach were not. (At least not in such a way that I could recall them to memory quickly.)
In looking at holy's definition, we are looking at a question of what basically does the word mean? Does it mean that "pure" or "clean" are essentially an amount. Are they like a pure gold where "all" the alloy is removed? Is it then a matter of measure or amount? Is it like gold that has the dross removed and then is given a designation to measure how pure the gold is?
Or is the main point that something like gold has been separated from the dross or maybe better the dross from the gold? Could this mean that this means something more like "set apart"?
Finally, is the basic point that holy means moral wholeness? Are righteousness, truth, love and goodness the major parts of holy? Does it parallel in many ways the use of wholeness as a concept?
I am currently working on a paper that will answer these questions. The goal to finish it is by no later than May. I am very excited, because I am using a method of exegesis or interpretation that is very basic and yet very powerful.
My parents used to say to me at the table, if I voiced my opinion on a biblical topic: "Chapter and verse". The neat thing for me is that I now living their dream of working out "chapter and verse". I don't want to give up on a dream of knowing what God means through the word holy extremely well. I would regret giving up on their dream. Their dream has become my own.
Here's a quote on why I think it is worthwhile to wait and get the definition of holy right:
Never give up on something you really want. It is difficult to wait, but it's more
difficult to regret.
So wait with me for holy to be defined clearly on the most basic level. The basic semantic classes of words come down to five primary definitions: 1) amount, 2) relationship, 3) whole, 4) action, and 5) thing. I used these 5 to identify the basics of basketball as: !Effort level, 2) Team approach, 3) Healthy Atmosphere, 4) Skilled play and 5) Know the game. Out of three of the best options for the definition of holy, I think I will in the end arrive at the basic meaning of holy according to chapter and verse. It is going to be either an: 1) amount (ex. pure), 2) relationship (ex. set apart), or 3) whole. (By the way, "set apart" could also a distinction between things making that the core idea.) In any case, let's make sure our views fit with chapter and verse and do not fall short of what we really want - a single reliable definition of holy from God's point of view.
Sincerely,
Jon
By the way, also check out: http://communicationbasics101.blogspot.com. There I also deal with the basics when it comes to exegesis. .
1) pure, 2) set apart, or 3) whole. One of the great challenges in defining holy is knowing the basic choices for its definition. Even if it is complex word, what is it on the most basic level or core?
A number of years ago, I was challenged as an assistant basketball coach by the head coach to tell him the basics of the game. I uttered what I knew were basic things from my experience as a basketball player. Most of what I told him had to do with skills. I now know that I blew it. I really didn't have my basics down, as I should have.
I'm sure I could have recited more basics and somewhere in the mix I would have covered all of them. But it would have been very complex and it would have been disorganized. So from that point on, I listened carefully when any coach started to talk about the basics (or fundamentals).
The basics of basketball I now know very well. I may not know many of the complex parts of basketball like the many drills or plays that there are to chose from, but I now know the basics and can spout them quickly and in order. Basics though should have been clearly taught to me before I reached adulthood some time ago. Basics to be called that are usually things that a 12 or 13 year old can grasp. But my list to my head coach were not. (At least not in such a way that I could recall them to memory quickly.)
In looking at holy's definition, we are looking at a question of what basically does the word mean? Does it mean that "pure" or "clean" are essentially an amount. Are they like a pure gold where "all" the alloy is removed? Is it then a matter of measure or amount? Is it like gold that has the dross removed and then is given a designation to measure how pure the gold is?
Or is the main point that something like gold has been separated from the dross or maybe better the dross from the gold? Could this mean that this means something more like "set apart"?
Finally, is the basic point that holy means moral wholeness? Are righteousness, truth, love and goodness the major parts of holy? Does it parallel in many ways the use of wholeness as a concept?
I am currently working on a paper that will answer these questions. The goal to finish it is by no later than May. I am very excited, because I am using a method of exegesis or interpretation that is very basic and yet very powerful.
My parents used to say to me at the table, if I voiced my opinion on a biblical topic: "Chapter and verse". The neat thing for me is that I now living their dream of working out "chapter and verse". I don't want to give up on a dream of knowing what God means through the word holy extremely well. I would regret giving up on their dream. Their dream has become my own.
Here's a quote on why I think it is worthwhile to wait and get the definition of holy right:
Never give up on something you really want. It is difficult to wait, but it's more
difficult to regret.
So wait with me for holy to be defined clearly on the most basic level. The basic semantic classes of words come down to five primary definitions: 1) amount, 2) relationship, 3) whole, 4) action, and 5) thing. I used these 5 to identify the basics of basketball as: !Effort level, 2) Team approach, 3) Healthy Atmosphere, 4) Skilled play and 5) Know the game. Out of three of the best options for the definition of holy, I think I will in the end arrive at the basic meaning of holy according to chapter and verse. It is going to be either an: 1) amount (ex. pure), 2) relationship (ex. set apart), or 3) whole. (By the way, "set apart" could also a distinction between things making that the core idea.) In any case, let's make sure our views fit with chapter and verse and do not fall short of what we really want - a single reliable definition of holy from God's point of view.
Sincerely,
Jon
By the way, also check out: http://communicationbasics101.blogspot.com. There I also deal with the basics when it comes to exegesis. .
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Answering the Question "Why?"
So why does the definition of holy matter? There are fundamentally two answers to that question. The first is the life-relevant answer. The second is the teaching-relevant answer. I have generally spent more time on the second than on the first in this blog. I have a second blog that answers more the first question, but it depends a great deal on answering the teaching-relevant question that this blog focuses on the majority of the time. Today, I want to expand more on both answers to the why questions you might have.
By the way, before I get too far, I want to say that holy can be defined according to the level of adherents for each view, either as: (1) set apart, (2) pure, or (3) whole/wholly. I'll say more on this as I progress, but I know some readers are visiting this blog just for the fast answer and they will not read any further. For those who are reading further, here is what I am up to in my blog and in my paper for my post-graduate work.
My plan is as follows:
I will define holy (Leviticus 19:1-2) as either: 1) set apart, 2) pure, or 3)whole/wholly depending on the evidence that I collect from Scripture in its original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek ....
... using both biblical exegesis and linguistic synthesis & analysis as my tools, including:
1) 5 T's - Translate, Transfer, Total, Train, and Teach - Nehemiah 8 (issue: Whole)
2) clarity and meaning combined (issue: Amount)
3) contextual structural analysis diagrams to identify precise parallels (issue: Relationship)
4) pre-state and post-state diagrams as well as syntactical tools to clarify actions (issue Action)
5) the combination of lexicons based on both classical grammar and scientific linguistics to insure
the best results (issue: Things) ...
... Because:
1) the definition of holy is a potential solution to corporate and individual struggles in the church
and even worldwide, based on its implications
2) other potential solutions that have been tried in recent decades and years have fallen short of
solutions during past periods of church reformation and revival
3) there is a measure of uncertainty or lack of clarity for what holy is by definition, and there is
a likely way to reduce the uncertainty that has been acknowledged by big name scholars (Otto,
Snaith, Kline, etc.)
4) there is a moral obligation to pass on the gifts given to me by my teachers (and I believe the
Holy Spirit) to the wider world
5) the effort to define holy fits with the tools that I received for exegesis and for linguistic
synthesis, so it means that I can contribute something to the discussion because otherwise I should
do nothing, so I don't waste the time of others.
So the first 5 focus on what is the "How?" for what I am doing. The second 5 get at the nitty-gritty part of "Why?" am I doing all this. For me life matters more than teaching, but also teaching is sometimes the means to life change. May God richly bless you this day and may He guide my efforts at teaching, so they have worth and value to others and to myself. Thank you for taking some time to read to the end of my writing today.
In Christ,
Jon
By the way, before I get too far, I want to say that holy can be defined according to the level of adherents for each view, either as: (1) set apart, (2) pure, or (3) whole/wholly. I'll say more on this as I progress, but I know some readers are visiting this blog just for the fast answer and they will not read any further. For those who are reading further, here is what I am up to in my blog and in my paper for my post-graduate work.
My plan is as follows:
I will define holy (Leviticus 19:1-2) as either: 1) set apart, 2) pure, or 3)whole/wholly depending on the evidence that I collect from Scripture in its original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek ....
... using both biblical exegesis and linguistic synthesis & analysis as my tools, including:
1) 5 T's - Translate, Transfer, Total, Train, and Teach - Nehemiah 8 (issue: Whole)
2) clarity and meaning combined (issue: Amount)
3) contextual structural analysis diagrams to identify precise parallels (issue: Relationship)
4) pre-state and post-state diagrams as well as syntactical tools to clarify actions (issue Action)
5) the combination of lexicons based on both classical grammar and scientific linguistics to insure
the best results (issue: Things) ...
... Because:
1) the definition of holy is a potential solution to corporate and individual struggles in the church
and even worldwide, based on its implications
2) other potential solutions that have been tried in recent decades and years have fallen short of
solutions during past periods of church reformation and revival
3) there is a measure of uncertainty or lack of clarity for what holy is by definition, and there is
a likely way to reduce the uncertainty that has been acknowledged by big name scholars (Otto,
Snaith, Kline, etc.)
4) there is a moral obligation to pass on the gifts given to me by my teachers (and I believe the
Holy Spirit) to the wider world
5) the effort to define holy fits with the tools that I received for exegesis and for linguistic
synthesis, so it means that I can contribute something to the discussion because otherwise I should
do nothing, so I don't waste the time of others.
So the first 5 focus on what is the "How?" for what I am doing. The second 5 get at the nitty-gritty part of "Why?" am I doing all this. For me life matters more than teaching, but also teaching is sometimes the means to life change. May God richly bless you this day and may He guide my efforts at teaching, so they have worth and value to others and to myself. Thank you for taking some time to read to the end of my writing today.
In Christ,
Jon
Wednesday, January 09, 2013
Holy: Understanding it Perhaps Better Through Two New Books
If you are looking to understand holy, there are two new books that may help. One deals more directly with holiness as a topic and the other deals more directly with wholeness as its topic. Wholeness is one of the top three candidates for the correct definition of holy. That is why I recommend both of these for their potential insights.
I have not read either of these two books as a whole, but I have read a summary on each. My interest in both of them stems from my interest in the twin concepts of holiness and wholeness and in the possibility that holy means whole.
The first book is: The Utter Relief of Holiness. It is written by John Eldredge (who is best known for his book Wild at Heart). Part of the summary of the book says that he deals with "how God makes us whole and holy". I find this last connection interesting, because it follows closely the concept of "whole and holy" as taught at Bethel University and Seminary, where I attended in the 80s and 90s. If you search on-line, then you can find Bethel's stance on this topic in their course catalog.
The second book is: Solo: An Uncommon Devotional. I am not yet clear on who authors this book from the summary that I read. What I did read that interested me, was that: "The ancient practice of lectio divina or `divine reading' was all about wholeness - whole practice, whole Bible, whole God". It just so happens that I have a classmate at Nashotah House (Seminary) who is writing on the topic of liturgy and the "lectio divina. So this one caught my interest for that reason as well. Maybe he and I will be able to collaborate on our writing!
Anyway, I wanted to share these two titles with my readers and I plan to eventually own them both. I think each may have something to say about the implications of holiness, especially if it does in fact mean moral wholeness.
I hope you enjoy your reading. If you would like, then you can leave your comments after reading either or both of these books on my blog and then you will have a chance to let others know your perspective. Take care.
In Christ,
Jon
I have not read either of these two books as a whole, but I have read a summary on each. My interest in both of them stems from my interest in the twin concepts of holiness and wholeness and in the possibility that holy means whole.
The first book is: The Utter Relief of Holiness. It is written by John Eldredge (who is best known for his book Wild at Heart). Part of the summary of the book says that he deals with "how God makes us whole and holy". I find this last connection interesting, because it follows closely the concept of "whole and holy" as taught at Bethel University and Seminary, where I attended in the 80s and 90s. If you search on-line, then you can find Bethel's stance on this topic in their course catalog.
The second book is: Solo: An Uncommon Devotional. I am not yet clear on who authors this book from the summary that I read. What I did read that interested me, was that: "The ancient practice of lectio divina or `divine reading' was all about wholeness - whole practice, whole Bible, whole God". It just so happens that I have a classmate at Nashotah House (Seminary) who is writing on the topic of liturgy and the "lectio divina. So this one caught my interest for that reason as well. Maybe he and I will be able to collaborate on our writing!
Anyway, I wanted to share these two titles with my readers and I plan to eventually own them both. I think each may have something to say about the implications of holiness, especially if it does in fact mean moral wholeness.
I hope you enjoy your reading. If you would like, then you can leave your comments after reading either or both of these books on my blog and then you will have a chance to let others know your perspective. Take care.
In Christ,
Jon
Friday, January 04, 2013
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Amateurs and Professionals
Do you want to know what holy means? Do you want the popular answer or do you want a real answer? The facts are that there is more then one viable definition for holy. It most likely means one of three major options: "set apart", "pure", or "whole" (in reverse alphabetical order to avoid prejudice). The most popular at present is "set apart". I want to take this status of where there is more than one viable or plausible definition a step further by discussing the distinction between amateurs and professionals.
To begin, let's recall a few famous quotes on the difference:
"If you think it is expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair
I would add to this quote the following, due to my recent experience with car trouble in 2012:
"If you think it is expensive to hire an amateur to do the job, wait until you hire a supposed professional."
Another quote is:
"A professional writer is an amateur who didn't quit." Richard Bach
"By the time I was 22, I was a professional. A young and flawed professional, but not an amateur." Stephen Sondheim
I'll introduce a few more valuable quotes on the difference, as I write more. The point of these quotes is that there is a clear difference between an amateur and a professional. I want to suggest that there is a way to distinguish the two and also to value the two (not just one!) As I read through a series of these quotes on "Brainy Quote", I noticed two things; 1) that the distinction between professional and amateur is important and 2) that most of the quotes prefer professional over amateur with a lesser amount of preference for amateur over professional.
I want to agree that the distinction is important, but I want to also say that it is likely dangerous to prefer professional over amateur in one sense. It is more true to life that we all have to value being an amateur, because that is where we all begin before we go on to being professionals in some occupation. Here I would fall back on a close parallel in Dr. Donald N. Larson's distinction between knower and teacher. Amateurs can be very advanced knowers, but that does not mean that they can also be teachers. But likewise some professionals lack the desire or interest of the knower that is sense in some amateurs. That is why some professionals like Sergei Bubka say: "Even now I want to keep my amateur spirit, to spend my time, to be in the sport with all my heart". But even as some professionals say that about themselves, speaking of the need for balance, an amateur like Bill Bruford have this to say about themselves in a recognition of balance: "So I have the classic amateur's technique; I know some very tricky bits and I have large gaping holes".
So let's look at where I think my writing on holiness is in terms of a balance of both amateur and professional. Let me begin with a quote from Alan Greenspan: "I was a good amateur, but only an average professional. I soon realized that there was a limit to how far I could rise in the music business, so I left the band and enrolled in New York University". If I examine my early blog posts, most of what I had to say came out of being a knower and an amateur, not a professional. It does not mean it does not have value. I am far from saying that. But I think it had a "limit" to use Greenspan's word snd "large gaping holes" like Bruford says. I was a very well-intentioned amateur with a lot of great discoveries that really make little difference to many of the professionals.
That all changed, when I decided I need more education (to get a good balance) and I enrolled at Nashotah House (Seminary) in Delafield, WI. I was lacking some of the professional side of studying word meanings up to that point. Since then I have been growing on the professional side and I hope I am also not letting go of the amateur side that just loves the thrill of discovery and hates to let go of the sheer curiosity to learn and to become a knower. This knower aspect needs to remain alongside my becoming someone who can teach what holy means.
Robert Graves once said: "In love as in sport, the amateur status must be strictly maintained". In other words, we lose something when we are only professionals who spend time on the clock not knowing why we do what we do. There is no passion for it and there is a sick kind of snobbery in professionalism and teaching alone that puts down the one who knows. I want to forever remain an amateur and a professional, so that I never become an academic snob.
Before enrolling at Nashotah House, I could feel that " ... disadvantage of not having acquired some technical profession", as Henry Bessemer once said. Now I see my professionalism growing, as I write my thesis paper. I am becoming more than a knower, I also am becoming a teacher. I love having both together. I still have that sense, as Simon van der Meer, once said that: " ... to a certain extent my slightly amateur approach ..., combined with practical experience was an asset". I don't want to ever loose that common sense approach.
Howard Hawks, a film director is quoted as once saying: "I'd rather have flawed professionals than well-meaning amateurs". But he also is famous for telling the story of a tennis pro who lost his ability to serve well, when he wrote a book about it, so sometimes all you can say is that you like something and that is how you know. I am convinced that good experiential knowledge and good scholarship need to work alongside one another, not against each other. So quoting Hawks on either side of the balance is not fair to him. He was a combination of both.
You will find sometimes "flawed professionals" writing about the meanings or definitions of words in the biblical text. You will also find "well-intentioned amateurs at times as well. I want to talk about one specific example that is away from defining holy and might help us then be more objective because it is also from the past.
That specifc example is Martin Luther. I believe, he was a "flawed professional" as well as a "well-intentioned amateur. He once had a very simple or amateur question, "How much is enough [to satisfy this God]? He found his answer in the biblical text in the words "righteousness of God". These words worked, because he overlapped the meanings of righteousness and justification. Justice is the answer to his question. Righteousness is actually a flaw, because some (not all) professionals today realize that in the Hebrew text there is a distinction between righteousness and justice. They are both amounts, but they are not the same answer to the same question. Righteousness is the answer to "How many? (ex. One God)." Justice is the answer to "How much?" (ex. love your neighbor as yourself). So Luther was a "flawed professional" but still a professional. He was also a well-intentioned amateur, but sill a knower with a down to earth real question. He was advised by some of the best professionals of his day like Erasmus' Greek text and Reuchlin's knowledge of Hebrew.
Let's hope we can be judged the same way as Luther or even better, when it comes to defining holy as it was originally understood in the biblical text in our time. Let's take being professional to a new level without losing the spirit of the amateur. Let's be like James Whistler who once said: "I maintain that two and two would continue to make four, in spite of the whine of the amateur for three or the cry of the [professional] critic for five." Let's keep our balance! Let's define holy as both an amateur and a professional!
In Christ,
Jon
To begin, let's recall a few famous quotes on the difference:
"If you think it is expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair
I would add to this quote the following, due to my recent experience with car trouble in 2012:
"If you think it is expensive to hire an amateur to do the job, wait until you hire a supposed professional."
Another quote is:
"A professional writer is an amateur who didn't quit." Richard Bach
"By the time I was 22, I was a professional. A young and flawed professional, but not an amateur." Stephen Sondheim
I'll introduce a few more valuable quotes on the difference, as I write more. The point of these quotes is that there is a clear difference between an amateur and a professional. I want to suggest that there is a way to distinguish the two and also to value the two (not just one!) As I read through a series of these quotes on "Brainy Quote", I noticed two things; 1) that the distinction between professional and amateur is important and 2) that most of the quotes prefer professional over amateur with a lesser amount of preference for amateur over professional.
I want to agree that the distinction is important, but I want to also say that it is likely dangerous to prefer professional over amateur in one sense. It is more true to life that we all have to value being an amateur, because that is where we all begin before we go on to being professionals in some occupation. Here I would fall back on a close parallel in Dr. Donald N. Larson's distinction between knower and teacher. Amateurs can be very advanced knowers, but that does not mean that they can also be teachers. But likewise some professionals lack the desire or interest of the knower that is sense in some amateurs. That is why some professionals like Sergei Bubka say: "Even now I want to keep my amateur spirit, to spend my time, to be in the sport with all my heart". But even as some professionals say that about themselves, speaking of the need for balance, an amateur like Bill Bruford have this to say about themselves in a recognition of balance: "So I have the classic amateur's technique; I know some very tricky bits and I have large gaping holes".
So let's look at where I think my writing on holiness is in terms of a balance of both amateur and professional. Let me begin with a quote from Alan Greenspan: "I was a good amateur, but only an average professional. I soon realized that there was a limit to how far I could rise in the music business, so I left the band and enrolled in New York University". If I examine my early blog posts, most of what I had to say came out of being a knower and an amateur, not a professional. It does not mean it does not have value. I am far from saying that. But I think it had a "limit" to use Greenspan's word snd "large gaping holes" like Bruford says. I was a very well-intentioned amateur with a lot of great discoveries that really make little difference to many of the professionals.
That all changed, when I decided I need more education (to get a good balance) and I enrolled at Nashotah House (Seminary) in Delafield, WI. I was lacking some of the professional side of studying word meanings up to that point. Since then I have been growing on the professional side and I hope I am also not letting go of the amateur side that just loves the thrill of discovery and hates to let go of the sheer curiosity to learn and to become a knower. This knower aspect needs to remain alongside my becoming someone who can teach what holy means.
Robert Graves once said: "In love as in sport, the amateur status must be strictly maintained". In other words, we lose something when we are only professionals who spend time on the clock not knowing why we do what we do. There is no passion for it and there is a sick kind of snobbery in professionalism and teaching alone that puts down the one who knows. I want to forever remain an amateur and a professional, so that I never become an academic snob.
Before enrolling at Nashotah House, I could feel that " ... disadvantage of not having acquired some technical profession", as Henry Bessemer once said. Now I see my professionalism growing, as I write my thesis paper. I am becoming more than a knower, I also am becoming a teacher. I love having both together. I still have that sense, as Simon van der Meer, once said that: " ... to a certain extent my slightly amateur approach ..., combined with practical experience was an asset". I don't want to ever loose that common sense approach.
Howard Hawks, a film director is quoted as once saying: "I'd rather have flawed professionals than well-meaning amateurs". But he also is famous for telling the story of a tennis pro who lost his ability to serve well, when he wrote a book about it, so sometimes all you can say is that you like something and that is how you know. I am convinced that good experiential knowledge and good scholarship need to work alongside one another, not against each other. So quoting Hawks on either side of the balance is not fair to him. He was a combination of both.
You will find sometimes "flawed professionals" writing about the meanings or definitions of words in the biblical text. You will also find "well-intentioned amateurs at times as well. I want to talk about one specific example that is away from defining holy and might help us then be more objective because it is also from the past.
That specifc example is Martin Luther. I believe, he was a "flawed professional" as well as a "well-intentioned amateur. He once had a very simple or amateur question, "How much is enough [to satisfy this God]? He found his answer in the biblical text in the words "righteousness of God". These words worked, because he overlapped the meanings of righteousness and justification. Justice is the answer to his question. Righteousness is actually a flaw, because some (not all) professionals today realize that in the Hebrew text there is a distinction between righteousness and justice. They are both amounts, but they are not the same answer to the same question. Righteousness is the answer to "How many? (ex. One God)." Justice is the answer to "How much?" (ex. love your neighbor as yourself). So Luther was a "flawed professional" but still a professional. He was also a well-intentioned amateur, but sill a knower with a down to earth real question. He was advised by some of the best professionals of his day like Erasmus' Greek text and Reuchlin's knowledge of Hebrew.
Let's hope we can be judged the same way as Luther or even better, when it comes to defining holy as it was originally understood in the biblical text in our time. Let's take being professional to a new level without losing the spirit of the amateur. Let's be like James Whistler who once said: "I maintain that two and two would continue to make four, in spite of the whine of the amateur for three or the cry of the [professional] critic for five." Let's keep our balance! Let's define holy as both an amateur and a professional!
In Christ,
Jon
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Knowing AND TEACHING
I had a great conversation yesterday with one of my college professors in the philosophy department of Bethel University. His name is Dr. Stanley D. Anderson. The thing that made it exciting was that he is the author of a book that now goes out to all Bethel University freshman called Becoming Whole and Holy. It can be found through Worldcat as published in 2004, the same year I began my work on holy in earnest. If you have read any entries for this blog previously, then you will know why I am interested. But what was different in my discussion yesterday was that I was able to say I agree totally with him and with Bethel University on a knowledge level and from the perspective of life that their order of "Whole and Holy" is correct, as they define the word holy as "set apart". This agreement is important.
From that starting point, my quest is to find out if holy means "set apart" or if other words in the biblical text mean "set apart" and if fact, holy means "whole". So he and I know already about "whole" and "set apart" in terms of their priority order in real life. My quest is also that suggested by Andrew Murray in the late 1800s and early 1900s. He may turn out to be right on, when it comes to the quest for understanding the Bible
The project that I am currently working on is to qualify to be a teacher of what holy means. The difference here is the difference that we find in Paul's letters to Timothy, when he says "Pay attention to your life and teaching". So in paying attention to my life, I find that being whole or being healthy (not just physically!) is a necessary priority. But that does not mean that being "set apart" goes away. But also knowing about being whole does not make me qualified to teach that from the Scriptures! That is a different task. Teaching is like a map for the territory of real life. For that, I study to be an expert not only on territory, but on reading ancient maps like the Bible.
So my old alma mater and I agree as knowers and as people learning from real life. But it is important for teachers to know that I am not boasting before I put my suit of armor on for battle as opposed to returning from battle as to what holy means. This is very important to teachers. They want to know that a fellow teacher has done the work that they have done to be a teacher. That is fair isn't it? I sensed that this was important to Dr. Anderson during the course of our conversation. Humility is a good thing.
The task in front of me is to finish my exegetical work for seminary in order to make me qualified as a teacher among teachers or a map user among other map users. People may already know the truth and that it is life that comes before teaching. But that does not mean that teaching should not be paid attention to! Rather it is a very imporant second step! Remember Paul's words!
One of my friends, after my talk with Dr. Anderson, pointed out that many extremists or exlusivists within the Christian faith community put being "set apart" ahead of being "whole". He is right about some potentially dangerous implications, if they are not reading the map correclty. This is precisely where implications for life are built from how people read the map and how they see reality. So my task is singular. Solve the map (of the Bible) as fast as I can as well as I can!
In Christ,
Jon
From that starting point, my quest is to find out if holy means "set apart" or if other words in the biblical text mean "set apart" and if fact, holy means "whole". So he and I know already about "whole" and "set apart" in terms of their priority order in real life. My quest is also that suggested by Andrew Murray in the late 1800s and early 1900s. He may turn out to be right on, when it comes to the quest for understanding the Bible
The project that I am currently working on is to qualify to be a teacher of what holy means. The difference here is the difference that we find in Paul's letters to Timothy, when he says "Pay attention to your life and teaching". So in paying attention to my life, I find that being whole or being healthy (not just physically!) is a necessary priority. But that does not mean that being "set apart" goes away. But also knowing about being whole does not make me qualified to teach that from the Scriptures! That is a different task. Teaching is like a map for the territory of real life. For that, I study to be an expert not only on territory, but on reading ancient maps like the Bible.
So my old alma mater and I agree as knowers and as people learning from real life. But it is important for teachers to know that I am not boasting before I put my suit of armor on for battle as opposed to returning from battle as to what holy means. This is very important to teachers. They want to know that a fellow teacher has done the work that they have done to be a teacher. That is fair isn't it? I sensed that this was important to Dr. Anderson during the course of our conversation. Humility is a good thing.
The task in front of me is to finish my exegetical work for seminary in order to make me qualified as a teacher among teachers or a map user among other map users. People may already know the truth and that it is life that comes before teaching. But that does not mean that teaching should not be paid attention to! Rather it is a very imporant second step! Remember Paul's words!
One of my friends, after my talk with Dr. Anderson, pointed out that many extremists or exlusivists within the Christian faith community put being "set apart" ahead of being "whole". He is right about some potentially dangerous implications, if they are not reading the map correclty. This is precisely where implications for life are built from how people read the map and how they see reality. So my task is singular. Solve the map (of the Bible) as fast as I can as well as I can!
In Christ,
Jon
Holy: Understanding it Better As Knowers and Teachers
This is one of those entries where I need to say something about my other closely related blog on communication basics 101. It is largely the best tool I can recommend for getting at the basics of meaning, as it relates to the meaning of holy. When it all comes down to meaning, holy is likely one of five major classes of meaning or at least one class is primary.
So if you want to understand those classes better, please check out my most recent entry:
http://communicationbasics101.blogspot.com/2012/11/communication-basics-word-meanings-of.html and some of the earlier ones in that same blog.
They are very helpful for keeping things as basic as possible, but they also are categories that are supported within the scholarly community of translators, linguists and teachers. The classes of meaning have credibility and credibility is what I try to add a little more of, in my latest entry.
Please examine the entry and then for yourself decide which one of the five meaning classes you think holy falls into as a word that posses meaning. Another challenge would be to take the different definitions that are possible and ask yourself as one example, if "set apart" or if "whole" falls into one or more of these basic meaning classes and which one is primary.
Theologians sometimes mingle these basic meanings, when it comes to "set apart", so see if you can figure out which meaning is primary or not. Test this method for yourself. You do not need to be an expert or scholar to test your knowledge. It will not make you a scholar, but it can make you knower. Enjoy!
In Christ,
Jon
So if you want to understand those classes better, please check out my most recent entry:
http://communicationbasics101.blogspot.com/2012/11/communication-basics-word-meanings-of.html and some of the earlier ones in that same blog.
They are very helpful for keeping things as basic as possible, but they also are categories that are supported within the scholarly community of translators, linguists and teachers. The classes of meaning have credibility and credibility is what I try to add a little more of, in my latest entry.
Please examine the entry and then for yourself decide which one of the five meaning classes you think holy falls into as a word that posses meaning. Another challenge would be to take the different definitions that are possible and ask yourself as one example, if "set apart" or if "whole" falls into one or more of these basic meaning classes and which one is primary.
Theologians sometimes mingle these basic meanings, when it comes to "set apart", so see if you can figure out which meaning is primary or not. Test this method for yourself. You do not need to be an expert or scholar to test your knowledge. It will not make you a scholar, but it can make you knower. Enjoy!
In Christ,
Jon
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Holy: Understanding it Better by Understanding the Times
In the context of Eclessiastes 3:2-8, we read these lines among others:
There is a time for everything
and a season for every activity under heaven;
...
a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
....
These lines can prove very valuablle, when trying to defuse false accusations in a controvery like the differences in defining the biblical words for holy. It can also reduce the false name calling that sometimes happens even among Christians and scholars. You probably have heard someone called a "hopeless optimist" or someone else on the other side of the argument called a "graveyard pessimist". These are hardly compliments. You might have also heard someone called a "conservative" or "liberal", based on whether you should accept their views or not. These are used as ways to lay down a divide between groups of people. I would like to clarify who I am, as I work on defining the biblical words that we translate as holy, sanctified or hallowed. My point is not to create controversy, but to create clarity. Readers have the right to know more about who I am. I also will try to clarify who some others are in the important discussion of what holy means.
Let's begin by using the lines from Eccleisiastes to define what I mean first by optimist and pessismist and then second what I mean by conservative or liberal. It is helpful to begin with a common understanding of what I am saying, even if there is not an agreement with what I am saying.
First, I define an optimist this way. They are convinced that it is "a time to search". I define the pessimist this way. They are convinced that it s "a time to give up" (as lost). Neither is good or bad in itself, but there is a question of relevance in relationship to time. As an example, I remember my mother teaching me, when I was ready to give up on some valued possession as lost, to re-trace my steps. She was right a fair number of times as I recovered quite a few things that way, but sometimes in the end, the valued possession had to be given up as lost. Which point of view about the times in which we live is the more relevant or the right match for the times?
Second, I define a conservative this way. They are convinced that it is "a time to keep". I define the liberal this way. They are convinced that it is "a time to throw away". Again, neither is good or bad in itself, but there is a question of relevance. I remember learning a good rule for when to throw away or give away or sell some of my possessions. It had to do with how long it had been since I had used some things. Only a few times have I ever regretted deciding that it was " a time to throw away". But some of those times were a bit hard to swallow later, when I really could have used those things I got rid of. Which point of view about the times in which we live is more relevant or the right match for the times?
My general position on defining holy is the following in relationship to the current majority poition on the definition of holy as "set apart" or "separate". First, I am an optimist. I believe that regardless of the past attempts to define holy, right now is a time in which it is "a time to search" rather than "a time to give up" as lost the possibility of knowing the meaning of holy with greater certainty. I believe in the value of searching recent and past discoveries in archaeology, of evaluating further research into general exegesis and linguistics (for example from classic rhetoric), and in applying these types of things to the task of defiing holy. I am optimistic that the deadlock between the majority position of the prior 350 years of defining holy and the the majority position of the last 150 years of defining holy can be broken. So that is why I am still searching for answers in this blog and why I continue to produce blog entries.
Some others are convinced that it is "a time to give up" the definition of holy as "whole" for the previous 350 years as lost in comparison to the last 150 years of scholarship. They are pessimistic about the value of re-evaluatng the present time, because they believe that those earlier times of 350 yaers belong to a period of a failed searching. I can't agree. I think it is a great time for searching. That says something about who I am.
Again, my general position on defining holy is the following in relationship to the current majority on the defintion of holy as "set apart" or "separate". So second, I working in my search toward possibly realizing that it is "a time to throw away" the present popular definition. This would then make me a liberal, as defined above. But I am not to that place quite yet. In the present, I am convinced it is "a time to keep" both the definition of the prior 350 years as "whole" and the last 150 years as "set apart" and to evaluate them both again, before a final decision to "throw away" either one. I could also put "pure" into this mix as a slimmer possibility for a deifnition to keep. It is not the time to throw any of these away. It is, however, a time to realize that when my search is over, some of what has been proposed in the past will mean it is "a time to throw away". That should make my position very clear. I am not stuck in a particular time, but I am trying to be relevant to the time in which I live. I think I am moving forward toward and am attaining that goal. The key now is finishing my thesis paper for seminary. This clarification though is a part of that. That says a little more about who I am.
Now let me use a broad brush to say a bit about relevant history that might be influencing our time more than we know. The past sometimes matters, even through it is the past, like family influence and our own life choices of the past still influence the present. I know too that sometimes the past can be irrelevant. Let me try to stick with what might be relevant.
Near the beginning of the last 150 years was an historic divide between the Fundamentalists and the Modernists. Today their descendants are each called Conservatives and Liberals. The sad thing is that the so-called Conservatives in Protestantism did not "keep" the meaning of holy as "whole" as the primary definition from the prior 350 years. Instead they thought it was "a time to throw away" the primary definition of "whole" and make it only secondary (a descriptive word at best) while at the same time they saw it as "a time to keep" the secondary definition of the past as "set apart" and make it central. They threw away, while their name says they kept. These Conservatives were not conservative on the central character trait or quality or attribute of God. This is one of the greatest ironies of all of Christian history. How out of character with your name can you be?
I think the explanation though may not be difficult. In the late 1800s a Baptist named Charles Haddon Spurgeon (who I appreciate in many ways) was involved in what became known as the Downgrade Controversy. One of his banner phrases was the passage that reads "come out and be separate". This in turn became something that later Fundamentalists saw as sort of a creedo and banner statement of their stance . Members had to agree that it was a time to "separate" from the Modernists. Their new definition for holy helped support their stance because "set apart" or "separate", became the central character trait for who God is and who a saints is in their primary character.
I must also say that the Modernists were the ones who primarily dug into how "holy" ought to be defined especially in a Hebrew context. They searched as scholars. Their lexicons in the latter 1800s largely influenced, not just the Fundamentalists to define holy as "set apart", but also those within their own camp. It is another irony of history that their definition for holy helped the Fundamentalists to form and support a creedo of "set apart" or "separate". I don't know that they intended for this new definition to create a bigger divide between themselves and the Fundamentalists, but that was an unintended consequence at least. How out of character with their name can they be? They assisted their opposition.
So flashing back to the present. It is important that a person understands the times and what is relevant. What is most relevant is the present time and what approach fits or is relevant to that time. It is important not to get stuck in a time that is no longer relevant. We should not be sticks in the mud or sticks stuck in the mire of another time that is not relevant to our own. Some times can be relevant even if not the present. They can parallel the present, but that is not automatic. It is important to discern when it is a time to be an optimist or a pessimist. And it is also imporant to discern when it is a time to be a conservative or a liberal.
Even in wirting this piece, I have had to keep searching for a better word and I also had give up when I wasconvinced that searching further for the right word would not profit. I have also had to decide when to keep a sentence and when to throw it away. You and I may disagree on some of those decisions, yet they are naturally part of the times of life. If I were to keep everything, you would consider me a pack rat and my writing would not have faced the editing that it needed. If I threw out everything, then this page might still be blank and not worth anything at all. You get the picture. Solomon's wisdom matters.
These wise principles of Solomon are no less relevant today than they were back then. So I guess at the present time, I should be described as a optimistic conservative, who at the right time will make the liberal decision to throw away some of the three most likely definitions for holy, as it is found the Bible. I also at some point may decide, after I have completed my thesis paper at least, that it is time to finally give up writing more for the time being. Only if it produces results will I then need to once again search for more on its meaning. Maybe, at least temporarily, I will be able to say, "I have found what what's needed by searching".
May God give guidance from Solomon's principles. May we also be willing from the results of our decisions on what to do in our times, be willing to evaluate whether our wisdom is God's wisdom, as it was penned by Solomon. And if not, may we seek God's face for greater relevance and wisdom to know our times. Don't get stuck in the wrong time! You don't want to hear that punchy line, "Whatever!"
In Christ,
Jon
.
There is a time for everything
and a season for every activity under heaven;
...
a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
....
These lines can prove very valuablle, when trying to defuse false accusations in a controvery like the differences in defining the biblical words for holy. It can also reduce the false name calling that sometimes happens even among Christians and scholars. You probably have heard someone called a "hopeless optimist" or someone else on the other side of the argument called a "graveyard pessimist". These are hardly compliments. You might have also heard someone called a "conservative" or "liberal", based on whether you should accept their views or not. These are used as ways to lay down a divide between groups of people. I would like to clarify who I am, as I work on defining the biblical words that we translate as holy, sanctified or hallowed. My point is not to create controversy, but to create clarity. Readers have the right to know more about who I am. I also will try to clarify who some others are in the important discussion of what holy means.
Let's begin by using the lines from Eccleisiastes to define what I mean first by optimist and pessismist and then second what I mean by conservative or liberal. It is helpful to begin with a common understanding of what I am saying, even if there is not an agreement with what I am saying.
First, I define an optimist this way. They are convinced that it is "a time to search". I define the pessimist this way. They are convinced that it s "a time to give up" (as lost). Neither is good or bad in itself, but there is a question of relevance in relationship to time. As an example, I remember my mother teaching me, when I was ready to give up on some valued possession as lost, to re-trace my steps. She was right a fair number of times as I recovered quite a few things that way, but sometimes in the end, the valued possession had to be given up as lost. Which point of view about the times in which we live is the more relevant or the right match for the times?
Second, I define a conservative this way. They are convinced that it is "a time to keep". I define the liberal this way. They are convinced that it is "a time to throw away". Again, neither is good or bad in itself, but there is a question of relevance. I remember learning a good rule for when to throw away or give away or sell some of my possessions. It had to do with how long it had been since I had used some things. Only a few times have I ever regretted deciding that it was " a time to throw away". But some of those times were a bit hard to swallow later, when I really could have used those things I got rid of. Which point of view about the times in which we live is more relevant or the right match for the times?
My general position on defining holy is the following in relationship to the current majority poition on the definition of holy as "set apart" or "separate". First, I am an optimist. I believe that regardless of the past attempts to define holy, right now is a time in which it is "a time to search" rather than "a time to give up" as lost the possibility of knowing the meaning of holy with greater certainty. I believe in the value of searching recent and past discoveries in archaeology, of evaluating further research into general exegesis and linguistics (for example from classic rhetoric), and in applying these types of things to the task of defiing holy. I am optimistic that the deadlock between the majority position of the prior 350 years of defining holy and the the majority position of the last 150 years of defining holy can be broken. So that is why I am still searching for answers in this blog and why I continue to produce blog entries.
Some others are convinced that it is "a time to give up" the definition of holy as "whole" for the previous 350 years as lost in comparison to the last 150 years of scholarship. They are pessimistic about the value of re-evaluatng the present time, because they believe that those earlier times of 350 yaers belong to a period of a failed searching. I can't agree. I think it is a great time for searching. That says something about who I am.
Again, my general position on defining holy is the following in relationship to the current majority on the defintion of holy as "set apart" or "separate". So second, I working in my search toward possibly realizing that it is "a time to throw away" the present popular definition. This would then make me a liberal, as defined above. But I am not to that place quite yet. In the present, I am convinced it is "a time to keep" both the definition of the prior 350 years as "whole" and the last 150 years as "set apart" and to evaluate them both again, before a final decision to "throw away" either one. I could also put "pure" into this mix as a slimmer possibility for a deifnition to keep. It is not the time to throw any of these away. It is, however, a time to realize that when my search is over, some of what has been proposed in the past will mean it is "a time to throw away". That should make my position very clear. I am not stuck in a particular time, but I am trying to be relevant to the time in which I live. I think I am moving forward toward and am attaining that goal. The key now is finishing my thesis paper for seminary. This clarification though is a part of that. That says a little more about who I am.
Now let me use a broad brush to say a bit about relevant history that might be influencing our time more than we know. The past sometimes matters, even through it is the past, like family influence and our own life choices of the past still influence the present. I know too that sometimes the past can be irrelevant. Let me try to stick with what might be relevant.
Near the beginning of the last 150 years was an historic divide between the Fundamentalists and the Modernists. Today their descendants are each called Conservatives and Liberals. The sad thing is that the so-called Conservatives in Protestantism did not "keep" the meaning of holy as "whole" as the primary definition from the prior 350 years. Instead they thought it was "a time to throw away" the primary definition of "whole" and make it only secondary (a descriptive word at best) while at the same time they saw it as "a time to keep" the secondary definition of the past as "set apart" and make it central. They threw away, while their name says they kept. These Conservatives were not conservative on the central character trait or quality or attribute of God. This is one of the greatest ironies of all of Christian history. How out of character with your name can you be?
I think the explanation though may not be difficult. In the late 1800s a Baptist named Charles Haddon Spurgeon (who I appreciate in many ways) was involved in what became known as the Downgrade Controversy. One of his banner phrases was the passage that reads "come out and be separate". This in turn became something that later Fundamentalists saw as sort of a creedo and banner statement of their stance . Members had to agree that it was a time to "separate" from the Modernists. Their new definition for holy helped support their stance because "set apart" or "separate", became the central character trait for who God is and who a saints is in their primary character.
I must also say that the Modernists were the ones who primarily dug into how "holy" ought to be defined especially in a Hebrew context. They searched as scholars. Their lexicons in the latter 1800s largely influenced, not just the Fundamentalists to define holy as "set apart", but also those within their own camp. It is another irony of history that their definition for holy helped the Fundamentalists to form and support a creedo of "set apart" or "separate". I don't know that they intended for this new definition to create a bigger divide between themselves and the Fundamentalists, but that was an unintended consequence at least. How out of character with their name can they be? They assisted their opposition.
So flashing back to the present. It is important that a person understands the times and what is relevant. What is most relevant is the present time and what approach fits or is relevant to that time. It is important not to get stuck in a time that is no longer relevant. We should not be sticks in the mud or sticks stuck in the mire of another time that is not relevant to our own. Some times can be relevant even if not the present. They can parallel the present, but that is not automatic. It is important to discern when it is a time to be an optimist or a pessimist. And it is also imporant to discern when it is a time to be a conservative or a liberal.
Even in wirting this piece, I have had to keep searching for a better word and I also had give up when I wasconvinced that searching further for the right word would not profit. I have also had to decide when to keep a sentence and when to throw it away. You and I may disagree on some of those decisions, yet they are naturally part of the times of life. If I were to keep everything, you would consider me a pack rat and my writing would not have faced the editing that it needed. If I threw out everything, then this page might still be blank and not worth anything at all. You get the picture. Solomon's wisdom matters.
These wise principles of Solomon are no less relevant today than they were back then. So I guess at the present time, I should be described as a optimistic conservative, who at the right time will make the liberal decision to throw away some of the three most likely definitions for holy, as it is found the Bible. I also at some point may decide, after I have completed my thesis paper at least, that it is time to finally give up writing more for the time being. Only if it produces results will I then need to once again search for more on its meaning. Maybe, at least temporarily, I will be able to say, "I have found what what's needed by searching".
May God give guidance from Solomon's principles. May we also be willing from the results of our decisions on what to do in our times, be willing to evaluate whether our wisdom is God's wisdom, as it was penned by Solomon. And if not, may we seek God's face for greater relevance and wisdom to know our times. Don't get stuck in the wrong time! You don't want to hear that punchy line, "Whatever!"
In Christ,
Jon
.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Genesis 2:1-3 (Part 5 (of 5)
This final step is every bit as important as the 4 prior ones. Here I will explore analogies to compare to the Hebrew word for holy, qadosh, and other Hebrew words for things like divide, separate, set apart, whole, etc. Analogies are the art of great teachers. Jesus' parables are a classic examples for how he earned the right to be called rabbi. This will be critical for knowing which class the Hebrew word for holy best fits.
This will be the final step. In many cases in the past it is the first and only step taken relying heavily on the area of etymology and the relationship between words that use similar lettering. That was the likeness relied upon. Here I will rely upon word classes and other words that are clear examples from that class.
There is also the importance of separating out the different steps from classifying to placing a word in a semantic domain (a set of words that have things in common). The diagram below shows those sub-steps as critical parts of this final step.
They can be pictured as follows:
This diagram will also help in defining where etymology fits exactly. It is a method that is often described differently and I hope to resolve that fuzziness.
[This entry is also in development, waiting for me to have ample time. I wish I didn't have to do other things to earn my way in life. Knowing the meaning of this word with certainty could potentially have big implcations]
This will be the final step. In many cases in the past it is the first and only step taken relying heavily on the area of etymology and the relationship between words that use similar lettering. That was the likeness relied upon. Here I will rely upon word classes and other words that are clear examples from that class.
There is also the importance of separating out the different steps from classifying to placing a word in a semantic domain (a set of words that have things in common). The diagram below shows those sub-steps as critical parts of this final step.
They can be pictured as follows:
This diagram will also help in defining where etymology fits exactly. It is a method that is often described differently and I hope to resolve that fuzziness.
[This entry is also in development, waiting for me to have ample time. I wish I didn't have to do other things to earn my way in life. Knowing the meaning of this word with certainty could potentially have big implcations]
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Genesis 2:1-3, Part 4 (of 5)
"The first choice we make everyday is will we act upon life or will be acted upon", according to Stephen R. Covey. Likewise understanding the actions within a unit of biblical text is very significant. It is not just though a matter of active or passive, it is also a matter of examing both the pre-state before an action and the post-state after an action that tell a person a great deal about two primary aspects of action. Both the means by which the state of life is changed and also sometimes the natural or passive motive or the active motive behind the action.
This part will focus on the actions within the text. It will look at charting what are referred to as the pre-state and post-state of actions. It is helpful for seeing how something is done, but also why it is done. I learned this from a great expert in the area of computers, James J. Odell, who used it for different a different purpose having to do with search engines. I have found this tool to be invaluable for focusing on the actions in the text.
If you wish to know more about Odell's ideas, I suggest picking up his book, Advanced Object-Oriented Analysis and Design Using UML. The book I am drawing from is from 1998. He should not be held liable for my use of his ideas in dealing with a biblical text, but he should be credited for anything new I am able to contribute. I find his way of seeing things to be truly unique and beneficial.
This uniqueness may end up making this my most exciting entry on Genesis 2:1-3, just because you may have never seen this approach before. Also an analogy from Stephen R. Covey may help clear up why God is staid to "make holy"/"Sanctify" the seventh day and also why God blessed it as well.
Until I am able to update this entry further, please enjoy the following chart inspired by Odell's work:
I'm hoping to use "smart art" in this entry. I will try to take what I have charted above and make it even more clear though the use of this application within Word 2007. If I am able, you will enjoy the clarity of the lay out for how the different actions relate to outcomes, purposes and other actions. [This entry is in process, awaiting when I have substantial time to complete it.
This part will focus on the actions within the text. It will look at charting what are referred to as the pre-state and post-state of actions. It is helpful for seeing how something is done, but also why it is done. I learned this from a great expert in the area of computers, James J. Odell, who used it for different a different purpose having to do with search engines. I have found this tool to be invaluable for focusing on the actions in the text.
If you wish to know more about Odell's ideas, I suggest picking up his book, Advanced Object-Oriented Analysis and Design Using UML. The book I am drawing from is from 1998. He should not be held liable for my use of his ideas in dealing with a biblical text, but he should be credited for anything new I am able to contribute. I find his way of seeing things to be truly unique and beneficial.
This uniqueness may end up making this my most exciting entry on Genesis 2:1-3, just because you may have never seen this approach before. Also an analogy from Stephen R. Covey may help clear up why God is staid to "make holy"/"Sanctify" the seventh day and also why God blessed it as well.
Until I am able to update this entry further, please enjoy the following chart inspired by Odell's work:
Blessed and
sanctified
Pre-state Post-state
Finished Unfinished Finished
(complete action)
Ended Not
over Ended
(complete action)
[Work] Working Work
(complete action)
Had done Had
not done (incomplete action) Had
done (complete action)
Rested Worked
(completed action) Rested
(complete action)
[Work] Working Work
(completed action)
Had done Had
not done Had
done (complete action)
Blessed Becoming
fruitful, multiplying, and filling Fruitful,
multiply, and fill
(becoming
fruitful, not yet completed
action by his other multiplying, not
yet full) actions
being complete)
Sanctified Becoming
set apart or whole Is set apart or whole
(completed
action by his other actions
being complete)
if set apart, then (day
not separate from the other six) (day
separated from other six)
if whole, then (partial
day of incomplete rest) (whole day of complete rest)
Rested worked rested (complete action)
(didn’t
rest the next day)
[Work] Working Work
(complete action)
Had created Creating Created
(complete action)
Had made Making Made
(complete action)
The problem with the idea of separate is that there is no immediate direct
reference to the other days of the week in this discussion in Genesis 2:1-3. Instead the focus in the more immediate context is not on separating days
or on separating work from rest, but instead on complete action versus
incomplete action. Of course, there is a
distinction between (a separation of) pre-state and post-state, but the point is to describe and
identify the post-state, not to focus on this very natural separation. The idea of separation is natural to the
context, but it is not the focus of the context. In fact, as Andrew Murray implied many years ago there are other Hebrew words that point to the idea of separation as biblical and so be holy or sanctified would not have to be one of them.
Jon Westlund 1/1/11 (revised slightly since this date)
I'm hoping to use "smart art" in this entry. I will try to take what I have charted above and make it even more clear though the use of this application within Word 2007. If I am able, you will enjoy the clarity of the lay out for how the different actions relate to outcomes, purposes and other actions. [This entry is in process, awaiting when I have substantial time to complete it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
