Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better Through Exodus 34 (Transfer Relationships - Part 2 of 5)

PREFACE

One of the hardest parts of my writing is making sure I understand a text there and then before I leap to the here and now.  The goal is to free myself as much as possible from an outsider's point of view and instead put on an insider's hat.  Only then can transfer from insider to outsider really happen in a way that is true and humble. 

One of the greatest errors in the past for trying to understand blessed or holy inside the Bible is the habit of falling back on two methods that have to do with relationships of place and time or transfer between differences of place and time.  One method is the use of etymology.  The other method is the use of using cognate languages.  While there are times that both of these methods are essential, I think in the case of blessed and holy this is not the case.  In fact, I would even suggest that a person is better off to avoid each method as much as possible based on what we know about deciphering unknown languages. 

I base my view on my own revised version of the five fundamental pillars identified by Michael Coe, a highly regarded expert on Mayan decipherment, for all successful decipherments of unknown languages. 

 

                                                  Photo of Michael Coe


Those pillars are:

·         The language must be a presently known language in at least one of three ways.  As a whole, the method requires some connection with known languages to be effective.

·         There should be a large enough database and texts of the language.  This addresses the amount of text that is needed to be effective. 

·         There should be a connected cultural context of the language.  This addresses the issue of relationship where there must be a connection to be effective.

·         There should be understood parallel or bilingual inscriptions of the language.  The  key action in this case is understanding a less well understood from a parallel that is even better understood. 

·         There should be pictorial or concrete references with the text of the language.  The thing that can really help is a referent to go with meaning and both kinds are very helpful. 

I will limit my discussion mostly to the meaning of holy here, because I have studied it far more extensively than I have blessed.  Many of the same things, though, could be use for finding the meaning of any words in the text. 

If you were to pick up a typical lexicon of Hebrew, you would likely arrive at the idea that qadosh (the Hebrew word for holy), is best defined as "set apart".   This is largely derived from an etymological argument for the Hebrew word that we typically translate as holy. 

There are two problems with the argument for its etymology.  One is that this etymology is more theory than model.  Second is  that the uncertainty of the theory is usually not opening acknowledged.  It is known, but only to those who have studied the word to the extent of writing a more lengthy word study. 

Regarding the first concern, there is not a contemporary like the leader of the Hebrews, Moses, who wrote that this word is derived from the meanings of each of these letters or from another word similar to qadosh.  If we had that, then we would have a model description of the meaning of holy that could be very helpful.  Sometimes ancient writers give to us a legitimate etymology for a word that we know is reliable.  The problem in the case of the Hebrew word for holy, is that there is no historical example of this, which makes an etymology for Hebrew word of qadosh highly speculative. 

That leads us to the second problem.  Most of the time the speculative nature of trying to come up with a meaning either contemporary or previous to the word qadosh in the text, is not even acknowledged.  You have to open the most contemporary Hebrew lexicon or dictionary to see that acknowledged in a Hebrew lexicon.   Clines' Dictionary of Classical Hebrew is the most straightforward in acknowledging the uncertainty.  Otherwise, you have to look  it up in a book devoted at length to discussing the meaning of holy like Jo Bailey Wells' book, God's Holy People: A Theme in Biblical Theology. 

Now I would like to discuss the problem of what are called cognate languages.  These are words that are related by a common origin.  This is usually recognized by the common forms of words from related languages.  There are a number of ancient languages that have apparently related words deriving from a similar QDS root pattern.  There are issues though that can be raised based on Coe's principles. 

First, Hebrew is a much larger volume of text than are many of the cognate languages that are relied upon to define qadosh.  Second, there is no doubt that these languages are more closely connected to Hebrew than many others, yet sometimes these languages that are being relied upon are not contemporaneous but prior or later.  So the close connection is not as close as one might hope.  Third, I have not seen a lot of data for parallels.  The best here would be the Septuagint where Greek is parallel as opposed to what is found in examples of ancient cognate languages.  Finally, there are no spectacular finds of pictures or concrete examples in many of these texts.  If they do exist, I have never heard of anything of that sort in these other cognate languages when it comes to holy. The closest I have seen to anything like that is the work of Mary Douglas inside the Hebrew Biblical text rather than any reference to some related language on the outside looking in. 

                                                          Photo of Mary Douglas



What is really needed, and it is what I am attempting to provide, is an argument from the Hebrew itself.  The reason is because there is much more to learn from the large database of text in Hebrew.  And there is also a very parallel example of another language in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew.  These are far more in value due to their overwhelming database sizes and the fact that the Greek in this case can function like a Rosetta Stone in discerning the meaning of obscure words in Hebrew where we don't have a lot to work with.   But the words for blessed or holy are far from obscure words. To me, using etymology and cognate languages are quite unnecessary. 

But really the biggest issue is that each of these methods, etymology and cognates, have each undercut rather than enhanced the direct study of Hebrew in its own right.  The great majority of the time  in reading a word study on qadosh/holy, the decision on the meaning of holy is made way before the Hebrew text is even encountered.   Qadosh is often treated like we have a really small data base to work with instead of huge one that indicates that etymology and cognate words will not be very valuable in the end.  It is encountering qadosh and its other forms inside the text that I think is the most valuable of all. 

Mary Douglas' treatment of holy from inside the Biblical text begins things in the right direction.  Let's study first the text that has come down to us.  After all, the insider may know more than the outsider! 


TRANSFER FROM THEN AND THERE TO HERE AND NOW


You may wonder about my process of the 5 T's.  Let me shed some light on each of these, by defining each one.  The central concept is a relationship that changes from there and then to here and now (and even to elsewhere and later).  So here is how each compares in my effort to relate things from there and then of Scripture to the here and now of our lives:


The Five T's of Transfer (Relationships of different kinds):


Translation is a transfer of amounts from there and then to here and now

Transfer is a transfer of relationships from there and then to here and now

Total is a transfer of wholes from there and then to here and now

Training is a transfer of actions from there and then to here and now

Teaching is a transfer of things from there and then to here and now.























Exodus 

[diagram of text]

[contemporary outline of text] 


[This piece is still being worked on due to an interruption today.  I hope to revisit it fairly soon. 


In Christ,

Jon

 

Holy: Understanding It Better Through Gen. 1:1-2:4a (Total)

PREFACE

The definition of holy has certainly seen its share of conflict and controversy in the last 100 plus years.  But also it has high level of importance in the Bible and in terms of personal interest and its potential connection to a very timely topic - healthy.  The personal interest is seen in its close connection with a person's name, as for an example, God's name of Yahweh.  "Holy be your name" is part of the opening in the Lord's Prayer.  The topic of being whole or being healthy is currently one of major importance.  With the possible definition of "moral wholeness", it could tie directly into healthy as one of the hot topics of the 21st century.   So the overall or total approach to determining a word's meaning is looking at all four areas of interest or concern: 1) translate to an equal, 2) transfer from and to a location and time, 3) total to avoid need gaps, 4) train in the skills for application, and 5) teach what is what. 

So far in my entries this week, I have dealt with translation and transfer.  Today, I will be spending some time beefing up 1) translate and 2) transfer.  I will also use today to look ahead to 3) training and 4) teaching elements.  This is what I call the total.  It keeps me from leaving gaps in my attempt to persuade others of the meanings for Yahweh, blessed, and holy. 

In the Western world, we usually associate the total of something with the opening and closing of what we say, but I want to take a more Eastern approach and place it primarily in the middle.  This approach I learned from Mary Douglas, a rather famous anthropologist, who has written on the different structural pattern found in Hebrew writings in the Bible.  This does not mean that I will not also have the total of all the parts in the opening and closing, as is usually found in the West.  Rather it means I will keep my eye on the whole of the process also in the middle of my writing like the Hebrews. 

I value the total so much, because without it things are not complete or total and can therefore easily fail.  One writer in speaking of the persuasion cascade pointed out that his method would not work, if it was not completed through the whole of the steps.  He understood that there would then be gaps in the persuasion process which then could lead to persuasion failure.  I think this also applies to defining words and trying to make a good case for a particular view. 

The greatest example of the opposite of what I am saying is the view that the context is THE key to understanding the meaning of a word.  Now that the etymology of holy in the Hebrew, the Aramaic, and the Greek is seen as a matter of conflict and controversy; context is now being promoted as THE way to resolve its meaning.  I find that very unsatisfactory.  It is only one part of at least four perspectives in the total reading and understanding process of reading the Scripture. 

That is critical to understanding my approach.  Context alone for defining a word will not work in my view.  It requires a much more comprehensive approach.  Then from that larger perspective, a person can see the convergence of perspectives hopefully all pointing to the same thing. 

My goal through this blog is to give people another choice in the area of meaning that they have not previously been aware of as people, who desire to know the meaning of key words in their Bible.  I am trying to shed light on the topics of God's name, blessing, and holy that have been hidden in the darkness.   Beginning with a choice is critical in reaching the ultimate goal of celebration.

The 5 step persuasion process is like this for the one trying to persuade others:

1) choice by helping people see,
2) chance by enabling people to do,
3) connect by a willing opportunity,
4) change by filling empty hands to satisfaction, and
5) celebrate by people enjoying the experience of not having gaps in fulfilling their needs.

My goal through these 5 steps is to get people to seeing, able, willing, and ready.  It takes all of that to reach full blown personal eagerness. 

Here's another way to express in words what is desirable for those seeking answers to questions:

1) A choice that you see,
2) A chance for you to be able,
3) A connection that you willingly embrace,
4) A change that fills you up to ready, and
5) A celebration that is all that you need rather even one need short. 

Here's Jesus' purpose and goals for similar kinds of things (in Luke 4:18):

1) to restore sight to the blind, who are  those not seeing,
2) to free the oppressed, who are those unable,
3) to liberate the captives, who are those unwilling,
4) to tell the gospel to the poor, who are those unready, and
5) to fulfill the whole of the purposes or goals (ex. Jesus' bucket list or ministry goals), and not even one less than this to those suffering, who are those not eager due to a purpose gap. 

If you are not eager, then you are suffering.  If every one of the criteria is met: seeing, able, willing, and ready, then suffering is relieved.  The point is that you only have to be missing one of those things to suffer and not be eager. 

If you are not eager,

then you are suffering. 

So why are you not eager for work?  Have you ever thought about it lacking one or more of these goals or purposes?  Why are you not eager to go to church?  Could it be that this organization that is supposed to be built around Jesus' goals has lost its bearings? 

If you fulfill all these things on Jesus' bucket list of goals, then you will eliminate or at least alleviate suffering.  So you might ask this: "So how do I become eager?"  It is through finishing the goal list that Jesus laid out. 

If we changed all things to the direction of Jesus' goals, then I believe people will be so eager they will be breaking down the doors to churches.  We can then return to standing room only and people waiting outside to get in. 

Here's how you can become eager (based on the rewards for not just you but others equally):


So now, let's lay out the choices :

20th ct. choice - the definition of holy is set apart, and it has less to do with purity or with wholeness compared to what was previously thought. 

21st ct. choice - the definition of holy is moral wholeness, the implication is purity, and the significance is that this is what sets us apart (the definition and the implication altogether).

Let's lay out the chances:

20th ct. chance - not much of a chance, but the only real chance we have to draw people back to the church is through being contemporary in terms of music and technology. 

21st ct. chance - the practical aspect of making things morally whole or physically whole means that we can do things that were impossible previously

Let's lay out the connections:

20th ct. connect - the various denominational and non-denominational teams on the landscape will continue to be tied to the same leaders of the past in Protestantism and there will be little future hope of reconnecting in a tightly formed team

21st ct. connect - there will now be a real chance to join together in a way that is tightly bound to one another rather than in a loose alliance

Let's lay out the changes:

20th ct. change - the continued changes in technology will drive us to the greatest changes we are capable of making

21st ct change - the change will happen on a personal level with human beings and their moral character resting on a new quality standard and accomplishment. 

Let's lay out the celebration:

20th ct celebration - the best of that optimism happened in the 1950s and is unlikely to be revived to a higher pitch going forward

21st ct. celebration - the biblical stories of "it felt like we were dreaming" will be the same kind of reason we are celebrating. 


So as I go forward the next couple of days I hope I can demonstrate the value of training and teaching in terms of new capabilities and possibilities and also new sight and a reduction in blindness.  May God bless the remainder of your day and please visit all 5 blog entries this week to grasp the whole picture. 


In Christ,

Jon

Holy: Understanding It Better By Uncovering the Hidden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


In Christ,

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better through 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

Holy: Understanding Better the Value of Education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Jon. 

 

Holy: Understanding it Better Through the Hebrew Alphabet

"Seek first to understand, then to be understood."    Whether you are a historian and can relate to Francis of Asissi or you are a contemporary follower of Stephen R. Covey or another kind of follower of wisdom, you have heard this one before.  It is very good advice, but it is also hard to remember in the middle of conversation or in the middle of reading of reading a book.  Seek first to understand is my on-going habit, when trying to understand holy. It is not primarily about understanding my words, but God's words. I have been trying very hard over the last couple of years to better understand the alphabet of the ancient Hebrew language and the meaning of each of its letters.  As a result, I have grown in my understanding of qadosh, the Hebrew word for our English translation of holy, through grasping the ancient meaning of each of the symbols that make up the word.  So come along with me and I will show you what I have learned recently. 

I could say a lot about primary and secondary sources.  I have read a great deal of material and viewed a lot of pictures and charts.  There is a broad consensus though on many things, so I am not compelled to list all my sources here.  But there are two that I must mention and also how they differ. 

The first book I ran across that summarizes the work on the ancient Hebrew alphabet or letters and their meanings is that of Jeff A. Benner in his Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible: Hebrew Letters: Words and Roots Defined Within Their Ancient Cultural Context.  It was a good starting point.  But also as I have begun to understand more, I knew I needed other sources.  So I have gone over quite a number of books that it makes no sense to try to list here.  I did though hear from someone else who is working on much of what Benner was trying to do.  His name is Andre H. Roosma. 

Andre initially wrote to me in response to an earlier blog that I wrote dealing with the etymology of the Hebrew word for holy where I mentioned Benner's work.   His main difference from Bennter is that he tries to stay away from later mystical sources for the meanings of some of the letters.  He also tries to not overstate hypotheticals that contain some uncertainty.  I appreciate his correctives. 

He is currently working on another piece of writing that he is hoping to complete soon.  Before he finishes his writing, I would like to propose my own thoughts based on his work that tries to get at the meaning of words though the letters and their meanings that make up those words.  He is not responsible for any of my modifications and you will have to chech his work first hand to know my changes at: www.Hallelu-YaH.nl/Proto-Semitic.pdf. 

For my purposes, I will use the follow English letters to represent those in the Hebrew for holy: QDYSh. 

Q:  Meaning: "goes full circle (like the sun's course)"            Class: Action              Character: love
D:  Meaning: "delight/desire to enter in (like a door)"            Class: Thing               Character: good
Y:  Meaning: "covenant bond/connection (like a tent peg)"   Class: Relationship     Character: true
Sh: Meaning: "abundance from the source (like breasts)"      Class: Amount            Character: right


ON Q: For a long time there has been this idea that the root or etymology of the Hebrew word for holy had to do with shines or light.  I think the pictograph behind the earliest form of the letter for this word points more to the full course or circle of the sun in the sky.  And what is characteristic of this course is that it runs the full course every day.  It completes its action every day.  I think that gets at the critical point of meaning in that letter and then for the whole word meanng holy. 

Also for Jeff Benner, he believes this letter was later substituted for another (though to the best of my knowledge this is speculative). The orignal letter he believes was there is the Hebrew letter that pictures a wall and is where English likely got its letter "H".  This is critical though to his argument that the entire word means "set apart".  

So linguisticslly, I classigy the referent as mainly to the action of the sun as it is originally pictured like a sun at the horizon of the sky where the sun begins in our view and where it ends in our view.  This is in contrast to a picutre of the sun in the mid-day sky, where reference would likely then be to its light or brightness.   Also if it was a picture that meant to refer to shining it likely would not have only one line indicating a horizon, but instead many lines shing out from the sun like can be found in ancient Egypt or in our day in children's pictures of the sun shining where the rays of sunligh are represented.  Its a view of its action every day. 

That is critical to how I then define the class as parallel to the character of love.  More on this when I summarize the theological implications at the end of this entry. 

ON D: We all have been told when we get in front of a TV we make a better door than window.  Actually, what they should say is that we make a better wall than window, because a door can be opened and you can see through like a window with just a little more effort or convenience. 

So linguistically, I classify the referent as mainly the thing of a door, since it is originally pictured as a tent door or tent flap as opposed to a part of the tent wall.   It is a door in distinction from a wall.  Its a view of its distinctiveness because the "hinge point" of the tent flap is pictured in its pictograph. 

That is critical to how I then place the class as parallel to the character of good. Discernment is about knowing the distinction between good and evil.  A tent wall does not make a good door.  A door does not make a good window (unless you leave it open), etc.  More on thise when I summarize the theological implications at the end of this entry.
 
ON Y: Most of us have set up a tent at one time or another and know that those pegs connect that tent to the ground.  If they don't or if they are loose, then the people staying in the tent could experience trouble when wind arrivese.  The pegs are essentially for connection and that is a primary form of relationship. 

So linguistically, I classify the referent as mainly to the relationship of connection as opposed to disconnection.  The peg is pictured upright as opposed to layig on its side.  This gives you the idea that it is holding securely. 

That is critical to how I then place this class as parallel to the character of true.  True relationships remain connected.  False ones are insecure and do not hold true. 

ON Sh: There are many references to breasts as a source of abundance. 




By the way, some begin from a 3 letter root and only acknowledge that form. 


 Recently, I have worked through


[this blog is in process,  please go back to the month of April and earlier to find full entries]  [this and the five preceding I hope to finish in July]

Jon

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]

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Staying on Course

"There is no shortcut. But there is a path. The path is based on principles revered throughout history. If there is one message to glean from this wisdom, it is that a meaningful life is not a matter of speed or efficiency. It's much more a matter of what you do and why you do it than how fast you get it done."  This quote on wisdom and method is from Stephen R. Covey.  I quote it, because the path to understanding holy is filled with pitfalls that can be described as shortcuts.  But also I am convinced that there is a very reliable path to understanding holy that will raise the level of certainty about its meaning to a new level. 

In this entry, I will outline the five steps in that process and follow up with short descriptions.  I have mentioned these steps before, but I now understand them better and I have a new commitment to this method after hearing and then reading Covey's quote.  They are: 1) Translating, 2) Transfering, 3) Totaling, 4)Training, and 5) Teaching. 

Please don't get overly hung up on terminology.  These five could also be called the following names, based on terminology drawn from biblical study and linguistics: 1) Comparing translations, 2)  Textual displaying, 3) Exegesis 4) Action and Post-Action charting, and 5) Universal classifying of words.  I have tried to use the most everyday language and the most principle centered language that I found in the literature of biblical exegesis and interpretation or in the literature of linguistics (the scientific study of languages).  To varying degrees, the steps are universal to all the major books on exegesis. 

Let me use one book as a specific example from the field of linguistics.  It is: Translating the Word of God by John Beekman and John Callow.  On the contents page (p. 7), they outline their principles of translation.  I would like to grade their book like a teacher does an assignment based on each of the five steps above. 

1) Translating: C+  (reason why: they do not balance both meaning and clarity as equals)

2) Transferring: B+ (reason why: they add to the traditional science of sentence diagramming)

3) Totaling: C+  (reason why: this is largely left implict rather than explicit, but they do practice it)

4) Training:  C+ (reason why: this is not covered in any real depth in this book)

5)  Teaching: A (reason why: the analysis of the universal classes of meaning is superb)

The book's overall score is: B.   It has for years been a very valuable addition to my library.  I could even upgrade it's overall score to B+, based on the fact that the teaching portion could be given an A+ (if I added that to my scale). 

Let's look again at the purpose for this entry on my blog.  It is to clarify and commit to how I am going to approach the meaning of holy.  It is only fair that my readers understand the principles of the method that I am using to get the results that I will arrive at. 

There are many tempting short cuts to avoid. The first is reading a greater volume of contemporary lexicons on Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek to be sure the meaning of holy is correctly understood.  The second is to read the greats of church history to make sure that the meaning of the word holy has not been lost in moving from a period of revival to a period of decline.  The third is to keep digging deeper into the etymology of the word for holy in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.  These are all good, but they can become the enemy of the best method for determining the meaning of holy. 

So going forward, even while I will use these other methods on occasion, I have to make sure that my focus is on the 5 step method that I proposed at the beginning.  Again, the terminology may differ, but the method is universal.  This method may also be better in some books than others.  Again, what matters most is staying with the method rather than getting side-tracked.  I feel like I could have used my blog entries better in the past with the 5 steps being more of a primary focus.  Again, this does not say the other methods are bad, though it may still mean they are enemies of the very best.  So while I will still use these methods, I hope to use them more sparingly. 

In addition, I think each passage I write about will have to be broken up into each of these 5 steps, so that my each of my entries is not too long.  That is one of the limitations in communicating by blog rather than by article or book.  So please be aware that in the near future that I may be dividing my entries up in this way in order to keep things short enough for those who want a quick answer, but also long enough through labeling for the person who wants to go into greater depth. 

Returning to part of my earlier quote: "If there is one message to glean from this wisdom, it is that a meaningful life is not a matter of speed or efficiency. It's much more a matter of what you do and why you do it than how fast you get it done."   Reading lexicon entries is fast, dictionaries entries are even faster; but I am in this to solve the problem of a fair level of uncertainty, and not to gloss over any uncertainty.  Here we go in embarking on a path, rather than on a short cut!

In Christ,

Pastor Jon 

 

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Genesis 2:1-3, cont.

How can we know for certain what holy means?  Is it by reading a great number of lexicons written by scholars?  I've discovered that this method is applied more than most of us realize.   In February, I posted an entry on Genesis 2:1-3 dealing with holy's use in context.  I plugged both possible meanings into the context rather than testing only one alternative with a heavy reliance on etymology (the root meaning for a word).   I would like to re-visit this text and add some things to what I said then.  My simple answer to the opening question is using context along with the other methods like etymology that have been applied to holy's meaning in the original languages. 

If you have not read my February post yet, you may want to start there first and then return to this post.  The key that can open many doors to certainty about the meaning of holy is to look at the very large number of contexts of holy's use in the Bible.   This is sometimes referred to as a large corpus and that is a big advantage in solving the problems of the unknown or the uncertain.  Other methods of trying to solve this problem are valuable togther with looking at context, but I think this method has to be a big contributor for the possibility of producing confidence or certainty about its meaning. 

Some begin the discussion of the meaning of holy by refusing to admit uncertainty about its meaning.  It could be that this is because eternity is on the line and holy is an extremely important word.  They are correct!  It is not a word on the periphery of biblical language. 

This unwillingness to admit uncertainty is generally driven by fear associated with the question of eternal salvation and the failure to recognize a very healthy way to deal with this instance of uncertainty.  It is also driven by the fear of questioning the experts in the field, biblical scholars, that sometimes fails to recognize that questioning can be done very respectfully and in a context of trust.  There is an ancient method used by biblical scholars or scribes, who recorded the original texts in Hebrew to deal with both concerns of respect and trust.

Their method was to preserve both options (one in the text and another in the margin) until the uncertainty is removed perhaps at a later date.  So step one is that we have to get past the fear of uncertainty or the fear of questioning experts by producing certainty or security in another more healthy way, like the way used by the ancient scribes.  That is what those early copyists did and thank goodness that they used that method!  They made a very robust decision rather than avoiding risk altogether or accepting risk that is unacceptable.  They wrapped certainty around uncertainty by keeping both options, knowing with higher certainty that one of the options is correct.  Lives are on the line, when we refer to a word like holy that has to do with God's character and our own. 

This entry along with my previous one on Genesis 2:1-3 focuses on plugging both possible meanings ("set apart" or "whole") equally into the contexts of holy's use in the Bible.   But also I need to comment further on context, because sometimes context is used in a way that does not observe the best rules for context. 

Context can give us clues that also wraps certainty around uncertainty.  It can contain highly important clues, but there has to be rules for this method or otherwise too many definitions can be assigned to one word. 

Here are the rules I have learned over the years from widespread teaching and reading on the topic:

• Contexts that have a fixed parallel that is certain in its meaning are most valuable.  Contexts in general are not as valuable as those that have well understood parallels.  (ex. The Rosetta Stone where a known language helped in the discovery of meaning for an unknown language.  ex. The parallels used to find the meaning of many Mayan glyphs [meaning like that in hieroglyphs].) 

• Some contexts are not very valuable because of the context working with more than one plausible meaning.  (ex. Johann [John] Bengel's use of the context of name to define the word "holy" in Hebrew and Greek.  Did the comprehensiveness of a name support his idea or does name more centrally focus on the personhood of the name?)

• In using the information found in a context, the more immediate context takes precedent over more remote contexts.  (ex.  Dr. Daniel P. Fuller used this rule extensively in his inductive bible study classes and I experienced its value many times over.  The best clues are right there in the immediate context, while those furthest away had the greatest likelihood of producing error, because the meaning of words is not always the same, even if related.)

• These twin rules are related to the prior rule.  It is easier to solve problems using the most immediate context.  It is more difficult using the more remote context.  This is because the possibility of corruption from outside sources increases.  I have found that the more immediate context simply needs more observation and more focus.  This is easier once you discipline yourself to do it.  (ex. The story of a student who was to observe a fish in his lab and record his observations.  After thinking early on that he had completed all the observations he could make, the professor told him to continue to examine the fish.  With continued time and effort the number of observations that the student made from observing a dead fish on a tray increased dramatically.  It was astounding.)

• There is a reason why the immediate context is more helpful.  If the is from the same same location and time - immediate, there is then more of a connection or more of a bond in that context.   There is also a reason why the remote context is less helpful.  If the context is from a different location and time - remote, there is less of a connection or more of a barrier in that context.  (ex. You see an illustration of this every day, when history is lost because of the greater distance in time or when people from different distant parts of the world have a harder time understanding cultural practices.)

• Change is likely greater or more likely over a longer distance and a longer time leaving open an increasing possibility of corruption.  This can be overcome, but it most be consciously addressed as a potential problem rather than ignored as not an issue.  (ex. In linguistics time and location are important factors in language change)

• The synonyms in a context can be very helpful, because words of the same class of meaning (amount, relationship, whole, action, and thing) will behave or function like other words in the same class, when it comes to he elements of the context around it.  (ex. If holy  means whole, then it will behave or function like other words for whole that are in that same class of meanings.  If it means set apart or separate, then it will behave or function like other words of that same class.)

These rules applied to the context of Genesis 2:1-3, yield some interesting results.  The first is that Genesis 2:1-3 is more immediate and perhaps more valuable than all of chapter 1 and the first 3 verses of chapter 2.  Yet there are things in chapter 1 that are significant, when it comes to days and when it comes to the meaning of blessing. 

Blessing as it is used in Genesis 2:1-3 seems to be best understood from blessing's use in chapter 1 and its immediately connected concept of "be fruitful and multiply".  So you can't leave out the full context of Genesis 1:1 -2:3.   These 7 days of creation seem to make together a full unit and story.  So 2:1-3 is not a separate unit as far as the first full account of creation is concerned. 

But also in the larger context, we also find words that could be called synonyms for both possible meanings of holy.   We find the word "divide" feartured in the creation story as a potential synonym for "holy".  Yet we also find potential synonyms for "holy" that mean "whole" in the context of 2:1-3. 

So this context is going to require more observation.  It is a context that on the surface of context can be argued from the rules of context in both directions.  This is no worse than a textual variant, provided we keep both plausible ideas in mind and we continue to search deeper. 

In the future, I hope to approach this passage from 5 different angles by creating 5 separate entries on this porton of Scriptjure.  This entry has focused mainly on the relational or "transering" (see my May entty and other entries) angle of this passage.  It will likely take the other angles to solve this problem in a way that advances either argument.  Don't worry in the meatime.  It can be solved and you are likely already better off, because at least you know the two most plausible definitions already for holy in Genesis 2:1-3 and are not eliminating either one prematurely. 


In Christ,

Pastor Jon

Holy: Understaning It Better Through Genesis 2:1-3

The most important arguments for the meaning of holy come from the biblical text itself for at least two reasons among others.  The first is that the etymology for the Hebrew word for holy is at best probable and not certain.  The second is the sheer volume of the use of the Hebrew word for holy, qadosh. etc., in the biblical text far outweighs the evidence from outside the biblical text.  This is a tremendous asset in trying to solve the problem of defining a word.  The larger the amount of text available, the more likely we are to solve any questions as to meaning.  So I would like to look at the two most likely possibilities for the meaning of holy.  The biblical words for holy in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek could mean either "set apart" or they could mean "whole."  The best method is to test both possibilities side by side to see which one has greater merit.

The best method I have found testing the definition of a word is to try to substitute the definition into the surrounding context and then look for possible parallels to test its meaning.   I am going to begin from the two most popular translations of the Bible that people are likely to know and then I will amend things from the original Hebrew text, if I think it would be helpful in an effort to identify parallels.  Overall, however, I find both of these translations to be the best in reaching the twin goals of being clear and meaningful.  The NKJV, I find is slightly more clear, the NIV is slighty more meaningful.  

In the NKJV (New King James Version), we read:

Genesis 2:1-3

2 Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. 

² And on the seventh day God ended His work

which He had done,

and He rested on the seventh day from all His work

which He had done.

³ Then God blessed the seventh day

and sanctified it,

because in it He rested from all His work

which God had created

and made.

In the NIV (New International Version) (1984), we read:

Genesis 2:1-3

¹ Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
² By the seventh day God had finished the work
he had been doing;
so on the seventh day he rested^[a] from all his work.
³ And God blessed the seventh day
and made it holy,
because on it he rested from all the work of creating
that he had done.


In the NKJV (New King James Version) with substitutions for clarity and with amendments for making things explicit, we read:

Genesis 2:1-3 (with whole for sanctified or holy)

2 Thus the heavens and the earth, and the whole of the host of them, were finished wholly.

² And on the seventh day God finished wholly His work

which He had done,

and He rested on the seventh day from the whole of His work

which He had done.

³ Then God blessed the seventh day

and made [the seventh day observance the] whole [day],

because in it He rested from the whole of  His work

which God had created

and made.

Genesis 2:1-3 (with set apart for sanctified or holy)

2 Thus the heavens and the earth, and the whole of the host of them, were finished wholly.

² And on the seventh day God finished wholly His work

which He had done,

and He rested on the seventh day from the whole of His work

which He had done.

³ Then God blessed the seventh day

and set [the seventh day] apart [from the other six days],

because in it He rested from the whole of His work

which God had created

and made.

In the NIV (New International Version) (1984) with substitutions for clarity and with amendments to make things more explicit, we read:

Genesis 2:1-3 (with whole for sanctified or holy)

¹ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished wholly in the whole of  their vast array.
² By the seventh day God had finished wholly the work
he had been doing;
so on the seventh day he rested^[a] from the whole of  his work.
³ And God blessed the seventh day
and made [the seventh day obervance the] whole [day],
because on it he rested from the whole of the work of creating
that he had done.

Genesis 2:1-3 (with set apart for sanctified or holy)

¹ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished wholly in the whole of their vast array.
² By the seventh day God had finished wholly the work
he had been doing;
so on the seventh day he rested^[a] from the whole of his work.
³ And God blessed the seventh day
and set [the seventh day] apart [from the other six days],
because on it he rested from the whole of the work of creating
that he had done.

So for clarity I substituted in each case for sanctified the words "whole" or "set apart".  For the sake of parallels, I also amended the text to show the similarity between a group of Hebrew words used that are properly connected with the idea of whole.  This is so that the reader can decide for themselves whether the context supports the concept of "whole" more or the context of "set apart" more.  If I leave the words as "all, etc.", it is much more difficult to see the possibility that holy or sanctifies is parallel with "whole" or even complete. 

So now I ask you the reader.  How long can we halt between two opinions?  Which one of the two optoins bears the most evidence from the parallels around it?  One has the support of six days in the context prior to the seventh.  The others has in the verses dealing with the seventh day five words connected with the idea of whole.  I pray I can find more time to develop other texts in this same manner as well. 

In Christ,

Pastor Jon

Holy: Understanding It Better Through the Classic Argument

I think I finally understand one of the classic biblical arguments for holy meaning whole.  By biblical, I mean that it tries to argue from the context of Scripture rather than from an extra-biblical source or from some form of derived etymology.  The argument may even be central for earlier scholars, who believed that holy in the original languages meant whole.  It primarily is a grammatical argument and also seems to follow a simple logical form.  It moves from the nature of personal names to the nature of the word holy as a character trait or quality.  That is its primary logic or argument. 

The argument is that a name is a comprehensive word for a person.  That is the nature of a name.  From this nature of a name, it is argued that its substitute also has that same nature.  That becomes the point of comparison in the metaphor of "holy is his name" in comparison to "Yahweh is his name". 

The key here is how "holy" can replace the name "Yahweh".  How can it be put in a parallel location to Yahweh?  With a parallel location as a substitute, what is the meaning that God's name and God's character have in common?

No other word that functions as a ethical or moral quality is substitued for the personal name like holy.  In grammar, many learned that a noun replaces a noun.  That is one reason why the parts of speech are taught.  It is because what is learned is what can substitute for another and what cannot.   So it is a kind of figure of speech to substitute an adjective or quality for a noun or name.  The question that then follows is what is the point of comparison between these two that they share in common that makes the comparison possible? 

A name like Yahweh is generally placed by grammar in the category of nouns.  The particular characteristic that is assigned to a name is that it is considered a way of expressing some quality or characteristic or descriptive in this case of a person.  To put a quality like holy in the place where we would normally would expect to find a name would highlight the comparison of quality or character. 

One of the character traits of a name is that it is a way to speak comprehensively about a person.  If someone calls me by the name "Jon", they are usually referring to all or everything about me.  They would not refer to my my leg amputated from my body as "Jon".  They would instead call it "Jon's leg" or a part of who I once was.  My name speaks to my whole person. 

This comprehensiveness appears to be the quality that the classical argument sees as the primary point of comparison between a name and the quality of holy.   In other contexts, the point of comparison may be different.  This is not the only kind of comparison that is possible, but rather what past writers have considered made the most sense based on the context. 

I am not making here an evaluative judgment on the effectiveness of this argument, but only a statement that I think this is how they arrive at holy being compared to a name at the point of wholeness or comprehensiveness.  I do, however, think that the argument has merit and deserves to be tested as one possible biblical argument for the meaning of holy.  Combined with other arguments it may be helpful in confirming the meaning of holy, provided we truly understand the nature of names. 

From everyday speech, we might say:

Kermit (the frog) is his name.
______ is his name. (points out a placement for a possible substitute)
Green is his name. (could be a point of comparison for trying to make a point of a character trait of Kermit)

The statments in Scripture that make the point of comparsion both consist of those where God's name is explicitlyYahweh and where we find a substitute where we would expect to see the name Yahweh.  So in Scriptue we read:

His name is Yahweh.
His name is _______.  (points our where the substitution happens)
His name is holy.
Holy (hallowed) be his name. (another similar statement where a quality replaces a name)

Interestingly in contrast we do not read:

His name is righteous (and just).
His name is true.
His name is loving.
His name is good.

These qualities are not put in the place where we would expect to find his name.  The point of comparison cannot be made to work with them.  Certainly God is righteous (and just), true, loving and good according to the Scriptures, so they must lack the point of comparison where holy succeeds.  Since each of these character traits are distinct from each other, the reason they may not work is that they are not comprehensive like God's name of Yahweh or like the character trait of holy which might include them all under its single heading.  Here I am evaluating the possible merit of the argument. 

So finally the point in the classical argument for the meaning of holy is that holy and God's name must share some common characteristic.  What earlier biblical scholars (like Johann/John Bengel) determined was that the common point of comparison was that of being comprehensive.  I think this argument was one of the classic supports for the idea that holy means whole.  This is pershaps why you see John Howe or Jonathan Edwards later calling holy "an attribute of attributes".  We might call it the "quality of qualities".   I leave it up to you to decide or comment on the merits of their argument and I hope you understand that the type of argument that they made has determined the way I have written this entry.  I could not use a lot of stories or narrative in the case of an argument that depends a lot on grammar and simple logic.  That is why I remained quite logical in trying to make their case:

His name (for the whole person) is Yahweh. 
His name (for the whole person) is ______.  (a substitute or parallel to fill the blank)
His name (for the whole person) is holy. 

That is how I think they saw it.  A name was the way to speak of the entire or whole person.  It was once said about a person: "The criteria for being a person ... are designed to capture those attributes which are the subject of our most humane concern with ourselves and the source of what we regard as most important and most problematical in our lives".   Notice the concern that the criteria of a person be made up of attributes or qualities.  Certainly being holy as an attribute of a pesron ranks as one of the most important concerns. 

The chief merit in the classic argument is that it is an attempt to use the context of Scripture to determine the meaning of a word from an exact parallel.  This is one basic argument in its starkest or simplest form.  Now the big question is, how do you see it?  Do you agree with their argument? 


In Christ,

Pastor Jon