Holy: Understanding it Better Through Levitics 19 (Translate Amounts - Part 1 of 5)

Leviticus is one of the most overlooked books in the entire Hebrew Scriptures.  To the Jews traditionally, this is the most important of the 5 Books of the Law.  Yet in Christian circles today, it is the most forgotten book of all the 5 Books of the Law and maybe even of the entirety of the Hebrew Scriptures.  When was there a rush to the Christian bookstores to get the latest commentary on Leviticus?  Did I miss it? 

How is it that the most important Book of the Law of Moses can become the least?  Pastor Ray Stedman, a number of years ago, tried to explain this in a commentary on Leviticus titled The Way to Wholeness (published posthumously).  His explanation of the lack of interest in Christian circles had to do with the popular understanding of holy as set apart rather than as wholeness.  While most scholars would disagree with his definition, most scholars agree with Stedman that holiness is a key concept in the book of Leviticus.  So what does it mean?

Where there is a difference between Stedman and the majority of scholars is the translation of the Hebrew qadosh (holy in most translations).  The current difficulty with holy is that it is amendable in English to either the idea of "set apart" or to the idea of "whole".   There is a silly argument that the scholar James "Too Far" Barr once tried to present that holy in the Bible does not mean "whole", based on the English etymology where it clearly is connected to hale, healthy, and whole.  First, in all of my reading on holiness (and it is extremely extensive), I have never read someone argue that because an English word means something in its etymology, therefore the Hebrew means the same. 

I think it what we used to call a "wet paper sack" ("he can't even fight his way out of a wet paper sack") argument.  Who would ever think that?  It is absurd. 

The logic does not go this way:

Holy is the translation for qadosh (the original in Hebrew) and hagios (the original in Greek),
therefore if holy means whole in English,
then therefore qadosh and hagios mean whole in their respective languages. 


No, that logic does not work and none of those like Ray Stedman, Leonard Ravenhill, or Charles Haddon Spurgeon ever would have dreamed up such a notion.  What they are trying to say is something that does make sense.  Here is what I think they are trying to argue when the point out that holy means or is connected to whole.  One of their major premises is being skipped over by Barr.

Their logic does go more like this:

The King James translators (and English translators before them) chose the word holy primarily to translate qadosh from Hebrew and hagios from Greek into our language.
The King James translators chose the word holy, because they believed that qadosh and hagios had connections to moral wholeness.
When we point out that holy means whole in its etymology, we mean to point out what was obvious to earlier translators when they chose holy as the word for their translation into English of qadosh and hagios. 
Therefore, since I am not questioning their translation of qadosh and hagios from their respective languages by these earlier translators, then I am supporting their translation into my language that holy means moral wholeness.

What Barr does not make explicit in the other parties' argument is the highlighted line and also his own line that:

We, as Biblical scholars, do not take seriously earlier Biblical scholarship or translation work relying or dating back at least to the Middle Ages.

That is what the argument is really about with regard to the translation from the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek.  It is about the reliability or quality of earlier translation work.  Without really making it an explicit premise, there is an assumption than older scholarship is inferior. 

I, as a translator, take a much more objective view now that it is possible to stand apart from the arguments about scholarship that were at their peak near the end of the 1800's and continued throughout the entire 20th century.  I don't by default automatically consider an older viewpoint the inferior view.  Rather I like to look at the evidence for both sides in arguments over a translation.  I keep my choices open and then only by the evidence do I close doors to those choices. 

I keep my choices open

and then only by the evidence

do I close doors to those choices. 

I think that David J. A. Clines, the editor for the most up to date Hebrew dictionary called The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, possesses a keen mind when he says two things about the challenges for making an adequate Hebrew dictionary:

First, he says, regarding the challenges of constructing a Hebrew dictionary including Biblical Hebrew:  "It takes a long time to make a Hebrew dictionary that is more than a recapitulation of dictionaries of the past" (p. 88).   This is a critical point.  The number of dictionaries that say the same thing about the meaning of Hebrew qadosh does not mean that each dictionary has evaluated the work of the previous dictionary.  Instead, due to time constraints, it may only be "a recapitulation of the dictionaries of the past".  This totally makes sense, since they are trying to cover some 300,000 words in Biblical Hebrew alone according to Cline (p. 90).  That does not even consider the next 100,000 Non-Biblical Hebrew words that Cline also mentions.  It would be a massive task to re-evaluate every word's meaning and translation. 

Second, he says regarding one further challenges for more recent Hebrew dictionaries including Biblical Hebrew :

    How to draw upon the rich resources of mediaeval Hebrew lexicographers [dictionary
    makers], which are almost totally absent from all our contemporary lexica.  I do not
    mean to suggest that all philological [linguistic] observations by these mediaeval
    authors deserve a place in a modern dictionary of Hebrew, but that some undoubtedly do. 
    The systematic evaluation of such proposals would be a highly technical undertaking, and
    stands as a challenge to lexicographers of the future (p. 92).

Here I believe that Cline is much more objective than James "Too Far" Barr, who in all likelihood would see no value in the task that Cline has suggested.  Notice too how careful Cline is to avoid two errors and not just one error as in the case of Barr.  He avoids saying that "all [linguistic] observations by these mediaeval authors deserve a place in a modern dictionary of Hebrew".  But he also thinks that "some undoubtedly do". 

This leaves the door open then to considering the work of people like Johannes Reuchlin, the influential Hebrew scholar in the case of Martin Luther's and Phillip Melancthon's scholarship.  It does not by default register an endorsement, but rather an evaluation.  That is what I want to plead for in the case of trying to decide the meaning of holy.  Too often older scholarship by default registers the opposite of an endorsement, a denial. 

I also want to support Cline's statement that this "would be a highly technical undertaking", because I have tried to do this on the just the meaning of holy and knowledge of Latin is a major requirement, besides the fact that footnotes were not popular with the Reformers like Luther, who do not always point out whether it was Reuchlin, one of the Kimchi's, or Nicholas of Lyra who was his source.  The difficulty of the job, however, does not mean it should not be undertaken, but rather undertaken with a due sense of  qualifications for doing it well. 

Having said all this about translation, you probably have guessed already that I will be focusing primarily on statement from Leviticus 19:2 New King James Version (NKJV):

² “Speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy."


The key words to look at in terms of translation in this passage are the following:

1) "all" - more properly translated as "the whole of" in this verse
2) "holy" - no surprise here: "What does it mean in the original text?"
3) the LORD - more properly translated as "Yahweh", the question is: "Why is it not transliterated as Yahweh as found in the original text?"

So my personal translation of this verse would read:

 “Speak to the whole of the congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘You shall be holy, for I Yahweh your God am holy."

The remaining question will be, during the 5 steps of 1)translation, 2)transfer, 3)total, 4)train, and 5)teach; whether holy should be understood as 1) morally whole, 2) pure, or 3) set apart.  As I go through the series of steps, I hope at each step the issues will be clearer and clearer as to which definition the text supports.   Remember to keep your choice of definition open long enough to evaluate the evidence.  Also an additional word to watch for is the Hebrew word for blessed.  I will be examining that also in the context of holy.  May you have a great finish to the rest of your day. 



In Christ,

Jon





 

Holy: Understanding It Better Through Genesis 1:1 - 2:4a (Teach Things - 5 of 5 parts/days)

This post may be the most important of the five posts for Genesis 1:1 - 2:4a.  Despite or perhaps because of the level of education available in the United States, the more important part of education has been neglected.  I like to call that part "common sense".  Now note carefully my choice of "more important" and not most important.  My reason is because the most important thing is common sense together with a specialized sense.  The ideal education is both of these together.  The creation story itself supports this distinction.   What was really missing for me, as I came up through the educational system called school, is the more important part called common sense.  That is where I want to begin to define three key words in the passage I am examining, but first let's examine the big picture in picture form. 

[I had problems with the picture for this post. I think I have resolved it and will finish this post on Monday.  I had to help out someone today which was a good thing, but I ran out of time today.]

Sincerely,

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Genesis 1:1-2:4a (Training - Day/Step 4 of 5)

The thing that cannot be overlooked is that the meanings of words can in fact determine what we must do practically as well.  If "blessed" in the Bible means prosperity, then we will take someone's prosperity to mean that they are "blessed" and we will flock to hear them speak.  If "blessed" in the Bible instead means integrity, as in a person being consistent between their perception of themselves and who they actually are, then we will flock to hear the person who demonstrates integrity the most.

Likewise with the meaning of "holy" in the Bible.  If it means set apart, we will flock to meet or hear the person that demonstrates a morality that is out of this world.  If it means moral wholeness (holy consists of more than righteousness, but also includes truth, etc.), then we will try to live morally healthy lives consisting of more than one moral character trait.  If on the other hand, it means pure, we will practice keeping ourselves pure from contamination as one of our highest goals and activities. 

My next post (planned for tomorrow) will point to what blessed and holy are.  In this post, I will assume [if you are uncomfortable with assuming temporarily. then jump to the next post] the meaning of "blessed" as being integrity, based on a working definition.  A specific example of this is: "I am who I am".   In this post, I will also assume [again, jump ahead if you like] the meaning of "holy" as being moral wholeness.  The next post will answer the question of definition, but for this entry I hope you will allow me some indulgence in working out the practical actions with regard to treating the beginning days of generations and the six days of work and the Sabbath rest appropriately.

The first thing in deriving practical applications from this unit of Scripture is to be aware that this is primarily a relationship text.  In turn, this also means it has a large portion of the text that is narrative.  Genesis as a whole is laying out for us the beginnings and endings of some things and also the ongoing relationship of many generations in places and times.  In telling us about the opening days of generations for the heavens and the earth and ourselves, it tells us also what God did and also what we should do.

Besides the practical relationship advice a person can pick up from the stories of Biblical characters in Genesis, there is in this story of creation the opening of work or action by God.  He both creates and makes.  So here is where we might be able to learn some great action lessons. 

First, I wonder, if the creation story does not mean that each time we work we are creating and we are making and that without our working, the world reverts back to a kind of chaos and void.  Is that perhaps why the world of neglected buildings tells a story of reverting back to chaos and nothingness to the point of needing even demolishing?  Is our work part of the necessary part of sustaining creation beyond its beginning?  Are we in any way supposed to be imitators of God and pumped up about going to work rather than reluctant to get to it?   What obviously separates us from God is that we in no way started things at the beginning.  Rather we ourselves are a part of the beginning.  But should we see human work in a much more positive manner? 

Let me give you a classic example from my own love of nature as to how work has become a negative rather than a positive.  When I was in my junior high years, I acquired a book from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.  That pamphlet is my Bible on trout stream habitat.  In there, it showed how to do thing with regard to developing trout habit and how not to do things.  But in the last decade or more, the DNR has taken a much less active role in creating trout habit in trout streams.  As a result, just the other day, I witnessed a former trout brook that no longer supported even one trout in its entire stretch of water.  I mean not even one!  The entire day that I spent walking (not fishing) the stream, as I scouted this stream for good opportunities to fish later, I never witnessed one fish darting from my approach.  What I did  see were three major and old "log jams" that I knew would prevent trout from being able to survive in the stretch that I was investigating.  By doing no work on this stream, rather than basic regular maintenance, it had led to the death of that stream in terms of trout.  It was an instance where our fear of working and of making a mistake on behalf of the trout had led to our entire failure to work and therefore create and make habit for a species who would thrive in these waters.  That is a great illustration of why work needs to be seen more positively, like what I saw in playing football where doing something correctly was supposed to replace doing something incorrectly rather than either being replaced by doing nothing.

Second, I think this passage teaches a relationship component, when it comes to work.  There should be a limit on the work week or better perhaps a line drawn between weeks.  Work it appears is not supposed to be endless.  The other day, I ran into a person who bragged to me that she worked every single day.  She was a great person and I admire her hard work ethic.  But I think one danger is like the danger for Jack in the old saying, "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy".   Another danger is that one becomes a slave.  Working all seven days in ancient times was considered to be the mark of a slave.  Right now, this person is being enslaved without seeing it. 

A further danger is the obvious danger of burnout.  For me, working six days a week for about seven hours per day seems to be the best schedule.  That one day break is just enough to re-invigorate me and also only seven hours per day allows me other things in each day besides work.  I don't have any idea that I would ever work something like ten to eleven hours per day for four days and take the next three off.  I find that when I work that long each day, things like my capacity for quality work diminish.  I can work, but the mind is not there.  So I think that God's work pattern should be ours.  Six days on, one day off is  my personal favorite and I think I like it because God liked it.  Again, I love work as much as I loved playing football.  As long as I accomplish something in reasonable time, leaving time for other things every day, what is not to like?  And this little vacation each week maybe is the pattern for all the longer ones as well.  Check out the Hebrew Old Testament sometime for all their times off.  I think ample time off is part of the practical outcome of the creation story. 

Third, because God blesses and makes holy the Sabbath Day, we should do the same.  If bless means to call a person by a name that fits them (or has integrity with who they are), then that action likely needs to be part of our day.  I would think that it would have the effect of what we call affirmations.  God in this day, called his rest day by a name that means rest day.  Maybe we should be more thoughtful in choosing names for children or nicknames for friends. 

God in this day, called his rest day

by a name that means rest day.

Also in making the day holy, if holy means moral wholeness, this would then mean observing the whole day as a day of rest without any mixture of work in it (impurity), and as seeing it as distinct (set apart) from the others in that they are work days while this is a rest day the entire day and maybe not just the better part of it like our work days.  I think the idea of keeping the Sabbath a Sabbath for the entire day can do the whole of who we are a lot of good.  God seemed to be pleased by it in not doing any work that day.  He did not seem the least displeased with having to end his work for the week, before moving on to the next week.  I got a feeling God is not done working or making each week until his own Sabbath arrives.  The question is not what God is doing now however, but what are we doing.  Do we work and rest?  Or do we work and work?  Or do we rest and work?  Or do we rest and rest?  Are we like God in our actions? 

So ask yourself first, "Do I love working - creating and making?"  Ask second, "Do I know when to work and when to take a break?"  Ask third, "Do I affirm others in a way that fits with who they are?  And do I not work at all for a whole day as far as my wage earning job is concerned? " 

I hope you have answer affirmatively to some of those questions, because then you are living out this passage, not just reading it and never looking in the mirror at yourself.  Take a good look.  Do you have God's demeanor when it comes to creating and making?  Get out there and do something! 

In Christ,

Jon












  

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

 

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

Holy Means Whole (or Set Apart): According to Solomon's Wisdom

There is an under-appreciated piece of Solomon's wisdom that I recently recovered in Ecclesiastes 9:4. It says that there is hope for the living "because a live dog is better than a dead lion." Its application to the debate over the meaning of holy in the Biblical text is important.

It suggests a wiser approach than I have taken previously to defining this word. It seems appropriate at the very end of 2010 to do a little reflection. As I reflect back to creating my two blogs on the meaning of holy, I realize that I lacked some of Solmon's wisdom. I think I could have made a wiser decision by seeing that "a combined certainty of both possible definitions is better than a singular uncertainty of one definition."

Here is what I mean. Recently, I have run across a lot of admissions by great scholars and great minds that the idea that holy means "set apart" is "probably" or "possibly" the correct understanding. The problem for them, quoting some famous translators, is that: "they are wise [that] rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated by one, when it may be the other."

That would make these scholars potential fools for choosing just one definition "when it may be the other." I too have been a fool at times, thinking I must be decisive and choose one even in the face of real uncertainty.

Martin Luther explained Solomon's advice this way: "Better a sparrow in hand than a crane in doubt." What is not doubtful is that holy means either "whole" or "set apart." Both together with differing probabilities may not look like a majestic crane, yet it is a sparrow without doubt.

My problem is that I cannot say today that I can remove some important doubt about holy means whole. Internally, I have more certainty, but the important thing is the evidence I have been able to present to others. I can say that I am at 70% sure that holy means whole, but that leaves a significant 30% chance I might be wrong on a very important word to define correctly. Better to be aware it might be another meaning than to kid myself.

I am choosing to go with Solomon's dog and Luther's sparrow. I want to be wise. I want to avoid a situation of uncertainty that risks "throwing out the baby with the bathwater." Past scholarship has thrown out some bathwater. Let's proceed with caution and make sure the next toss is bathwater too.

From this position of wisdom, learning and studying can then create a stronger and stronger argument for one or the other definition. Then and only then may one definition take a singular place without the other. The nice thing is that I can relax and commit myself to understanding rather than to making sure I don't look like a fool.

So when you see that my title says "Holy Means Whole (or Set Apart), know that I am wiser than I was before. I am wiser and I am hopeful, because "a [sure] dog is better than a [doubtful] lion." Be wise and have a Happy New Year!

In Christ,

Jon

Holy Means Whole: According to Its Hebrew Etymology (Sort of)

I have read that Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888) believed that holy means whole from a secondary source. Recently, I found another secondary source that takes me closer to what his view was on the meaning of holy and in another later blog, I will add to these comments from Hirsch's own primary sources, when I have more time for research. His definition in this secondary source is interpreted to be "to prepare." This is seen as in contrast to "sanctified" or "separate."

His principles tell me that his material is worthy of more research. I'll deal with two of his principles in this blog. In the Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew: Based on the Commentaries of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, the compiler, Rabbi Matityahu Clark, mentions in his introduction that "by using his etymological system, Hirsch provides unusual insights on common Biblical words and phrases" (p. xi). To quote him further, using holy as one example of unusual insights, he says:

The word [qadosh] is usually translated as `sanctified' or `separated.' But Hirsch explains (in his commentary to Num. 11:18) that the root [qadosh] means `to prepare'
or `to be at the very height of being absolutely ready for all that is good' (p. xii).

This is very close to my understanding of holy as whole, because this is a major implication from it. To further this argument, it fits well with the ideas of the 1800s scholar, Richard Trench, when he develops a group of Greek words that are related both to preparedness and to being whole. I can't develop this fully now, but after reading Hirsch's commentary and going back over Trench's insights, I hope to develop this further in a later blog.

At this point, what I find most fanscinating is the description of Hirsch's principles for understanding the meaning of Hebrew words. Clark says that Hirsch repeatedly said that one should not look to foreign languages to find the meanings of words in Torah (the Law in Hebrew). It is also said that he does not deny borrowing from other languages, but he insists that Hebrew is a "self-contained entity" (p. xii). He also believed Torah (the Law in Hebrew) contained clear and not obscure language.

When I studied LAMP (Language Acquistion Made Practical), one of the most important aspects of the course was the emphasis on connecting with others. Some succeeded at this while others failed, as primarily illustrated on the mission field and as outlined by Dr. Donald Larson, one of the key thinkers behind the LAMP method developed by the Brewsters.

Larson recognized five core principles toward success or failure in connecting: 1) connection and disconnection, 2) someone else and you, 3) insiders and outsiders, 4) ease and difficulty and 5) learning and studying. Each of the these five areas has two options and principles that were reflected by both those who succeeded and by those who failed.

Those who emphasized the former principle in each case, as in connection rather than disconnection, succeeded in connecting with others. Those who emphasized the latter principle in each case, as in disconnection rather than connection, failed in connecting with others. Now relevant to our purpose are two of these success principles. The principles of insiders and outsiders and the principles of ease and difficulty.

Rabbi Hirsch recognizes an insider or internal integrity in Hebrew. He recognizes the need to connect with the language from an insider's perspective on their language rather than relying too much on an outsider's perspective on their language. I think the advantages are perhaps best illustrated by the dangers of an outsider's interpretation.

For example, Moses Ibn Ezra is a significant interpreter of the Hebrew language especially preceding the Middle Ages and the state of Hebrew scholarship in his day. He clearly asserts at that time that the greatest breakthroughs in scholarship of Biblical Hebrew are attributable to Arabic influence. His method relies heavily on Arabic and Aramaic cognates. Some of this was likely due to Arabic being a living language at that time, while Hebrew was not a living language. That means Arabic had the advantage of being a language you can learn and not just study. This advantage according to Larson's principles may have resulted though in a distortion in violation of other principles of connecting. That may be why some say Moses Ibn Ezra overstated a shared Hebrew-Arabic cultural heritage. Hirsch is able to avoid this overstatement by taking more seriously an insider's perspective.

Rabbi Hirsch also reflects a commitment to the idea of ease in his idea that Scripture is clear rather than obscure in its language. This means that one understands that for the native speaker things are not as obscure as they seem to the foreigner. But the foreigner must maintain a firm belief that another person's language is an easy as their own, given the same circumstances. Otherwise motivation drops and a connection with another culture is compromised. That person who is failing in connecting then relies more and more on the ease of their own language while stressing also the difficulty of another's language. Hirsch is able to avoid this problem as well.

Through these twin commitments, Hirsch's work reflects more of an insider's view of Hebrew and an ease of working with the language itself rather than a commitment to other languages being easier or less obscure. I think that is why his etymological system and his commitment to the meaning of individual letters needs to be taken seriously. It has an ease about it in using the language. Hebrew's etymology may not be like our own, but instead easier to use for those who grew up with it.

In any case, his study of etymology opens a new door to understanding Hebrew that may move us from an obliviousness about what holy means, beyond controversy over what it means and finally to an obvious position on what it means. If the ease at which he arrives at some definitions is any indication, then an easy insider meaning of holy may be just around a near corner.

In Christ,

Jon

Holy Means Whole: According to the Best (Not the Good)

One of my professors had a saying he was fond of repeating: "The good is the enemy of the best." Just yesterday I witnessed another episode of the truth of this saying. I think the same holds true for the discussion of the meaning of holy. Many good people hold the position that holy means to set apart or to be separate. Yet the problem is that being good is not good enough.

The best reformers of the past 500 plus years in my tradition were: Martin Luther, John Calvin, Richard Hooker, John Wesley and Charles Haddon Spurgeon. These were the best in the respective denominations of: Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Methodist and Baptist. Many good men and women preceded them and followed them. Yet when it comes time for renewal to happen again, the good can become the enemy of the best.

One of my favorite biblical examples of this comes from the biblical story of Israel's kings. Following David, it is not uncommon to notice that he has set the bar for all future kings including his son Solomon. Following David and Solomon (both who are recognized more than the others because they are also biblical authors), there is this succession of leaders: Jeroboam (arose first but didn't become a king till the time of Rehoboam), Rehoboam, Asa and Jehosophat.

Each of these kings at least started good or were good except in the case of certain issues. But none was on the level of the best in King David. Following these kings, there were a series of bad kings before once again good kings arose. They were: Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah and Jotham. Finally following these kings we hear of two of the best kings, who are compared to David favorably: King Hezekiah and King Josiah. During their time we read about festival events that exceeded those times of the good kings.

Generations struggle that follow even the best generations. There is always the dangers for generations that wise Solomon outlines:

There is a generation:
1) curses it's father
and does not bless it's mother (Proverbs 30:11 )
2) pure in its own eyes
yet is not washed from its filthiness (Proverbs 30:12)
3) oh, how lofty are their eyes!
and their eyelids are lifted up (Proverbs 30:13)
4) whose teeth are like swords
and whose fangs are like knives
to devour the poor from off the earth
and [to devour[ the needy from among men. (Proverbs 30:14)

These may seem like they only apply to the evil ones on earth, but they can also apply to the good people and movements as things degenerate after them or to the remnant of evil that is pointed out during their lifetime. For one example, Jehosophat is given warning by Elijah during his lifetime of this ties to King Ahab. He is not like his "father" King David in this regard.

Another book of wisdom, the book of James, points out the importance of the meekness of wisdom (James 3:13). This is in contrast to the bitter envy and self-seeking of the generations found in Proverbs 30 (James 3:14).

What I have noticed more and more as a Christian is that bitter envy and self-seeking are on the rise rather than the meekness of wisdom. In Jesus' day, his sect, either during his lifetime or following, became known as the Nazarene sect. He tried to convince four other sects to show the meekness of wisdom: the Sadducees, the Essenes (the Qumran community), the Pharisees and the Zealots. Yet they were very reluctant and only after his crucifixion to we read in Acts that many Pharisees believed and joined the Nazarene sect.

This is how sects that perhaps even had a good beginning can become the enemy of the best. In our day, the sects of liberals, conservatives, evangelicals and higher life movements (includes charismatics and holiness movments) are satisfied with holy means set apart or separate.

I would ask them to show the meekness of wisdom. I would also ask these generations to consider that while they may be good in many regards, their goodness may be the enemy of the best in hindering an objective hearing of the evidence on the definition of holy. James 3:14 warns against boasting and lying against the truth. This is sometimes more subtle than blatant for the good rather than the evil. King Asa and King Jeroboam were good kings, yet they should not be smug just because they are not like King Ahab. The good often does not like to acknowledge the best, because that requires a lack of envy and a supply of meekness. It is easier instead to boast that we are better than someone else. That requires no lack of envy and there is no need for meekness to show up.

I myself would rather meekly see the wisdom of the best of God's servants and then find a new reformation coming to us once again, than defend some sort of goodness and hinder another day like that of a King Hezekiah or a King Josiah. We had our warnings in the 20th century from people like Keith Green and Leonard Ravenhill. We also had warnings from people like Francis Schaeffer, Ray Stedman and R. A Finlayson, where we witnessed a desire for something better than these present day sects had to offer. What has happened to that longing?

Have we fallen into apathy? Has the good become the enemy of the best? Have we only eyes to see the faults of the best (I understand David had one)? Why can't we hear the evidence about the meaning of holy objectively? Why has no one from these sects called for an objective hearing of reformation views on holy to test the controversial position these four sects hold and to see if it can hold up under a challenge? Why are the originally good sects so quick to hold to a definition that has had over 100 years to prove itself effective and yet has little fruit to show for it?

I have no axe to grind. I have no desire for the latest new thing. I have submitted to a type of discipline unknowingly that helps me avoid envy. I have investigated the best of the Reformers and found that and found it crushes envy. How can a person who is putting on armor boast before people who have taken it off?

So I now wonder out loud: "How much is envy driving these contemporary sects right now?" Only actual actions that show the "meekness of wisdom" carries the answer. I am calling for an open objective hearing of all the evidence as I create my posts on the internet. That is all I ask for from our present Christian leaders. Will the good once again be the enemy of the best? Or will we see again the meekness of wisdom in action and see reformation? Time will tell the truth.

In Christ,

Jon

Holy Means Whole: According to Webster's Word Histories

I thought about writing a summary of my writings for the year, but I did that pretty much in a recent entry. One thing that has always stood out to me is the absurdity of growing up in the 20th century without any sense of holiness meaning wholeness, when this was a very traditional understanding in the English-speaking world of translation. One of the best proofs of this is the many dictionaries that show the etymology of holy having a connection to the meaning of whole. I want to present one of those dictionary etymologies as given in a newer book titled Webster’s Word Histories.


The actual entry is that of Holy Ghost, Holy Spirit, but for our purposes I am going to leave out the Ghost and Spirit histories. It is easy to separate it out without doing any injustice to the evidence for the history of the meaning of holy. One other change is that I am going to write out a full meaning for any abbreviations. The actual entry is found on page 223 of Webster’s Word Histories, if you want to read it without any changes.


The entry then reads:


[Holy from Middle English holi, from Old English halig, translation of Late Latin sanctus, translation of Greek Hagion, translation of Hebrew ha-godesh; holy, from Middle English hooli, translation of Late Latin sanctus]


You can check out any standard dictionary for the meaning of the Old English halig. It clearly was tied to the concept of whole or healthy. Our earliest English translators clearly saw a meaning of whole in the word holy as a later replacement for halig. That is the stance of any serious etymology.


I think this should cause all of us to pause at the end of this year and to consider carefully the steps we are following in moving away from a meaning handed down to us by pretty reliable men. John Wycliffe and William Tyndale along with many others gave us a rich tradition of the Bible in our own words. These translators also helped give birth to renewal.


I know that in our day many are big believers in progress. So seeing Wycliffe and Tyndale as reliable seems a bit quaint or odd. Certainly, we say, translation has progressed too. But perhaps we can see them as quite reliable without giving up on progress over time. Could it be that they were right on a fundamental level, yet not entirely right, when it comes to a fuller understanding of what this really means? Did they really make the meaning of whole crystal clear in translation? The possibility that they did not, leaves open the room for plenty of progress, yet not the kind that undercuts the fundamentals. Could it be that our understanding of progress is driving some of us, more than actual evidence regarding the meaning of holy?


We, as Christians, are not today in the midst of any renewal like that of the Reformation. So we need to do at least two things. We need to acknowledge to the world, or at least to the Christian world, that we are questioning the reliability of these Christian men on a very critical fundamental point. It could be a cause for our lack of renewal. Also, if that had been done in the 20th century, I might have sooner known at least that holy might mean whole. As I said earlier, we also need to slow down and consider. We need to ask: “Could we be mistaken?” Perhaps then 2010 might be the year for us to amend our ways.



In Christ,


Jon