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: Understanding it Better Through Textual Studies

I want to begin with an examle from what is today called textual criticism.There are four books that are critical for examining the underlying New Testament Greek text.  They are:

1)  The Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies
2)  A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, written by Bruce M. Metzger
3)  The Text of the New Testament, written by Kurt and Barbara Aland.
4)  The Identity of the New Testament Text, written by William Pickering

The final one is a controversial addition, because it disagrees on the level of principles with with first three.  I've added it, because I believe in fairness toward competing views.  The more important issue though is a practice that is common to textual criticism that is unfortunately lacking in biblical translation. I read this recently in Bible Translation and the Spread of the Church: " ... the United Bible Society attempts to help translators by providing a graded evaluation for textual variants that are cited"(p. 42).   I would like today to provide grade for he translation of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words behind the English translation of "holy".

First, I have to add one further point from the book that I mention in the previous paragraph about textual critics providing options with grades:  "Kurt Aland writes that this feature [a graded evaluation for textual variants; was `insisted upon by Eugene A. Nida against the whole editorial committee, if I may speak out of school, and in retrospect I believe he was right'" (p. 42).  I too believe he was right and that the principle can carry over to translation.  When there are variants or variations in how a word is translated, why not grade them as a group rather than insist on one option alone without grade A evidence? 

Here is what I insist that we need to do in translating holy - we need to show the variations in how "holy" in the original is translated rather than present the evidence as though there is only one option, when we are speaking of more than one possibility.  Based on my reading, here is what the committee of scholars would like assign for grades for the different possible translations of the original text whether in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. 

There grades for a committee of scholars (if they know the evidence well):

"set apart"  B+
"pure" B-
"whole C-

This I think would be the graded evaluation for translation variants.  I want to point out that these are not my personal grades on these variants.  Notice that I do not think that the best scholars on this topic assign an A grade for any of these definitions.  I draw this primarily from the most prominent theologians on the topic in the 20th Century: Rudoph Otto "wholly other", Norman Snaith "set apart" and Klein "probable" for "set apart". 

The difficulty for the last entry of "whole" and the reason it receives only a C- is that while the English word for "holy" has a root meaning in English of whole, this only proves what the early English translators and some of its earlier readers thought the Hebrew meant "whole" according to their English translation efforts.  That is significant, but it is not the final conclusion in the discussion.  The English word "holy" cannot be used to prove what the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek means.  It is a translation and not the original.  We have to retrace the evidence for "holy" as a valid translation.  For myself, if qadosh in Hebrew or hagios in Greek does not mean whole, then I think holy might be better replaced for the sake of meaningfulness and clarity, consistently by the English words "set apart" or "pure".  It makes little sense for the sake of meaningfulness to have to always explain what holy means.  Holy has historical value, but does it have contemporary value in that case? 

The other problem for the meaning of "whole" is that the scholarship of that earlier era going back to at least Tyndale in the history of English transaltion, it does not leave us clear footnotes to trace where the idea of "whole" comes from.  We know know what they thought (their conlusions), but we are going to have a hard time knowing why and from what source (their support).   

So moving forward from here, it is not only ancient copiers of the text that preseved marginal readings, so do contemporary textual scholars.  The old copyists graded their options according ot in the text (higher grade) and in the margin of the text (lower grade).  We need to do the same with those words that are translated in most English translations by "holy", "sanctified", or "hallowed".  We need to presently grade the different meanings openly for the readers.  Give people the graded options they deserve, ratther than one option that suggests a higher certainty than there is in reality. 
Reality is refreshing.  Anything less is draining.

In Christ,

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Quantity and Quality

Have you ever read a copy of Consumer Reports, or have you ever examined customer comments on-line, or have you ever paused in front of your television to listen to the latest evaluation of a side by side comparison of products?   I would guess that the majority, if not a super majority, of us have done such a thing.  Two of the hot button topics for products are quantity and quality.  Comparisons usually boil down to the specifics of market share and product quality.  Apple, the number one seller, is compared to the other top sellers like Samsung for quality.  People often try to persuade another person of their "brand" being superior due to its market share among customers and experts and/or due to its product quality as recognized by customers and by experts.   The definitions suggested for holy, as found in the Bible, in many ways are evaluated in much the same way.  I don't say this in any way to trivalize the importance of the definition of holy.  Its definition is more important than your cell phone brand.  I say this only by way of making one point by this illustration about comparisons.  We often do compare things including the possible definitons of holy based on our assessment of the quantity and quality of a definition, whether we are aware of evaluating it based on quantity and quality or not. 

I have noticed both in my reading and from the comments of others that the leading brand definition for holy is "set apart".  The second most popular brand is the definition of "pure".  The third most popular definition is "whole".  They are the top they in market share or popular support among "believers" whether Christians or Jews in relationship to the Hebrew word qadosh.  The remaining brand definitions are out there, but their market shares are so small that scholars most often don't even mention them.  One example among about twenty other possibilities is "worth (or value").  Another has the idea of "preparation" as its core meaning.  These definitions come from renowned scholars, but they just haven't gotten any foothold among the other possible definitions for people including myself.  The definition of holy as "worth" was important for me initially, because it taught me that there could be a meaning out there other than "set apart".  It proved not to have much value beyond that despite coming from one of my favorite professors.

Definitions of ancient biblical words have a type of market share among "believers" and scholars and the quality of expertise associated with them.  Just today I read this regarding the evaluation of a commentary in How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (p. 267):

     A commentary does not fully inform you unless the author discusses all ... possibilities, gives
     reasons for and against each, then explains his or her choice. 

     ....  ..., especially how well it discusses all possible meanings.


In the case of the first line in this quotation it was referring to 3 possibilities for a particular text, but the point about "all" is telling as a principle.  I would quallify this a bit to all the top possibilities, when it comes to actually writing about them and trying to persuade others.  While it is important to have examined all the twenty some meanings that I have run across initially for defining holy in the biblical text, as I have listed in one of my earlier posts, they don't equally deserve fuller examination after their initial first examination.  Some possibilities immediately show up as fairly marginal selections.  This will always be slightly controversial, but I think it is still fair.  Every definition just like every person has to earn or prove their way to the top.  Surviving a test is critical to being part of the last definition standing. 

But my blog I hope is at least better than many sites where you are only informed of 1 possible definition rather than at least the top 3 possiblities.  So Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart should at least give me high marks for providing my readers with all 3 (or at least all 2) of the top possibilities.   This is one of the chief values of this blog.  It gives you options. 

But beyond just the quantity or number of possibilities is the question of quality in a definition.  You note above that even though I may have eventually found 20 some definitions, some of them were likely not to have more than a sliver of people willing to stand up for them. 

Now let's look at the issue fo the quality of a definition.  The quality of a definition should be based on the quality of the method used in determining a word's definition.  Since James Barr's Semantics of Biblical Language, there has been a general disregard or distrust for the etymological method for determining the meaning of a word.  He was by far not the first to be critical of this method (that began to receive criticism at the hands of the historical and comparative traditions in biblical exegesis), but he certainly dealt etymology are harsh blow.  I like to remind myself that "Barr goes too far", even when he makes an otherwise valid point.  I think his criticism of etymology does go too far.

Etymology became eventually one of the four chief divisions of grammar.  It dates back a long way as a method for defining words.  We know that the Greek philosopher Plato used it as one and maybe the worst example.  There have been in history some fanciful definitions for words drawn from supposed etymologies.   But not every etymology has to fall into that category. 

Let me give an example of this.  The word "mouse", as it is used for a device associated with my computer, does have a relationship to the mouse that my neighbor trapped a few weeks ago in his house.  In this case, the story goes that an actual visual connection was behind the language connection between these two uses of mouse.  By the way, if the original mouse was wireless (and so lost the appearance of a tail), then it may have never been called a mouse.  I can only venture guesses at what it might have been called then!  So the meaning of mouse as in an animal, that can be sometimes found unwanted in a house, does have a true connection to a mouse that moves as point and click tool or feature on my computer. 

For myself, my linguistic analysis includes etymology as one part of the lexical analysis of a word.  Individual letters and morphemes (small meaning units) can carry meanings that can help us define words.  They can assist in tracing a true meaning, but grammatical letters and small units of meaning cannot function alone for determining the meaning of a word.  It requires something bigger than an etymological method alone, it also requires something more than a lexical analysis as well.  It requires a linguistic analysis as a whole as a minimum method for us to have reasonable certainty that a word is understood correctly.

In come cases, a person has to go beyond grammatical (letter) analysis or linguistic (language) analysis, but they are the most direct ways to get at a word's meaning.  There can be historical factors that are important to finding out a word's meaning.  The actual story of how the computer mouse was named gives real proof that the meaning behind the object does have something to do with a little furry creature.  That is the sense in which the association beween two mice can be considered to have a true connection.  Etymology has as part of its meaning in Greek, the idea of a "true" root or meaning.  But beyond historical factors are literary factors, cultural factors, etc.  There are other methods when there is a "distance" of any of these kinds that might be more or less relevant in each situation.  That is where the exegete or the linguist must determine if there is a better tool to use beside linguistic analysis.  This covers the issue of quality in some detail.

Let me now come back to linguistic analysis as a method in terms of its quality as a method.  I am convinced that it surpasses etymological method mainly because it includes it, but does not rely upon it excessessively or exclusively.  It also is a method that is not so dependent on trying to figure out a history that might have been lost, because it is more strictly a method rooted in the general principles of language.  You might say it is more purely linguistic. This is a major reason for this blog and my thesis paper that I am writing.  I am convinced that the highest quality method of linguistic analysis needs to be used to surpass the etymological method not through just pointing out the weaknesses of etymology, but also by providing new strengths by avoiding having to re-construct a meaning rather than relying on the most immediate evidence availalble.  A full linguistic analysis has a lot of advantages. 

So in conclusion, this blog has a very definite purpose: It is my attempt to define holy with more certainty.  But it also is more than its purpose that gives it value.  It is also not content with testing just one possible definition of holy in the original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek text of the Bible, but with at least two being tested and more likely the top three being tested.  That is its quantity advantage!   By the way, when it later gets down to one option through allowing three options, that would be even more valuable!   It also is valuable, becuase it uses a method that surpasses the over-reliance on the etymological method or the over-criticism of the etymological method (which I am not sure where it intends to leave us).  That is is quality advantage! 

Please check back at least monthly and maybe even weekly and sometimes even daily for further developments.  I hope you feel the energy of greater quantity and greater quality as reachable goals in the short future.  Take care. 

Sincerely, 

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Concrete Objects

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


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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Christ,

Jon