Holy: Understanding it Better According to Roles

I have been asked two important questions about my work on the definition of holy among others:   1) Who is your audience?  and 2) What is your level of authority or initiative in writing on this topic?   (The latter question is often more implied than stated due to my level of education which is not on the level of a Ph.D. or what is described as the terminal (final) degree.)  Let me answer the first one with "everyone".  Let me answer the second question with the response that "I know my limits or level or degree".  Now I will explain them in the same order. 

First, then is the issue of audience.  Usually when this question is asked, it is asked with 3 possible alternatives: 1) scholars, 2) pastors, and 3) laypeople (laity).  The first is seen as the highest and the third as lowest in terms of having an understanding of written materials through education on the meaning of holy.  There is, I think, an important misunderstanding in the alternatives offered. These alternatives see the whole process of becoming a disciple along one only one directional, while I see it as having two directionals. 

In the diagram above (if it is too small just left click on it for a larger scale), you can see my view in picture form.  It is drawn mainly from the deep and refreshing well of one of my professors at Bethel University (then College), Dr. Donald N. Larson.  He was an important pioneer in trying to develop language schools that would recognize the understanding of languages (and other topics as well) as having two distinct directionals.  He was involved with the Toronto Institute of Linguistics and with other language institutes including one in the Phillipines.  I was very pleased recently to learn that his view and Dr. Wiliiam A. Smalley's view on learning a second language is still being used in a French language learning school for missionaries that is found in France.  Their view was made practical through the Language Acquistion Made Practical (LAMP) text and method of Brewster and Brewster.

These two directionals are significant, because of what Larson and Smalley learned from the study of the success of language teaching programs for missionaries to foreign lands.  Those studies of success point to the primacy of the vertical knower-learner directional over the horizontal teacher-studier (student) directional.  This should make sense to all of us, who have had the opportunity to learn a language from our parents, because in most cases they lacked the formal training for being a teacher.  They were often skilled knowers, who filled our learning minds and mouths with sensible speech.   On the flipside, I can also point to the failure of a teacher-studier directional in junior high.  Our teacher, who taught our class of students French skillfully, failed when she got to France in trying to speak French as the knowers of French do.   What a disappointment this was for her as she expressed in class! 

Now at this point, I need to make a corrective, so that you and I don't run around proclaiming that people only need the knower-learner directional to become a disciple.  No, and again I say no.  Dr. Larson believed that the ideal (and the most successful) is both directionals together.  Being a learner-knower and a studier-teacher is better than only knower-learner, even if that is better than only teacher-studier.  In fact, I would take it a step further and say that both are necessary, if we want to declare ourselves to be disciples.  A real disciple is both a learner and a studier (student).  I will end this discussion here to move on to the next question, but also I could say a lot more on this point to clarify it more and to answer questions you might have.  If you do, feel free to post a question to me below. 

Now from this understanding, lets talk about my intended audience.  These two directionals is part of my reason for why I think my writing goes beyond being classified as narrowly as only for the scholar and the pastor and that it leaves out the layperson.  Sometimes I am speaking directly to what the layperson has learned beautifully.  They are after all, are still disciples and while they may not have reached a terminal degree as a studier and teacher, they certainly can be very advanced as knowers.  Sometimes too I have also met great studiers among laypeople, who have relied on the books of teachers and who have been able to build on the teaching principles that they received in their younger years.  The beauty of all of this self-study is mainly seen in the results of their work and the keen insights they deliver. 

So while each entry can't be for "everybody" everytime, it does mean that among these entries are entries for many classes of people.  It is also true that I am not trying to make this blog into the writing of a dissertation for seminary, though that is something I am working on for my teachers.  Here I leave out the terminology, but that does not mean I don't know the terminology.  It is just that I am aiming for a wider audience. 

Scholars though can certainly fire off questions to me and I can try to answer them to the best of my educational ability in their terms!   While I was at Fuller Seminary I learned this difference from experience.  I wrote what I thought was a very good paper for a class, but I received only a "C".  I didn't understand, so I sat down the the Teaching Assistant for the class.   He told me that I hadn't used the professors terminology frequently enough to show I had grasped the material.  I went back to my dorm and re-wrote the whole thing, doing just one thing.  I practiced inserting the professor's terminology where it belonged and I got an "A".  So to this day I possess two versions of the paper.  This blog is more like the "C" kind, though I can quickly edit it to be an "A" paper, if called upon.  The real proof will be in my paper that I am writing for my S.T.M. on my way toward a Ph.D.

[major break for the second question]

Second then is who can a person trust.  Let me start out by saying that one of the best indications is in the quality of recognizing one's limitations.  But there is even more than that to tell us who is trustworthy. 

Trust is built on being trustworthy and I would summarize the way of building trust, and its close cousin of influence, as being by 4 processes: 1)ethical intelligence , 2)relational intelligence, 3)wisdom intelligence and 4)logical intelligence.    It takes character and competence to build trust. 

Purpose: That everyone knows what I am recommending to them as a course of action on the meaning of holy in the Bible. 

If you are a leader, I recommend that

If you are a missionary of any kind, I recommend that

If you are a pastor, I recommend that

If you are a preacher, I recommend that

If you are a teacher, I recommend that

If you are a board member, I recommend that

If you are a layperson, I recommend that 

Conclusion: That my audience is diverse and so I have different recommendations (not declarations) for each of them as described in this blog entry.  Also certain blog entries will make more sense to different members of my audience. 

[I have thrown out my original plan and this is my outline for a new course for this entry.  Please stop back to see its completion. ]

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Emotional Intelligence

The odds today (3/30/12) of someone winning the current lottery jackpot is incredibly small and yet many people are willing to gamble their hard-earned money for its potential payoff (around a half-billion).  I will not state my personal views on gambling, because then people "will not see the forest for the trees" and they will get caught up in the issue of whether this form of gambling is morally corrupt or not.  Setting that tree in the forest aside for now, there are two important people who have influenced people's view of what to do in the face of uncertainty like that found in gambling.  One of them suggests that the wise wager for the person with uncertainty is to consider the possiblitity that the claims of the Bible and God are in fact true, since the implications at the end of life can be catastrophic, if in fact they end up true.  This is the argument of Blaise Pascal, who is known for "Pascal's Wager".   The other of the two suggests boldness in the face of uncertainty, so a person must take a leap into the face of uncertainty.  This is the  argument of Soren Kierkegaard, who is known for his "leap of faith".   I think the current state of biblical scholarship on the definition of holy is more like a "leap of faith" than a "Pascal's Wager". 

This is important, because this general outlook toward risk and uncertainty is very important in many areas of life including scholarship.  It is likely behind the sticker on some pickup trucks that reads: "No Fear".   The current "No Fear" attitude among some scholars to the possibililty that the original Hebrew and Greek words for holy may not mean "set apart" is somewhat telling.  It is important do as Edwin H. Friedman, author of A Failure of Nerve, suggests.  He recommends that we do not look at just the intellectual aspect of an issue, but also the emotional processing connected with it.  Uncertainty and its emotional component of fear or no fear is therefore extremely important. 

People and some scholars today seem to have "No Fear" even when probability and statistics suggest that they ought to fear.  For Pascal, it was not viable to take a "leap of faith", but rather he suggested that a person hedge their bet toward God because of the relative possible outcomes.  This is not a radical leap of faith. It is not a person "with both feet firmly planted in the air."   It was a moderate option to protect a person against the worst possible outcome.  This is an important shift in emotional processing that works alongside the mind's intellectual aspect.  It is part of the combination that makes up emotional intelligence of one kind.  The leap of faith is a different kind of emotional intelligence.  It dares against even against fear.  That is a different kind of emotional intelligence.  They both are combating "a failure of nerve", but in different ways.  They view probability differently and handle it differently. 

At one time (not necessarily a better time) biblical scholarship favored the approach of Pascal as it handled uncertainty in manuscipts or in interpretation by preserving both options in the face of uncertainty.  In this way, a person made sure that at least one of the two choices they preserved was in all probability the right one.  They thought it was dangerous to eliminate the less probable or minority position as long as uncertainty remained.  This also follows the ancient practice of preserving marginal readings in manuscripts, even if in greater probability the one preserved in the main text was correct. 

At a later time (not necessarily a better time) biblical scholarship moved more (yet not entirely) toward the approach of Kiekegaard and challenged uncertainty with greater boldness.  The most extreme form is not seen in bilical scholarship so much as in the existential call to "be bold" in the face of uncertainty about one's own identity.  What you see in biblical scholarship is that you can still find the marginal readings in a Greek text of the New Testament.  Some readings may be ranked on their probability as very low and yet they are still preserved.   Still at another level the argument as to which manuscript tradition is more reliable is more like the idea of setting one option aside and going with just one option.  Having brought up this as only as example to illustrate my point, don't get caught in this tree and miss the forest.  My point is to simply say that part of and not the whole of what has been done in action with regard to ancient Greek manuscrips is more like the emotional processing of the "leap of faith".  If an emotional wager approach like that of Pascal is used, I think biblical scholarship on the texts would shift or change. 

The key is to realize is that with the wager approach versus a leap approach, emotional uncertainty is dealt with differently.  Peace is preserved not by eliminating an option or setting it aside dramatically in proof of a person's nerve and boldness, but rather by keeping both options on the table until further evidence gives proof that one option is no longer possible.  It is somewhat like the statement that when all other options are made impossible, the the one that remains (however improble it may have once looked) is the right one.  In other words, ambiguity is sometimes acceptable and only eliminated when another option becomes impossible. 

I consider most of the possible meanings for the biblical word we translate as holy as now impossible.  They are rightly eliminated.  But also I believe we are still left with two possibilities.  This ambiguity is not as threatening as some scholars may think as long as we wager correctly and keep both options on the table and especially are careful that the one with greatest implications is not eliminated.  I think holy means whole has the greater potential implications for our understanding of God and our living of life.  That is the one that most scholars have gambled on eliminating, because as the most renowned in the twentieth century (Rudolph Otto and Norman Snaith) of their company have said in the past they realized that "wholly other" and "set apart" are based on a probability, not on certainty.

It is only later that the issue of probability is set aside as seen the Evangelical Quarterly in 1979 when Brian Daines supposedly warns against playing games with biblical words and his example is that of the interrelation of the Engish terms holiness, wholeness and health.  This leads to the full elimination of the option that holy means whole that just a generation before was still an option, even if then only a secondary option.  But it is only in the abstract for his writing that this position is suggested.  It is not in the heart of his own article.  The abstract for his article boils it down to the fact that "the implications of semantics for biblical study have been set forth at a high academic level by such writers as Professor [James] Barr and Dr. [Anthony] Thiselton, ...."   It seems that the writer of the abstact took two scholars refered to in Daines' footnotes and placed one of the postions of these scholars, Barr's position, in the place of Daines' postion.  Daines says:

... some of the mistakes made by expositors....

a) That we can get the meaning of a word by examining its Hebrew or Greek root or even the root of the English translation.

It is a popular view that the 'true' or 'correct' meaning of a word is in some sense the original one, the oldest that can be traced. In fact the present uses of words often bears little relation to older ones. The original meaning of "history" was "investigation" and the English word "nice" originates from a Latin word meaning "ignorant". The same applies to the biblical languages. Even if the Hebrew word for "holy" came from a Semitic root meaning "to be separated" (which in itself is open to dispute) this does not imply that the Hebrew word as used in the Old Testament means this any more than if I say you are nice I mean that you are ignorant.

The meaning of a word can only be found by studying its contemporary use. Looking at an older state of the language simply sets up ideas that have to be modified or disregarded. An even worse error is to try to understand the meaning of Greek or Hebrew words by referring to the root meaning of words in the English translation. Therefore "holy" is claimed to mean "clean" in the Bible because
that was an early meaning of the English word. Such turns of argument fall into double error. The older meaning has nothing necessarily to do with present usage of "holy" in English let alone
the way words were used in another language thousands of years ago.   (p. 210 The Evangelical Quarterly)

I have two comments I want to make.  First, as a student of semantics (the study of meaning within the broader study of language [linguistics]), I disagree with the abstract's assessment, but I agree far more with Daines' balanced assessment on the meaning of holy.  I also agree with the general principle that he and James Barr promote with regard to contemporary use.  We have to be cautious with the use of root meanings and with etymological arguments.  It can only be a part of our process in trying to learn the meaning of a word.  Daines' example from Latin meaning of nice is valid.  I have never heard anyone ever argue that holy at its root means clean.  He does overstate, however, the idea of a "double error".  Some though not all, who clarify the meaning of a word in English translation, are not making the argument for what the original means from a translation, but rather clariying what the translation was meant to communicate when the word was chosen by its contemporary translators.  Charles Spurgeon I would place in this group and likely Ray Stedman years later.  They are only clarifying an earlier contemporary meaning for earlier translators, not proving that the Hebrew means what they thought it meant.  That is a separate issue.  Their argument is an argument against those who later want to re-assign a meaning to an earlier use of the word holy.  This does not exclude the separate issue of what the word means in the original Hebrew or Greek.  For example holy, in English, did not mean "set apart" exclusively, unless we want to now assign it that meaning.  It does not have that central meaning in its early use in English translations.  That is a valid use of a root meaning and it does not lead to a double error as long as a scholar understands that this does not prove what is right, but what earlier translators thought was right.  Daines seems to miss that point.   Or maybe he applies his statement to broadly to include "all" as making this mistake when they refer to the earlier meaning of "holy" in English translation.    

Second, Barr is fairly well-known to be given to exaggeration and is guilty of sometimes being hypercritical in making his points.  I wish he were still living, so I could address him directly by email or phone.  He certainly brought forward some great points from semantics and linguistics to biblical scholarship, but that does not make all that he says equally valid.  With him you sometimes have to throw the bathwater out to find the baby.  Thistelton is another admirable scholar, but I still have some reservations where I find he is not solid either.  I have not run across his comments directly on the topic of holy, while I have those of Barr.  Barr refers to this issue in his 1961 book on Semantics.  Barr's argument is an overstatement of what he actually proves, because he is missing the point that is being made in many cases and so accuses some people of a double error that they are not making.  I think he is accusing some people of ignorance in cases where they are not ignorant.   For a play on words from Daines' example: He should be nicer than that. 

So I suggest that in terms of wagering or emotional intelligence and processing that we keep both on the table till one of the two can be eliminated by its sheer impossibility.  This is not easy, because both have some plausibility.  My firm task is the eliminate one of the two by using the tools that Barr suggests and even a few more.  I think the emotional processing of Blaise Pascal is more healthy than that of Soren Kierkegaard.  I  consider it more emotionally intelligent.  Please pray for my emotional processing and intellectual processing to come together and to make greater sense of biblical words we translate as holy. 

In Christ,

Pastor Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better by Distinguishing Status from Proof

At present, the definition of holy as "set apart" enjoys the greatest status as far as possible definitions of holy.  Prior to its rise in the late 1800s and its continuing rise in the 1900s (the 20th century), the definition of holy as "whole" held the same higher status (with "set apart" as only its secondary or narrow definition).   So it becomes very important for every serious scholar to not substitute status for evidence. 

Status should follow after evidence and it should follow proof.  Status should not itself be proof or evidence.  This sounds quite obvious to anyone acquainted with science or scholarship.  Yet it is easily forgotten.  Luther once said that he preached a theology of the cross, not just a theology of glory.  Good ideas also can suffer for a time. 

Sometimes sitting down with scholars to discuss the definition of holy, I have often (but not always) noted a bias toward "set apart" that is heavily ingrained.  This is likely because of the status of that definition at the present time and because of the status of the scholars that hold that position.  The problem is that status can bias even some of the better scholars against testing two options equally. 

Status itself is not wrong or harmful.  Status is an excellent thing like glory, when it follows from evidence or proof.  But current status is not proof that the definition of holy is correct.  The order cannot be reversed.  I would argue that the number of scholars that hold one definition versus another is something that deserves attention, because in itself it is not wrong.   Yet greater than status is the merits of the argument that resulted in the status. 

This is why in some of my blogs, I point out that some of the evidence from some scholars of status is shaky or probable at best by their own admission.  So their personal status as scholars and their endorsement of a definition for holy cannot rest on their recognized scholarly status. 

The reason my previous blog is so important and why it is taking extra time to complete is because it is an example of my attempt to set aside status from before the year 2000 and before the year 1900 (both are approximate dates for the status change for both definitions).  I want to fully test both of the views alluded to above side by side using recognized units from within Scripture and each unit's immmediate context as the best test for the meaning of holy.  May the better definition and its merits get the status it deserves following the year 2000 (again approximate)!

In Christ,

Pastor Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through What Definition People are Accustomed to in their Lifetime

It is very important to understand that the mind and the conscience do not work separate from the emotional aspect of who we are as human beings.  In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul points out that some are afraid of eating meat sacrificed to idols because of what they are accustomed to rather than to what knowledge he possesses.  What people are accustomed to can function as a block to what others know.  Part of the difficulty in considering the meaning of holy as being whole is that people are today are largely acquainted only with the definition of set apart.  As a result, in their conscience they may feel that they are doing something wrong, if they were to surrender the definition of set apart and instead believe that the definition of whole is correct. 

I understand this emotional hesitancy.  I grew up with being taught just the definition of set apart and I never heard of the possibility of whole as holy's meaning until approximately the year 2000.  It is only through reading a great deal of writing that I have come to realize that my conscience could be misinformed and I can have the courage to test two possible plausible meanings for holy and not just hold onto one.   The other issue here is to realize that defining holy as whole does not mean that the idea of set apart goes away.  It only shifts in its priority and in its location in the biblical text.  It wiil always be in the text through other words in the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. 

I am writing this to say that we must not overlook the emotional and conscience issues in dealing with the meaning of holy.  Our weak conscience can tell us that any other meaning than set apart is impossible and yet it can mislead us like those who could not eat idol meat.  So my first recommendation to people before they plunge into this topic, is to take measured steps in looking at the plausibility that holy in the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek could mean whole. 

Don't plunge in and violate your conscience as a guide.  Take measured steps from where you've always been before this time and have been accustomed to being.  Remember the lessons of 1 Corinthians 8.  Don't let another's authority and knowledge lead you to quickly to change your position. 

Follow your conscience as well as the evidence.  The truth is that the conscience and our emotional side cannot be ignored, even in the pursuit of finding out what we all should know.  I pray your desire to know the meaning of holy is one that acknowledges not just he evidence, but also the emotional side of the process of learning to know the truth.  Read through the evidence I've uncovered carefully and thoughtfully.   I don't want anyone to push to hard against their conscience, but rather to find a place where conscience and evidence meet. 


In Christ (the King-appointed),

Pastor Jon.

Holy: Understanding it Better Through One Word Versus Many

I don't like confusion and I would guess you don't either.  Recently, I ran across an explanation that I never heard before for why there are so many words that translate the one word in Hebrew and the corresponding one word in Greek that are usually translated as holy.  Desiderius Erasmus, of Reformation fame, understood copiousness to be a distinct advantage in rhetoric or persuasive communication.   What he meant by copiousness is saying one thing in many different ways.  This is probably the best explanation for why translators translate one word in Hebrew and its corresponding one word in Greek by so many words. 

The one root or word in Hebrew can be translated in English by saint, sacred, sanctified, sanctuary, consecrated, hallowed, hallow, Holy One or holy.  Someone could easily see a Latin influence here, but the bigger question is why those words were kept alongside the more Anglo-Saxon words.  In some recent translations, the list gets even longer with set apart or separate.  In some older translations there was also halig and wholly.  Then you can add to this the theological vocabulary of sanctification or holiness.  Then to make matters more confusing saint can be replaced by santa in more popular usage.  At Christmas time it is interesting to realize this last connection. 

For clarity's sake, I would argue that it would have been far more effective to have used one word like holy each time for the one word in Hebrew and its corresponding one word in Greek.  Clarity is there in the original that simply is lacking in many translations because one word is replaced by many words. 

The way to create clarity is to have just one word for one word, where clearly the basic context is the same.  The way to create confusion is to have more than one option, when the context does not demand a different basic meaning.  This is more likely to cause connections to be missed by the average reader.

My own favorite example of this is my missing the connection between holy and "hallowed be Your Name" in the Lord's Prayer.  "Holy be your name" would be much clearer for showing the connection between that statement and "Yahweh [His name] your God is holy." 

I used to think the variety in words for one word came from William Shakespeare and poetic influence.  Maybe some of it did, but Desiderius Erasmus now seems to me a better explantion for an influence on translators.  So while I greatly admire Erasmus for most of what he contributed to scholarship, I think his idea of copiousness for persuasive speech or writing may have been applied inappropriately and it may have created unnecessary confusion in the ordinary English reader's mind. 

So I hope, if nothing else, by understanding this tendency in translation, you will be able to realize that in the majority of cases, the many words for "holy" are really one word.  The most common one word in English translation is holy.  I'd love to see a translation that used only this one word in its different forms, like the original did and like the Greek translation of the Hebrew did in the New Testament.  I think this would eliminate some, but not all, of the confusion out there over what "holy" means, because the connections between different parts of Scripture would be clear.  This would be a small step forward. 

In Christ,

Pastor Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through 2 Chronicles 5:11

In 2 Chronicles 5:11, it reads in very literal translation: "And it happened as the priests were going from the sanctuary - for all the priests who were present had sanctified themselves without observing divisions."   This translation demonstrates the possibility of a contrast between "sanctified" and "observing divisions."  In that case, holy's or sanctified's basic meaning would be that of whole.

You could understand it this way " ... for all the priest who were present were themselves the whole without observing any divisions [among themselves]."   This is at least plausible and the contrast with "without observing divisions" would make its meaning also contrast with being set apart or separate. 

So this verse at least demonstrates what is at stake in terms of understanding a great number of passages throughout the Bible.  By itself, the evidence is not earthshattering, but a number of passages with this same plausibility would be.  Please think about it. 

In Christ,

Pastor Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through the Minority and Majority Views

Since biblical times, the meaning of holy has been understood in different ways.  An argument over its meaning may even be hinted at during the time of Jesus and in the biblical record itself.  At any time there are usually minority and majority views on a topic.  At the present time, the majority view is that holy means separate or to be set apart.  Also at the present time, the minority view is that holy means whole.  There are also other meanings out there as well, yet I consider these two meanings to be the most hopeful correct meanings.  The problem is that people treat the majority view as a consensus view.  The solution is to understand the actual status of a majority view and to understand the requirements for a minority view. 

One of the purposes of this blog is to ensure that the minority view is not overlooked because of the majority view.  My reason for this is that the might of supporters is not always right.  If that were true, then historically holy means whole might be right.  Before the 20th century, holy means whole was the primary definition for holy in Protestant circles at least.  Set apart was another meaning for holy, but oversimplifying some, it was the secondary definition. 

Yet a minority view must always understand its status and realize that it must earn the right to be the majority view.  It has to be humble.  It has to be meek.  It has to work harder in order to change its status.  It also must accept its status, if it fails to provide evidence for its position.  Being the underdog doesn't make a position right. 

So the majority cannot impose a tyranny with its status and exclude the minority view from consideration as though it enjoys a consensus status.  Likewise the minority cannot impose anarchy with its status and by force rather than ballots impose its view on others.  Each must remain diligent in proving its case to legitimately hold a majority status. 

I hope you will consider both points of view in your quest for the meaning of holy.  As I present more and more evidence, I hope you will be swayed by the evidence more than by the number of supporters.  Yet in the end, the number of supporters does matter.  Let's just hope the current majority is based on evidence and not on peer pressure.  That is my serious quest. 

In Christ,

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through the Options

If you want the simple answer for the meaning of holy, then it would consist in a one word answer.  One is the essence of simple.  In that case, I might say it means whole.  But that may not be a satisfactory answer for you, when you consult other sources that say it means set apart.  You are likely to want an explanation in that case.  Why isn't the meaning of holy simple like some other words?


Have you ever made adequate plans that allowed you to avoid the loss of an item?  In contrast, have you ever lost an item and tried to recover it?  I mean, for example, that you didn't leave your cell phone charger at a motel room, because you double-checked your room and took it with you before you left.  Contrast that with the time you did leave it behind, because you had to rush to catch your shuttle service and so you left the charger behind.   Double-checking for the charger and taking it with is a lot less complex than trying to recover a cell phone charger you left behind.  It also can take a lot of time to recover it when you call the motel, they search for it. they get back to you, you pay postage, they send it to you, you wait for it to arrive or you decide to go purchase a new one and it is not in stock, etc.  You get the idea. 


Unfortunately for holy, we are dealing with a recovery process.  Let me illustrate the complexity of its recovery through the example of a multiple choice test. 


If I was to give a multiple choice test on the meaning of holy, there would be a lot of options.   Over the long period of trying to find its meaning, many have claimed to find it and found different meanings or different clues to its meaning.  If I list the possible multiple choices in historical order, then there would also be a further lesson to learn. The choices are not only more than one or two. They  have also grown to many options over time.


My ultimate desire is to arrive at the one meaning intended in Ancient Hebrew, Ancient Aramaic and then later in Greek.   My purpose right now is to show that the recovery of the lost meaning of holy means that the problem is complex and that fixing the problem also takes more time because the simple meaning of holy was lost.   You could say that the many possible multiple choices proves it was once lost.  This could not have been case in the ancient text.  There is no indication of such an expansive list of meaning nor of the need for so many clues outside the text. 

The multiple choice question and its options might look like the following:

What is the ancient meaning of holy in other English words? (Please choose only the best possilble answer for the present time.)

a. whole/sum of all his attributes/complete/fully prepared

b. set apart/separate/set apart from/set apart to

c. pure/clean

d. both a and b (a is primary, b is secondary)

e. together a, b and c

f. either a or b, based on possible roots (but not both)

g. either a, b or c based on possible roots and biblical context (but not more than one of them)

h. b modified by a (ex. wholly other, wholly set apart)

i. treasured/unique/not common (sometimes tied to b)

j. fully prepared (sometimes tied to a)

k. deity (a synonym for god)

l. b and f together (possibly b only, yet boldly eliminate the other possibility)

m. a and f together (possibly a only, yet boldly eliminate the other possiblity)

n. a and f, yet possibly b (based on favored probability, yet without eliminating the other possibility)

o. b and f, yet possibly a (based on favored probability, yet without eliminating the other possibility)

p. any one of the other possible meanings not listed, but none of the above (etc.)

q. righteousness, truth, love and goodness combined as four quadrants of the whole of character

Among these options, I have chosen different answers at different times. But perhaps the best answer at this moment (not for all time) for me is: n. whole, but still possibly b. set apart.  The ultimate goal would then be to arrive at a. whole.

It is the best to me, because I think the combined evidence leans the evidence in the direction of a. whole, but it also recognizes two advances in trying to recover the meaning of holy. First, it recognizes that there was strength in the past in the answer whole and set apart, but also sees an advance in knowledge from the late 19th ct. that says it must be one of these two meanings and not both. So "yet" must take the place of "and" until there is a further advance in our recovery process. 


The recovery of possible meanings before the 19th century and then joining them together in similar fashion is no longer possible. Also q. might be true, yet it remains largely unproven until texts like Psalm 33 are more thoroughly examined.   I plan on doing this in the future. 

So when you are next searching for the definition of holy, please remember that the recovery of its possible meaning makes the multiple choice options much longer than what you will find in a standard dictionary or lexicon (a technical foreign language dictionary).  Holy's simple meaning got lost and now we have to recover it.


I guess it all boils down to two general points: (1) recovery is complex and prevention is simple and (2) recovery is longer and prevention is shorter.  We should not be shocked by the amount of complexity that has been created nor by the large expenditure of time on the meaning of holy by scholars and translators. 


Yet also recall that not all the answers are equal ("best") and sooner or later, one answer will emerge that will convince a great number of people that it is the one and only best answer.   I believe eventually we will arrive back at a simple answer like that of a. whole or b. set apart.  I look forward to that day and I keep looking for the lost item and clues to the simple (one) meaning until that day arrives.

In Christ,

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through a Healthy Process

Health is taked about a lot lately. My observation as an athletic director (a part time occupation) is that most of the time the process given to attain health is not complete. So by default the promoted process cannot attain the health it claims. For example, a diet may be promoted, but there is no mention of exercise or dealing with past illnesses, etc. Likewise the discussion in this blog must be complete or it will not examine the meaning of holy in a healthy or complete way.

The major prongs of the fork aimed at looking for the meaning of holy in this blog are:

Priority -- this is concerned with the theological perspective that holy is chief among the moral virtues. Unfortunately, other moral virtues like love, etc. were allowed to supplant it in the 20th century. I have a separate blog for this subject. It is among my links on the side bar of this blog.

Recovery – this is concerned with the historical perspective that holy’s meaning must be recovered once lost. Prevention of the loss of meaning is not an option right now, but only in the future. This was my focus in the early going, though not as intentionally as I wish I could claim. It is the focus on this piece of writing.

Certainty – this is concerned with the rhetorical perspective that saying holy means something is stronger than saying that holy seems to mean something. This perspective avoids skepticism where there is ample evidence. It also tries to avoid presumption where there is controversy rather than certainty. It recognizes the current controversy and hopes to overcome it.

Discovery – this is concerned with the biblical perspective that is very high among my concerns. This summer, I am taking a graduate course that I hope will greatly improve my efforts on this prong. Research following a process I have layed out previously for decipherment is critical to this part of the complete process.

This particular entry in this blog is mainly concerned to highlight that it is no small thing to say that we are in a place of recovery rather than of prevention, when it comes to the meaning of holy. If prevention were always the rule, then continuity with tradition would make the enterprise of this blog obsolete. But as is so often the case, people rather than doing their due diligence in preparation and prevention are guilty of having to rely instead on cure and recovery. That means sometimes change (transformation) and the renewing of the mind of Romans 12 are essential.

Such is the case with holy. Even during the last 500+ years, the meaning of holy has not been without controversy. The common practice was to preserve at least 2 meanings together. You could say one meaning, wholeness, was central or primary and the other meaning, separate, was marginal or secondary. But in the last 100+ years, the controversy has now a higher risk attached to it.

The risks now are much higher than they used to be, because one meaning is used exclusively without the other, even though based only on a marginal (slightly higher than 50%) probability. The reason is because of a great level of boldness or recklessness on the part of late 19th century scholars, depending on your perspective.

The way that the meaning of holy as whole came to be no longer taught in the last 100+ years in most circles is due to a recognition that it could not be both meanings. In other words, a choice had to be made based on the root words for each meaning, because neither of the two possible roots supported both meanings. This was an advance in scholarly knowledge.

What may not have been an advance was eliminating the appearance of probability and substituting a sense of dogmatism, where it does not exist. This is referred to as presumption. We read the following in the preface to the 1611 KJV:

For as it is a fault of incredulitie, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no lesse than presumption. Therfore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea is necessary, as we are perswaded.

http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm (I did make one minor obvious correction to quote)

So I think a big part of what I am doing in this blog is recoverying a meaning that goes against what a judicious translator should do. I believe strongly in the no longer understood virtue of prudence that shows caution, when uncertainty exists. Not the kind that is excessive, but the kind that avoids simplicity and naivete. I wish I could say that the loss of the meaning of holy and the need to recover it does not exist, but the history of the definition of holy says otherwise. That is why many of my older posts dealt with historical biblical scholars and leaders and their understanding of holy. I hope I have in some ways helped recover what might prove valuable at the end of a healthy understanding of holy's meaning.

Please watch especially this coming summer for a great development of the biblical data and for concrete evidence of what holy means. I am excited what the Lord may do through a class I hope to take this summer with a highly regarded Hebrew scholar.

In Christ,

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through ALL the Evidence

When it comes to evidence, I am committed to it. What stands in its way are: the suppression of evidence, inconclusive evidence and hearsay evidence. The way to break through any of these is to: ask, seek and knock. It is like when you want to travel from one place to another. You ASK directions from your current location to your destination, you SEEK or travel according to the directions you are given and you KNOCK upon your arrival at your destination.


Hearsay evidence happens when we ask directions from someone, who does not know the way to our destination. They give us bad directions. Inconclusive evidence is when we are seeking or traveling, yet we are not yet in a position to knock on the door. There is the danger of getting ahead of ourselves in our claims. Suppression of evidence happens when we have arrived at our destination, yet we fail to disclose what we found, when the door is open. In my experience, I have asked a lot of questions and received some great directions. Yet I feel that too many scholars are guilty of reaching a final conclusion from inconclusive evidence, when they ought to see themselves as still seeking and not yet having knocked at the door. They fail to seek all the way to the final destination.


Here are some examples of where seeking means that we have to watch out for inconclusive evidence. Both of these scholars, Rudolph Otto and Norman Snaith, admit as much in their primary books on holy yet too often this is forgotten, because the majority the pages in their books imply a final destination on the meaning of holy.


I want to present the evidence that suggests seeking rather than knocking as my and our current position on the defintion of holy. These are pieces of evidence that could be called inconclusive, indirect or inferred. This does not mean they are faulty. In fact they are refreshingly honest. It only means that seeking is distinguished from knocking.


They are:

Translation evidence - it is important to understand that in many European traditions there is a history of understanding the ancient Hebrew as related to the idea of wholeness through the choice of words like the English word holy. This word was not chosen because of its relation to set apart. This evidence by itself is not final, yet it is indirectly helpful.


Decipherment evidence - the process of decipherment for languages that are unknown at the time of discovery is now an organized process. This evidence is still inconclusive, yet only because it has never been fully applied to the ancient Hebrew word for holy. I am only beginning to work out this process. This is process that promises an arrival at a door.


Language evidence - the multitude of languages around the world have words that indicate parts and wholes as well as words for set apart. What would be worthy of detailed study would be to look at the prominence of each of these concepts. One linguist's study suggests that words having to do with part-whole are the most prominent in the languages of the world. It would be indirect evidence, but still get us further along the way.


Part-Whole evidence - this is a topic that is very hot in some circles as a philosophical or worldview starting point. It is always important to understand a worldview in terms of its strengths and weaknesses and potential pitfalls. This is very indirect, yet still helpful.


Concrete evidence - this is really a sub-set of decipherment evidence and yet it deserves separate mention, because of the importance of both learning and studying. It is important to study words and learn concrete objects in real life. This could yield very direct evidence, if a link between a picture of a concrete object and a worded text can be shown on some ancient object or in some ancient manuscript. This approach is also seen in the work of the now deceased Mary Douglas, the great anthropologist. This is not suprising since anthropologists are more aware of the concrete than many language experts or biblical scholars. Her primary insight is on the idea of whole stones for an altar and the holy altar text of Deuteronomy. Some scholars began working on this, yet haven't finished the work that needs to be done here.


Etymological (letters) evidence - this evidence has a lot of its weight relying on the connections between letters and knowing the history of letters (or alphabets). This evidence becomes more reliable as you dig deeply into it. Yet it's reputation has been damaged by quick conclusions rather than deep digging. Seek before you knock should be written on all this work! So far, this evidence is by scholarly admission inconclusive, but still valuable.


Contextual (cognates) evidence - this is perhaps the most popular among pastors and second-rate scholarship. The quick conclusion is that because something is in a context, then it indicates the meaning of something else in the context. Again, not so quick! Is it parallel? Is it significantly limiting? Are there any other possibilities? This evidence increases plausibility, yet again it is only conclusive when we know its status as a parallel or otherwise and when we know all the possibilities and can see that a word in the context makes a significant limit on what the word we are trying to define means. This option is very important evidence, yet not for amateur linguists!


Dictionary evidence - this is very indirect, but it gives laypeople access to what past translators were thinking, when they chose to use a translation like the English word holy for a word in the Hebrew text. The path to holy is traced and it comes through words clearly connected to whole. Now when you turn to the Latin language and start digging there, then things get more complicated. That needs more digging or seeking.


Lexicon evidence - this one falls into the idea that we know a lot already or we know it all category. When people see 7 lexicons that agree, they assume that the knock on the door of arrival has occured. Again, not so fast! In the field of evidence, it is not how many say the same thing, but how many are eyewitnesses. You don't want to follow the many just repeating the words of just one. In the late 1800s a corner was turned on the meaning of holy in Hebrew and in Greek. For Hebrew, Gesenius seems to be the popular lexicon compiler that others follow. They rely on his witness. For Greek, Cremer seems to be the popular lexicon compiler that others follow. They rely on these two witnesses. From one witness for either the Hebrew or the Greek, spring many witnesses. Few after them seek further. They do not seem to seek out earlier lexicons for further questioning of witnesses. Neither is the search into other texts very significant. I found an unsearched set of "texts" yesterday. I think this is a very worthwhile project in which I have sought a little bit. It is time consuming however.


Impact evidence - the evidence of world history and life change is important. At the time of past transformations of the church by the renewing of minds, there has been a large world impact. In my church's broad background, there is the impact following the transformation of Martin Luther when his mind was renewed through his renewing understanding of righteousness. This is repeated many times all the way through the time of Charles Haddon Spurgeon and his renewing understanding of goodness. So far, the meaning of set apart despite having 100 plus years on the central stage has resulted in no such impact. This is indirect evidence, but it is evidence from outcomes and benefits. Whole also seems to have not had the same impact as there other words in the last 500 + years, but it has never been freed from a dual meaning depending on the context of holy in Scripture. So it remains untested as a singular idea. 


Ancient culture evidence - every day there is new evidence from ancient cultures around the globe being unearthed. I saw another example last night. While these cultures are not linked to ancient Hebrew culture directly, they are part of the ancient world. I think we can get clues as to possible meanings for holy and the closer the culture is to that of Hebrew culture, the more significant a finding it may be. Yet all these ancient cultures should be studied for the range of possibilitites, so we are not blinded by our singular worldview from the present. I have seen very indirect evidence from as far away as North America that could be significant when combined with other evidence, since it would never be better than indirect.


Communication evidence - there is a heavy bias in our education system towards communication theory built on classical grammar rather than on classical rhetoric. Let me only say this much. It is very eye opening, when one starts from the underlying concepts behind rhetoric rather than grammar. These classical views are not entirely out of sync with each other, but I believe one is superior to the other and gives indirect evidence on the meaning of holy that is significant. Eugene Nida, despite other weaknesses in the field of translating, carried forward the insights of rhetoric very effectively. That is his real genius, not his dynamic equivalence theory.


Psychological evidence - very indirect is all the work on the workings of the brain and the work on what it takes for transformation to happen. Nevertheless people who are stuck emotionally on the inside, can learn a lot about the renewing of the mind through this literature. Very indirect, but still helpful.


Original Language Speakers evidence - sometimes it is assumed that because a Jewish speaker of antiquity compared to ourselves gives a defintion for holy, it must be correct. That is a dangerous assumption, because they are not contemporary with the texts, even if they are Jewish. So sometimes the definition of holy is determined by this kind of indirect evidence way too quickly. Seek rather than knock are the watchwords.


Finally, I want to say this is not all the evidence that can be given, but I leave it up to you to add some if you like. Yet I hope it does summarize some important ways to "Ask, seek and knock."  Together we can avoid the pitfalls of hearsay evidence, inconclusive evidence and suppressed evidence by following this entire process to reach our final destination of one central meaning for holy.  Happy asking, seeking and knocking!


In Christ,


Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Continuous Learning

John Wooden was not just a great basketball coach, but also a great teacher. He once said: "When you're through learning, you're through." When I hear some scholar's comments about the meaning of holy, I can tell "they're through." They have stopped learning.

The problem is that the job is not done. The very best scholars admit there is more work to be done. These scholars go beyond just copying the work of previous lexicons. But it is far easier to feel the comfort of being "through learning."

For pastors and for lay people this is also a temptation. The work can seem daunting, but it is not. The course has already been mapped out by others, who have solved far more difficult problems. The problems of deciphering Linear B, the Mayan glyphs or the Egyptian hieroglyphs were far more daunting. But certain individuals working on each of these languages didn't believe they were through learning. It was their failed colleagues who imagined that.

Just remember this: "When you're through learning, you're through." Maybe we need to go beyond the business world's "continuous improvement" to also promote "continuous learning" among scholars and Christians.

In Christ,

Jon

Understanding Holy Better: Concrete Things and Abstract Words

I firmly stand on the principle of Scripture alone in the sense of what is in Scripture has a unique quality of truth compared to the writings outside of it. I think this is terrifically relevant to the discussion on the meaning of holy. The danger though is that we limit not just truth to being found only there, but also we limit ourselves to only one biblical principle.

A valuable principle in addition to Scripture alone and the broader principle of truth is the principle of concrete things and the broader principle of good. Recently, in watching a DVD about the Aztecs and one of their monuments, the narrator said that at one time the majority of their evidence for the chief monument buried under Mexico City was documentary evidence, but now that had changed through archaeological evidence in finding the ancient monument itself.

I don't think that the shift from documentary evidence to the actual thing itself as evidence is harmful. In fact, it is a concrete good. When I defend the principle of truth in Scripture, I hope I do not turn a blind eye to the principle of good in the evidence of real things.

This is why finding a picture of holiness in some text next to the word for holiness would go a long way toward solving our problems with its definition. Likewise, better yet would be to find the concrete objects themselves as described in both a text and the picture. This would nail the definition of holy to the wall for good.

On the flipside, in the last few days I was searching commentaries on Romans for the authors' definitions for holy. It was a sad state of affairs. They all took a slightly different angle on the word. Their meanings were not the same, though in some cases they did overlap or agree.

We can find the concrete evidence we need and still uphold the principle of Scripture alone. Abstract documentary evidence is not passe. It is not a thing of the past. It still contributes truth. What is also a present concern is the matter of a targeted quest toward concrete evidence that should be available somewhere. I pray God will help us all find it. He's already helped me find a concrete biblical picture in a verbal description of righteousness and justice. The same can happen again for all of us on the meaning of holy.

In Christ,

Jon