You have come to this site to find the meaning of holy. I will not disappoint you in that regard, but before I give an answer to that question you need to know that the definition of holy or qadosh (Hebrew) or hagios (Greek) requires a little extra research, to put it very kindly. Fortunately, the high quality options are only three. They are: 1) moral wholeness, 2) pure, or 3) set apart. The lexicographer Hesychius is not a household name, but he has been very important in trying to determine the meaning of holy. His lexicon written around the third to fourth century time range is regarded as a great treasure for determining the meaning of many Greek words. In this case, we are talking about the meaning of hagioi or hagios. I want to tell you what I have found in examining the evidence from his lexicon.
[Under construction]
Sincerely,
Jon
Showing posts with label means. Show all posts
Showing posts with label means. Show all posts
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Wednesday, October 09, 2013
Holy: Understanding It Better By Uncovering the Hidden
When I was a child my parents had two sets of books below our television in the living room. One was a set of books about the stories in the Bible. The other was a set of books about science. I actually now possess both sets. For me what was most intriguing in the science books was the things that had been recovered through archaeology about dinosaurs. These discoveries uncovered the hidden knowledge of dinosaurs. Likewise in studying the meaning of holy, what is intriguing is what I have uncovered about the meaning of holy that I never knew before and still millions of people do not know.
Before I go any further, I want to include a visual of what I am saying.
The bones of dinosaurs are not the only hidden truths in our world and often these hidden truths can become "bones of contention". The first real discovery for me in 2004 pointed out to me that there exists bones of contention when it comes to the meaning of holy. There is not only one possibility for its definition. At that time, I came to terms with the idea that there might be two good possibilities (three later): "set apart" and "moral wholeness". I added "pure" later.
So let me disclose a few "hidden truths" for you. Here is a partial list:
1) Strong's dictionary (lexicon) in the back of his exhaustive concordance lists "wholly" as one of the glosses or translations for the meaning of holy. This is quite different from the other glosses or translations that he lists. This was my first hidden truth that started me out on my quest. Please see that the start of things is not that complicated. We can all do this, if we can read and have a library to draw books from.
2) What you discover after learning that the KJV uses "wholly" as a translation for qadosh, hagios, etc. is that this translation accurately reflects prior scholarship and prior theology in the Reformation traditions of Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Wesley, and Spurgeon. Each of them are historically famous because they each uncovered something hidden, so it would not be surprising if the next Great Awakening or revival began with another discovery of something hidden.
3) You will then discover that one of the most important historical documents on the meaning of holy is no longer accessible and appears to be likely laying on a shelf in Germany. Johann (John) Bengel had an introductory presentation on holy he offered his students. I have not been able to find even a German copy of this and to the best of my knowledge it remains hidden. This scholarship may be critical to understanding a lost view of the meaning of holy. He understood qadosh and hagios in the sense of moral wholeness. You will discover too that due to the lack of footnotes in the older tradition of scholarship, it is hard digging to know where older Protestant Reformers have gone when it comes to word definitions.
4) You will also discover that the meaning of "wholly" attached to the translation of "holy" in English does have a legitimate etymology in English and in terms of having to do with the concept of being whole. You will also discover that this is why some people consider the meaning of holy as whole as relevant as far as what a translations means (not what the original means). They are stating their case not from the Hebrew original, but from a tradition of translation going back to 1611 and beyond. By itself, this is harmless as long as we understand that we then must also examine the original words of qadosh, hagios, etc. after examining differing translations.
5) You will discover that the lexicons we use for determining the meaning of qadosh, hagios, etc. are largely built off of a single tradition of earlier lexicons. So while there is a large QUANTITY of lexicons for N.T. Greek for example, the QUALITY of the entries does not change too much. The best evidence for this is found in A History of New Testament Lexicography by John A. L. Lee. You will find this further reinforced in Studies in New Testament Lexicography by David S. Hasselbrook. I am currently working on the same issue from the Old Testament side and so far much appears the same. More will be said on this in future blog entries.
6) You will discover that the etymology for the meaning of qadosh or hagios are not certain and are controversial in some of the better lexicons like Clines' lexicon of Hebrew. You will also find that this is not the case in most lexicons. They list meanings as though they are certain. That I discovered is misleading, based on deeper study. So lexicons don't help as much as could be hoped.
7) You will discover that lexicography is such a large task covering so many words that word studies are more helpful than lexicons. They go deeper on one word rather than wider over many words. This is a real advantage.
8) You will discover that when you read the various word studies (which I am collecting as a set currently) that they still rely more on etymology than they realize and that by testing only one option, the word studies are limited in their value. Because JUSTICE to all three major possible translations: is not done, the QUALITY of both lexicons and word studies are compromised while QUANTITY of lexicons and word studies is still growing.
9) You will now have reached a point that you realize that there is a lot you did not know that has been hidden from you and others. You will realize that you where unaware of CATEGORIES of meaning that are possible for holy. You will realize that there is more than one KIND that is possible. This is shock you, if you have been kept in isolation from information. Why were you not informed from the start about three possible meanings for holy as a translation rather than just one? I found the internet to be valuable in breaking out of a view that only gave me one option to consider rather than various KINDS. God after all created variety and different kinds of things, not one kind of thing. So when it comes down to words and their meanings, it is good to test the best options of different KINDS that you can. You may have known two ("set apart", "pure") from contemporary lexicons and word studies, but not all three (adding "moral wholeness" to the first two). Fortunately, Strong's Concordance (and dictionary/lexicon) is easily found by anyone. You just have to slow down and read it carefully.
10) You can also discover that while some panic at the possibility that Christians and Jews may misunderstand the meaning of holy that this is a false panic or worry. With three possibilities you simply need to make sure you don't exclude any of them as possible, while functioning with what you consider the most probable and then follow this up by test, test, test to uncover what is currently hidden. This is done with textual variants all the time dating back to ancient copiers of the Hebrew text. Why not do this with definitions too? Can't we play safe, by considering all three until there is stronger evidence? I haven't discovered yet why we can't. .
11) You will discover that advances in linguistics gives us an advantage over Reformation exegesis provided you also understand and don't lose or hide the strengths of their method. What I have discovered is a careful balance of continuity and change is what should apply to biblical exegesis and to scientific linguistics as working together. James "Too Far" Barr, opened the door to linguistic semantics, though he overstates himself at times in favor of change. Still this is a move forward in the majority of instances where semantics or linguistics has been applied. I learned this largely from Dr. William A. Smalley, Dr. Donald N. Larson, and Dr. Daniel P. Shaw. You can discover this for yourself if you read David Alan Black, Moises Silva, etc There writings relevant to word meanings are listed all over the internet.
12) You will discover my one major caveat with James Barr and his book Semantics and Biblical Language is his remarks directly concerning the etymology of holy. He creates a false logic in saying that some are moving from holy to whole and then back to qadosh and its meaning as the original in Hebrew. He implies that some were arguing that qadosh means whole based on the meaning of the English word holy meaning whole. What he misses (lies hidden from his view) is that holy as meaning whole is what earlier English translators meant in choosing holy as a translation. This was not as a way to determine the meaning in the original, but as a way to express its meaning in English. It may not be an accurate translation, but it could be. The major caveat also means that Barr is hiding from our view (whether intentional or not - I think it is the latter) the historic (diachronic) meaning of the word holy in English that was hidden from my generation at least. I never knew it had ties to another English word whole as in "moral wholeness". What Barr does is block this from people's view, right when they had a chance to be more aware rather than less aware. I like to think that this full knowledge or better yet fuller knowledge or above (previous) knowledge is helpful as long as we remain committed to the original text. This is one of the reasons, I am so happy to have studied under Daniel P. "Fuller Knowledge" Fuller rather than "too far Barr". Better yet would have been studying under both at the same school. So equipped with a fuller knowledge of the English word holy's meaning in translation, the problem of qadosh's meaning should be solved by testing holy's English meaning as one of the possible meanings in the original text, and not by keeping it hidden from being one of the possibilities. It is ironic that Barr in this instance hides knowledge from our view rather than advancing it as he does with the introduction of linguistic and semantic principles for word studies, etc. WE must remember that not all progress or change is progress just because of the progress of time.
13) You will discover that while Louw and Nida made some mistakes in their Greek-English lexicon, they also performed a great service. You can also find much of their work on-line. They were smart enough to distinguish between "definitions" and "glosses". You will then discover what this distinction is. In an English dictionary, we are given a full definition and not just synonyms, antonyms, and the parts of speech. The tendency in lexicons is to given a list of "glosses" or words that are used in English translations and then identify their contexts. The problem is that sometimes these short examples from translation can be misleading, because they are very dependent on the language the word is being translated into. My favorite example is kol in Hebrew. It properly or seminally means "whole", but in English it is mostly translated into "all". Gesenius and others point out that this is because of the nature of Western languages (including English), where we like to speak of "all the parts of" rather than "the whole of" which is more awkward grammatically for us. This awkwardness, however, is changing to where we might be able to more frequently list the proper or seminal meaning as "whole". That would help more people uncover the hidden presence of "whole" in the original Hebrew.
14) You will discover that taking a more historical (diachronic) approach to both Hebrew and Greek and including their modern usage for some words can be fruitful. This is demonstrated in my own personal experience of learning Hebrew from Dr. William Bean and from Hasselbrook's book that I mentioned previously. I think Hasselbrook has clearly uncovered something like Dr. Bean did for me personally.
15) You will discover that future lexicons need to take into consideration even more later discoveries in both Hebrew and Greek of sources more closely tied to oral speech on the street. Older lexicons tend to rely more on literary Greek rather than koine or oral Greek. I still am investigating Hebrew in this regard to see if there is a parallel issue.
16) You will discover that Louw's and Nida's method of using domains has a great deal to commend it. While their execution of it in their lexicon can be confusing, it was progressive according to scholars like Lee. I personally think that it would be more helpful to return to an alphabetic listing and then put the semantic domains organization in the back of the book. Their reversal of that order is I think what keeps many of my fellow scholars from using it more frequently. What is more needed is to uncover their underlying four major semantic or reference categories that are used listed as: 1) things, 2) events, 3) attributes, and 4) relations. These two men used a new terminology in their book that explains their lexicon which perhaps made their discussion less understood rather than more understood. I have been able, through students in my bible classes, to simplify their terms down to: 1) things, 2) actions, 3) amounts, and 4) relationships. I also have re-ordered them to match with the order of heart, soul, strength, and mind from Luke's gospel; so that now I list them as: 1) amounts, 2) relationships, 3) actions, and 4) things. I also have added identity as a way to unite all four kinds together as self does the various parts of heart, etc. in Luke's gospel. That identity would also reflect the whole of kinds or classes of meaning or referents. Discovering that this is the foundation of Louw's and Nida's work is critical to understanding the greatest possible advance from their work and their lexicon. By the way, I have discovered that it is much wiser to judge Nida by this foundation of four classes of meaning and by his lexicon than by his work on the issues of translation that played out in the TEV (or Good News Bible).
So after reading this blog entry, I hope you sense that I have uncovered a lot that you did not know previously. Keep in mind that I too once was not aware of this full list of hidden things. It has taken a lot of digging, but I feel that my digging through new books and old books is beginning to really pay off. I sense a fruitful end to a long journey may not be that far off in "discovering the hidden past" of the meaning of holy. If you want to join with me in digging, please feel free to contact me. I am sure you can find me through the web. Otherwise, I hope you will do some digging of your own. It is safest to observe for yourself, when you can and it is possible to make rich observations that you previously missed just by extending the time you allow for observation. Give my findings "soak time". If you decide to be a discoverer yourself, then you can start with your own translation and Strong's concordance. It is a good point from which to launch your initial search. Happy digging and uncovering of hidden things. Take care.
In Christ,
Jon
Before I go any further, I want to include a visual of what I am saying.
The bones of dinosaurs are not the only hidden truths in our world and often these hidden truths can become "bones of contention". The first real discovery for me in 2004 pointed out to me that there exists bones of contention when it comes to the meaning of holy. There is not only one possibility for its definition. At that time, I came to terms with the idea that there might be two good possibilities (three later): "set apart" and "moral wholeness". I added "pure" later.
So let me disclose a few "hidden truths" for you. Here is a partial list:
1) Strong's dictionary (lexicon) in the back of his exhaustive concordance lists "wholly" as one of the glosses or translations for the meaning of holy. This is quite different from the other glosses or translations that he lists. This was my first hidden truth that started me out on my quest. Please see that the start of things is not that complicated. We can all do this, if we can read and have a library to draw books from.
2) What you discover after learning that the KJV uses "wholly" as a translation for qadosh, hagios, etc. is that this translation accurately reflects prior scholarship and prior theology in the Reformation traditions of Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Wesley, and Spurgeon. Each of them are historically famous because they each uncovered something hidden, so it would not be surprising if the next Great Awakening or revival began with another discovery of something hidden.
3) You will then discover that one of the most important historical documents on the meaning of holy is no longer accessible and appears to be likely laying on a shelf in Germany. Johann (John) Bengel had an introductory presentation on holy he offered his students. I have not been able to find even a German copy of this and to the best of my knowledge it remains hidden. This scholarship may be critical to understanding a lost view of the meaning of holy. He understood qadosh and hagios in the sense of moral wholeness. You will discover too that due to the lack of footnotes in the older tradition of scholarship, it is hard digging to know where older Protestant Reformers have gone when it comes to word definitions.
4) You will also discover that the meaning of "wholly" attached to the translation of "holy" in English does have a legitimate etymology in English and in terms of having to do with the concept of being whole. You will also discover that this is why some people consider the meaning of holy as whole as relevant as far as what a translations means (not what the original means). They are stating their case not from the Hebrew original, but from a tradition of translation going back to 1611 and beyond. By itself, this is harmless as long as we understand that we then must also examine the original words of qadosh, hagios, etc. after examining differing translations.
5) You will discover that the lexicons we use for determining the meaning of qadosh, hagios, etc. are largely built off of a single tradition of earlier lexicons. So while there is a large QUANTITY of lexicons for N.T. Greek for example, the QUALITY of the entries does not change too much. The best evidence for this is found in A History of New Testament Lexicography by John A. L. Lee. You will find this further reinforced in Studies in New Testament Lexicography by David S. Hasselbrook. I am currently working on the same issue from the Old Testament side and so far much appears the same. More will be said on this in future blog entries.
6) You will discover that the etymology for the meaning of qadosh or hagios are not certain and are controversial in some of the better lexicons like Clines' lexicon of Hebrew. You will also find that this is not the case in most lexicons. They list meanings as though they are certain. That I discovered is misleading, based on deeper study. So lexicons don't help as much as could be hoped.
7) You will discover that lexicography is such a large task covering so many words that word studies are more helpful than lexicons. They go deeper on one word rather than wider over many words. This is a real advantage.
8) You will discover that when you read the various word studies (which I am collecting as a set currently) that they still rely more on etymology than they realize and that by testing only one option, the word studies are limited in their value. Because JUSTICE to all three major possible translations: is not done, the QUALITY of both lexicons and word studies are compromised while QUANTITY of lexicons and word studies is still growing.
9) You will now have reached a point that you realize that there is a lot you did not know that has been hidden from you and others. You will realize that you where unaware of CATEGORIES of meaning that are possible for holy. You will realize that there is more than one KIND that is possible. This is shock you, if you have been kept in isolation from information. Why were you not informed from the start about three possible meanings for holy as a translation rather than just one? I found the internet to be valuable in breaking out of a view that only gave me one option to consider rather than various KINDS. God after all created variety and different kinds of things, not one kind of thing. So when it comes down to words and their meanings, it is good to test the best options of different KINDS that you can. You may have known two ("set apart", "pure") from contemporary lexicons and word studies, but not all three (adding "moral wholeness" to the first two). Fortunately, Strong's Concordance (and dictionary/lexicon) is easily found by anyone. You just have to slow down and read it carefully.
10) You can also discover that while some panic at the possibility that Christians and Jews may misunderstand the meaning of holy that this is a false panic or worry. With three possibilities you simply need to make sure you don't exclude any of them as possible, while functioning with what you consider the most probable and then follow this up by test, test, test to uncover what is currently hidden. This is done with textual variants all the time dating back to ancient copiers of the Hebrew text. Why not do this with definitions too? Can't we play safe, by considering all three until there is stronger evidence? I haven't discovered yet why we can't. .
11) You will discover that advances in linguistics gives us an advantage over Reformation exegesis provided you also understand and don't lose or hide the strengths of their method. What I have discovered is a careful balance of continuity and change is what should apply to biblical exegesis and to scientific linguistics as working together. James "Too Far" Barr, opened the door to linguistic semantics, though he overstates himself at times in favor of change. Still this is a move forward in the majority of instances where semantics or linguistics has been applied. I learned this largely from Dr. William A. Smalley, Dr. Donald N. Larson, and Dr. Daniel P. Shaw. You can discover this for yourself if you read David Alan Black, Moises Silva, etc There writings relevant to word meanings are listed all over the internet.
12) You will discover my one major caveat with James Barr and his book Semantics and Biblical Language is his remarks directly concerning the etymology of holy. He creates a false logic in saying that some are moving from holy to whole and then back to qadosh and its meaning as the original in Hebrew. He implies that some were arguing that qadosh means whole based on the meaning of the English word holy meaning whole. What he misses (lies hidden from his view) is that holy as meaning whole is what earlier English translators meant in choosing holy as a translation. This was not as a way to determine the meaning in the original, but as a way to express its meaning in English. It may not be an accurate translation, but it could be. The major caveat also means that Barr is hiding from our view (whether intentional or not - I think it is the latter) the historic (diachronic) meaning of the word holy in English that was hidden from my generation at least. I never knew it had ties to another English word whole as in "moral wholeness". What Barr does is block this from people's view, right when they had a chance to be more aware rather than less aware. I like to think that this full knowledge or better yet fuller knowledge or above (previous) knowledge is helpful as long as we remain committed to the original text. This is one of the reasons, I am so happy to have studied under Daniel P. "Fuller Knowledge" Fuller rather than "too far Barr". Better yet would have been studying under both at the same school. So equipped with a fuller knowledge of the English word holy's meaning in translation, the problem of qadosh's meaning should be solved by testing holy's English meaning as one of the possible meanings in the original text, and not by keeping it hidden from being one of the possibilities. It is ironic that Barr in this instance hides knowledge from our view rather than advancing it as he does with the introduction of linguistic and semantic principles for word studies, etc. WE must remember that not all progress or change is progress just because of the progress of time.
13) You will discover that while Louw and Nida made some mistakes in their Greek-English lexicon, they also performed a great service. You can also find much of their work on-line. They were smart enough to distinguish between "definitions" and "glosses". You will then discover what this distinction is. In an English dictionary, we are given a full definition and not just synonyms, antonyms, and the parts of speech. The tendency in lexicons is to given a list of "glosses" or words that are used in English translations and then identify their contexts. The problem is that sometimes these short examples from translation can be misleading, because they are very dependent on the language the word is being translated into. My favorite example is kol in Hebrew. It properly or seminally means "whole", but in English it is mostly translated into "all". Gesenius and others point out that this is because of the nature of Western languages (including English), where we like to speak of "all the parts of" rather than "the whole of" which is more awkward grammatically for us. This awkwardness, however, is changing to where we might be able to more frequently list the proper or seminal meaning as "whole". That would help more people uncover the hidden presence of "whole" in the original Hebrew.
14) You will discover that taking a more historical (diachronic) approach to both Hebrew and Greek and including their modern usage for some words can be fruitful. This is demonstrated in my own personal experience of learning Hebrew from Dr. William Bean and from Hasselbrook's book that I mentioned previously. I think Hasselbrook has clearly uncovered something like Dr. Bean did for me personally.
15) You will discover that future lexicons need to take into consideration even more later discoveries in both Hebrew and Greek of sources more closely tied to oral speech on the street. Older lexicons tend to rely more on literary Greek rather than koine or oral Greek. I still am investigating Hebrew in this regard to see if there is a parallel issue.
16) You will discover that Louw's and Nida's method of using domains has a great deal to commend it. While their execution of it in their lexicon can be confusing, it was progressive according to scholars like Lee. I personally think that it would be more helpful to return to an alphabetic listing and then put the semantic domains organization in the back of the book. Their reversal of that order is I think what keeps many of my fellow scholars from using it more frequently. What is more needed is to uncover their underlying four major semantic or reference categories that are used listed as: 1) things, 2) events, 3) attributes, and 4) relations. These two men used a new terminology in their book that explains their lexicon which perhaps made their discussion less understood rather than more understood. I have been able, through students in my bible classes, to simplify their terms down to: 1) things, 2) actions, 3) amounts, and 4) relationships. I also have re-ordered them to match with the order of heart, soul, strength, and mind from Luke's gospel; so that now I list them as: 1) amounts, 2) relationships, 3) actions, and 4) things. I also have added identity as a way to unite all four kinds together as self does the various parts of heart, etc. in Luke's gospel. That identity would also reflect the whole of kinds or classes of meaning or referents. Discovering that this is the foundation of Louw's and Nida's work is critical to understanding the greatest possible advance from their work and their lexicon. By the way, I have discovered that it is much wiser to judge Nida by this foundation of four classes of meaning and by his lexicon than by his work on the issues of translation that played out in the TEV (or Good News Bible).
So after reading this blog entry, I hope you sense that I have uncovered a lot that you did not know previously. Keep in mind that I too once was not aware of this full list of hidden things. It has taken a lot of digging, but I feel that my digging through new books and old books is beginning to really pay off. I sense a fruitful end to a long journey may not be that far off in "discovering the hidden past" of the meaning of holy. If you want to join with me in digging, please feel free to contact me. I am sure you can find me through the web. Otherwise, I hope you will do some digging of your own. It is safest to observe for yourself, when you can and it is possible to make rich observations that you previously missed just by extending the time you allow for observation. Give my findings "soak time". If you decide to be a discoverer yourself, then you can start with your own translation and Strong's concordance. It is a good point from which to launch your initial search. Happy digging and uncovering of hidden things. Take care.
In Christ,
Jon
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Holy: Understanding it Better on the Map (the Bible)
So you are exploring the meaning of holy as it is found in the Bible. That is wonderful. It is extremely important, as is pointed out by those famous words in Isaiah: "Holy, holy, holy ...." Perhaps the best way to think of words is to think of them as tools to map out the territory. In tandem, the territory equals real life. Imagine having to go to new locations all the time with no map let alone without your GPS! Worse yet, let's say your map was dated a bit and MapQuest did not show the street that you were looking for but instead a close equivalent! I know the experience with MapQuest personally. It can be frustrating, because it was supposed to make the trip easier rather than more difficult. If we misunderstand the meaning of holy, then frustration and difficulty will be the outcome. That is why the meaning of holy is not only important, but also relevant. What if we are losing our way? Let's look at the maps that are available for finding your destination.
Well, there are three maps out there that have been used for the last 500 plus years. The first map put in the bin historically grew out of the Protestant Reformation. The definition of holy on that map is that holy means morally whole, but there is also a secondary definition. The primary (or broad) definition is moral wholeness. The secondary (narrow) definition is set apart. The second map to be put in the bin historically was made mostly by Puritans. The definition of holy on that map is pure. The third map was made popular at the end of the 1800s and became more popular during the 1900s (20th century). The definition of holy on that map is set apart. This map also remains the most popular at the present moment. That is what you find in most of the books and on most of the internet as you search. There are other maps available with other definitions, but I have given you only the top three to simplify your decision-making.
Understanding the Bible correctly is very important, when you consider that the effect of errant maps. You can get lost, frustrated, or arrive late. It is important to know the implications or effects isn't it? This is the "why" behind my blog. I believe the Bible clearly teaches that even the best of us will face affliction. Life is difficult enough without adding to the territory of life a bad map!
So please know that these three maps are out there. I am presently testing each one for accuracy. The one that I have tested the most experientially since 2004 is the idea that holy means whole. Before that and from my childhood, I was given the map that said holy means set apart. So I was unintentionally testing that option the entire time. I guess that I also tested the idea that holy means pure in my first 3 years of college. I am also testing these three maps through writing a scholarly paper, where I will be using a linguistic and grammatical synthesis as my method.
Please pray that God would grant me more resources to finish this task yet this spring (before May). Then I will announce to everyone the results of that work. Don't threw out any of the above maps away quite yet. There are elements of truth in each one. I'll let you know when you can settle in with the best one or a better replacement than any of the three. Do wisely as the ancient Jewish copyists did. Place one definition as central in your life and keep the other two in your life's margin. Thank you for reading this post.
In Christ,
Jon
Well, there are three maps out there that have been used for the last 500 plus years. The first map put in the bin historically grew out of the Protestant Reformation. The definition of holy on that map is that holy means morally whole, but there is also a secondary definition. The primary (or broad) definition is moral wholeness. The secondary (narrow) definition is set apart. The second map to be put in the bin historically was made mostly by Puritans. The definition of holy on that map is pure. The third map was made popular at the end of the 1800s and became more popular during the 1900s (20th century). The definition of holy on that map is set apart. This map also remains the most popular at the present moment. That is what you find in most of the books and on most of the internet as you search. There are other maps available with other definitions, but I have given you only the top three to simplify your decision-making.
Understanding the Bible correctly is very important, when you consider that the effect of errant maps. You can get lost, frustrated, or arrive late. It is important to know the implications or effects isn't it? This is the "why" behind my blog. I believe the Bible clearly teaches that even the best of us will face affliction. Life is difficult enough without adding to the territory of life a bad map!
So please know that these three maps are out there. I am presently testing each one for accuracy. The one that I have tested the most experientially since 2004 is the idea that holy means whole. Before that and from my childhood, I was given the map that said holy means set apart. So I was unintentionally testing that option the entire time. I guess that I also tested the idea that holy means pure in my first 3 years of college. I am also testing these three maps through writing a scholarly paper, where I will be using a linguistic and grammatical synthesis as my method.
Please pray that God would grant me more resources to finish this task yet this spring (before May). Then I will announce to everyone the results of that work. Don't threw out any of the above maps away quite yet. There are elements of truth in each one. I'll let you know when you can settle in with the best one or a better replacement than any of the three. Do wisely as the ancient Jewish copyists did. Place one definition as central in your life and keep the other two in your life's margin. Thank you for reading this post.
In Christ,
Jon
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Skill and Outcomes
Knowing the definition of holy is second in importance behind only knowing God's personal name. This blog is not about what is God's personal name or how to say God's personal name (I have a separate blog dedicated to that project), but it is still about a very important topic. It is about the definition of the biblical words for holy. The words that are critical for this study are the Hebrew word qadosh, the Aramaic word qaddiysh, and the Greek word hagios (and each of their derivatives - words that originate from them). In this post, I want to talk about the skills necessary for determining the meaning of holy and the outcomes from those skills.
I want to being though with an illustration from last evening (2/18/13). I heard a very good presentation on four skills for health and the four outcomes from those skills. The presentation was well done. I wish everyone concerned with their health could have attended, because the speaker did a much better job than I can of presenting the skills to improve one's health. Let me introduce his ideas for health, as a way to illustrate the ideas behind a healthy definition of holy.
The four key outcomes (the "why?") for health were listed as (with my re-arrangement):
1) Stable
2) Flexible
3) Energetic
4) Aware
The four skills (the "how?") for these four outcomes were listed as (with my re-arrangement as corollaries):
1) Reducing inflammation
2) Journaling a coherent narrative
3) Increasing energy
4) Increasing complicated movements
If I were a doctor and I could tell you that you can have the four improved outcomes related to your physical health, then you would likely be overjoyed. If I could introduce the same for the definition of holy, then we should be even more overjoyed. What if we had a stable, flexible, energetic, and aware definition for holy?
Some may think we already have just that after consulting a number of the major lexicons on-line, but that is a bit short-sighted. Sometimes the internet is a great resource, but also it can vary in the quality of information that is available. If you had a few dusty volumes from a traditional library, then you would discover that some lexicons and other books on the topic of holy acknowledge that there are aspects of defining the word for which we are uncertain (unaware) and that the current most popular definition of "set apart" is actually controversial (unstable).
Wouldn't it be better, if we could reduce the controversy about the meaning of holy like reducing inflammation? Wouldn't it also be better, if we have a narrative addressing all the facts on the history of defining holy like journaling a coherent narrative? Wouldn't it be better still, if more people were devoted to the project like giving increasing energy? And finally, wouldn't it be better yet, if we define the word with a more complex process like being able to do increasing complicated movements that test a brain's awareness?
One problem is that assumed stability in the definition of holy does not substitute for stability without a crutch. It is a crutch to say that their is no controversy about the meaning of holy. That is like saying that my sprained ankle is stable, while I move down the hall using crutches. There is inflammation there rigidly preventing my joint from bending until full healing occurs. The problem is also that without true stability, my ankle join is also chaotic. It can be re-injured very easily since it lacks stability still. The ankle is still unstable, until I am able to remove the crutches during the time of rigidity and until I go through therapy to restore the ankle's own stability that can stand on its own without assistance. It is a crutch to say that the meaning of holy is stable. There exists disagreements. Disagreements or injuries tend to produce fire in the body of those who disputing. Holy has competing definitions that have been offered and it has at least two or three serious competitors for its definition. I am writing this blog, because I think it can be stabilized to one biblical definition that was intended by the original authors. But this comes about by reducing the fire of disagreement and by restoring things to a stable state. Acute disagreement can be a good thing provided chronic disagreement is not acceptable. The first does good like the ankle's inflammation when it is injured. The second is harmful as a problem fester's into a chronic state. I am afraid this is where things are stuck without effort to dislodge disagreement.
Another problem is that collecting the facts of the history of the meaning of holy does not substitute for a coherent narrative of the history of the meaning of holy. Most books I have read on the definition of holy do not include a narrative, but begin from a supposed "true" etymology. The problem is that the etymology involves more speculation than it does contemporary historical record for its meaning. This does not mean etymology is irrelevant as some seem to suppose or that it is worthless as others suppose. (James Barr and D. A. Carson seem to go a bit too far in their criticisms of etymology.) What it does mean is that the narrative for the definition of holy should include not only a speculative narrative about the meaning of holy in ancient times, but also a narrative of meanings given to it over time that is coherent rather than a collection of facts. Concordances and lexicons usually only give a collection of facts of how a word has been translated rather than giving a true definition or a narrative for how each meaning connects with another. A coherent narrative would show more connections over time, rather than just a vast leap back in history or a mere pile of facts (called "glosses" by Eugene A. Nida). That means that the definition of holy as "set apart" has connections that are relevant that need to be disclosed through a coherent narrative as does "whole" or "pure" or even "holy" itself as chosen by early English translators as a perceived connection between Hebrew culture and English culture.
Still another problem is that there does not seem to be an increase in energy in studying the meaning of holy, but a reduced energy. Work and investment to define holy don't seem to have the energy it once had. Exegetical method, however, does seem to have a lot of energy going into it, which is a positive. It is not energetic work to look up the meaning of holy through on-line lexicons. The work has already been done. What is work is carrying out a skillful process of testing the three major different definitions side by side ("pure", "set apart", and "whole"). What is also missing is lively interest and the different kinds of investing. The speaker last evening has written in his notes: "No action, no good outcomes". I don't see how we will get to a better place of defining holy without interest, action, and investment as energies. People need activities that excite them, not that just give them a chance to rest. Rest is our activity for the better part of one day each week, not every day. One of the major objects of my research has been to uncover the basic process used in Nehemiah 8 that should give us new zest and energy for the possibilities that were once impossible. Maybe we just need to believe more in the possibilities of present and future energy. I find Nehemiah's 8's: 1) Translate, 2) Transfer, 3) Total, 4) Train, and 5) Teach process to be energy producing. The body's cellular ability to produce energy declines by 1% per year and is irreversible up to this point, but I don't see that has to be the case with exegetical, interpretative, or hermeneutical method. Let's be energized rather than lethargic.
Finally, another problem is that awareness can slip away easily. A kind of brain fog can overcome the church as well as individuals. It goes beyond just amnesia and Alzheimer's Disease. A person who is totally sleep deprived may fail a test due to their sleep deprivation, but they at least are aware that they failed. More dangerous are those who get a few hours each night and fail the same test, but are not self-aware when failure happens. These results came from a recent study of differing kinds of sleep deprivation. Doing exegesis properly is a complicated process, but it need not be too complicated. It does not consist of just etymology or just word usage. One or the other of those is too simple. The process consists of the total basic method as found in Nehemiah 8. And it is important to be aware that these steps in Nehemiah 8 are basic steps. It is also important to be aware that there are more complex steps like textual criticism that may or may not be necessary in exegesis or interpretation in discussing a particular word's meaning. The basics are themselves complicated in that there is more than one differentiated component to the process, but these basics are also integrated into one total process. The ways to test our brains is by the use of increasing complicated methods. While we might be clumsy at first with complicated movements, our brain can learn new tricks and be better at becoming aware and developing awareness. Let's be aware of outcomes rather than being failures and unaware of our failures. Let's also be wide awake and aware of successes. Greater awareness is available.
In summary, it is important to integrate all the differentiated outcomes of: 1) stability, 2) flexibility, 3) increased energy, and 4) awareness to get health. These combine together to produce not just physical health, but as illustrated above, a healthy definition as well. This is the kind of definition that I am working toward. I believe that the method of translation gives stability to a definition. I also believe that the method of transfer also gives flexibility (as in context) to a definition. I further believe that the basic four or five step method of Nehemiah 8 gives energy to a definition. I finally believe that using a more complicated method than just etymology (with plausibility) or just usage (with possible parallels) is greater in awareness than those methods alone. The brain should be tested for its awareness of differentiated components through a complex method that is able to grow into even more complex methods, as needed. It should never stop at just two possible components for a word study. That shows a general lack of awareness for how language works as a system with differentiated components that need to be integrated together.
Now let's return full circle to my earlier layout on the outcomes and skills for physical health, but this time I will replace the skills with those relating to studying meanings in the Bible. The four key outcomes (the "why?") for definitions were listed earlier as:
1) Stable
2) Flexible
3) Energetic
4) Aware
The four skills (the "how?") for these four outcomes were listed earlier as ("Total" [see above] refers to the four integrated into a whole):
1) Translation
2) Transfer
3) Train
4) Teach
So I was energized by last nights presenter, not just because of insights into my physical health, but also for insights into the health of defining the word holy. In particular, he offers another way to look at outcomes like those I hope to produce from writing in this blog and in my post-graduate paper. I am very committed to a definition of holy that deserves the categorization of it as healthy: one that includes all the four outcomes, not just one or two.
So, if you don't find me giving you the one definition for holy based on a scholarly study right here and right now, it is only because there is a process that I have to follow like anyone else to deserve the name of contemporary scholarship. This does not mean that I don't think that some prior studies are adequate. I think exactly the opposite. But it is important to understand that prior church history (before the last 100 years), gave the definition of "whole", that still deserves recognition, for its classic definition. "Whole" is likely the primary reason why "holy" was chosen to translate qadosh, etc. by early English translators. I prefer to fall back on the well-established (with its two best competitors as still considered) and then move forward to a contemporary study, as a way to prove or disprove the well-established (stable). I prefer not to go with a definition (like "set apart") that is not as highly stable, until I have first completed a contemporary study of holy that has scholarly merit. But make no mistake, I am not waiting without any options for the here and now.
I believe firmly in a "now and not yet" status not only for the kingdom of God, but also for what I know in this present age. The "not yet" completed nature of my study does not hold me back to the point of having no position today. It only means that improvements in stability, flexibility, increased energy, and awareness are potential opportunities in the "not yet" future. That is what I would like to contribute, Lord willing. Many thanks to you for taking time to read my blog. My hope and prayer is that you have benefitted from it.
In Christ,
Jon
I want to being though with an illustration from last evening (2/18/13). I heard a very good presentation on four skills for health and the four outcomes from those skills. The presentation was well done. I wish everyone concerned with their health could have attended, because the speaker did a much better job than I can of presenting the skills to improve one's health. Let me introduce his ideas for health, as a way to illustrate the ideas behind a healthy definition of holy.
The four key outcomes (the "why?") for health were listed as (with my re-arrangement):
1) Stable
2) Flexible
3) Energetic
4) Aware
The four skills (the "how?") for these four outcomes were listed as (with my re-arrangement as corollaries):
1) Reducing inflammation
2) Journaling a coherent narrative
3) Increasing energy
4) Increasing complicated movements
If I were a doctor and I could tell you that you can have the four improved outcomes related to your physical health, then you would likely be overjoyed. If I could introduce the same for the definition of holy, then we should be even more overjoyed. What if we had a stable, flexible, energetic, and aware definition for holy?
Some may think we already have just that after consulting a number of the major lexicons on-line, but that is a bit short-sighted. Sometimes the internet is a great resource, but also it can vary in the quality of information that is available. If you had a few dusty volumes from a traditional library, then you would discover that some lexicons and other books on the topic of holy acknowledge that there are aspects of defining the word for which we are uncertain (unaware) and that the current most popular definition of "set apart" is actually controversial (unstable).
Wouldn't it be better, if we could reduce the controversy about the meaning of holy like reducing inflammation? Wouldn't it also be better, if we have a narrative addressing all the facts on the history of defining holy like journaling a coherent narrative? Wouldn't it be better still, if more people were devoted to the project like giving increasing energy? And finally, wouldn't it be better yet, if we define the word with a more complex process like being able to do increasing complicated movements that test a brain's awareness?
One problem is that assumed stability in the definition of holy does not substitute for stability without a crutch. It is a crutch to say that their is no controversy about the meaning of holy. That is like saying that my sprained ankle is stable, while I move down the hall using crutches. There is inflammation there rigidly preventing my joint from bending until full healing occurs. The problem is also that without true stability, my ankle join is also chaotic. It can be re-injured very easily since it lacks stability still. The ankle is still unstable, until I am able to remove the crutches during the time of rigidity and until I go through therapy to restore the ankle's own stability that can stand on its own without assistance. It is a crutch to say that the meaning of holy is stable. There exists disagreements. Disagreements or injuries tend to produce fire in the body of those who disputing. Holy has competing definitions that have been offered and it has at least two or three serious competitors for its definition. I am writing this blog, because I think it can be stabilized to one biblical definition that was intended by the original authors. But this comes about by reducing the fire of disagreement and by restoring things to a stable state. Acute disagreement can be a good thing provided chronic disagreement is not acceptable. The first does good like the ankle's inflammation when it is injured. The second is harmful as a problem fester's into a chronic state. I am afraid this is where things are stuck without effort to dislodge disagreement.
Another problem is that collecting the facts of the history of the meaning of holy does not substitute for a coherent narrative of the history of the meaning of holy. Most books I have read on the definition of holy do not include a narrative, but begin from a supposed "true" etymology. The problem is that the etymology involves more speculation than it does contemporary historical record for its meaning. This does not mean etymology is irrelevant as some seem to suppose or that it is worthless as others suppose. (James Barr and D. A. Carson seem to go a bit too far in their criticisms of etymology.) What it does mean is that the narrative for the definition of holy should include not only a speculative narrative about the meaning of holy in ancient times, but also a narrative of meanings given to it over time that is coherent rather than a collection of facts. Concordances and lexicons usually only give a collection of facts of how a word has been translated rather than giving a true definition or a narrative for how each meaning connects with another. A coherent narrative would show more connections over time, rather than just a vast leap back in history or a mere pile of facts (called "glosses" by Eugene A. Nida). That means that the definition of holy as "set apart" has connections that are relevant that need to be disclosed through a coherent narrative as does "whole" or "pure" or even "holy" itself as chosen by early English translators as a perceived connection between Hebrew culture and English culture.
Still another problem is that there does not seem to be an increase in energy in studying the meaning of holy, but a reduced energy. Work and investment to define holy don't seem to have the energy it once had. Exegetical method, however, does seem to have a lot of energy going into it, which is a positive. It is not energetic work to look up the meaning of holy through on-line lexicons. The work has already been done. What is work is carrying out a skillful process of testing the three major different definitions side by side ("pure", "set apart", and "whole"). What is also missing is lively interest and the different kinds of investing. The speaker last evening has written in his notes: "No action, no good outcomes". I don't see how we will get to a better place of defining holy without interest, action, and investment as energies. People need activities that excite them, not that just give them a chance to rest. Rest is our activity for the better part of one day each week, not every day. One of the major objects of my research has been to uncover the basic process used in Nehemiah 8 that should give us new zest and energy for the possibilities that were once impossible. Maybe we just need to believe more in the possibilities of present and future energy. I find Nehemiah's 8's: 1) Translate, 2) Transfer, 3) Total, 4) Train, and 5) Teach process to be energy producing. The body's cellular ability to produce energy declines by 1% per year and is irreversible up to this point, but I don't see that has to be the case with exegetical, interpretative, or hermeneutical method. Let's be energized rather than lethargic.
Finally, another problem is that awareness can slip away easily. A kind of brain fog can overcome the church as well as individuals. It goes beyond just amnesia and Alzheimer's Disease. A person who is totally sleep deprived may fail a test due to their sleep deprivation, but they at least are aware that they failed. More dangerous are those who get a few hours each night and fail the same test, but are not self-aware when failure happens. These results came from a recent study of differing kinds of sleep deprivation. Doing exegesis properly is a complicated process, but it need not be too complicated. It does not consist of just etymology or just word usage. One or the other of those is too simple. The process consists of the total basic method as found in Nehemiah 8. And it is important to be aware that these steps in Nehemiah 8 are basic steps. It is also important to be aware that there are more complex steps like textual criticism that may or may not be necessary in exegesis or interpretation in discussing a particular word's meaning. The basics are themselves complicated in that there is more than one differentiated component to the process, but these basics are also integrated into one total process. The ways to test our brains is by the use of increasing complicated methods. While we might be clumsy at first with complicated movements, our brain can learn new tricks and be better at becoming aware and developing awareness. Let's be aware of outcomes rather than being failures and unaware of our failures. Let's also be wide awake and aware of successes. Greater awareness is available.
In summary, it is important to integrate all the differentiated outcomes of: 1) stability, 2) flexibility, 3) increased energy, and 4) awareness to get health. These combine together to produce not just physical health, but as illustrated above, a healthy definition as well. This is the kind of definition that I am working toward. I believe that the method of translation gives stability to a definition. I also believe that the method of transfer also gives flexibility (as in context) to a definition. I further believe that the basic four or five step method of Nehemiah 8 gives energy to a definition. I finally believe that using a more complicated method than just etymology (with plausibility) or just usage (with possible parallels) is greater in awareness than those methods alone. The brain should be tested for its awareness of differentiated components through a complex method that is able to grow into even more complex methods, as needed. It should never stop at just two possible components for a word study. That shows a general lack of awareness for how language works as a system with differentiated components that need to be integrated together.
Now let's return full circle to my earlier layout on the outcomes and skills for physical health, but this time I will replace the skills with those relating to studying meanings in the Bible. The four key outcomes (the "why?") for definitions were listed earlier as:
1) Stable
2) Flexible
3) Energetic
4) Aware
The four skills (the "how?") for these four outcomes were listed earlier as ("Total" [see above] refers to the four integrated into a whole):
1) Translation
2) Transfer
3) Train
4) Teach
So I was energized by last nights presenter, not just because of insights into my physical health, but also for insights into the health of defining the word holy. In particular, he offers another way to look at outcomes like those I hope to produce from writing in this blog and in my post-graduate paper. I am very committed to a definition of holy that deserves the categorization of it as healthy: one that includes all the four outcomes, not just one or two.
So, if you don't find me giving you the one definition for holy based on a scholarly study right here and right now, it is only because there is a process that I have to follow like anyone else to deserve the name of contemporary scholarship. This does not mean that I don't think that some prior studies are adequate. I think exactly the opposite. But it is important to understand that prior church history (before the last 100 years), gave the definition of "whole", that still deserves recognition, for its classic definition. "Whole" is likely the primary reason why "holy" was chosen to translate qadosh, etc. by early English translators. I prefer to fall back on the well-established (with its two best competitors as still considered) and then move forward to a contemporary study, as a way to prove or disprove the well-established (stable). I prefer not to go with a definition (like "set apart") that is not as highly stable, until I have first completed a contemporary study of holy that has scholarly merit. But make no mistake, I am not waiting without any options for the here and now.
I believe firmly in a "now and not yet" status not only for the kingdom of God, but also for what I know in this present age. The "not yet" completed nature of my study does not hold me back to the point of having no position today. It only means that improvements in stability, flexibility, increased energy, and awareness are potential opportunities in the "not yet" future. That is what I would like to contribute, Lord willing. Many thanks to you for taking time to read my blog. My hope and prayer is that you have benefitted from it.
In Christ,
Jon
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Basics
You are likely checking out this site to find out the definition of holy. There are many proposed definitions, but probably only three that deserve serious consideration. In alphabetic order they are:
1) pure, 2) set apart, or 3) whole. One of the great challenges in defining holy is knowing the basic choices for its definition. Even if it is complex word, what is it on the most basic level or core?
A number of years ago, I was challenged as an assistant basketball coach by the head coach to tell him the basics of the game. I uttered what I knew were basic things from my experience as a basketball player. Most of what I told him had to do with skills. I now know that I blew it. I really didn't have my basics down, as I should have.
I'm sure I could have recited more basics and somewhere in the mix I would have covered all of them. But it would have been very complex and it would have been disorganized. So from that point on, I listened carefully when any coach started to talk about the basics (or fundamentals).
The basics of basketball I now know very well. I may not know many of the complex parts of basketball like the many drills or plays that there are to chose from, but I now know the basics and can spout them quickly and in order. Basics though should have been clearly taught to me before I reached adulthood some time ago. Basics to be called that are usually things that a 12 or 13 year old can grasp. But my list to my head coach were not. (At least not in such a way that I could recall them to memory quickly.)
In looking at holy's definition, we are looking at a question of what basically does the word mean? Does it mean that "pure" or "clean" are essentially an amount. Are they like a pure gold where "all" the alloy is removed? Is it then a matter of measure or amount? Is it like gold that has the dross removed and then is given a designation to measure how pure the gold is?
Or is the main point that something like gold has been separated from the dross or maybe better the dross from the gold? Could this mean that this means something more like "set apart"?
Finally, is the basic point that holy means moral wholeness? Are righteousness, truth, love and goodness the major parts of holy? Does it parallel in many ways the use of wholeness as a concept?
I am currently working on a paper that will answer these questions. The goal to finish it is by no later than May. I am very excited, because I am using a method of exegesis or interpretation that is very basic and yet very powerful.
My parents used to say to me at the table, if I voiced my opinion on a biblical topic: "Chapter and verse". The neat thing for me is that I now living their dream of working out "chapter and verse". I don't want to give up on a dream of knowing what God means through the word holy extremely well. I would regret giving up on their dream. Their dream has become my own.
Here's a quote on why I think it is worthwhile to wait and get the definition of holy right:
Never give up on something you really want. It is difficult to wait, but it's more
difficult to regret.
So wait with me for holy to be defined clearly on the most basic level. The basic semantic classes of words come down to five primary definitions: 1) amount, 2) relationship, 3) whole, 4) action, and 5) thing. I used these 5 to identify the basics of basketball as: !Effort level, 2) Team approach, 3) Healthy Atmosphere, 4) Skilled play and 5) Know the game. Out of three of the best options for the definition of holy, I think I will in the end arrive at the basic meaning of holy according to chapter and verse. It is going to be either an: 1) amount (ex. pure), 2) relationship (ex. set apart), or 3) whole. (By the way, "set apart" could also a distinction between things making that the core idea.) In any case, let's make sure our views fit with chapter and verse and do not fall short of what we really want - a single reliable definition of holy from God's point of view.
Sincerely,
Jon
By the way, also check out: http://communicationbasics101.blogspot.com. There I also deal with the basics when it comes to exegesis. .
1) pure, 2) set apart, or 3) whole. One of the great challenges in defining holy is knowing the basic choices for its definition. Even if it is complex word, what is it on the most basic level or core?
A number of years ago, I was challenged as an assistant basketball coach by the head coach to tell him the basics of the game. I uttered what I knew were basic things from my experience as a basketball player. Most of what I told him had to do with skills. I now know that I blew it. I really didn't have my basics down, as I should have.
I'm sure I could have recited more basics and somewhere in the mix I would have covered all of them. But it would have been very complex and it would have been disorganized. So from that point on, I listened carefully when any coach started to talk about the basics (or fundamentals).
The basics of basketball I now know very well. I may not know many of the complex parts of basketball like the many drills or plays that there are to chose from, but I now know the basics and can spout them quickly and in order. Basics though should have been clearly taught to me before I reached adulthood some time ago. Basics to be called that are usually things that a 12 or 13 year old can grasp. But my list to my head coach were not. (At least not in such a way that I could recall them to memory quickly.)
In looking at holy's definition, we are looking at a question of what basically does the word mean? Does it mean that "pure" or "clean" are essentially an amount. Are they like a pure gold where "all" the alloy is removed? Is it then a matter of measure or amount? Is it like gold that has the dross removed and then is given a designation to measure how pure the gold is?
Or is the main point that something like gold has been separated from the dross or maybe better the dross from the gold? Could this mean that this means something more like "set apart"?
Finally, is the basic point that holy means moral wholeness? Are righteousness, truth, love and goodness the major parts of holy? Does it parallel in many ways the use of wholeness as a concept?
I am currently working on a paper that will answer these questions. The goal to finish it is by no later than May. I am very excited, because I am using a method of exegesis or interpretation that is very basic and yet very powerful.
My parents used to say to me at the table, if I voiced my opinion on a biblical topic: "Chapter and verse". The neat thing for me is that I now living their dream of working out "chapter and verse". I don't want to give up on a dream of knowing what God means through the word holy extremely well. I would regret giving up on their dream. Their dream has become my own.
Here's a quote on why I think it is worthwhile to wait and get the definition of holy right:
Never give up on something you really want. It is difficult to wait, but it's more
difficult to regret.
So wait with me for holy to be defined clearly on the most basic level. The basic semantic classes of words come down to five primary definitions: 1) amount, 2) relationship, 3) whole, 4) action, and 5) thing. I used these 5 to identify the basics of basketball as: !Effort level, 2) Team approach, 3) Healthy Atmosphere, 4) Skilled play and 5) Know the game. Out of three of the best options for the definition of holy, I think I will in the end arrive at the basic meaning of holy according to chapter and verse. It is going to be either an: 1) amount (ex. pure), 2) relationship (ex. set apart), or 3) whole. (By the way, "set apart" could also a distinction between things making that the core idea.) In any case, let's make sure our views fit with chapter and verse and do not fall short of what we really want - a single reliable definition of holy from God's point of view.
Sincerely,
Jon
By the way, also check out: http://communicationbasics101.blogspot.com. There I also deal with the basics when it comes to exegesis. .
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Holy: Understanding it Better from a Prior Example
We've likely all heard someone utter those hope dashing words:"We've seen this movie before". The connotation is that "the movie" is not worth our time, since it has been seen before. It doesn't have to be the exact same movie, it may only follow the same plot, etc. We've also probably also heard someone else say: ""We've seen this [movie] a hundred times before". Sometimes when these phrases are said, they have nothing to do with a movie, but a proposed solution that led to nowhere exciting before and will lead to that same place again. In any case, the point is negative. The point is that this is a waste of our time. The problem is that people today are suffering from the "we've all seen this movie before" syndrome, where proposed solutions are the same thing all over again and so will fail to live up to their claims again. In contrast, I am claiming that defining holy has the potential to be a movie we have never seen before. It can live up to its promised implications. It can eventurally make a big difference.
I also want to say something positive about something that I've personally seen before that has made a substantial difference in my life. In my last entry, I spoke about doing linguistic analysis on the words in the Bible translated as "holy". Years ago I read a linguistic analysis that changed my view on the definitions for the Hebrew words of righteousness and justice. Then later this same point was driven home by a carpentry illustration in the book of Isaiah. I am anticipating that my linguistic analysis of holy will provide a similar scholarly argument and that the anthropologist Mary Douglas has already provided in her writings the illustration in Scripture that provides the concrete illustration of its meaning. So I am going to happily watch the same movie again! These two movies will be similar I believe and therefore I am filled with anticipation rather than dread. Not only that, but since holy is a higher moral character trait, it can have an even greater impact!
Instead of being deflated, I will be delighted if I get to see the same movie a second time with only the "names" that are changed. This time instead of "justice and righteousness" the names will be "holiness and purity, set apaart, wholeness, etc.". Just today on 12/12/12, I ordered from the library the book that I read some time ago: Justice and Righteousness: Biblical Themes and their Influence. It is edited by Benjamin Uffenheimer, Henning Reventflow and Yair Hoffman. The volume contains a chapter written by Moshe Weinfeld titled: "Justice and Righteousness - The Expression and Its Meaning". I read this article a long time ago, so I need to read it again. But what I clearly got from the article is that in Hebrew justice and righteousness are not synonyms like we think of them in English.
Just yesterday I read Romans 5 with my eyes open to the fact that the two words do not mean the same thing in Hebrew and for Paul, the Hebrew of Hebrews in the 1st Century. Reading the passage with those eyes, I recognized that translators too often use justice related words rather than using righreousness related words when the Greek indicated that would be more consistent. But if a person thinks the terms are synonymous this certainly makes sense. But if you read righteousness rather than justice you can better understand Paul's use of the words "one" and "many" in the context much better.
Let me explain this further through Isaiah 28:17 and Luke 10. ----- I have chosen two of the most popular translations and one very literal one to demonstrate my point from mostly eliable translations of the Bible. You may want to consult the NET Bible, if you have further questions. I have consulted the Hebrew directly to insure that I'm satisfied with the translations, but a blog entry of this size is not the place for further details. Let's begin with looking at Isaiah 28:17 through the NIV, the NKJV and NASB. It reads:
For anyone like myself, the experience of being a carpenter makes this passage abundantly clear. The NAS muddies thiings a little bit with their attempt, so I can assure you that the person translating could not have been a carpenter. On a standard level today a person can use a level to measure the accuracy of construction on two planes. The one is a horizontal measurement and the second is a vertical measurement. In Isaiah 28:17, the plumb line obviously fits with the role of measuring the vertical axis or plane. The "measuring line" could then fit with horiztontal plane. I have seen pictures of devices used in Egypt that used the plumb line to determine the vertical axis and then using 90% could also plot the horizontal access. I myself have used a "measuring line" with a level hanging from it to determine the accuracy of a horizontal measurement. I am not sure of their device then, but this concrete analogy fits with the scholarly view of Weinfled that the two are distinct from each other.
Let's now also look at the implications of this discussion of righteousness and justice for other portions in Scipture. I want to look us to look at the 1st and 2nd greatest commandments in the Bible (not the 1st and 2nd greatest laws!). It is found in Luke 10:27 and among the other Gospels. It reads:
This cross section of versions is pretty agreeable in this case. The greatest or first commandment is part of what the Jews call the Shema. In that context, the Jews recite the words: "Hear O Israel, the LORD your God is one ...". (The words "the LORD" substitute for the name of God, Yahweh.) The key point for our purposes is the word "one". If you have "one" God, it makes perfect mathematical sense to love him with "all" repeated four times for each of the vital members of oneself or yourself. You can literally think of it along the lines of a plumb line. If there is "one" axis point, then "all" 100% of the weight on the plumb is supported is supported from that one point. If you add further gods, then no longer is "one" supporting "all" of the weight of the plumb line's weight fastened to its end, but two, etc. are now supporting the portions of weight. If two, then 50%, etc. rather than "all". If all of us could remember that one God is the right thing and herefore it makes good mathematical sense to then love him with our all, then this world could be a better place.
Likewise the second commandment can be explained fairly well by thinking of the level horizontal line 90% from the vertical line. We are told to love our neighbors "as" ourselves. That is not more than, not less than, not in contrast to, but equal to ourselves. That seems pretty just to me. If all of us could remember that is the just thing to do, this corld would be a better place.
Now turning to holy, I think the famous anthropologist may have stumbled onto holy's best illustration in the Bible as is the carpenter's tools for justice and righteousness. She found that in parallel texts that the Hebew word for "whole" stones is parallel to "holy" in a parallel context. This is extremely significant. That is because the Hebrew word for "whole" shows up a few times next to holy that makes it a potential parallel to holy in other passages. I can't wait to check this all ou thoroughly. Here is another great reason to not dread seeing this kind of movie all over again.
So I am looking forward to the future or just the rest of today with anticipation. If "holy, holy, holy" is more significant in Isaiah and Revelation and many other parts of the Bible than righteousness or justice, then there is a reason for anticipation. We should not look for a future understanding of holy using linguistic analysis with dread, but with anticipation. So threw away your holiday dread this holiday (holy day) season and instead have holiday anticipation. Maybe it would be good to find Carly Simon's "Anticipation" song and play it to get you into that type of cheer. May God bless you this holiday and Christmas (Christ mas) season.
In Christ,
Jon
I also want to say something positive about something that I've personally seen before that has made a substantial difference in my life. In my last entry, I spoke about doing linguistic analysis on the words in the Bible translated as "holy". Years ago I read a linguistic analysis that changed my view on the definitions for the Hebrew words of righteousness and justice. Then later this same point was driven home by a carpentry illustration in the book of Isaiah. I am anticipating that my linguistic analysis of holy will provide a similar scholarly argument and that the anthropologist Mary Douglas has already provided in her writings the illustration in Scripture that provides the concrete illustration of its meaning. So I am going to happily watch the same movie again! These two movies will be similar I believe and therefore I am filled with anticipation rather than dread. Not only that, but since holy is a higher moral character trait, it can have an even greater impact!
Instead of being deflated, I will be delighted if I get to see the same movie a second time with only the "names" that are changed. This time instead of "justice and righteousness" the names will be "holiness and purity, set apaart, wholeness, etc.". Just today on 12/12/12, I ordered from the library the book that I read some time ago: Justice and Righteousness: Biblical Themes and their Influence. It is edited by Benjamin Uffenheimer, Henning Reventflow and Yair Hoffman. The volume contains a chapter written by Moshe Weinfeld titled: "Justice and Righteousness - The Expression and Its Meaning". I read this article a long time ago, so I need to read it again. But what I clearly got from the article is that in Hebrew justice and righteousness are not synonyms like we think of them in English.
Just yesterday I read Romans 5 with my eyes open to the fact that the two words do not mean the same thing in Hebrew and for Paul, the Hebrew of Hebrews in the 1st Century. Reading the passage with those eyes, I recognized that translators too often use justice related words rather than using righreousness related words when the Greek indicated that would be more consistent. But if a person thinks the terms are synonymous this certainly makes sense. But if you read righteousness rather than justice you can better understand Paul's use of the words "one" and "many" in the context much better.
Let me explain this further through Isaiah 28:17 and Luke 10. ----- I have chosen two of the most popular translations and one very literal one to demonstrate my point from mostly eliable translations of the Bible. You may want to consult the NET Bible, if you have further questions. I have consulted the Hebrew directly to insure that I'm satisfied with the translations, but a blog entry of this size is not the place for further details. Let's begin with looking at Isaiah 28:17 through the NIV, the NKJV and NASB. It reads:
I will make justice the measuring line and righteousness the plumb line; hail will sweep away your refuge, the lie, and water will overflow your hiding place.
Also I will make justice the measuring line, And righteousness the plummet; The hail will sweep away the refuge of lies, And the waters will overflow the hiding place.
"I will make justice the measuring line And righteousness the level ; Then hail will sweep away the refuge of lies And the waters will overflow the secret place.
For anyone like myself, the experience of being a carpenter makes this passage abundantly clear. The NAS muddies thiings a little bit with their attempt, so I can assure you that the person translating could not have been a carpenter. On a standard level today a person can use a level to measure the accuracy of construction on two planes. The one is a horizontal measurement and the second is a vertical measurement. In Isaiah 28:17, the plumb line obviously fits with the role of measuring the vertical axis or plane. The "measuring line" could then fit with horiztontal plane. I have seen pictures of devices used in Egypt that used the plumb line to determine the vertical axis and then using 90% could also plot the horizontal access. I myself have used a "measuring line" with a level hanging from it to determine the accuracy of a horizontal measurement. I am not sure of their device then, but this concrete analogy fits with the scholarly view of Weinfled that the two are distinct from each other.
Let's now also look at the implications of this discussion of righteousness and justice for other portions in Scipture. I want to look us to look at the 1st and 2nd greatest commandments in the Bible (not the 1st and 2nd greatest laws!). It is found in Luke 10:27 and among the other Gospels. It reads:
He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' "
So he answered and said, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and 'your neighbor as yourself.' "
And he answered, "YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND ; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
This cross section of versions is pretty agreeable in this case. The greatest or first commandment is part of what the Jews call the Shema. In that context, the Jews recite the words: "Hear O Israel, the LORD your God is one ...". (The words "the LORD" substitute for the name of God, Yahweh.) The key point for our purposes is the word "one". If you have "one" God, it makes perfect mathematical sense to love him with "all" repeated four times for each of the vital members of oneself or yourself. You can literally think of it along the lines of a plumb line. If there is "one" axis point, then "all" 100% of the weight on the plumb is supported is supported from that one point. If you add further gods, then no longer is "one" supporting "all" of the weight of the plumb line's weight fastened to its end, but two, etc. are now supporting the portions of weight. If two, then 50%, etc. rather than "all". If all of us could remember that one God is the right thing and herefore it makes good mathematical sense to then love him with our all, then this world could be a better place.
Likewise the second commandment can be explained fairly well by thinking of the level horizontal line 90% from the vertical line. We are told to love our neighbors "as" ourselves. That is not more than, not less than, not in contrast to, but equal to ourselves. That seems pretty just to me. If all of us could remember that is the just thing to do, this corld would be a better place.
Now turning to holy, I think the famous anthropologist may have stumbled onto holy's best illustration in the Bible as is the carpenter's tools for justice and righteousness. She found that in parallel texts that the Hebew word for "whole" stones is parallel to "holy" in a parallel context. This is extremely significant. That is because the Hebrew word for "whole" shows up a few times next to holy that makes it a potential parallel to holy in other passages. I can't wait to check this all ou thoroughly. Here is another great reason to not dread seeing this kind of movie all over again.
So I am looking forward to the future or just the rest of today with anticipation. If "holy, holy, holy" is more significant in Isaiah and Revelation and many other parts of the Bible than righteousness or justice, then there is a reason for anticipation. We should not look for a future understanding of holy using linguistic analysis with dread, but with anticipation. So threw away your holiday dread this holiday (holy day) season and instead have holiday anticipation. Maybe it would be good to find Carly Simon's "Anticipation" song and play it to get you into that type of cheer. May God bless you this holiday and Christmas (Christ mas) season.
In Christ,
Jon
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Knowing AND TEACHING
I had a great conversation yesterday with one of my college professors in the philosophy department of Bethel University. His name is Dr. Stanley D. Anderson. The thing that made it exciting was that he is the author of a book that now goes out to all Bethel University freshman called Becoming Whole and Holy. It can be found through Worldcat as published in 2004, the same year I began my work on holy in earnest. If you have read any entries for this blog previously, then you will know why I am interested. But what was different in my discussion yesterday was that I was able to say I agree totally with him and with Bethel University on a knowledge level and from the perspective of life that their order of "Whole and Holy" is correct, as they define the word holy as "set apart". This agreement is important.
From that starting point, my quest is to find out if holy means "set apart" or if other words in the biblical text mean "set apart" and if fact, holy means "whole". So he and I know already about "whole" and "set apart" in terms of their priority order in real life. My quest is also that suggested by Andrew Murray in the late 1800s and early 1900s. He may turn out to be right on, when it comes to the quest for understanding the Bible
The project that I am currently working on is to qualify to be a teacher of what holy means. The difference here is the difference that we find in Paul's letters to Timothy, when he says "Pay attention to your life and teaching". So in paying attention to my life, I find that being whole or being healthy (not just physically!) is a necessary priority. But that does not mean that being "set apart" goes away. But also knowing about being whole does not make me qualified to teach that from the Scriptures! That is a different task. Teaching is like a map for the territory of real life. For that, I study to be an expert not only on territory, but on reading ancient maps like the Bible.
So my old alma mater and I agree as knowers and as people learning from real life. But it is important for teachers to know that I am not boasting before I put my suit of armor on for battle as opposed to returning from battle as to what holy means. This is very important to teachers. They want to know that a fellow teacher has done the work that they have done to be a teacher. That is fair isn't it? I sensed that this was important to Dr. Anderson during the course of our conversation. Humility is a good thing.
The task in front of me is to finish my exegetical work for seminary in order to make me qualified as a teacher among teachers or a map user among other map users. People may already know the truth and that it is life that comes before teaching. But that does not mean that teaching should not be paid attention to! Rather it is a very imporant second step! Remember Paul's words!
One of my friends, after my talk with Dr. Anderson, pointed out that many extremists or exlusivists within the Christian faith community put being "set apart" ahead of being "whole". He is right about some potentially dangerous implications, if they are not reading the map correclty. This is precisely where implications for life are built from how people read the map and how they see reality. So my task is singular. Solve the map (of the Bible) as fast as I can as well as I can!
In Christ,
Jon
From that starting point, my quest is to find out if holy means "set apart" or if other words in the biblical text mean "set apart" and if fact, holy means "whole". So he and I know already about "whole" and "set apart" in terms of their priority order in real life. My quest is also that suggested by Andrew Murray in the late 1800s and early 1900s. He may turn out to be right on, when it comes to the quest for understanding the Bible
The project that I am currently working on is to qualify to be a teacher of what holy means. The difference here is the difference that we find in Paul's letters to Timothy, when he says "Pay attention to your life and teaching". So in paying attention to my life, I find that being whole or being healthy (not just physically!) is a necessary priority. But that does not mean that being "set apart" goes away. But also knowing about being whole does not make me qualified to teach that from the Scriptures! That is a different task. Teaching is like a map for the territory of real life. For that, I study to be an expert not only on territory, but on reading ancient maps like the Bible.
So my old alma mater and I agree as knowers and as people learning from real life. But it is important for teachers to know that I am not boasting before I put my suit of armor on for battle as opposed to returning from battle as to what holy means. This is very important to teachers. They want to know that a fellow teacher has done the work that they have done to be a teacher. That is fair isn't it? I sensed that this was important to Dr. Anderson during the course of our conversation. Humility is a good thing.
The task in front of me is to finish my exegetical work for seminary in order to make me qualified as a teacher among teachers or a map user among other map users. People may already know the truth and that it is life that comes before teaching. But that does not mean that teaching should not be paid attention to! Rather it is a very imporant second step! Remember Paul's words!
One of my friends, after my talk with Dr. Anderson, pointed out that many extremists or exlusivists within the Christian faith community put being "set apart" ahead of being "whole". He is right about some potentially dangerous implications, if they are not reading the map correclty. This is precisely where implications for life are built from how people read the map and how they see reality. So my task is singular. Solve the map (of the Bible) as fast as I can as well as I can!
In Christ,
Jon
Holy: Understanding it Better As Knowers and Teachers
This is one of those entries where I need to say something about my other closely related blog on communication basics 101. It is largely the best tool I can recommend for getting at the basics of meaning, as it relates to the meaning of holy. When it all comes down to meaning, holy is likely one of five major classes of meaning or at least one class is primary.
So if you want to understand those classes better, please check out my most recent entry:
http://communicationbasics101.blogspot.com/2012/11/communication-basics-word-meanings-of.html and some of the earlier ones in that same blog.
They are very helpful for keeping things as basic as possible, but they also are categories that are supported within the scholarly community of translators, linguists and teachers. The classes of meaning have credibility and credibility is what I try to add a little more of, in my latest entry.
Please examine the entry and then for yourself decide which one of the five meaning classes you think holy falls into as a word that posses meaning. Another challenge would be to take the different definitions that are possible and ask yourself as one example, if "set apart" or if "whole" falls into one or more of these basic meaning classes and which one is primary.
Theologians sometimes mingle these basic meanings, when it comes to "set apart", so see if you can figure out which meaning is primary or not. Test this method for yourself. You do not need to be an expert or scholar to test your knowledge. It will not make you a scholar, but it can make you knower. Enjoy!
In Christ,
Jon
So if you want to understand those classes better, please check out my most recent entry:
http://communicationbasics101.blogspot.com/2012/11/communication-basics-word-meanings-of.html and some of the earlier ones in that same blog.
They are very helpful for keeping things as basic as possible, but they also are categories that are supported within the scholarly community of translators, linguists and teachers. The classes of meaning have credibility and credibility is what I try to add a little more of, in my latest entry.
Please examine the entry and then for yourself decide which one of the five meaning classes you think holy falls into as a word that posses meaning. Another challenge would be to take the different definitions that are possible and ask yourself as one example, if "set apart" or if "whole" falls into one or more of these basic meaning classes and which one is primary.
Theologians sometimes mingle these basic meanings, when it comes to "set apart", so see if you can figure out which meaning is primary or not. Test this method for yourself. You do not need to be an expert or scholar to test your knowledge. It will not make you a scholar, but it can make you knower. Enjoy!
In Christ,
Jon
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Holy: Understanding it Better by Understanding the Times
In the context of Eclessiastes 3:2-8, we read these lines among others:
There is a time for everything
and a season for every activity under heaven;
...
a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
....
These lines can prove very valuablle, when trying to defuse false accusations in a controvery like the differences in defining the biblical words for holy. It can also reduce the false name calling that sometimes happens even among Christians and scholars. You probably have heard someone called a "hopeless optimist" or someone else on the other side of the argument called a "graveyard pessimist". These are hardly compliments. You might have also heard someone called a "conservative" or "liberal", based on whether you should accept their views or not. These are used as ways to lay down a divide between groups of people. I would like to clarify who I am, as I work on defining the biblical words that we translate as holy, sanctified or hallowed. My point is not to create controversy, but to create clarity. Readers have the right to know more about who I am. I also will try to clarify who some others are in the important discussion of what holy means.
Let's begin by using the lines from Eccleisiastes to define what I mean first by optimist and pessismist and then second what I mean by conservative or liberal. It is helpful to begin with a common understanding of what I am saying, even if there is not an agreement with what I am saying.
First, I define an optimist this way. They are convinced that it is "a time to search". I define the pessimist this way. They are convinced that it s "a time to give up" (as lost). Neither is good or bad in itself, but there is a question of relevance in relationship to time. As an example, I remember my mother teaching me, when I was ready to give up on some valued possession as lost, to re-trace my steps. She was right a fair number of times as I recovered quite a few things that way, but sometimes in the end, the valued possession had to be given up as lost. Which point of view about the times in which we live is the more relevant or the right match for the times?
Second, I define a conservative this way. They are convinced that it is "a time to keep". I define the liberal this way. They are convinced that it is "a time to throw away". Again, neither is good or bad in itself, but there is a question of relevance. I remember learning a good rule for when to throw away or give away or sell some of my possessions. It had to do with how long it had been since I had used some things. Only a few times have I ever regretted deciding that it was " a time to throw away". But some of those times were a bit hard to swallow later, when I really could have used those things I got rid of. Which point of view about the times in which we live is more relevant or the right match for the times?
My general position on defining holy is the following in relationship to the current majority poition on the definition of holy as "set apart" or "separate". First, I am an optimist. I believe that regardless of the past attempts to define holy, right now is a time in which it is "a time to search" rather than "a time to give up" as lost the possibility of knowing the meaning of holy with greater certainty. I believe in the value of searching recent and past discoveries in archaeology, of evaluating further research into general exegesis and linguistics (for example from classic rhetoric), and in applying these types of things to the task of defiing holy. I am optimistic that the deadlock between the majority position of the prior 350 years of defining holy and the the majority position of the last 150 years of defining holy can be broken. So that is why I am still searching for answers in this blog and why I continue to produce blog entries.
Some others are convinced that it is "a time to give up" the definition of holy as "whole" for the previous 350 years as lost in comparison to the last 150 years of scholarship. They are pessimistic about the value of re-evaluatng the present time, because they believe that those earlier times of 350 yaers belong to a period of a failed searching. I can't agree. I think it is a great time for searching. That says something about who I am.
Again, my general position on defining holy is the following in relationship to the current majority on the defintion of holy as "set apart" or "separate". So second, I working in my search toward possibly realizing that it is "a time to throw away" the present popular definition. This would then make me a liberal, as defined above. But I am not to that place quite yet. In the present, I am convinced it is "a time to keep" both the definition of the prior 350 years as "whole" and the last 150 years as "set apart" and to evaluate them both again, before a final decision to "throw away" either one. I could also put "pure" into this mix as a slimmer possibility for a deifnition to keep. It is not the time to throw any of these away. It is, however, a time to realize that when my search is over, some of what has been proposed in the past will mean it is "a time to throw away". That should make my position very clear. I am not stuck in a particular time, but I am trying to be relevant to the time in which I live. I think I am moving forward toward and am attaining that goal. The key now is finishing my thesis paper for seminary. This clarification though is a part of that. That says a little more about who I am.
Now let me use a broad brush to say a bit about relevant history that might be influencing our time more than we know. The past sometimes matters, even through it is the past, like family influence and our own life choices of the past still influence the present. I know too that sometimes the past can be irrelevant. Let me try to stick with what might be relevant.
Near the beginning of the last 150 years was an historic divide between the Fundamentalists and the Modernists. Today their descendants are each called Conservatives and Liberals. The sad thing is that the so-called Conservatives in Protestantism did not "keep" the meaning of holy as "whole" as the primary definition from the prior 350 years. Instead they thought it was "a time to throw away" the primary definition of "whole" and make it only secondary (a descriptive word at best) while at the same time they saw it as "a time to keep" the secondary definition of the past as "set apart" and make it central. They threw away, while their name says they kept. These Conservatives were not conservative on the central character trait or quality or attribute of God. This is one of the greatest ironies of all of Christian history. How out of character with your name can you be?
I think the explanation though may not be difficult. In the late 1800s a Baptist named Charles Haddon Spurgeon (who I appreciate in many ways) was involved in what became known as the Downgrade Controversy. One of his banner phrases was the passage that reads "come out and be separate". This in turn became something that later Fundamentalists saw as sort of a creedo and banner statement of their stance . Members had to agree that it was a time to "separate" from the Modernists. Their new definition for holy helped support their stance because "set apart" or "separate", became the central character trait for who God is and who a saints is in their primary character.
I must also say that the Modernists were the ones who primarily dug into how "holy" ought to be defined especially in a Hebrew context. They searched as scholars. Their lexicons in the latter 1800s largely influenced, not just the Fundamentalists to define holy as "set apart", but also those within their own camp. It is another irony of history that their definition for holy helped the Fundamentalists to form and support a creedo of "set apart" or "separate". I don't know that they intended for this new definition to create a bigger divide between themselves and the Fundamentalists, but that was an unintended consequence at least. How out of character with their name can they be? They assisted their opposition.
So flashing back to the present. It is important that a person understands the times and what is relevant. What is most relevant is the present time and what approach fits or is relevant to that time. It is important not to get stuck in a time that is no longer relevant. We should not be sticks in the mud or sticks stuck in the mire of another time that is not relevant to our own. Some times can be relevant even if not the present. They can parallel the present, but that is not automatic. It is important to discern when it is a time to be an optimist or a pessimist. And it is also imporant to discern when it is a time to be a conservative or a liberal.
Even in wirting this piece, I have had to keep searching for a better word and I also had give up when I wasconvinced that searching further for the right word would not profit. I have also had to decide when to keep a sentence and when to throw it away. You and I may disagree on some of those decisions, yet they are naturally part of the times of life. If I were to keep everything, you would consider me a pack rat and my writing would not have faced the editing that it needed. If I threw out everything, then this page might still be blank and not worth anything at all. You get the picture. Solomon's wisdom matters.
These wise principles of Solomon are no less relevant today than they were back then. So I guess at the present time, I should be described as a optimistic conservative, who at the right time will make the liberal decision to throw away some of the three most likely definitions for holy, as it is found the Bible. I also at some point may decide, after I have completed my thesis paper at least, that it is time to finally give up writing more for the time being. Only if it produces results will I then need to once again search for more on its meaning. Maybe, at least temporarily, I will be able to say, "I have found what what's needed by searching".
May God give guidance from Solomon's principles. May we also be willing from the results of our decisions on what to do in our times, be willing to evaluate whether our wisdom is God's wisdom, as it was penned by Solomon. And if not, may we seek God's face for greater relevance and wisdom to know our times. Don't get stuck in the wrong time! You don't want to hear that punchy line, "Whatever!"
In Christ,
Jon
.
There is a time for everything
and a season for every activity under heaven;
...
a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
....
These lines can prove very valuablle, when trying to defuse false accusations in a controvery like the differences in defining the biblical words for holy. It can also reduce the false name calling that sometimes happens even among Christians and scholars. You probably have heard someone called a "hopeless optimist" or someone else on the other side of the argument called a "graveyard pessimist". These are hardly compliments. You might have also heard someone called a "conservative" or "liberal", based on whether you should accept their views or not. These are used as ways to lay down a divide between groups of people. I would like to clarify who I am, as I work on defining the biblical words that we translate as holy, sanctified or hallowed. My point is not to create controversy, but to create clarity. Readers have the right to know more about who I am. I also will try to clarify who some others are in the important discussion of what holy means.
Let's begin by using the lines from Eccleisiastes to define what I mean first by optimist and pessismist and then second what I mean by conservative or liberal. It is helpful to begin with a common understanding of what I am saying, even if there is not an agreement with what I am saying.
First, I define an optimist this way. They are convinced that it is "a time to search". I define the pessimist this way. They are convinced that it s "a time to give up" (as lost). Neither is good or bad in itself, but there is a question of relevance in relationship to time. As an example, I remember my mother teaching me, when I was ready to give up on some valued possession as lost, to re-trace my steps. She was right a fair number of times as I recovered quite a few things that way, but sometimes in the end, the valued possession had to be given up as lost. Which point of view about the times in which we live is the more relevant or the right match for the times?
Second, I define a conservative this way. They are convinced that it is "a time to keep". I define the liberal this way. They are convinced that it is "a time to throw away". Again, neither is good or bad in itself, but there is a question of relevance. I remember learning a good rule for when to throw away or give away or sell some of my possessions. It had to do with how long it had been since I had used some things. Only a few times have I ever regretted deciding that it was " a time to throw away". But some of those times were a bit hard to swallow later, when I really could have used those things I got rid of. Which point of view about the times in which we live is more relevant or the right match for the times?
My general position on defining holy is the following in relationship to the current majority poition on the definition of holy as "set apart" or "separate". First, I am an optimist. I believe that regardless of the past attempts to define holy, right now is a time in which it is "a time to search" rather than "a time to give up" as lost the possibility of knowing the meaning of holy with greater certainty. I believe in the value of searching recent and past discoveries in archaeology, of evaluating further research into general exegesis and linguistics (for example from classic rhetoric), and in applying these types of things to the task of defiing holy. I am optimistic that the deadlock between the majority position of the prior 350 years of defining holy and the the majority position of the last 150 years of defining holy can be broken. So that is why I am still searching for answers in this blog and why I continue to produce blog entries.
Some others are convinced that it is "a time to give up" the definition of holy as "whole" for the previous 350 years as lost in comparison to the last 150 years of scholarship. They are pessimistic about the value of re-evaluatng the present time, because they believe that those earlier times of 350 yaers belong to a period of a failed searching. I can't agree. I think it is a great time for searching. That says something about who I am.
Again, my general position on defining holy is the following in relationship to the current majority on the defintion of holy as "set apart" or "separate". So second, I working in my search toward possibly realizing that it is "a time to throw away" the present popular definition. This would then make me a liberal, as defined above. But I am not to that place quite yet. In the present, I am convinced it is "a time to keep" both the definition of the prior 350 years as "whole" and the last 150 years as "set apart" and to evaluate them both again, before a final decision to "throw away" either one. I could also put "pure" into this mix as a slimmer possibility for a deifnition to keep. It is not the time to throw any of these away. It is, however, a time to realize that when my search is over, some of what has been proposed in the past will mean it is "a time to throw away". That should make my position very clear. I am not stuck in a particular time, but I am trying to be relevant to the time in which I live. I think I am moving forward toward and am attaining that goal. The key now is finishing my thesis paper for seminary. This clarification though is a part of that. That says a little more about who I am.
Now let me use a broad brush to say a bit about relevant history that might be influencing our time more than we know. The past sometimes matters, even through it is the past, like family influence and our own life choices of the past still influence the present. I know too that sometimes the past can be irrelevant. Let me try to stick with what might be relevant.
Near the beginning of the last 150 years was an historic divide between the Fundamentalists and the Modernists. Today their descendants are each called Conservatives and Liberals. The sad thing is that the so-called Conservatives in Protestantism did not "keep" the meaning of holy as "whole" as the primary definition from the prior 350 years. Instead they thought it was "a time to throw away" the primary definition of "whole" and make it only secondary (a descriptive word at best) while at the same time they saw it as "a time to keep" the secondary definition of the past as "set apart" and make it central. They threw away, while their name says they kept. These Conservatives were not conservative on the central character trait or quality or attribute of God. This is one of the greatest ironies of all of Christian history. How out of character with your name can you be?
I think the explanation though may not be difficult. In the late 1800s a Baptist named Charles Haddon Spurgeon (who I appreciate in many ways) was involved in what became known as the Downgrade Controversy. One of his banner phrases was the passage that reads "come out and be separate". This in turn became something that later Fundamentalists saw as sort of a creedo and banner statement of their stance . Members had to agree that it was a time to "separate" from the Modernists. Their new definition for holy helped support their stance because "set apart" or "separate", became the central character trait for who God is and who a saints is in their primary character.
I must also say that the Modernists were the ones who primarily dug into how "holy" ought to be defined especially in a Hebrew context. They searched as scholars. Their lexicons in the latter 1800s largely influenced, not just the Fundamentalists to define holy as "set apart", but also those within their own camp. It is another irony of history that their definition for holy helped the Fundamentalists to form and support a creedo of "set apart" or "separate". I don't know that they intended for this new definition to create a bigger divide between themselves and the Fundamentalists, but that was an unintended consequence at least. How out of character with their name can they be? They assisted their opposition.
So flashing back to the present. It is important that a person understands the times and what is relevant. What is most relevant is the present time and what approach fits or is relevant to that time. It is important not to get stuck in a time that is no longer relevant. We should not be sticks in the mud or sticks stuck in the mire of another time that is not relevant to our own. Some times can be relevant even if not the present. They can parallel the present, but that is not automatic. It is important to discern when it is a time to be an optimist or a pessimist. And it is also imporant to discern when it is a time to be a conservative or a liberal.
Even in wirting this piece, I have had to keep searching for a better word and I also had give up when I wasconvinced that searching further for the right word would not profit. I have also had to decide when to keep a sentence and when to throw it away. You and I may disagree on some of those decisions, yet they are naturally part of the times of life. If I were to keep everything, you would consider me a pack rat and my writing would not have faced the editing that it needed. If I threw out everything, then this page might still be blank and not worth anything at all. You get the picture. Solomon's wisdom matters.
These wise principles of Solomon are no less relevant today than they were back then. So I guess at the present time, I should be described as a optimistic conservative, who at the right time will make the liberal decision to throw away some of the three most likely definitions for holy, as it is found the Bible. I also at some point may decide, after I have completed my thesis paper at least, that it is time to finally give up writing more for the time being. Only if it produces results will I then need to once again search for more on its meaning. Maybe, at least temporarily, I will be able to say, "I have found what what's needed by searching".
May God give guidance from Solomon's principles. May we also be willing from the results of our decisions on what to do in our times, be willing to evaluate whether our wisdom is God's wisdom, as it was penned by Solomon. And if not, may we seek God's face for greater relevance and wisdom to know our times. Don't get stuck in the wrong time! You don't want to hear that punchy line, "Whatever!"
In Christ,
Jon
.
Friday, March 30, 2012
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:
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
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. 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)
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
Thursday, March 15, 2012
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
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
Monday, October 31, 2011
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Expertise
It is very important to understand my expertise in writing on the definition or meaning of holy, because it helps you to know whether you can trust what I say is true or not. It is also important to understand both what I can contribute to the discussion, and also what I cannot contribute.
I have to remain humble. There are many experts in the scholarly world that I cannot compete with on their terms, because their type of expertise is better than mine in their specialty area. Yet, I think, I still have something to contribute that is significant to the discussion.
The way to visualize what I contribute is to imagine that most scholars on the meaning of holy contribute along a vertical axis of depth at the same time I contribute along a horizontal axis of breadth. Our strengths can be complementary in that I can rely upon them for depth, while I am more of a generalist, who can spot parallels between the different specialists. These parallels are where I get most of my insights on the topic of holy.
Let me explain all of this further. In Matthew 7:15-20 in the NIV, we read: 15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
Here the non-prophet can recognize or know a "false prophet" from a true one through "bad fruit." These instructions are not just for specialists in the field of prophesy during Jesus' day. Everyone in his day needed to know how to recognize the true from the false. Likewise I think the analogy of the tree can be used by everyone to discern false experts from true ones.
Let's look at ourselves through Jesus' analogy. We are not all tree experts or good tree growers, yet we can know a good tree from a bad one by the fruit we eat from the tree. So we are not all technical experts, but we are all friendly users of apples for food. We all can recognize user-friendly "APPLE" technology, even if we cannot create a high tech "APPLE" gadget to speak of computer technology in the same way.
My educational experience allows me to be somewhat of a technical expert, but I do not claim to be a technical expert on the level of some of the experts that I rely upon for their expertise in Hebrew, as one example. I have abilities in the area of preaching, translating, teaching and transferring; but I do not have the depth that those who only preach or only teach, etc. have. What I am able to do is to discern across these specialities certain parallels that help me discern what translators or teachers, etc. I can trust. One of the primary areas to rely upon is that of preaching, because the primary measure here is its effect or fruit.
I am a preacher (though not on the level of Warren, Keller and Swindoll, etc.) and so from the beginning of my work on the meaning of holy, I have been concerned about the fruit in ministry from the popular meaning of holy in the last 100 years versus the fruit from the popular meaning of holy in the prior 600 years (and the combined prior 1900 years that I am more recently investigating more thoroughly). From the prior 600 years up to about 1900, the massive effect of the preaching of Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Wesley and Spurgeon is something to weigh against the effect or preaching by Warren, Keller, Swindoll, etc. I first became aware of this as a young child under the preaching of Lowell Anderson. I witnessed the fruit of his preaching as compared to other pastors. As a college student, I was introduced to the major Protestant reformers by John S. Piper (now a preacher himself) and James E. Johnson, who helped me broaden Piper's perspective. Warren W. Wiersbe's book Walking with the Giants took me a step further. It was primarily through them that I was introduced to the fruit of preaching in the past. The fruit, or what we now call effect, matters. The effect can be something as simple as being friendly in the case of user-friendly technology. I take exception to those who make the exception the rule in biblical history, when people do not respond to a preacher (like in the case of Jeremiah). I am well aware of the danger of not seeing the exception, like some ear tickling preachers do not. Luther's broad definition of holy as tied to whole or Spurgeon's were not from ear tickling types of preachers. Nor is the prior 1300 years before the reformers from preachers of that kind. (I will be developing this material more in the future after the enlightening teaching of Steven A. Peay). So some of my blog entries do raise the question of whether less effective results from the now popular understanding of holy should not be part of the test for whether we have the meaning of holy correct. These entries usually pull in the views of people like Luther, Calvin, etc. in their headings, because of the effect of their preaching with a different understanding of holy. The effect or fruit is after all, how you tell a good tree from a bad tree.
I am a translator in a limited sense, and by no means to be compared to the great translators or translation team members on earth. I have not published a translation like J.B Phillips nor am I associated with a team of translators like those that worked on the NIV. Instead, I value their expertise. Most of my acquaintance with translation is through the materials of Wycliffe Bible Translators, but I have not served overseas on a translation team. In the English tradition of translation, I value the views of John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, James Strong and many translation experts including those who worked on the King James Version as well as those who come much later right up to the present. What distinguishes my views on translation comes from Nehemiah 8:8, where there are the twin qualities of clarity and meaning. From these twin quality principles, I discern my choice of translation. That means I am not only a meaning for meaning or a dynamic equivalence translator, because I place clarity as a principle that is equal to meaning. That means I balance these two qualities in discerning what is a good translation. I also think that the quality of clarity is being compromised by the multiplicity of translations as opposed to one translation. In addition, I think the use of the word "holy" in its day was a wise choice by the older translators for its clarity and meaning. Yet from the beginning of its use in English, if there was a problem with this choice, it was a problem of clarity. In the English language, the one word in Hebrew and its one word Greek replacement was replaced by multiple words in English translation like holy, sanctify, hallow, consecrate and saints, etc. This copiousness ("many ways to say the same thing"), pushed perhaps by the influence of Erasmus or maybe still later Shakespeare, made things complex rather than simple. The word also was understood to have a dual meaning that was broadly defined as whole and narrowly defined as set apart. Clarity is best achieved through one word as was done by the Greek for the Hebrew, when the sense of the original word is not changed. The more options that are available, then the less is the clarity. To illustrate, if everyone in a room of 99 people shouts yes together, then you can hear clearly what they say, if equally among them some also say no and others say maybe, then the message is less clear. So you will see that some of my entries deal with translation principles, as they relate to holy. I try mainly to clarify things from the complex of confusion that has developed due to differing translation conclusions. I didn't create the lack of clarity, I only try to point it out, and I try to argue that we need to replace it with the clarity of one central meaning. Clarity and meaning are the qualities of a good translation like an expert on trees can assign the primary qualities of a good tree.
I am a teacher in some measure. Usually people say I have this gift along with others. Yet I am not a teacher, like some of those who I have had as teachers in seminary or who I had in my undergraduate years. They are true specialists in teaching. I think of Walter C. Kaiser, Allen P. Ross, Gary V. Smith, Daniel P. Fuller, etc. here. They are expert teachers, who know what things are being referred to by a word in a foreign language or know how to precisely pronounce it. They know their original languages on a higher level than I do. Yet I do not stop with their insights, as valuable as they are and as much as I value their direct teaching of me in the classroom. I also have sought out other experts like them, who are members of top ten research universities. I am thinking here of Ronald S. Hendel, University of California, Berkeley; (Margaret) Mary (Tew) Douglas [now deceased], Oxford University; Saul M. Olyan, Brown University; Ralph W. Klein, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago [that I think is connected with the University of Chicago]; and Gordon J. Wenham, Trinity College, Bristol [formerly a student at Cambridge] and others. All of these people mentioned in this list have either past or current associations with a top ten research school I think research is very important and the very best of research is important. So that is why in some of my entries, I bring up the expert teachers out there, who work at some of the best research facilities. I am considering the possibility of finishing up my post-graduate studies at one of the top ten schools myself, if necessary and helpful. If I avoid their work, then I think I am shrinking from the challenges of the best teachers. Likewise I would never ask a fruit taster for their mastery of tree science or tree farming. I remember my dad going to the eperimental [research] farms to get his soil tested. He knew that a tree or a garden plant needed their special nutrients in the soil depending on the type of plant.
I am a missonary of sorts, but certainly not on the level of a foreign missionary with overseas experience. Some might say I am a home missionary. I am able to transfer things from one place and time to another. My directional orientation is going out and is not coming in. I enjoy moving from one culture to another. Yet what I am doing is examining the move from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek culture into English culture. In many ways, my steps on the meaning of holy are re-tracing the work of the earliest missionaries to the English-speaking world and asking questions about how the transfer from one culture to the next went. Has it gone well or has it gone not so well in connecting Hebrew culture to the nations that speak English? I was deeply influenced in this specialty by specialists like William A. Smalley, R. Daniel Shaw, Paul G. Hiebert, Tom Correll, James Hurd, Donald N. Larson, Betty Sue Brewster, Kenneth L. Pike, etc. Through their direct influence, I read also in the areas of anthropology and worldview study. This includes again Mary Douglas among others. I also studied under David A. Rausch, E.William Bean, Larry R. Brandt, Avi Snyder (occasionally) and Daniel Lancaster (D. Thomas Lancaster) to better understand Jewish roots. This latter list drew from rabbinical literature. All of the people in my earlier list have direct experience as missionaries in foreign contexts. They all taught me about the relationship of transferring from one place and time to another place and time. How does one connect in a new place and time? That was their pursuit and they taught it to others like me as they moved from practitioners to mentors. In Nehemiah 8, this transfer referred to the transfer of regulations or culture from one place and time to another. This is the ability to connect with others across the cultural barriers of place and time. When it comes to Hebrew, are we allowing that place and time to speak for itself or are we bringing in outside influence, when it is the root and we are the branches grafted into the tree? Sometimes supposed Hebrew scholarship lets a later time speak for an earlier time as in the case of some later Hebrew rabbinical writings. Sometimes supposed scholarship also allows another culture like Arabic culture to speak for it. I am more concerned to let Hebrew culture from the most ancient time of then and there, when it was penned, to speak for itself and then let it speak to us in the here and now. Then it is going from then and there to all the nations including those speaking English. So that is why some of my entries deal with cultural connections, as I am concerned that the going is coming from the that place and time to our place and time. That is why the etmology arguments also get my attention, since some of these arguments that are only probable are treated as definite and sometimes the significance of the letters in the original word for holy are undervalued. We have to know the truth of whether our understanding of holy is connected to the past and place assigned found in Scipture, not elsewhere. The test here, as it is for trees, is to know the truth or falseness of claims. Is there a connection or not between the fruit and the tree or between the text and the claims?
So now you know more about my general expertise as compared to the special deeper expertise of others that I rely upon. Somehow through the course that God has set for my life and sometimes despite me, I have become the kind of broad expert that I am. The deeper experts above are not responsible for all my views, since sometimes I use one speciality to correct another through a parallel point of view whether it be from preachers, translators, teachers or missionaries. Those parallel insights I have to take responsibility for, but the experts I learned from do get a major portion of credit that I can never take. You cannot trust me, if I am not humble in this way. You also can only trust my insights on holy as far as it fits with the idea that "a good tree is known by its fruit". A good tree can be known by a fruit eater.
What I am eventually hoping for from this blog or maybe from an eventual book, Lord willing, is an impact from the definition or meaning of holy that makes a real difference. The impact word for Luther was righteousness and likewise holy is another quality word that may be the word that is needed to really turn things around for the church. The same was true in the case of Calvin where his measure was that of humility as a sub-set of the quality of being true. He focused like Luther on another quality term. That is one of the reasons for why I think "holy" is so important. The same goes for the other major Reformers in the last 600 years all the way to Spurgeon. We need a new announcement like was made in their respective times. Could the meaning of holy be that quality that makes the difference the church needs?
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
I have to remain humble. There are many experts in the scholarly world that I cannot compete with on their terms, because their type of expertise is better than mine in their specialty area. Yet, I think, I still have something to contribute that is significant to the discussion.
The way to visualize what I contribute is to imagine that most scholars on the meaning of holy contribute along a vertical axis of depth at the same time I contribute along a horizontal axis of breadth. Our strengths can be complementary in that I can rely upon them for depth, while I am more of a generalist, who can spot parallels between the different specialists. These parallels are where I get most of my insights on the topic of holy.
Let me explain all of this further. In Matthew 7:15-20 in the NIV, we read: 15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
Here the non-prophet can recognize or know a "false prophet" from a true one through "bad fruit." These instructions are not just for specialists in the field of prophesy during Jesus' day. Everyone in his day needed to know how to recognize the true from the false. Likewise I think the analogy of the tree can be used by everyone to discern false experts from true ones.
Let's look at ourselves through Jesus' analogy. We are not all tree experts or good tree growers, yet we can know a good tree from a bad one by the fruit we eat from the tree. So we are not all technical experts, but we are all friendly users of apples for food. We all can recognize user-friendly "APPLE" technology, even if we cannot create a high tech "APPLE" gadget to speak of computer technology in the same way.
My educational experience allows me to be somewhat of a technical expert, but I do not claim to be a technical expert on the level of some of the experts that I rely upon for their expertise in Hebrew, as one example. I have abilities in the area of preaching, translating, teaching and transferring; but I do not have the depth that those who only preach or only teach, etc. have. What I am able to do is to discern across these specialities certain parallels that help me discern what translators or teachers, etc. I can trust. One of the primary areas to rely upon is that of preaching, because the primary measure here is its effect or fruit.
I am a preacher (though not on the level of Warren, Keller and Swindoll, etc.) and so from the beginning of my work on the meaning of holy, I have been concerned about the fruit in ministry from the popular meaning of holy in the last 100 years versus the fruit from the popular meaning of holy in the prior 600 years (and the combined prior 1900 years that I am more recently investigating more thoroughly). From the prior 600 years up to about 1900, the massive effect of the preaching of Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Wesley and Spurgeon is something to weigh against the effect or preaching by Warren, Keller, Swindoll, etc. I first became aware of this as a young child under the preaching of Lowell Anderson. I witnessed the fruit of his preaching as compared to other pastors. As a college student, I was introduced to the major Protestant reformers by John S. Piper (now a preacher himself) and James E. Johnson, who helped me broaden Piper's perspective. Warren W. Wiersbe's book Walking with the Giants took me a step further. It was primarily through them that I was introduced to the fruit of preaching in the past. The fruit, or what we now call effect, matters. The effect can be something as simple as being friendly in the case of user-friendly technology. I take exception to those who make the exception the rule in biblical history, when people do not respond to a preacher (like in the case of Jeremiah). I am well aware of the danger of not seeing the exception, like some ear tickling preachers do not. Luther's broad definition of holy as tied to whole or Spurgeon's were not from ear tickling types of preachers. Nor is the prior 1300 years before the reformers from preachers of that kind. (I will be developing this material more in the future after the enlightening teaching of Steven A. Peay). So some of my blog entries do raise the question of whether less effective results from the now popular understanding of holy should not be part of the test for whether we have the meaning of holy correct. These entries usually pull in the views of people like Luther, Calvin, etc. in their headings, because of the effect of their preaching with a different understanding of holy. The effect or fruit is after all, how you tell a good tree from a bad tree.
I am a translator in a limited sense, and by no means to be compared to the great translators or translation team members on earth. I have not published a translation like J.B Phillips nor am I associated with a team of translators like those that worked on the NIV. Instead, I value their expertise. Most of my acquaintance with translation is through the materials of Wycliffe Bible Translators, but I have not served overseas on a translation team. In the English tradition of translation, I value the views of John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, James Strong and many translation experts including those who worked on the King James Version as well as those who come much later right up to the present. What distinguishes my views on translation comes from Nehemiah 8:8, where there are the twin qualities of clarity and meaning. From these twin quality principles, I discern my choice of translation. That means I am not only a meaning for meaning or a dynamic equivalence translator, because I place clarity as a principle that is equal to meaning. That means I balance these two qualities in discerning what is a good translation. I also think that the quality of clarity is being compromised by the multiplicity of translations as opposed to one translation. In addition, I think the use of the word "holy" in its day was a wise choice by the older translators for its clarity and meaning. Yet from the beginning of its use in English, if there was a problem with this choice, it was a problem of clarity. In the English language, the one word in Hebrew and its one word Greek replacement was replaced by multiple words in English translation like holy, sanctify, hallow, consecrate and saints, etc. This copiousness ("many ways to say the same thing"), pushed perhaps by the influence of Erasmus or maybe still later Shakespeare, made things complex rather than simple. The word also was understood to have a dual meaning that was broadly defined as whole and narrowly defined as set apart. Clarity is best achieved through one word as was done by the Greek for the Hebrew, when the sense of the original word is not changed. The more options that are available, then the less is the clarity. To illustrate, if everyone in a room of 99 people shouts yes together, then you can hear clearly what they say, if equally among them some also say no and others say maybe, then the message is less clear. So you will see that some of my entries deal with translation principles, as they relate to holy. I try mainly to clarify things from the complex of confusion that has developed due to differing translation conclusions. I didn't create the lack of clarity, I only try to point it out, and I try to argue that we need to replace it with the clarity of one central meaning. Clarity and meaning are the qualities of a good translation like an expert on trees can assign the primary qualities of a good tree.
I am a teacher in some measure. Usually people say I have this gift along with others. Yet I am not a teacher, like some of those who I have had as teachers in seminary or who I had in my undergraduate years. They are true specialists in teaching. I think of Walter C. Kaiser, Allen P. Ross, Gary V. Smith, Daniel P. Fuller, etc. here. They are expert teachers, who know what things are being referred to by a word in a foreign language or know how to precisely pronounce it. They know their original languages on a higher level than I do. Yet I do not stop with their insights, as valuable as they are and as much as I value their direct teaching of me in the classroom. I also have sought out other experts like them, who are members of top ten research universities. I am thinking here of Ronald S. Hendel, University of California, Berkeley; (Margaret) Mary (Tew) Douglas [now deceased], Oxford University; Saul M. Olyan, Brown University; Ralph W. Klein, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago [that I think is connected with the University of Chicago]; and Gordon J. Wenham, Trinity College, Bristol [formerly a student at Cambridge] and others. All of these people mentioned in this list have either past or current associations with a top ten research school I think research is very important and the very best of research is important. So that is why in some of my entries, I bring up the expert teachers out there, who work at some of the best research facilities. I am considering the possibility of finishing up my post-graduate studies at one of the top ten schools myself, if necessary and helpful. If I avoid their work, then I think I am shrinking from the challenges of the best teachers. Likewise I would never ask a fruit taster for their mastery of tree science or tree farming. I remember my dad going to the eperimental [research] farms to get his soil tested. He knew that a tree or a garden plant needed their special nutrients in the soil depending on the type of plant.
I am a missonary of sorts, but certainly not on the level of a foreign missionary with overseas experience. Some might say I am a home missionary. I am able to transfer things from one place and time to another. My directional orientation is going out and is not coming in. I enjoy moving from one culture to another. Yet what I am doing is examining the move from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek culture into English culture. In many ways, my steps on the meaning of holy are re-tracing the work of the earliest missionaries to the English-speaking world and asking questions about how the transfer from one culture to the next went. Has it gone well or has it gone not so well in connecting Hebrew culture to the nations that speak English? I was deeply influenced in this specialty by specialists like William A. Smalley, R. Daniel Shaw, Paul G. Hiebert, Tom Correll, James Hurd, Donald N. Larson, Betty Sue Brewster, Kenneth L. Pike, etc. Through their direct influence, I read also in the areas of anthropology and worldview study. This includes again Mary Douglas among others. I also studied under David A. Rausch, E.William Bean, Larry R. Brandt, Avi Snyder (occasionally) and Daniel Lancaster (D. Thomas Lancaster) to better understand Jewish roots. This latter list drew from rabbinical literature. All of the people in my earlier list have direct experience as missionaries in foreign contexts. They all taught me about the relationship of transferring from one place and time to another place and time. How does one connect in a new place and time? That was their pursuit and they taught it to others like me as they moved from practitioners to mentors. In Nehemiah 8, this transfer referred to the transfer of regulations or culture from one place and time to another. This is the ability to connect with others across the cultural barriers of place and time. When it comes to Hebrew, are we allowing that place and time to speak for itself or are we bringing in outside influence, when it is the root and we are the branches grafted into the tree? Sometimes supposed Hebrew scholarship lets a later time speak for an earlier time as in the case of some later Hebrew rabbinical writings. Sometimes supposed scholarship also allows another culture like Arabic culture to speak for it. I am more concerned to let Hebrew culture from the most ancient time of then and there, when it was penned, to speak for itself and then let it speak to us in the here and now. Then it is going from then and there to all the nations including those speaking English. So that is why some of my entries deal with cultural connections, as I am concerned that the going is coming from the that place and time to our place and time. That is why the etmology arguments also get my attention, since some of these arguments that are only probable are treated as definite and sometimes the significance of the letters in the original word for holy are undervalued. We have to know the truth of whether our understanding of holy is connected to the past and place assigned found in Scipture, not elsewhere. The test here, as it is for trees, is to know the truth or falseness of claims. Is there a connection or not between the fruit and the tree or between the text and the claims?
So now you know more about my general expertise as compared to the special deeper expertise of others that I rely upon. Somehow through the course that God has set for my life and sometimes despite me, I have become the kind of broad expert that I am. The deeper experts above are not responsible for all my views, since sometimes I use one speciality to correct another through a parallel point of view whether it be from preachers, translators, teachers or missionaries. Those parallel insights I have to take responsibility for, but the experts I learned from do get a major portion of credit that I can never take. You cannot trust me, if I am not humble in this way. You also can only trust my insights on holy as far as it fits with the idea that "a good tree is known by its fruit". A good tree can be known by a fruit eater.
What I am eventually hoping for from this blog or maybe from an eventual book, Lord willing, is an impact from the definition or meaning of holy that makes a real difference. The impact word for Luther was righteousness and likewise holy is another quality word that may be the word that is needed to really turn things around for the church. The same was true in the case of Calvin where his measure was that of humility as a sub-set of the quality of being true. He focused like Luther on another quality term. That is one of the reasons for why I think "holy" is so important. The same goes for the other major Reformers in the last 600 years all the way to Spurgeon. We need a new announcement like was made in their respective times. Could the meaning of holy be that quality that makes the difference the church needs?
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
