Holy: Understanding it Better Through Success versus Failure

In the past, there were two typical paths toward learning a foreign or second language for missionaries that applies to learning the meaning of holy in three foreign languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.  The methods can be applied to ancient languages and to living ones today.  One path in learning a contemporary foreign languages consists of mainly learning in a real life setting, while another consists mainly of studying in a classroom setting.  But more recently, it has come to light that these two paths should be combined.  This is where learning from missionary experiences in learning a foreign language is helpful to understanding Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.  It gives us greater insight into the ideal language learning situation and helps us move still closer to it. 

If either of the two paths are taken exclusively, then the more successful is the living language alone path is better than the classroom setting alone path.  But in the ideal world, it is best to have both paths with both settings: learning and studying.  These ways are how knowers and teachers come to be what they are.  The critical point in all of this is that studies show that the highest level of success in learning a language comes from the combination of both, so I would like to apply this to understanding the meaning of holy.  The second critical point is that real life is better than classroom.  The third critical point is that less than the living learning is the classroom option.  Keep in mind though that it is still better than no teaching in a classroom setting assuming real life learning isn't happening either. 


Before I go too far, I would like to picture what the simple combination of learning and studying looks like, then what overall failure looks like,  and then what overall success looks like in learning another language.  Here first is the simple combination:

The first thing to realize is that it is important for the vertical axis to precede the horizontal axis, but that neither is exclusive of the other.  It is like it is in carpentry, if you want a stable wall you need to know both the vertical and horizontal lines using a level to have a stable form of construction.  Well, the same rules follow for learning a language. 

The next diagram is a combination of factors that lead to an overall greater amount of failure in learning a new language. It s a diagram of classroom learning outweighing the amount of real learning.  This is sometimes why the classroom fails.  There is not the ideal of both in equal balance with each other.  So it looks like this:

So too much of the classroom with all four steps versus only two steps for real life learning moves us away from success and toward failure.  I have a real life example of this in that I remember Greek and Chinese better than I do Hebrew, Spanish, and French; because the former were taught with stronger elements from real life than were the others with mainly classroom input.  By the way, my Hebrew has improved mainly through the use of tools that make the learning of it more like learning in a living language setting.  I owe a lot to three people here: Dr. Donald N. Larson, Dr. Betty Sue Brewster, and Dr. William A. Smalley.  They all had missionary experience and use the tools of real life situations to enhance their knowledge of foreign languages.  William LaSor of Fuller Theological Seminary, also introduced some of these elements in the seminary setting which is why my Greek continues to stay with me. 


The next diagram pictures what overall success (the ideal) looks like in learning any foreign languages including ancient Hebrew that does not offer us "native" speakers.  Dr. LaSor from Fuller also wrote a text that balances things better (moving toward ideally) for Hebrew learning and studying and learning.  It looks like:

I do want to make some concessions about these diagrams to avoid confusing their message.  The diagrams are a little misleading in two ways, if they stand alone and a person does not read my comments.  The first is that the column on the right by itself does not mean failure any more than the left column all by itself means success.  The difference is that in a broken world, where these are not balanced, the failure is greater, if you only possess the methods on the right.  The other correction, that I will correct at a later time, is that my Western World bias comes out in placing things moving from left to right.  If I were to follow Solomon's wisdom texts, the columns would move from right to left in terms of preference. 

So I  hope this has been helpful.  When I am studying the word holy in ancient Hebrew I try to keep in mind that I must look at things from both columns and not just one.  For example, I must ask even though I am an outsider coming into the Hebrew language, "How did they learn this?"  "What does the insider see?"  "What makes them speak this with ease?"  "What things are similar between our languages, so I can effectively associate with their ideas?"  Finally, I always need to ask, "How is my balancing act going?"  All of this applies to learning just one ancient word as well,  "Is my view of holy learned the way they did?"  "Am I standing on the inside or can I see what the insider sees?"  "Is this getting any easier or am I making it all more difficult than it is in real life?"  "What things I know are similar to what they know?"  Finally, I have to ask, "Is the balance getting better (more and more toward the ideal and relying less and less either one column)? 

These questions state implicitly my goals.  The real life column is very valuable, so whenever you can, try to learn and study the biblical languages using a method that consists of both ideal columns.  LaSor and others practice this fairly well.   May God bless all of our efforts to understand ancient languages and the critical ancient words for holy! 


Sincerely,

Jon

 

 

 

Holy: Understanding it Better by Distinguishing Status from Proof

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Christ,

Pastor Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Overcoming Barriers to Understanding

For my post-graduate studies I am writing on the definition of holy, but as part of that I have to present my method for discovering the meaning of holy in the Bible.   This turns out to be more critical than might be imagined.  Like a car's suspension that effects the outcome in terms of a car's ride, so the method for defining a word can effect the outcome in terms of the definition arrived at by myself or anyone else.  So what is my method?

In discussing methods to use for my thesis, I found that the discussion got very complicated.  It was too complicated for anyone who does not have my educational background.   But it also got too complicated for those who have my level of education.  There simply was not a lot of common ground between different methods and I felt that any choice would limit who would read what I had to say, because of the divisions over the method to use.  So I needed something better.

I think I have found a better method.  I want to first state it, then where I found it and then I will demonstrate some of its usefulness with regard to defining holy in a beginning way.   The method consists of five steps (not necessarily locked into this order): 1) total, 2) translate, 3) teach, 4) train and 5) transfer.   

I found this method in Nehemiah 8.   In Nehemiah 8:1-7, I find the idea of 1) total - "all" the people and "the book" of the law of Moses."  The total of the people who could understand and the total of the book of the Law.  Neither part of the process was less than the total of it.  In Nehemiah 8:8, I find the keys to 2) translating - clarity and meaning.   Something is clear when it is one rather than many.  Many causes confusion.  Imagine many voices saying a differen word in the same room.  Now imagine everyone in unison saying one word.  A one to one correspondence in translating is clearest, if it is possible.  Moving from a dead language, like Hebrew was in Nehemiah, to a livinglanguage like Aramaic gave meaning in translation.  In Nehemiah 8:7, 8:9-12, I find 3) teaching in the idea of  "instruct" which I have understood as teaching to keep a pattern of T's going for memory's sake.  I also think it is important to understand teachers as skilled in recognizing a time of joy and a time of sorrow.  They are wise to time and place.  In Nehemiah 8:13-17, I see 4) training because the people's inability to understand is replaced by their ability to understand.  Understanding is an action, so it requires training.  We see many actions performed by the people in this section that reflect their ability to undrestand.   Finally, in Nehemiah 8:18, I see 5) transfer because they did things in accordance with regulation.  It is important with regulations to transfer the same things rather than different things.  Witness as an example the difficult case of circumcision in the New Testament in relationship to Gentiles. 

So to communicate across barriers effectively, like in this example in Nehemiah, a method needs to involve not just a few or parts of a book, but the total of both.  A method also needs to give clarity through keeping things simple or singular and through using a live language that has meaning.  A method needs through instruction to make a bad situation better like a move from weeping to joy as appropriate for the time.  A method also needs to replace inability to understand with ability through training.  Finally, it must transfer the things in accordance with regulations, not extraneous things nor with things left out. 

Let's look at this method's usefulness when dealing with defining holy.  The implications for defining holy are many, but here I would like to scratch the surface.   

First, I think it is unfortunate that many of the people involved in defining holy are left out of the discussion.  Most writers on the topic do not think it is important to address what the total of God's people think on this word.  They especially don't address the thoughts of many in church history, even though they are people who had the ability to understand.  They do not take seriously those who would disagree with them.  They also limit the contexts from which they define the word.  Actually parallel passages where the word is used and close synonyms are found in separate parts of the Law are significant.  So to limit oneself to just Deuteronomy or just the immediate context can be misleading.

Second, I think it is unfortunate that in the argument among translators and translations over form and meaning, few stopped to take seriously the balanced counsel of Nehemiah 8:8.  We need to consider not just meaningfulness, but also clarity.  Often meaning is greatly enhanced through a meaning to meaning translation, but at the expense of clarity.  I think it is possible to keep a balance.  In the case of holy, clarity has been compromised in the past by the use of many words for what is one word in Hebrew and one word to translate it from Hebrew into Greek.  It is expressed not just through holy or holiness, but also through sancification, sanctify, saint, holy one, hallow, wholly, consecrate and set apart.  It is hardly clear to the average reader that these all express the same basic word in both Hebrew or Greek.  Also holy, if it does mean set apart should be replaced, since it does not carry meaningfulness like set apart.  If on the other hand it means whole, it coud be retained because the close relationship is visible through their respective similar spellings. 

Third, I think it is important to understand that teaching is important in terms of a change of place and time.  Holy was not hard to understand in its own day.  It is a change in time and place that partly explains the possibility of misunderstanding it in our day.  These issues need to be addressed like Nehemiah and the others did, so that the opposite understanding does not occur on this word.  Should we maybe be more joyful than sorrowful when we hear this word?

Fourth, I think it is important to train people in the method of understanding.  We must replace the inability to understand with the ability.  The test of our training is the ease with which someone can perform a task before or after training.  Training does not mean that everything is equally easy.  It does mean that after training, a task should be easier rather than harder.  Nehemiah 8 should be heavily mined for its insights on understanding.  This is only a beginning in what I am writing now. 

Fifth, I think we need to be sure we are transferring the right things.  Each word refers to a referent and while our translation of words is significant, so is the issue of whether the things transferred are the same as the things in the Word of God.  Holy may be the translation, but does it refer to the transfer of wholeness into our lives or does it refer to the separateness of our lives from those who are sinners?  Which fits in accord with God's regulations?  Have we transferred the right things.  One of my professors referred to this as transculturation, something different from just translation. 

These are the tips of the iceberg in terms of implications.  Over time, I will develop each of these separately more in-depth along with showing other angles on the vital topic of what holy means.  I am convinced it must mean one of two things.  Either holy means whole or it means separate.  This method from Nehemiah 8 will help me and you sort this out.  We face barriers to understanding holy, but so did they face barriers to understanding in their time.  These barriers can be overcome through 1) total, 2) translate, 3) teach, 4) train and 5) transfer. 

In Christ,

Pastor Jon