RELATIONSHIP
There is no more important time to define holy correctly than RIGHT NOW. And the best people to have on your team to reach the correct definition are those who possess both common sense and a specialized sense. It is also good to have on your side commonly known passages like Luke 10:25-28 to make sure your point of view is well-supported. (More on this part later this week.) When it comes to understanding the definition of holy in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, surprisingly the biggest problem is not that people do not know Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. I still wish more did! The bigger problem is that the specialists who know Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek lack too often common sense in their own language.
When people lack common sense, they are undependable. That can leave us running scared. That is a very big problem. It can result in what are called "random catastrophic failures" by yourself and those who are around you. You need brains that don't have this problem. You need a brain that has common sense. It is like a computer with a dependable microprocessor. We have got computer integrated circuits that have overcome this issue, but do we have the brains too? These kinds of errors need to be taken care of and fast as learned in the computer industry years ago. Again, brains with those kinds of mistakes can leave people running scared.
Let me give you a concrete example. I once was coaching on a sideline, when the head coach sent into the quarterback a signal from the sidelines for the next play. The quarterback took the signal to mean that we wanted to do a quick kick. That wasn't nearly so bad until the rest of the team lined up with him and did just that. It made absolutely no sense whatsoever. We had time outs to use. It ended up costing us the game. We were driving at the time for a potential score. The quarterback had a great sense of his mechanics as a quarterback, which is a specialized knowledge that other players don't possess, but he also lacked common sense. That made him at a critical point in the game undependable. It was really costly. But that was only a game. In the case of holy, its wrong definition is much more costly. It can cost us our lives.
So how can "random catastrophic failures" be avoided? I think I know how. First, there has to be no opposition to continuing to grow in our specialized knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. That has to be a GIVEN right now. What is not a GIVEN is that those with this specialized knowledge are dependable.
The problem of their lack of dependability seems to keep growing. They keep pointing out what is not dependable (ex. James Barr), but they do a weak job of replacing what is not dependable with something that is dependable. I'm afraid that a major part of this problem goes back to the place where our schools that were designed to give us sense failed to do so.
Don't get me wrong, I am strongly in favor of schools. I believe in "sense and schools" as much as I believe in "rules and freedom". They are inseparable. But the point of schools is to provide sense and eliminate nonsense. Nonsense is what I believe is resulting in "random catastrophic failure". Something is wrong. Elimination of what is wrong is not happening frequently enough. We have got a problem right NOW.
What I would like to do is have everyone take a deep breath (in football we call this a "time out") and take some time to find out to text if they possess common sense. That goes for everyone who wants to know the meaning of holy or blessed or any biblical words for that matter. The problem is that there has not been a good test for common sense. (While there are a lot of tests for whether you know Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek).
Reading Thomas Paine's Common Sense won't do it. That is somewhat of a dead end. Common sense is something that you can't study for once you are asked, because then you are admitting you don't HAVE it. Relationally, you either HAVE or you DON'T' HAVE it, when you are asked the question. So here is the big test. By the way, I would have struggled to come up with the answer not that long ago myself. So don't feel bad, rather get yourself tested. That is the first step to getting it, if we don't have it already.
I want you to answer a simple essay question without any studying. I want to find out whether you have it right NOW (not later). I want everyone who is going to read my definition of holy or give me their definition of holy to at least possess common sense BEFORE they or I speak on the topic. (I have already given my definition in earlier posts, if you trust my common sense.)
To do this testing of common sense, I am offering a series of tests. It will have three parts over the remaining days of this week (the week starting Sunday, April 20, 2014). Remember to really prove you have common sense right now you have to avoid cheating. This is all based on a honesty system. I can't check all the cheaters at the door, but you can check yourself. By the way, God is checking you at the door (according to my mother).
I want you to post your answers in the comment sections below. You can write out the answer in as little as 5 to 10 words in a list or you can expand on it. The question is whether you are among the HAVES or the HAVE NOTS in the place and time you are RIGHT NOW. There is no better timing.
I will not be posting answers, until there is enough interacting with the question (100 + people), but I will let you know if you get 100 % as soon as I can without giving the answer away to everyone else. (I will be open to common sense suggestions on how to do this process better. I also have never done this process quiet like this before. You know what that means. )
So here is the question: "Tell me in as short of a manner as you can, the common sense words in your language?" Please time yourself and give yourself a full 15 minute time period, if needed. I hope you do well! Thank you for taking part.
Don't worry, I'll giving the definition of holy to all who possess common sense without "random catastrophic failures! Again, thank you for taking an active part.
Sincerely,
Jon
Showing posts with label test. Show all posts
Showing posts with label test. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Quantity and Quality
Have you ever read a copy of Consumer Reports, or have you ever examined customer comments on-line, or have you ever paused in front of your television to listen to the latest evaluation of a side by side comparison of products? I would guess that the majority, if not a super majority, of us have done such a thing. Two of the hot button topics for products are quantity and quality. Comparisons usually boil down to the specifics of market share and product quality. Apple, the number one seller, is compared to the other top sellers like Samsung for quality. People often try to persuade another person of their "brand" being superior due to its market share among customers and experts and/or due to its product quality as recognized by customers and by experts. The definitions suggested for holy, as found in the Bible, in many ways are evaluated in much the same way. I don't say this in any way to trivalize the importance of the definition of holy. Its definition is more important than your cell phone brand. I say this only by way of making one point by this illustration about comparisons. We often do compare things including the possible definitons of holy based on our assessment of the quantity and quality of a definition, whether we are aware of evaluating it based on quantity and quality or not.
I have noticed both in my reading and from the comments of others that the leading brand definition for holy is "set apart". The second most popular brand is the definition of "pure". The third most popular definition is "whole". They are the top they in market share or popular support among "believers" whether Christians or Jews in relationship to the Hebrew word qadosh. The remaining brand definitions are out there, but their market shares are so small that scholars most often don't even mention them. One example among about twenty other possibilities is "worth (or value"). Another has the idea of "preparation" as its core meaning. These definitions come from renowned scholars, but they just haven't gotten any foothold among the other possible definitions for people including myself. The definition of holy as "worth" was important for me initially, because it taught me that there could be a meaning out there other than "set apart". It proved not to have much value beyond that despite coming from one of my favorite professors.
Definitions of ancient biblical words have a type of market share among "believers" and scholars and the quality of expertise associated with them. Just today I read this regarding the evaluation of a commentary in How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (p. 267):
A commentary does not fully inform you unless the author discusses all ... possibilities, gives
reasons for and against each, then explains his or her choice.
.... ..., especially how well it discusses all possible meanings.
In the case of the first line in this quotation it was referring to 3 possibilities for a particular text, but the point about "all" is telling as a principle. I would quallify this a bit to all the top possibilities, when it comes to actually writing about them and trying to persuade others. While it is important to have examined all the twenty some meanings that I have run across initially for defining holy in the biblical text, as I have listed in one of my earlier posts, they don't equally deserve fuller examination after their initial first examination. Some possibilities immediately show up as fairly marginal selections. This will always be slightly controversial, but I think it is still fair. Every definition just like every person has to earn or prove their way to the top. Surviving a test is critical to being part of the last definition standing.
But my blog I hope is at least better than many sites where you are only informed of 1 possible definition rather than at least the top 3 possiblities. So Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart should at least give me high marks for providing my readers with all 3 (or at least all 2) of the top possibilities. This is one of the chief values of this blog. It gives you options.
But beyond just the quantity or number of possibilities is the question of quality in a definition. You note above that even though I may have eventually found 20 some definitions, some of them were likely not to have more than a sliver of people willing to stand up for them.
Now let's look at the issue fo the quality of a definition. The quality of a definition should be based on the quality of the method used in determining a word's definition. Since James Barr's Semantics of Biblical Language, there has been a general disregard or distrust for the etymological method for determining the meaning of a word. He was by far not the first to be critical of this method (that began to receive criticism at the hands of the historical and comparative traditions in biblical exegesis), but he certainly dealt etymology are harsh blow. I like to remind myself that "Barr goes too far", even when he makes an otherwise valid point. I think his criticism of etymology does go too far.
Etymology became eventually one of the four chief divisions of grammar. It dates back a long way as a method for defining words. We know that the Greek philosopher Plato used it as one and maybe the worst example. There have been in history some fanciful definitions for words drawn from supposed etymologies. But not every etymology has to fall into that category.
Let me give an example of this. The word "mouse", as it is used for a device associated with my computer, does have a relationship to the mouse that my neighbor trapped a few weeks ago in his house. In this case, the story goes that an actual visual connection was behind the language connection between these two uses of mouse. By the way, if the original mouse was wireless (and so lost the appearance of a tail), then it may have never been called a mouse. I can only venture guesses at what it might have been called then! So the meaning of mouse as in an animal, that can be sometimes found unwanted in a house, does have a true connection to a mouse that moves as point and click tool or feature on my computer.
For myself, my linguistic analysis includes etymology as one part of the lexical analysis of a word. Individual letters and morphemes (small meaning units) can carry meanings that can help us define words. They can assist in tracing a true meaning, but grammatical letters and small units of meaning cannot function alone for determining the meaning of a word. It requires something bigger than an etymological method alone, it also requires something more than a lexical analysis as well. It requires a linguistic analysis as a whole as a minimum method for us to have reasonable certainty that a word is understood correctly.
In come cases, a person has to go beyond grammatical (letter) analysis or linguistic (language) analysis, but they are the most direct ways to get at a word's meaning. There can be historical factors that are important to finding out a word's meaning. The actual story of how the computer mouse was named gives real proof that the meaning behind the object does have something to do with a little furry creature. That is the sense in which the association beween two mice can be considered to have a true connection. Etymology has as part of its meaning in Greek, the idea of a "true" root or meaning. But beyond historical factors are literary factors, cultural factors, etc. There are other methods when there is a "distance" of any of these kinds that might be more or less relevant in each situation. That is where the exegete or the linguist must determine if there is a better tool to use beside linguistic analysis. This covers the issue of quality in some detail.
Let me now come back to linguistic analysis as a method in terms of its quality as a method. I am convinced that it surpasses etymological method mainly because it includes it, but does not rely upon it excessessively or exclusively. It also is a method that is not so dependent on trying to figure out a history that might have been lost, because it is more strictly a method rooted in the general principles of language. You might say it is more purely linguistic. This is a major reason for this blog and my thesis paper that I am writing. I am convinced that the highest quality method of linguistic analysis needs to be used to surpass the etymological method not through just pointing out the weaknesses of etymology, but also by providing new strengths by avoiding having to re-construct a meaning rather than relying on the most immediate evidence availalble. A full linguistic analysis has a lot of advantages.
So in conclusion, this blog has a very definite purpose: It is my attempt to define holy with more certainty. But it also is more than its purpose that gives it value. It is also not content with testing just one possible definition of holy in the original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek text of the Bible, but with at least two being tested and more likely the top three being tested. That is its quantity advantage! By the way, when it later gets down to one option through allowing three options, that would be even more valuable! It also is valuable, becuase it uses a method that surpasses the over-reliance on the etymological method or the over-criticism of the etymological method (which I am not sure where it intends to leave us). That is is quality advantage!
Please check back at least monthly and maybe even weekly and sometimes even daily for further developments. I hope you feel the energy of greater quantity and greater quality as reachable goals in the short future. Take care.
Sincerely,
Jon
I have noticed both in my reading and from the comments of others that the leading brand definition for holy is "set apart". The second most popular brand is the definition of "pure". The third most popular definition is "whole". They are the top they in market share or popular support among "believers" whether Christians or Jews in relationship to the Hebrew word qadosh. The remaining brand definitions are out there, but their market shares are so small that scholars most often don't even mention them. One example among about twenty other possibilities is "worth (or value"). Another has the idea of "preparation" as its core meaning. These definitions come from renowned scholars, but they just haven't gotten any foothold among the other possible definitions for people including myself. The definition of holy as "worth" was important for me initially, because it taught me that there could be a meaning out there other than "set apart". It proved not to have much value beyond that despite coming from one of my favorite professors.
Definitions of ancient biblical words have a type of market share among "believers" and scholars and the quality of expertise associated with them. Just today I read this regarding the evaluation of a commentary in How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (p. 267):
A commentary does not fully inform you unless the author discusses all ... possibilities, gives
reasons for and against each, then explains his or her choice.
.... ..., especially how well it discusses all possible meanings.
In the case of the first line in this quotation it was referring to 3 possibilities for a particular text, but the point about "all" is telling as a principle. I would quallify this a bit to all the top possibilities, when it comes to actually writing about them and trying to persuade others. While it is important to have examined all the twenty some meanings that I have run across initially for defining holy in the biblical text, as I have listed in one of my earlier posts, they don't equally deserve fuller examination after their initial first examination. Some possibilities immediately show up as fairly marginal selections. This will always be slightly controversial, but I think it is still fair. Every definition just like every person has to earn or prove their way to the top. Surviving a test is critical to being part of the last definition standing.
But my blog I hope is at least better than many sites where you are only informed of 1 possible definition rather than at least the top 3 possiblities. So Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart should at least give me high marks for providing my readers with all 3 (or at least all 2) of the top possibilities. This is one of the chief values of this blog. It gives you options.
But beyond just the quantity or number of possibilities is the question of quality in a definition. You note above that even though I may have eventually found 20 some definitions, some of them were likely not to have more than a sliver of people willing to stand up for them.
Now let's look at the issue fo the quality of a definition. The quality of a definition should be based on the quality of the method used in determining a word's definition. Since James Barr's Semantics of Biblical Language, there has been a general disregard or distrust for the etymological method for determining the meaning of a word. He was by far not the first to be critical of this method (that began to receive criticism at the hands of the historical and comparative traditions in biblical exegesis), but he certainly dealt etymology are harsh blow. I like to remind myself that "Barr goes too far", even when he makes an otherwise valid point. I think his criticism of etymology does go too far.
Etymology became eventually one of the four chief divisions of grammar. It dates back a long way as a method for defining words. We know that the Greek philosopher Plato used it as one and maybe the worst example. There have been in history some fanciful definitions for words drawn from supposed etymologies. But not every etymology has to fall into that category.
Let me give an example of this. The word "mouse", as it is used for a device associated with my computer, does have a relationship to the mouse that my neighbor trapped a few weeks ago in his house. In this case, the story goes that an actual visual connection was behind the language connection between these two uses of mouse. By the way, if the original mouse was wireless (and so lost the appearance of a tail), then it may have never been called a mouse. I can only venture guesses at what it might have been called then! So the meaning of mouse as in an animal, that can be sometimes found unwanted in a house, does have a true connection to a mouse that moves as point and click tool or feature on my computer.
For myself, my linguistic analysis includes etymology as one part of the lexical analysis of a word. Individual letters and morphemes (small meaning units) can carry meanings that can help us define words. They can assist in tracing a true meaning, but grammatical letters and small units of meaning cannot function alone for determining the meaning of a word. It requires something bigger than an etymological method alone, it also requires something more than a lexical analysis as well. It requires a linguistic analysis as a whole as a minimum method for us to have reasonable certainty that a word is understood correctly.
In come cases, a person has to go beyond grammatical (letter) analysis or linguistic (language) analysis, but they are the most direct ways to get at a word's meaning. There can be historical factors that are important to finding out a word's meaning. The actual story of how the computer mouse was named gives real proof that the meaning behind the object does have something to do with a little furry creature. That is the sense in which the association beween two mice can be considered to have a true connection. Etymology has as part of its meaning in Greek, the idea of a "true" root or meaning. But beyond historical factors are literary factors, cultural factors, etc. There are other methods when there is a "distance" of any of these kinds that might be more or less relevant in each situation. That is where the exegete or the linguist must determine if there is a better tool to use beside linguistic analysis. This covers the issue of quality in some detail.
Let me now come back to linguistic analysis as a method in terms of its quality as a method. I am convinced that it surpasses etymological method mainly because it includes it, but does not rely upon it excessessively or exclusively. It also is a method that is not so dependent on trying to figure out a history that might have been lost, because it is more strictly a method rooted in the general principles of language. You might say it is more purely linguistic. This is a major reason for this blog and my thesis paper that I am writing. I am convinced that the highest quality method of linguistic analysis needs to be used to surpass the etymological method not through just pointing out the weaknesses of etymology, but also by providing new strengths by avoiding having to re-construct a meaning rather than relying on the most immediate evidence availalble. A full linguistic analysis has a lot of advantages.
So in conclusion, this blog has a very definite purpose: It is my attempt to define holy with more certainty. But it also is more than its purpose that gives it value. It is also not content with testing just one possible definition of holy in the original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek text of the Bible, but with at least two being tested and more likely the top three being tested. That is its quantity advantage! By the way, when it later gets down to one option through allowing three options, that would be even more valuable! It also is valuable, becuase it uses a method that surpasses the over-reliance on the etymological method or the over-criticism of the etymological method (which I am not sure where it intends to leave us). That is is quality advantage!
Please check back at least monthly and maybe even weekly and sometimes even daily for further developments. I hope you feel the energy of greater quantity and greater quality as reachable goals in the short future. Take care.
Sincerely,
Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
