Translate

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Holy Means Whole: According to Its Hebrew Etymology (Sort of)

I have read that Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888) believed that holy means whole from a secondary source. Recently, I found another secondary source that takes me closer to what his view was on the meaning of holy and in another later blog, I will add to these comments from Hirsch's own primary sources, when I have more time for research. His definition in this secondary source is interpreted to be "to prepare." This is seen as in contrast to "sanctified" or "separate."

His principles tell me that his material is worthy of more research. I'll deal with two of his principles in this blog. In the Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew: Based on the Commentaries of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, the compiler, Rabbi Matityahu Clark, mentions in his introduction that "by using his etymological system, Hirsch provides unusual insights on common Biblical words and phrases" (p. xi). To quote him further, using holy as one example of unusual insights, he says:

The word [qadosh] is usually translated as `sanctified' or `separated.' But Hirsch explains (in his commentary to Num. 11:18) that the root [qadosh] means `to prepare'
or `to be at the very height of being absolutely ready for all that is good' (p. xii).

This is very close to my understanding of holy as whole, because this is a major implication from it. To further this argument, it fits well with the ideas of the 1800s scholar, Richard Trench, when he develops a group of Greek words that are related both to preparedness and to being whole. I can't develop this fully now, but after reading Hirsch's commentary and going back over Trench's insights, I hope to develop this further in a later blog.

At this point, what I find most fanscinating is the description of Hirsch's principles for understanding the meaning of Hebrew words. Clark says that Hirsch repeatedly said that one should not look to foreign languages to find the meanings of words in Torah (the Law in Hebrew). It is also said that he does not deny borrowing from other languages, but he insists that Hebrew is a "self-contained entity" (p. xii). He also believed Torah (the Law in Hebrew) contained clear and not obscure language.

When I studied LAMP (Language Acquistion Made Practical), one of the most important aspects of the course was the emphasis on connecting with others. Some succeeded at this while others failed, as primarily illustrated on the mission field and as outlined by Dr. Donald Larson, one of the key thinkers behind the LAMP method developed by the Brewsters.

Larson recognized five core principles toward success or failure in connecting: 1) connection and disconnection, 2) someone else and you, 3) insiders and outsiders, 4) ease and difficulty and 5) learning and studying. Each of the these five areas has two options and principles that were reflected by both those who succeeded and by those who failed.

Those who emphasized the former principle in each case, as in connection rather than disconnection, succeeded in connecting with others. Those who emphasized the latter principle in each case, as in disconnection rather than connection, failed in connecting with others. Now relevant to our purpose are two of these success principles. The principles of insiders and outsiders and the principles of ease and difficulty.

Rabbi Hirsch recognizes an insider or internal integrity in Hebrew. He recognizes the need to connect with the language from an insider's perspective on their language rather than relying too much on an outsider's perspective on their language. I think the advantages are perhaps best illustrated by the dangers of an outsider's interpretation.

For example, Moses Ibn Ezra is a significant interpreter of the Hebrew language especially preceding the Middle Ages and the state of Hebrew scholarship in his day. He clearly asserts at that time that the greatest breakthroughs in scholarship of Biblical Hebrew are attributable to Arabic influence. His method relies heavily on Arabic and Aramaic cognates. Some of this was likely due to Arabic being a living language at that time, while Hebrew was not a living language. That means Arabic had the advantage of being a language you can learn and not just study. This advantage according to Larson's principles may have resulted though in a distortion in violation of other principles of connecting. That may be why some say Moses Ibn Ezra overstated a shared Hebrew-Arabic cultural heritage. Hirsch is able to avoid this overstatement by taking more seriously an insider's perspective.

Rabbi Hirsch also reflects a commitment to the idea of ease in his idea that Scripture is clear rather than obscure in its language. This means that one understands that for the native speaker things are not as obscure as they seem to the foreigner. But the foreigner must maintain a firm belief that another person's language is an easy as their own, given the same circumstances. Otherwise motivation drops and a connection with another culture is compromised. That person who is failing in connecting then relies more and more on the ease of their own language while stressing also the difficulty of another's language. Hirsch is able to avoid this problem as well.

Through these twin commitments, Hirsch's work reflects more of an insider's view of Hebrew and an ease of working with the language itself rather than a commitment to other languages being easier or less obscure. I think that is why his etymological system and his commitment to the meaning of individual letters needs to be taken seriously. It has an ease about it in using the language. Hebrew's etymology may not be like our own, but instead easier to use for those who grew up with it.

In any case, his study of etymology opens a new door to understanding Hebrew that may move us from an obliviousness about what holy means, beyond controversy over what it means and finally to an obvious position on what it means. If the ease at which he arrives at some definitions is any indication, then an easy insider meaning of holy may be just around a near corner.

In Christ,

Jon

4 comments:

Francine said...

Hi Jon,
Last night I was at a Bible Study and someone stated that "holy means set apart". I responded by saying, "I thought 'holy' meant whole." He went on to explain where the word comes from, that it means the same as "saint", (which I think does mean "set apart"). It so disturbed me that I came home and started researching the word. I was so surprised when I found that there's actually a blog about the word and even more surprised that there is a controversy about the word! I much prefer the word "whole" as the meaning. To me, it exemplifies God's love much more than "set apart". I think fundamentalists might be trying to encourage the idea of purity in there insistance on being "set apart". However, I think that that stance can often turn another person off in wanting to worship the God of the Bible. If we know our human imperfection (hence the need for Christ), then the thought of "purity" as in "set apart" can be daunting and threatening to our belief that we can be part of God's family. The idea of "wholeness" or "healthiness" just sounds less threatening in my opinion.
Thanks for your blog and all the research you've done to help others understand the holiness of God and the meaning of "holy".
God bless you!

Jon Westlund said...

Hi Francine,

Thank you for your comments and the realization that the meaning of holy does make a difference in how we perceive God and what he requires of us. There is certainly the idea in Scripture of "set apart", even if it is not the meaning of holy. The question is whether it or wholeness has a higher priority, because one or the other is the meaning of holy. I am concerned that the idea of being whole is vastly under-taught in churches, because the idea of moral wholeness disappeared. It disappeared on the basis of what holy "probably" means. It is a real irony that in a free country, you and I had to grow up knowing nothing about the other possible meaning of holy. We were robbed of the opportunity of using our own understanding to examine the Scriptures as other previous generations had been allowed to do. Thank you for your comment and God's blessings on you.

Jon Westlund said...

The high amount of attention this particular entry gets is telling. The influence of arguments from etymology are still very high despite arguments to the contrary. It certainly needs to be part of the discussion, though I wish it was not given as much weight as it sometimes receives. I think it is better to look at parallel usage in a passage at the time the texts were written. That is currently a more reliable way to arrive at a root meaning. That could change someday, but right now I believe that is the case.

In Christ,

Pastor Jon

Unknown said...

When God, in the OT and Torah, was speaking to Israel, He told them to be Holy, just as He is Holy. In the NT, Jesus repeats this very statement to those who follow Him.

As believers, we should not be threatened or put off by being "set apart", as this is what happens when we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. We are to be different from the rest of the world as we have been given life by the only One who can give it.

Being Holy, or whole, is a vast improvement over our former state, which was un-holy or not whole. We now have been given wholeness through Jesus alone.
We are now filled with the Holy Spirit as a down payment of the good things to come as promised by our Lord and Savior.

That being said, we also need to remember what the 4 Living Beings say to one another, Holy, Holy, Holy is the LORD, GOD, Almighty, Who was and IS and IS to come, The earth is full of HIS glory.

Holiness or Wholeness is possible because of Jesus life, death, and resurrection to pay for our sins and make us Holy, or whole again.

Just a thought. Blessings to you for this site.
Terry, BTh.