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