Holy: Understanding It Better Through the Sinking of the Titanic

     Can you believe it?  He thinks there is a comparison between the definition of holy and
     the sinking of the Titanic!   Where does he get that idea?

I can hear some of my readers saying that in their heads, as they read this post's title.  But I do.  I really do.  There is no denying it.  There is a possibility that the comparision could prove helpful.  The comparison is this.  It comes from the infamous line that the "Titanic is unsinkable".   Today, we know that it was not unsinkable.  Before hand, however, it did not seem so obviously ludicous as it does today.  I can tell that when I suggest that "set apart" might not be the meaning of holy, some scholars think that the definition is "unsinkable".  It is impossible that this definition for the biblical term for holy will not continue to float!  This is where caution I think is the better virtue. 

The boast that "set apart" is the definition of holy in the biblical text is unsinkable is too great.  It is premature.  It is lacking in objectivity.  I have read, read, read, read and read again scholarly articles on the topic of holy.  In my reading, I have run across "etymological studies" or "word studies" for its meaning, but not a full linguistic analysis.  Sometimes quite close, but still a little short of a full analysis.   But because of this lack, I think a full linguistic analysis is required of all those who want to have reasonable certainty that their definition can stay afloat and not sink. 

Both scholars Rudolph Otto and Norman Snaith hint that there is a level of uncertainty with regard to the etymology of the biblical Hebrew word for holy that must be acknowledged.  Later, you see other scholars, like Klein in his lexical work, acknowledging that the etymological method is not certain.  Yet it still remains quite forceful in that it usually means one option for the definition of holy is the only one taken seriously after the method is applied.  In other words, more than one view is considered prior to an etymological study, but not two or more afterward.  That means that despite any cautions about this method expressed by scholars, they simply haven't considered both equally both before and after the use of the etymological method.  This goes for some people that I admire. 

So what are we to do?  Well, how about floating the ship of "set apart" with due caution?  Let's not be like the boastful captain of the ship, before the voyage was over.  Let's take the voyage and see instead whether it is true that a definition is unsinkable.  Let's watch out for icebergs along the way toward using linguistic analysis which includes etymology, but goes beyond as well.  (By the way, that is my view.  Some are so critical of etymology that their view is that it is nearly totally unreliable.)

I want to float the definition of holy (qaodosh in Hebrew, hagios in Greek) as "set apart" careully with two other ships along side that one.  The other two ships are: "pure" and "whole".  I want to have two other options in case the first one fails.  I don't want to venture out so far on the etymological method, that does sometimes fail, that I have no other options in the case of it sinking in the North Atlantic.  I am not afraid of risk, but I think there is a difference though between it and recklessness. 

Why not do as the ancient Jewish scribes did in preserving the Hebrew text before Xerox?  Why not  keep the other still possible options in the margin alongside the primary option that is placed in the body of the textual copy?  Sometimes, textual margin readings end up being the right ones when more evidence comes to light.  With other boats nearby, chances are reasonable that the passengers on-board the Titanic could have survived in at least greater numbers than they did otherwise in the frigid waters, as they watched the unsinkable sink. 

So I say "beware".  Watch out for pride!  It can deceive us way too easily.  Even among otherwise humble scholars, this is possible.   That kind of over-confidence can become your scholarly and spiritual undoing.   It can lead to a lot of regret.  That is why the Titanic is still remembered.   It is remembered in infamy, because of the boast of one man and the great lost it caused.  There was a lot lost!  Please avoid with me a repeat mistake that involves a lot more passengers.  Take care everyone!

Sincerely,

Jon