Holy: Understanding it Better Through the Biblical Method of Defining Words

I doubt that I am the only one to ever have this question: "Why doesn't the Bible have its own internal dictionary?"  For the English language there are a host of dictionaries available to consult, if a person does not understand a particular word.  Why does the Bible lack the tool of its own internal reliable dictionary?  But what if it does have one?  What if we are looking for the wrong kind of dictionary? 

Using the example of dictionaries for the English language, the majority are written in a format where words define other words.  Good examples are: Webster's New World Dictionary and Black's Law Dictionary.  But there are dictionaries that follow a different format.  I could point out a host of them on-line, but for my examples I'd like to look at my own dictionary shelf.  It contains The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, The Magic World of Words: A Very First Dictionary, and Ultimate Visual Dictionary.  For my purposes, I want to point out that the last two use illustrations or pictures as a primary way to define words.  This raises the question whether the Bible could have its own format for a dictionary that does not follow only the format of words defining words.  It doesn't use pictures either, but this does not rule out word pictures. 

A number of years ago I ran across a scholarly article that ruled out the idea that the Hebrew words zedekah (translated as righteousness) and mishpat (translated as justice or judgment depending on the context) are synonymous.  I mentioned this to a Christian teacher, who travels worldwide, and when he tried to present the same idea in Germany, Lutherans there protested that Luther saw them as synonymous.  So how are we to solve this problem?


The first clue came for me from my experience of working in carpentry and reading in Isaiah that righteousness is like the plumb line while justice is like the horizontal leveling line.   The top picture of a plumb line level combo is especially relevant, since it is very similar to the tool thought to have been used in building the pyramids in Egypt. 

Since that time I have read a similar comparison from the context of streams and rivers found in the book of Amos.  Here's one way it is translated:

This is no surprise, since he was previously a shepherd and would have needed to water his flocks.  Finally, I recently ran across another example of comparison using the example of light in Psalm 37.  This comparison comes the field of astronomy or from the observation of daylight 

Another easy way to think of the distinction between righteousness and justice is to think of the difference between the answers to two similar, yet different questions.  They are:

How many?  (Quantity)

How much?  (Quality)

Note here that the quantity is this passage is: "light" as one, but it also has a quality: "As the noonday [light]".  The difference between the two things are clear since the comparisons are not exactly the same.   The point is their difference though they are both measures or amounts.  Can you clearly see this?  "Light" and "noonday" are distinct and not synonymous though related. 

FINALLY, a light shone brightly in my own mind.  What if the Bible instead of defining words by other words, defines words by concrete comparisons that are well-known?

 

This also explains Jesus' motivation with parables to insure people understood the meaning of his words.  It also agrees with the concept that I learned years ago that a knower and a teacher are distinct from each other and also a complement to each other.  The knower is focused on experience or the referent  (thing referred to in communication) and the teacher is focused on words. Ideally in communication the two work in tandem.  It would seem that the Bible's definitions for righteousness and justice do just that.  It ties the real world to the vocabulary world. 

So now part of my task is to find the contexts that connect Yahweh and holy to a comparison much as righteousness and justice are compared to no less than three concrete things.  This is now a critical part of my quest for a definitive definition for holy.  May the righteous and just God of all eternity bless your day. 

 
In Christ,

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through the Hebrew Alphabet

"Seek first to understand, then to be understood."    Whether you are a historian and can relate to Francis of Asissi or you are a contemporary follower of Stephen R. Covey or another kind of follower of wisdom, you have heard this one before.  It is very good advice, but it is also hard to remember in the middle of conversation or in the middle of reading of reading a book.  Seek first to understand is my on-going habit, when trying to understand holy. It is not primarily about understanding my words, but God's words. I have been trying very hard over the last couple of years to better understand the alphabet of the ancient Hebrew language and the meaning of each of its letters.  As a result, I have grown in my understanding of qadosh, the Hebrew word for our English translation of holy, through grasping the ancient meaning of each of the symbols that make up the word.  So come along with me and I will show you what I have learned recently. 

I could say a lot about primary and secondary sources.  I have read a great deal of material and viewed a lot of pictures and charts.  There is a broad consensus though on many things, so I am not compelled to list all my sources here.  But there are two that I must mention and also how they differ. 

The first book I ran across that summarizes the work on the ancient Hebrew alphabet or letters and their meanings is that of Jeff A. Benner in his Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible: Hebrew Letters: Words and Roots Defined Within Their Ancient Cultural Context.  It was a good starting point.  But also as I have begun to understand more, I knew I needed other sources.  So I have gone over quite a number of books that it makes no sense to try to list here.  I did though hear from someone else who is working on much of what Benner was trying to do.  His name is Andre H. Roosma. 

Andre initially wrote to me in response to an earlier blog that I wrote dealing with the etymology of the Hebrew word for holy where I mentioned Benner's work.   His main difference from Bennter is that he tries to stay away from later mystical sources for the meanings of some of the letters.  He also tries to not overstate hypotheticals that contain some uncertainty.  I appreciate his correctives. 

He is currently working on another piece of writing that he is hoping to complete soon.  Before he finishes his writing, I would like to propose my own thoughts based on his work that tries to get at the meaning of words though the letters and their meanings that make up those words.  He is not responsible for any of my modifications and you will have to chech his work first hand to know my changes at: www.Hallelu-YaH.nl/Proto-Semitic.pdf. 

For my purposes, I will use the follow English letters to represent those in the Hebrew for holy: QDYSh. 

Q:  Meaning: "goes full circle (like the sun's course)"            Class: Action              Character: love
D:  Meaning: "delight/desire to enter in (like a door)"            Class: Thing               Character: good
Y:  Meaning: "covenant bond/connection (like a tent peg)"   Class: Relationship     Character: true
Sh: Meaning: "abundance from the source (like breasts)"      Class: Amount            Character: right


ON Q: For a long time there has been this idea that the root or etymology of the Hebrew word for holy had to do with shines or light.  I think the pictograph behind the earliest form of the letter for this word points more to the full course or circle of the sun in the sky.  And what is characteristic of this course is that it runs the full course every day.  It completes its action every day.  I think that gets at the critical point of meaning in that letter and then for the whole word meanng holy. 

Also for Jeff Benner, he believes this letter was later substituted for another (though to the best of my knowledge this is speculative). The orignal letter he believes was there is the Hebrew letter that pictures a wall and is where English likely got its letter "H".  This is critical though to his argument that the entire word means "set apart".  

So linguisticslly, I classigy the referent as mainly to the action of the sun as it is originally pictured like a sun at the horizon of the sky where the sun begins in our view and where it ends in our view.  This is in contrast to a picutre of the sun in the mid-day sky, where reference would likely then be to its light or brightness.   Also if it was a picture that meant to refer to shining it likely would not have only one line indicating a horizon, but instead many lines shing out from the sun like can be found in ancient Egypt or in our day in children's pictures of the sun shining where the rays of sunligh are represented.  Its a view of its action every day. 

That is critical to how I then define the class as parallel to the character of love.  More on this when I summarize the theological implications at the end of this entry. 

ON D: We all have been told when we get in front of a TV we make a better door than window.  Actually, what they should say is that we make a better wall than window, because a door can be opened and you can see through like a window with just a little more effort or convenience. 

So linguistically, I classify the referent as mainly the thing of a door, since it is originally pictured as a tent door or tent flap as opposed to a part of the tent wall.   It is a door in distinction from a wall.  Its a view of its distinctiveness because the "hinge point" of the tent flap is pictured in its pictograph. 

That is critical to how I then place the class as parallel to the character of good. Discernment is about knowing the distinction between good and evil.  A tent wall does not make a good door.  A door does not make a good window (unless you leave it open), etc.  More on thise when I summarize the theological implications at the end of this entry.
 
ON Y: Most of us have set up a tent at one time or another and know that those pegs connect that tent to the ground.  If they don't or if they are loose, then the people staying in the tent could experience trouble when wind arrivese.  The pegs are essentially for connection and that is a primary form of relationship. 

So linguistically, I classify the referent as mainly to the relationship of connection as opposed to disconnection.  The peg is pictured upright as opposed to layig on its side.  This gives you the idea that it is holding securely. 

That is critical to how I then place this class as parallel to the character of true.  True relationships remain connected.  False ones are insecure and do not hold true. 

ON Sh: There are many references to breasts as a source of abundance. 




By the way, some begin from a 3 letter root and only acknowledge that form. 


 Recently, I have worked through


[this blog is in process,  please go back to the month of April and earlier to find full entries]  [this and the five preceding I hope to finish in July]

Jon

Understanding Holy Better: Concrete Things and Abstract Words

I firmly stand on the principle of Scripture alone in the sense of what is in Scripture has a unique quality of truth compared to the writings outside of it. I think this is terrifically relevant to the discussion on the meaning of holy. The danger though is that we limit not just truth to being found only there, but also we limit ourselves to only one biblical principle.

A valuable principle in addition to Scripture alone and the broader principle of truth is the principle of concrete things and the broader principle of good. Recently, in watching a DVD about the Aztecs and one of their monuments, the narrator said that at one time the majority of their evidence for the chief monument buried under Mexico City was documentary evidence, but now that had changed through archaeological evidence in finding the ancient monument itself.

I don't think that the shift from documentary evidence to the actual thing itself as evidence is harmful. In fact, it is a concrete good. When I defend the principle of truth in Scripture, I hope I do not turn a blind eye to the principle of good in the evidence of real things.

This is why finding a picture of holiness in some text next to the word for holiness would go a long way toward solving our problems with its definition. Likewise, better yet would be to find the concrete objects themselves as described in both a text and the picture. This would nail the definition of holy to the wall for good.

On the flipside, in the last few days I was searching commentaries on Romans for the authors' definitions for holy. It was a sad state of affairs. They all took a slightly different angle on the word. Their meanings were not the same, though in some cases they did overlap or agree.

We can find the concrete evidence we need and still uphold the principle of Scripture alone. Abstract documentary evidence is not passe. It is not a thing of the past. It still contributes truth. What is also a present concern is the matter of a targeted quest toward concrete evidence that should be available somewhere. I pray God will help us all find it. He's already helped me find a concrete biblical picture in a verbal description of righteousness and justice. The same can happen again for all of us on the meaning of holy.

In Christ,

Jon