Holy: Understanding it Better Through Sound Method and Key Biblical Texts

I am willing to guess that you are visiting my blog to learn the meaning of holy.  I will not disappoint you.  The first question is how many (quantity) possible definitions are there and then of those which one is the right one?  The second question is how much (quality) is the support for each definition and can one gain all the support while the others lose their support?   My answer to the first question is three (out of twenty+) that deserve consideration: "set apart", "pure", or "whole".   The answer to the second question of how much (quality) is the support for each of these definitions is why I am writing posts for this blog.  The quality of support for one of these three definitions I believe can be higher.  I also am convinced that through a better exegetical method or word study or linguisic analysis, one definition can be presented with a higher quality of support rather than the worst case scenario of the wrong one, a little better option of still having three possibilities, or better still just two possibilities.  The one with high quality support is what I want.  This post will begin to answer the question of the definition of holy in the Bible at a higher level of quality by introducing the outline or arrangment of my method of exegeis or analysis that will increase the support for one of these three definitions. 

One of the five canons (rules) of rhetoric for public speaking is arrangment.  In grammar, the parallel rule for writing or journalism is outlining.  Mrs. Buchberger tired to teach me English grammar in junior high and Mr. Rass tried to straighten me out further on outlining in high school.  Today, I want to introduce a probable arrangment or outline for the thesis I am currently writing.

It is as follows:

Preface: The How Many and How Much

     The Scope of this Paper: Using One Method over All the Others

Part One: Method - The How and the Why

     Introduction

          Looking at the Total Picture: It is About More than Translation

               Nehemiah 8

     Unit One  

          Translation  and Semantic Analysis

     Unit Two
  
          Transfer and Structural Analysis

     Unit Three

          Total and Linguistic (or Grammatical) Analysis

     Unit Four

          Train and Syntactic Analysis

     Unit Five

          Teach and Lexical Analysis

     Conclusion: A Total Method is Superior to a Translation Method


Part Two:  Biblical Texts - The What and the Which: Testing Three Theories Not Just One

     Introduction: We Cannot Rely So Much on One Method

          Etymology is in the Bible?

          Introducing Complete Linguistic Analysis

     Unit One: The Linguistic Analysis of Isaiah 6 (and Revelation 4)

     Unit Two: The Linguistic Analysis of Genesis 2:1-3 (and Deuteronomy 5)

     Unit Three: The Linguistic Analysis of Leviticus 19 (and 1 Peter 1)

     Unit Four: The Linguistic Analysis of Exodus (?) (and Acts (?))

     Unit Five: The Linguistic Analysis of Deuteronomy (?)

    Conclusion:  One Definition from Multiple Possible Definitions for Holy


Part Three: The Significance and Implications - The Where and the When (Relevance)

     Introduction: The Defining of Significance and Implications
    
     Unit One: The Significance and Implications for Our Priorities

     Unit Two: The Significance and Implications for Relevance

     Unit Three: The Significance and  Implications for Yourself and Life

     Unit Four: The Significance and Implications for Work

     Unit Five: The Significance and Implications for Learning

     Conclusion: One Definition that is Biblical Can Change Many Things


Epilogue: The Who and the Whole

     Who is the Holy One (what is His name)? 

     Who are the Saints (the Holy Ones)? 




This I believe is the arrangement thats is growing within my thesis paper.  Throughout this blog you will be able to read preliminary parts and pieces of what eventually will be a complete mosaic or tapestry on the definition of holy.  Right now these bits and pieces do not have the advantage of full arrangement, but I am looking forward to the day to say that the above is complete.  In this blog, I am also trying to produce a better definition of holy in the sense of better support.  But part of that is keeping all the top possibilites on the table until my thesis paper is complete and reviewed by a committee.  May God grant me speed in this process!


In Christ,

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Textual Studies

I want to begin with an examle from what is today called textual criticism.There are four books that are critical for examining the underlying New Testament Greek text.  They are:

1)  The Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies
2)  A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, written by Bruce M. Metzger
3)  The Text of the New Testament, written by Kurt and Barbara Aland.
4)  The Identity of the New Testament Text, written by William Pickering

The final one is a controversial addition, because it disagrees on the level of principles with with first three.  I've added it, because I believe in fairness toward competing views.  The more important issue though is a practice that is common to textual criticism that is unfortunately lacking in biblical translation. I read this recently in Bible Translation and the Spread of the Church: " ... the United Bible Society attempts to help translators by providing a graded evaluation for textual variants that are cited"(p. 42).   I would like today to provide grade for he translation of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words behind the English translation of "holy".

First, I have to add one further point from the book that I mention in the previous paragraph about textual critics providing options with grades:  "Kurt Aland writes that this feature [a graded evaluation for textual variants; was `insisted upon by Eugene A. Nida against the whole editorial committee, if I may speak out of school, and in retrospect I believe he was right'" (p. 42).  I too believe he was right and that the principle can carry over to translation.  When there are variants or variations in how a word is translated, why not grade them as a group rather than insist on one option alone without grade A evidence? 

Here is what I insist that we need to do in translating holy - we need to show the variations in how "holy" in the original is translated rather than present the evidence as though there is only one option, when we are speaking of more than one possibility.  Based on my reading, here is what the committee of scholars would like assign for grades for the different possible translations of the original text whether in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. 

There grades for a committee of scholars (if they know the evidence well):

"set apart"  B+
"pure" B-
"whole C-

This I think would be the graded evaluation for translation variants.  I want to point out that these are not my personal grades on these variants.  Notice that I do not think that the best scholars on this topic assign an A grade for any of these definitions.  I draw this primarily from the most prominent theologians on the topic in the 20th Century: Rudoph Otto "wholly other", Norman Snaith "set apart" and Klein "probable" for "set apart". 

The difficulty for the last entry of "whole" and the reason it receives only a C- is that while the English word for "holy" has a root meaning in English of whole, this only proves what the early English translators and some of its earlier readers thought the Hebrew meant "whole" according to their English translation efforts.  That is significant, but it is not the final conclusion in the discussion.  The English word "holy" cannot be used to prove what the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek means.  It is a translation and not the original.  We have to retrace the evidence for "holy" as a valid translation.  For myself, if qadosh in Hebrew or hagios in Greek does not mean whole, then I think holy might be better replaced for the sake of meaningfulness and clarity, consistently by the English words "set apart" or "pure".  It makes little sense for the sake of meaningfulness to have to always explain what holy means.  Holy has historical value, but does it have contemporary value in that case? 

The other problem for the meaning of "whole" is that the scholarship of that earlier era going back to at least Tyndale in the history of English transaltion, it does not leave us clear footnotes to trace where the idea of "whole" comes from.  We know know what they thought (their conlusions), but we are going to have a hard time knowing why and from what source (their support).   

So moving forward from here, it is not only ancient copiers of the text that preseved marginal readings, so do contemporary textual scholars.  The old copyists graded their options according ot in the text (higher grade) and in the margin of the text (lower grade).  We need to do the same with those words that are translated in most English translations by "holy", "sanctified", or "hallowed".  We need to presently grade the different meanings openly for the readers.  Give people the graded options they deserve, ratther than one option that suggests a higher certainty than there is in reality. 
Reality is refreshing.  Anything less is draining.

In Christ,

Jon

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

Holy: Understanding it Better As Knowers and Teachers

This is one of those entries where I need to say something about my other closely related blog on communication basics 101.  It is largely the best tool I can recommend for getting at the basics of meaning, as it relates to the meaning of holy.  When it all comes down to meaning, holy is likely one of five major classes of meaning or at least one class is primary. 

So if you want to understand those classes better, please check out my most recent entry: 
http://communicationbasics101.blogspot.com/2012/11/communication-basics-word-meanings-of.html  and some of the earlier ones in that same blog. 

They are very helpful for keeping things as basic as possible, but they also are categories that are supported within the scholarly community of translators, linguists and teachers.  The classes of meaning have credibility and credibility is what I try to add a little more of, in my latest entry.

Please examine the entry and then for yourself decide which one of the five meaning classes you think holy falls into as a word that posses meaning.  Another challenge would be to take the different definitions that are possible and ask yourself as one example, if "set apart" or if "whole" falls into one or more of these basic meaning classes and which one is primary. 

Theologians sometimes mingle these basic meanings, when it comes to "set apart", so see if you can figure out which meaning is primary or not.  Test this method for yourself.  You do not need to be an expert or scholar to test your knowledge.  It will not make you a scholar, but it can make you knower.  Enjoy!

In Christ,

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better through Genesis 2:1-3, Part 3 (of 5)

Stephen R. Covey is rather famous for saying: "The main thing is to keep the main thing, the main thing."  In the process of studying the meaning of a passage through language tools (linguistics as the study of language) and through exegetical tools (biblical hermeneutics or exegesis), it is the main thing to be reminded from the beginning to the end of the total process and again in the middle to use all the major tools for grasping the meaning of a passage and not just one or two of them.  I call this the total process.  The total process is the main thing. 

In one distinct way this blog entry on Genesis 2:1-3, is not like the others.  It is a reminder of the main importance of seeing the other 4 entries (out of 5) as equal parts of the whole and that keeping them together as a total is of main importance through the entire process and not just at the beginning or the end.  That is why I place this entry about the total process in the middle. 

I can't tell you how many times I have read writings on the meaning or definition of holy and they rely almost exclusively on just one of a total of 4 separate methods to be used to understand the meaning of word in the text.  The one that gets the most use is the method of etymology (tracing a word's history or it's similar roots with other words with similar letters or graphemes).  I'm not against this method as some appear to be (James Barr), but I want us to see its limitations.  So let's begin by looking at a diagram of the total process.

My diagram of the total process is as follows:

Even though I have increased the image's size, I don't want to assume yet that it is all of the print is readable, so let me at least list off the main names for each stage from the arrows on your left hand side.  They are: 1)Translate, 2) Transfer, 3) Total, 4) Train, and 5) Teach.  You can also righ click on the image and choose "open this link" and it will appear in slightly larger print. 


I've begun all of their names with "T" just to make things more memorable.  It also happens to be the case that in English these 5 names work well together as a description for each stage. 

There is also a biblical precedant for this process as well.  It is found in Nehemiah 8 and especially in verses 1- 12.  The situation is one in which the audience cannot understand Hebrew as well as Aramaic, so they require some assistance.  This sets then a precedent for our own time in which Hebrew from that time is not our first language.  So let's flesh this out a bit. 


[This entry is in process.]

Sincerely,

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better through Genesis 2:1-3, Part 2 (of 5)

"When we succumb to believing that we are victiims of our circumstances and yield to the plight of determinism, [then] we lose hope, we lose drive, and we settle for resignation and stagnation", according to Stephen R. Covey.  I am using quotes from him in particular at this time, because of his untimely death at age 79 due to a biking accident.  Transfering information from one place and time to another is often treated with the same amount of lost hope, lost drive, resignation and then stagnation.  It is high time to get back to the task of transferring what was said in ancient places and ancient times to our own place and time. 

The best clues for how to do this are in uncovering the explicit relationships in the ancient texts of that time, so that we can then understand better how to transfer things properly to our own place and time. 

This entry will look primarily into the importance of transfer.  What are those things in the text that connect with that time and also with our time?  I will be looking primarily at relational connections.  If possible I will include a diagam of the text that is very helpful.  This will be dependent though on a blog's formatting and its ability to handle an Excel file being pasted into it.  [If you have experience with that you may be able to help me.] 

I haven't tried it in the past because I have been assuming it would  not work.  [This entry is in process.]

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Staying on Course

"There is no shortcut. But there is a path. The path is based on principles revered throughout history. If there is one message to glean from this wisdom, it is that a meaningful life is not a matter of speed or efficiency. It's much more a matter of what you do and why you do it than how fast you get it done."  This quote on wisdom and method is from Stephen R. Covey.  I quote it, because the path to understanding holy is filled with pitfalls that can be described as shortcuts.  But also I am convinced that there is a very reliable path to understanding holy that will raise the level of certainty about its meaning to a new level. 

In this entry, I will outline the five steps in that process and follow up with short descriptions.  I have mentioned these steps before, but I now understand them better and I have a new commitment to this method after hearing and then reading Covey's quote.  They are: 1) Translating, 2) Transfering, 3) Totaling, 4)Training, and 5) Teaching. 

Please don't get overly hung up on terminology.  These five could also be called the following names, based on terminology drawn from biblical study and linguistics: 1) Comparing translations, 2)  Textual displaying, 3) Exegesis 4) Action and Post-Action charting, and 5) Universal classifying of words.  I have tried to use the most everyday language and the most principle centered language that I found in the literature of biblical exegesis and interpretation or in the literature of linguistics (the scientific study of languages).  To varying degrees, the steps are universal to all the major books on exegesis. 

Let me use one book as a specific example from the field of linguistics.  It is: Translating the Word of God by John Beekman and John Callow.  On the contents page (p. 7), they outline their principles of translation.  I would like to grade their book like a teacher does an assignment based on each of the five steps above. 

1) Translating: C+  (reason why: they do not balance both meaning and clarity as equals)

2) Transferring: B+ (reason why: they add to the traditional science of sentence diagramming)

3) Totaling: C+  (reason why: this is largely left implict rather than explicit, but they do practice it)

4) Training:  C+ (reason why: this is not covered in any real depth in this book)

5)  Teaching: A (reason why: the analysis of the universal classes of meaning is superb)

The book's overall score is: B.   It has for years been a very valuable addition to my library.  I could even upgrade it's overall score to B+, based on the fact that the teaching portion could be given an A+ (if I added that to my scale). 

Let's look again at the purpose for this entry on my blog.  It is to clarify and commit to how I am going to approach the meaning of holy.  It is only fair that my readers understand the principles of the method that I am using to get the results that I will arrive at. 

There are many tempting short cuts to avoid. The first is reading a greater volume of contemporary lexicons on Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek to be sure the meaning of holy is correctly understood.  The second is to read the greats of church history to make sure that the meaning of the word holy has not been lost in moving from a period of revival to a period of decline.  The third is to keep digging deeper into the etymology of the word for holy in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.  These are all good, but they can become the enemy of the best method for determining the meaning of holy. 

So going forward, even while I will use these other methods on occasion, I have to make sure that my focus is on the 5 step method that I proposed at the beginning.  Again, the terminology may differ, but the method is universal.  This method may also be better in some books than others.  Again, what matters most is staying with the method rather than getting side-tracked.  I feel like I could have used my blog entries better in the past with the 5 steps being more of a primary focus.  Again, this does not say the other methods are bad, though it may still mean they are enemies of the very best.  So while I will still use these methods, I hope to use them more sparingly. 

In addition, I think each passage I write about will have to be broken up into each of these 5 steps, so that my each of my entries is not too long.  That is one of the limitations in communicating by blog rather than by article or book.  So please be aware that in the near future that I may be dividing my entries up in this way in order to keep things short enough for those who want a quick answer, but also long enough through labeling for the person who wants to go into greater depth. 

Returning to part of my earlier quote: "If there is one message to glean from this wisdom, it is that a meaningful life is not a matter of speed or efficiency. It's much more a matter of what you do and why you do it than how fast you get it done."   Reading lexicon entries is fast, dictionaries entries are even faster; but I am in this to solve the problem of a fair level of uncertainty, and not to gloss over any uncertainty.  Here we go in embarking on a path, rather than on a short cut!

In Christ,

Pastor Jon 

 

Holy: Understaning It Better Through Genesis 2:1-3

The most important arguments for the meaning of holy come from the biblical text itself for at least two reasons among others.  The first is that the etymology for the Hebrew word for holy is at best probable and not certain.  The second is the sheer volume of the use of the Hebrew word for holy, qadosh. etc., in the biblical text far outweighs the evidence from outside the biblical text.  This is a tremendous asset in trying to solve the problem of defining a word.  The larger the amount of text available, the more likely we are to solve any questions as to meaning.  So I would like to look at the two most likely possibilities for the meaning of holy.  The biblical words for holy in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek could mean either "set apart" or they could mean "whole."  The best method is to test both possibilities side by side to see which one has greater merit.

The best method I have found testing the definition of a word is to try to substitute the definition into the surrounding context and then look for possible parallels to test its meaning.   I am going to begin from the two most popular translations of the Bible that people are likely to know and then I will amend things from the original Hebrew text, if I think it would be helpful in an effort to identify parallels.  Overall, however, I find both of these translations to be the best in reaching the twin goals of being clear and meaningful.  The NKJV, I find is slightly more clear, the NIV is slighty more meaningful.  

In the NKJV (New King James Version), we read:

Genesis 2:1-3

2 Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. 

² And on the seventh day God ended His work

which He had done,

and He rested on the seventh day from all His work

which He had done.

³ Then God blessed the seventh day

and sanctified it,

because in it He rested from all His work

which God had created

and made.

In the NIV (New International Version) (1984), we read:

Genesis 2:1-3

¹ Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
² By the seventh day God had finished the work
he had been doing;
so on the seventh day he rested^[a] from all his work.
³ And God blessed the seventh day
and made it holy,
because on it he rested from all the work of creating
that he had done.


In the NKJV (New King James Version) with substitutions for clarity and with amendments for making things explicit, we read:

Genesis 2:1-3 (with whole for sanctified or holy)

2 Thus the heavens and the earth, and the whole of the host of them, were finished wholly.

² And on the seventh day God finished wholly His work

which He had done,

and He rested on the seventh day from the whole of His work

which He had done.

³ Then God blessed the seventh day

and made [the seventh day observance the] whole [day],

because in it He rested from the whole of  His work

which God had created

and made.

Genesis 2:1-3 (with set apart for sanctified or holy)

2 Thus the heavens and the earth, and the whole of the host of them, were finished wholly.

² And on the seventh day God finished wholly His work

which He had done,

and He rested on the seventh day from the whole of His work

which He had done.

³ Then God blessed the seventh day

and set [the seventh day] apart [from the other six days],

because in it He rested from the whole of His work

which God had created

and made.

In the NIV (New International Version) (1984) with substitutions for clarity and with amendments to make things more explicit, we read:

Genesis 2:1-3 (with whole for sanctified or holy)

¹ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished wholly in the whole of  their vast array.
² By the seventh day God had finished wholly the work
he had been doing;
so on the seventh day he rested^[a] from the whole of  his work.
³ And God blessed the seventh day
and made [the seventh day obervance the] whole [day],
because on it he rested from the whole of the work of creating
that he had done.

Genesis 2:1-3 (with set apart for sanctified or holy)

¹ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished wholly in the whole of their vast array.
² By the seventh day God had finished wholly the work
he had been doing;
so on the seventh day he rested^[a] from the whole of his work.
³ And God blessed the seventh day
and set [the seventh day] apart [from the other six days],
because on it he rested from the whole of the work of creating
that he had done.

So for clarity I substituted in each case for sanctified the words "whole" or "set apart".  For the sake of parallels, I also amended the text to show the similarity between a group of Hebrew words used that are properly connected with the idea of whole.  This is so that the reader can decide for themselves whether the context supports the concept of "whole" more or the context of "set apart" more.  If I leave the words as "all, etc.", it is much more difficult to see the possibility that holy or sanctifies is parallel with "whole" or even complete. 

So now I ask you the reader.  How long can we halt between two opinions?  Which one of the two optoins bears the most evidence from the parallels around it?  One has the support of six days in the context prior to the seventh.  The others has in the verses dealing with the seventh day five words connected with the idea of whole.  I pray I can find more time to develop other texts in this same manner as well. 

In Christ,

Pastor Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Concrete Objects

You may not be aware previously that the meaning of holy is uncertain. There are many words in the Bible whose meanings are not difficult to determine. Holy does not fall into that category. So in light of this uncertainty, I have decided to work on the issue from a position that is certain.


Holy in the bible means either whole or separate. I would rank the meaning of whole at 70% and the meaning of separate at 30%. Many would reverse those two percentages, yet I have the advantage of a great deal of unpublished material these other people have never seen. I am doing my best to get all of this unpublished material on the internet, but my time is limited at this point in the course of my ministry.


Only in the face of uncertainty, do I think it is wise to hold onto two definitions of holy. I believe we live in one of those times. So it is wise, to "not throw the baby out with the bathwater", but to be sure you've separated the two of them first. This same sage advice is foolish, when no reasonable uncertainty exists.

I am also aware that these promising definitions for holy are polar opposites. So my goal is to remove any reasonable uncertainty about the meaning of holy and to then introduce a definition with a reasonable amount of certainty to support it.


There are four keys to solving any issue of decipherment for an unknown language or for an uncertain word in a language according to the experts in deciphering unknown languages:


· There should be a large enough database and texts of the language (Amount)
· There should be a connected cultural context of the language (Relationship)
· There should be understood parallel or bilingual inscriptions of the language (Action)
· There should be pictorial or concrete references with the text of the language (Thing)

This is where the proof must be gathered to prove the meaning of holy. Fortunately, we are able to find evidence for all four of these keys. For our limited purposes in this blog, I would like to look at the last key of finding a pictorial or concrete reference for the word of holy.

In a concrete sense, for something to be "cut" (the root idea behind separate) or "uncut" (an analogy for whole) is very pictorial. It is easy to separate the two of them visually. Just take out your steak knife and cut a carrot. You have a very good visual of cut. Now magine another carrot that remains uncut. They are picture perfect polar opposites.

When we look at the concrete objects closely associated with holy, we find these as a beginning list: days, stones, ground, moutain, sacrifice and body. I will later talk about the more abstract concepts of self, name and morality as extensions of these concrete or literal meanings of cut or uncut.

If holy means "to set apart" or "to separate", then its literal or concrete idea is as follows for each concrete object:

• a day cut off from six other days (Geneis 2:1-3)
• altar stones cut off from other stones (Deuteronomy 27:6)
• ground/area cut off from other ground/area (Exodus 3:5)
• a mountain cut off from other mountains or land (Exodus 19:3, Deuteronomy 4:11)
• a sacrifice cut off from other sacrifices (Leviticus 1:3, Romans 12:1-2)
• a body cut off from other bodies (Leviticus 21:15-20, 1 Corinthians 6:19)

If holy means "to make or to keep whole", then its literal or concrete idea is as follows for each concrete object:

• an uncut day of evening to evening (Genesis 2:1-3)
• an uncut/whole altar stone (Deuteronomy 27:6 )
• an uncut ground/area (Exodus 3:5)
• an uncut mountain of the entire thing (Exodus 19:3; Deuteronomy 4:11 )
• an uncut/unblemished sacrifice (Leviticus 1:3; Romans 12:1-2 )
• an uncut/unmaimed body (Leviticus 21:15-20; 1 Corinthians 6:19)

If we extend the literal or concrete meanings of "cut" into more figurative or abstract meaning, then the idea by implication in various contexts (even where it is not used directly):

• a self cut off from other selves (Luke 10:26-28)
• a name cut off from other names (Matthew 6:9; Luke 11:2)
• a morality cut off from immorality (Romans 7:12 and all contexts dealing with holy, righteous, true, loving and good)

Every single one of these concepts is biblical, the question is whether they are biblical through the use of the word holy. If they are not, then by adding the instances of holy to the list of even a correct biblical idea, increases the magnitude of importance beyond the importance the bible assigns to them. In other words, we distort the message of the Bible. On the flip-side, we also diminish the importance of being whole in relationship to each of these things. That may be the great crime.

If we extend the literal or concrete meanings of "uncut" into more figurative or abstract meaning, then the idea is by implication in various contexts (even where it is not used directly):

• an uncut self - heart, soul, strength and mind are all essentials (Luke 10:26-28)
• an uncut/corporate/comprehensive name - no word is more comprehensive of personality (Matthew 6:9; Luke 11:2)
• an uncut morality - righteous, true, loving and good are all included (Romans 7:12 and all contexts dealing with holy, righteous, true, loving and good)

Every single one of these concepts is also biblical. The problem is the same as we see with the other meaning of separate, if it is not biblically accurate in its understanding of holy. We distort and diminish the other concept in a way that is not biblical.

In either case, the implications are large because holy is such a large concept in the bible. That is why we cannot afford to get it wrong. If it were a minor concept, then there would be no serious implication from error.

I hope these concrete objects in the context of holy help you make sense of the two ideas of "set apart" and "whole." They are diametrically opposed to each other in concrete meaning and the weighty importance of the meaning of the word holy potentially distorts things in a large way. This is not a small thing because decipherment is only the beginning. The implications are far greater because they effect our view of the world.

In future pieces of writing, I will further develop the other important pillars for deciphering the definite meaning of holy. It is the combination of them that I believe will give us reasonable certainty about what the word means. But for now I hope you are able to make sense of things in terms of meaning, because that is an important first step.

It is paramount that every real Christian take this very seriously. It has grave or momentous consequences, because biblical words have big implications far beyond any other words on this planet.

In Christ,

Jon

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