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 its Definition better Through Using a Process

This entry in my blog steps back from directly defining holy to talk more broadly about my views on methods to define holy.  In my view the weakness of some of the writing on holiness is a lack of awareness on how important their method is to determining the outcome of their definition of holy.   

My point is to say that the process we use to determine the meaning of holy is very important.   Our methods have implications and can cause us to draw either correct or incorrect conclusions.  My other point is that biases can get in the way of accepting relevant methods for defining it. 

The process is important to the effect or outcome, whether it is the process for determining a meaning for a word or whether it is a process for shooting a basketball.  The "how" is relevant alongside the "why".  If making a basket is my motive, my reason why, then the method, my how I shoot, is relevant.  It is the same in determining the meaning of holy. 

Now using the basketball analogy, there is room for differences in the method, but not differences that are dramatic.  It  is one thing for the best shooters to have subtle stylistic differences, but it is far different to violate the four basic fundamental parts of shooting.  Whether you take Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan or LeBron James; they all share the same fundamental strengths in the art of shooting.  However, all of them do not shoot exactly the same. 

Next, it is important to understand some of the attitudes we carry to the table, when it comes to method.  I remember this from my days as a coach and I see the same thing in the arena of being a pastor.  There are certain biases against method that are even greater in the church than they are on the basketball court. 

The first bias, I will call the Holy Spirit objection.  It is very simple, we don't need a method, because we have the Holy Spirit.  To me, this response lacks balance.  I like what St. Augustine said once about prayer and about balance: "Pray as though everything depended on God, work as though everything depended on you."  I think the same applies here.  I believe wholeheartedly that everything depends on God's Holy Spirit when it comes to interpretation, yet I don't believe this excludes method.  The reason I don't think it excludes method is because in the book that records things that people like David said by the Spirit, there methods are described.  We are told actions to take. 

I cannot live by the Spirit and not do what the Spirit has spoken.  I believe in Nehemiah 8, the Spirit has given us a process: teach, translate, total, train and transfer.  I believe balance is needed which means having regard for this process that was outlined by the Holy Spirit.  By the way, the five words that begin with "T" are my simple way of remembering the HolySpirit's process.  The Spirit uses other specific words for these ideas.  See my earlier blog that deals with this process for greater detail. 

The second bias, I will call the historical objection.  It is very simple, we don't need a method, because we have freedom.  To me, this method also lacks balance.  Many people are trapped in the formerly relevant rules or freedom of a previous period of history.  Sometimes the emphasis of some of our ancestors was right on for their time, but not right on for our time.  I think our time needs balance in its process as compared to an overemphasis to correct an imbalance to only one side.   

This means I find the biases toward a process for defining a word irrelevant at times.  I have found a lack of balance between rule and freedom.  St. Augustine once wrote three books to define his process for understanding the biblical text.  He saw the need for rules.  I think we need to think through our process as well and yet allow freedom for improvements in our process.  In other words, we need to keep things in balance.  I don't think using Nehemiah 8 as a basis for a process is either  too restrictive or too free.  It can keep a balance. 

One of my teachers once said he was overemphasizing his point to correct something.  While that may have been a good teaching method at one time, I don't think it is helpful at our present time.  Now I think we have to keep a balance to make our point, because otherwise things veer off to one extreme or the other, because of our present times and context.  We now have twin dangers to avoid that maybe were not present earlier like they are now. 

So I really think we must keep a balance in our process to define words based on the need for relevance.  I think the rules of 1) teach, 2) translate, 3) total, 4) train and 5) transfer are very helpful.  These rules have a relevance to move things in a helpful direction from the prior processes, like those of Augustine, to determine meaning that are often too limited by rules or too free to be useful. 

I wish I had time to develop the full argument here, but I thought I should at least let people know that my method in defining holy is intended to be a balance Spirit & method and rule & freedom.  It takes relevance very seriously.  It recognizes the dangers on both both sides of its method, because of what is happening in our contemporary times rather than what has happened in the past. 

In my next entry, I want to again step back a little bit and talk about my expertise.  This will also be relevant to explaining the different kinds of entries you will find on this blog.  It will help you understand both what you can hope to find here and what you will not find here.  The point is that I want to contribute what expertise I have to defining holy, but also I do not want to mislead people either as to what my expertise is.  Thank you for taking a few minutes to read this entry. 

In Christ,

Pastor Jon