We can all be really gullible sometimes. The discussion surrounding the meaning of LORD/Yahweh, blessed, and holy all clearly demonstrate the danger. This danger is aggravated or heightened by the fact that each of these words are critical to understanding God's Word as a whole. When I ask people around me about how they discern an expert opinion from one that is not, they tell me they are very confused by all the different opinions. I personally know the feeling, but I also know a way out from all the different views and how to find a viable agreement among the experts.
Let me first remove some gullibility by explaining how you and I are persuaded by others. When you know how people persuade you, then it dramatically reduces your gullibility and makes you able to make your own decisions. How you are persuaded is not necessarily evil. It is like someone who knows any skill. It can be used or abused. It can be used for people's own selfish ends or for ends that advance not only selfish ends but the other's ends as well. Any skill can become something that conforms to love your neighbor as much as yourself. So persuasion as a skill does not always have to lead to love myself more than I love my neighbor. So what we need to know is when people are abusing persuasion skillfully and when they are using persuasion skillfully.
In The Complete Idiot's Guide to Persuasion, the author uses the analogy of a cascade to illustrate how persuasion works. He identifies this sequence to bring about a communication cascade toward persuasion. The steps are:
1) reception
2) processing
3) response, and
4) behavior.
So if these are the steps, let me give you the simplest explanation of each. I will get you a one sentence definition of each. Here is each one:
1) reception - it is the first dawn of awareness that there is something new out there and it needs to saturate communities with its message (ex. 2004 is when I first heard something new about holy - that it can mean moral wholeness and I found it in lots of communities of faith)
2) processing - it is discerning whether the light bulb in your receiver's mind is bright or dim and realizing that sometimes people are highly willing (the light bulb burns brightly) and other times not so much so (the light bulb burns dimly), so you have to move the dimmer switch to burn more brightly before there will be willing processing to maintain and make time for what is needed (ex. for the next 10 years, I processed the idea of moral wholeness and other ideas related to holy)
3) response - it is that point when the processing turns to action through demonstrating a favorable outcome through key motivators like easy, fun, and popular. The author here recognizes that we are adults, so the geek speak or adult equivalent for each of these is self-efficacy, attitude, and norms. The message has to create strong intentions or goals and strong motivators. (ex. it was easy [I could do it] using Eugene Nida's word classes to play around [attitude] with possible meanings for holy looking for the one that ought to be popular [fit the norm of biblical])
4) behavior - this is where a TACTful view is required according to this author by getting very specific about behavior, not just a generic response. Unfortunately, the author is not specific enough to satisfy a high school level mind, so I will add to their "TACTful view" a more "TACTFUL VIEW". Here it goes:
T) Target - who?
A) Action - how?
C) Context - where?
T) Time - when?
F) Fun - why?
U) Uncommon - which?
L) Label - what?
V) Vigorous - whole?
I) Intense - how many?
E) Enough - how much?
W) Way - all the way through all 10 of these or persuasion behavior will fail
Unfortunately, many people are persuaded even with huge gaps in answering these questions that the mind requires answers to before it finds what it is looking for ultimately. So if you want to avoid gullibility, then avoid persuasion that leaves you feeling these are not questions they answer, but questions they leave out. Even today, as I write, this one entry should not a case make. You need to read other of my entries too (read the newest first!). The only case I am making today that might be fully persuasive is that this is how persuasion works for the good (and unfortunately sometimes to the bad).
So each step of the persuasion cascade is how our words as persuaders cascade all the way into full blown behavior on every level - heart, soul, strength, and mind. So let me move from this common communication cascade of persuasion to one of the specifics of the meanings of LORD/Yahweh, blessed, and holy, It does no good, if nothing if I am not specific at this point about my behavior.
As I look at things, I sense right now (and I am gathering wise counsel at this point) the need to write a book and a paper on the topics of the three most important words in the Bible - LORD/Yahweh, blessed, and holy. The reason is because even though the internet is a wonderful way to gain reception in the world, it does not gain reception in some of the places that I would like my writing to gain reception. I would like scholars to hear what I have to say. I would like pastors to hear what I have to say. I would like lay people to hear what I have to say. Especially the last, since they are so numerous and I want heaven filled with people! Reception is a little harder to get than just writing on the internet alone. You also have to be persuasive!
A more popular book for pastors is where I think I should begin, since that type of speech communication comes easiest to me. The next would be the write to the scholarly community, because they are critical in a discussion of who really has expertise. And by expertise, I hope part of it is persuasive expertise. Finally, I want to speak anytime I can and write to the average person, because there is a lot more of them than the first two categories making them immensely important. But I think that they have the right to see me earn my wings of expertise too. It does no good if they see me ducking the tough (fun!) road of ministry professionals and seminary scholars. There may be other means, but so far it appears those two pieces are needed to be specific enough to get the job done.
In the meantime, keep in your mind the three major scholarly opinions for the biblical meaning of holy: 1) moral wholeness, 2) purity, and 3) set apart. Treasure all three and do not let anyone take any one of the three from your mind of discovery. Receive it don't let anyone steal any of them. I'll need something a little longer to make my case for the biblical understanding of holy (and the others), but Lord willing it is coming given time. May God bless your day.
In Christ,
Jon
Showing posts with label separate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label separate. Show all posts
Friday, February 28, 2014
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Holy: Understanding it Better Through the Cart Before Horse and the Level without Plumb
Conceal and Carry
I can no longer support "conceal and carry" by committing two different mistakes. First, by"putting the cart in front of the horse" and second, by "measuring level without measuring plumb". Here is what I mean. It is not helpful for us to conceal the meanings of the top three most important words in the Bible and then carry that Bible with its incorrect definitions to others.
Both mistakes conceal the meanings of holy, blessed,Yahweh and to some extent the top 20-25 words in the Bible in terms of importance. So what do I mean?
The Cart Before the Horse
The cart before the horse picture should be pretty clear. There are lots of humorous photos on-line illustrating its absurdity. I tried to find a picture of a trailer in front of a truck to modernize the analogy, but it seems we are all too smart to make that mistake in our day. So why is this allowed in studying the meaning of words and by the people called lexicographers who put together lexicons?
[photo insert]
Here is what I have observed. Scholars when they have read some of the older writings on the meaning of words have not been careful to separate: 1) meanings, 2) implications, and 3) significance. This is a rule in Dr. Robert H. Stein's A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible. He was one of my best teachers during my college and seminary education. Stein's "meanings" is what people like the translator Eugene Nida mean by "definition". The other two are not definitions. The reason I am concerned about holy and the other two words is because of their significance to the meaning of the whole text of the Bible, but that does not indicate their definitions. Likewise neither does their implications define the word.
For example, we separate people in a hospital because of the danger of the well becoming ill through at least some of the sick. We do not separate people due to an arbitrary rule of separation, but rather we separate the unhealthy from the healthy in some cases to keep the healthy from also becoming unhealthy. The central point and definition that needs to be known is the difference between healthy and unhealthy. The definition of healthy is not separate and yet it seems to me that we have defined holy through the same error. When Rashi (a early Jewish teacher) says that holy means separate, does he mean it implies separate or that it is defined by separate. Second, has he himself switched an implication into the role of definition. You see the horse is the meaning, the implication is the cart, and the farmer or whoever is driving operating this machinery is the one who can explain the significance of what the horse and cart are for.
The Level without the Plumb
When a carpenter measures, they measure both vertically the walls to see if they are straight (plumb) and also the floors to insure they are straight (level). They would never consider it adequate to operate in building a structure without both vertical and horizontal measurements combining for a convergence of perspective. It simply makes no sense, because these meanings have been concealed by not seeing the difference between a horse and its cart.
[insert photo]
What I have discovered is that the meaning of 1)Yahweh, 2) blessed, and 3) holy have been concealed by the mistaken move of substituting the implications of a word for the definition of a word. Holy just happens to be one of the most important (#3).
[A work in process as I have time. Thank you for your patience.]
Jon
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Holy: Understanding it Better by Understanding the Times
In the context of Eclessiastes 3:2-8, we read these lines among others:
There is a time for everything
and a season for every activity under heaven;
...
a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
....
These lines can prove very valuablle, when trying to defuse false accusations in a controvery like the differences in defining the biblical words for holy. It can also reduce the false name calling that sometimes happens even among Christians and scholars. You probably have heard someone called a "hopeless optimist" or someone else on the other side of the argument called a "graveyard pessimist". These are hardly compliments. You might have also heard someone called a "conservative" or "liberal", based on whether you should accept their views or not. These are used as ways to lay down a divide between groups of people. I would like to clarify who I am, as I work on defining the biblical words that we translate as holy, sanctified or hallowed. My point is not to create controversy, but to create clarity. Readers have the right to know more about who I am. I also will try to clarify who some others are in the important discussion of what holy means.
Let's begin by using the lines from Eccleisiastes to define what I mean first by optimist and pessismist and then second what I mean by conservative or liberal. It is helpful to begin with a common understanding of what I am saying, even if there is not an agreement with what I am saying.
First, I define an optimist this way. They are convinced that it is "a time to search". I define the pessimist this way. They are convinced that it s "a time to give up" (as lost). Neither is good or bad in itself, but there is a question of relevance in relationship to time. As an example, I remember my mother teaching me, when I was ready to give up on some valued possession as lost, to re-trace my steps. She was right a fair number of times as I recovered quite a few things that way, but sometimes in the end, the valued possession had to be given up as lost. Which point of view about the times in which we live is the more relevant or the right match for the times?
Second, I define a conservative this way. They are convinced that it is "a time to keep". I define the liberal this way. They are convinced that it is "a time to throw away". Again, neither is good or bad in itself, but there is a question of relevance. I remember learning a good rule for when to throw away or give away or sell some of my possessions. It had to do with how long it had been since I had used some things. Only a few times have I ever regretted deciding that it was " a time to throw away". But some of those times were a bit hard to swallow later, when I really could have used those things I got rid of. Which point of view about the times in which we live is more relevant or the right match for the times?
My general position on defining holy is the following in relationship to the current majority poition on the definition of holy as "set apart" or "separate". First, I am an optimist. I believe that regardless of the past attempts to define holy, right now is a time in which it is "a time to search" rather than "a time to give up" as lost the possibility of knowing the meaning of holy with greater certainty. I believe in the value of searching recent and past discoveries in archaeology, of evaluating further research into general exegesis and linguistics (for example from classic rhetoric), and in applying these types of things to the task of defiing holy. I am optimistic that the deadlock between the majority position of the prior 350 years of defining holy and the the majority position of the last 150 years of defining holy can be broken. So that is why I am still searching for answers in this blog and why I continue to produce blog entries.
Some others are convinced that it is "a time to give up" the definition of holy as "whole" for the previous 350 years as lost in comparison to the last 150 years of scholarship. They are pessimistic about the value of re-evaluatng the present time, because they believe that those earlier times of 350 yaers belong to a period of a failed searching. I can't agree. I think it is a great time for searching. That says something about who I am.
Again, my general position on defining holy is the following in relationship to the current majority on the defintion of holy as "set apart" or "separate". So second, I working in my search toward possibly realizing that it is "a time to throw away" the present popular definition. This would then make me a liberal, as defined above. But I am not to that place quite yet. In the present, I am convinced it is "a time to keep" both the definition of the prior 350 years as "whole" and the last 150 years as "set apart" and to evaluate them both again, before a final decision to "throw away" either one. I could also put "pure" into this mix as a slimmer possibility for a deifnition to keep. It is not the time to throw any of these away. It is, however, a time to realize that when my search is over, some of what has been proposed in the past will mean it is "a time to throw away". That should make my position very clear. I am not stuck in a particular time, but I am trying to be relevant to the time in which I live. I think I am moving forward toward and am attaining that goal. The key now is finishing my thesis paper for seminary. This clarification though is a part of that. That says a little more about who I am.
Now let me use a broad brush to say a bit about relevant history that might be influencing our time more than we know. The past sometimes matters, even through it is the past, like family influence and our own life choices of the past still influence the present. I know too that sometimes the past can be irrelevant. Let me try to stick with what might be relevant.
Near the beginning of the last 150 years was an historic divide between the Fundamentalists and the Modernists. Today their descendants are each called Conservatives and Liberals. The sad thing is that the so-called Conservatives in Protestantism did not "keep" the meaning of holy as "whole" as the primary definition from the prior 350 years. Instead they thought it was "a time to throw away" the primary definition of "whole" and make it only secondary (a descriptive word at best) while at the same time they saw it as "a time to keep" the secondary definition of the past as "set apart" and make it central. They threw away, while their name says they kept. These Conservatives were not conservative on the central character trait or quality or attribute of God. This is one of the greatest ironies of all of Christian history. How out of character with your name can you be?
I think the explanation though may not be difficult. In the late 1800s a Baptist named Charles Haddon Spurgeon (who I appreciate in many ways) was involved in what became known as the Downgrade Controversy. One of his banner phrases was the passage that reads "come out and be separate". This in turn became something that later Fundamentalists saw as sort of a creedo and banner statement of their stance . Members had to agree that it was a time to "separate" from the Modernists. Their new definition for holy helped support their stance because "set apart" or "separate", became the central character trait for who God is and who a saints is in their primary character.
I must also say that the Modernists were the ones who primarily dug into how "holy" ought to be defined especially in a Hebrew context. They searched as scholars. Their lexicons in the latter 1800s largely influenced, not just the Fundamentalists to define holy as "set apart", but also those within their own camp. It is another irony of history that their definition for holy helped the Fundamentalists to form and support a creedo of "set apart" or "separate". I don't know that they intended for this new definition to create a bigger divide between themselves and the Fundamentalists, but that was an unintended consequence at least. How out of character with their name can they be? They assisted their opposition.
So flashing back to the present. It is important that a person understands the times and what is relevant. What is most relevant is the present time and what approach fits or is relevant to that time. It is important not to get stuck in a time that is no longer relevant. We should not be sticks in the mud or sticks stuck in the mire of another time that is not relevant to our own. Some times can be relevant even if not the present. They can parallel the present, but that is not automatic. It is important to discern when it is a time to be an optimist or a pessimist. And it is also imporant to discern when it is a time to be a conservative or a liberal.
Even in wirting this piece, I have had to keep searching for a better word and I also had give up when I wasconvinced that searching further for the right word would not profit. I have also had to decide when to keep a sentence and when to throw it away. You and I may disagree on some of those decisions, yet they are naturally part of the times of life. If I were to keep everything, you would consider me a pack rat and my writing would not have faced the editing that it needed. If I threw out everything, then this page might still be blank and not worth anything at all. You get the picture. Solomon's wisdom matters.
These wise principles of Solomon are no less relevant today than they were back then. So I guess at the present time, I should be described as a optimistic conservative, who at the right time will make the liberal decision to throw away some of the three most likely definitions for holy, as it is found the Bible. I also at some point may decide, after I have completed my thesis paper at least, that it is time to finally give up writing more for the time being. Only if it produces results will I then need to once again search for more on its meaning. Maybe, at least temporarily, I will be able to say, "I have found what what's needed by searching".
May God give guidance from Solomon's principles. May we also be willing from the results of our decisions on what to do in our times, be willing to evaluate whether our wisdom is God's wisdom, as it was penned by Solomon. And if not, may we seek God's face for greater relevance and wisdom to know our times. Don't get stuck in the wrong time! You don't want to hear that punchy line, "Whatever!"
In Christ,
Jon
.
There is a time for everything
and a season for every activity under heaven;
...
a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
....
These lines can prove very valuablle, when trying to defuse false accusations in a controvery like the differences in defining the biblical words for holy. It can also reduce the false name calling that sometimes happens even among Christians and scholars. You probably have heard someone called a "hopeless optimist" or someone else on the other side of the argument called a "graveyard pessimist". These are hardly compliments. You might have also heard someone called a "conservative" or "liberal", based on whether you should accept their views or not. These are used as ways to lay down a divide between groups of people. I would like to clarify who I am, as I work on defining the biblical words that we translate as holy, sanctified or hallowed. My point is not to create controversy, but to create clarity. Readers have the right to know more about who I am. I also will try to clarify who some others are in the important discussion of what holy means.
Let's begin by using the lines from Eccleisiastes to define what I mean first by optimist and pessismist and then second what I mean by conservative or liberal. It is helpful to begin with a common understanding of what I am saying, even if there is not an agreement with what I am saying.
First, I define an optimist this way. They are convinced that it is "a time to search". I define the pessimist this way. They are convinced that it s "a time to give up" (as lost). Neither is good or bad in itself, but there is a question of relevance in relationship to time. As an example, I remember my mother teaching me, when I was ready to give up on some valued possession as lost, to re-trace my steps. She was right a fair number of times as I recovered quite a few things that way, but sometimes in the end, the valued possession had to be given up as lost. Which point of view about the times in which we live is the more relevant or the right match for the times?
Second, I define a conservative this way. They are convinced that it is "a time to keep". I define the liberal this way. They are convinced that it is "a time to throw away". Again, neither is good or bad in itself, but there is a question of relevance. I remember learning a good rule for when to throw away or give away or sell some of my possessions. It had to do with how long it had been since I had used some things. Only a few times have I ever regretted deciding that it was " a time to throw away". But some of those times were a bit hard to swallow later, when I really could have used those things I got rid of. Which point of view about the times in which we live is more relevant or the right match for the times?
My general position on defining holy is the following in relationship to the current majority poition on the definition of holy as "set apart" or "separate". First, I am an optimist. I believe that regardless of the past attempts to define holy, right now is a time in which it is "a time to search" rather than "a time to give up" as lost the possibility of knowing the meaning of holy with greater certainty. I believe in the value of searching recent and past discoveries in archaeology, of evaluating further research into general exegesis and linguistics (for example from classic rhetoric), and in applying these types of things to the task of defiing holy. I am optimistic that the deadlock between the majority position of the prior 350 years of defining holy and the the majority position of the last 150 years of defining holy can be broken. So that is why I am still searching for answers in this blog and why I continue to produce blog entries.
Some others are convinced that it is "a time to give up" the definition of holy as "whole" for the previous 350 years as lost in comparison to the last 150 years of scholarship. They are pessimistic about the value of re-evaluatng the present time, because they believe that those earlier times of 350 yaers belong to a period of a failed searching. I can't agree. I think it is a great time for searching. That says something about who I am.
Again, my general position on defining holy is the following in relationship to the current majority on the defintion of holy as "set apart" or "separate". So second, I working in my search toward possibly realizing that it is "a time to throw away" the present popular definition. This would then make me a liberal, as defined above. But I am not to that place quite yet. In the present, I am convinced it is "a time to keep" both the definition of the prior 350 years as "whole" and the last 150 years as "set apart" and to evaluate them both again, before a final decision to "throw away" either one. I could also put "pure" into this mix as a slimmer possibility for a deifnition to keep. It is not the time to throw any of these away. It is, however, a time to realize that when my search is over, some of what has been proposed in the past will mean it is "a time to throw away". That should make my position very clear. I am not stuck in a particular time, but I am trying to be relevant to the time in which I live. I think I am moving forward toward and am attaining that goal. The key now is finishing my thesis paper for seminary. This clarification though is a part of that. That says a little more about who I am.
Now let me use a broad brush to say a bit about relevant history that might be influencing our time more than we know. The past sometimes matters, even through it is the past, like family influence and our own life choices of the past still influence the present. I know too that sometimes the past can be irrelevant. Let me try to stick with what might be relevant.
Near the beginning of the last 150 years was an historic divide between the Fundamentalists and the Modernists. Today their descendants are each called Conservatives and Liberals. The sad thing is that the so-called Conservatives in Protestantism did not "keep" the meaning of holy as "whole" as the primary definition from the prior 350 years. Instead they thought it was "a time to throw away" the primary definition of "whole" and make it only secondary (a descriptive word at best) while at the same time they saw it as "a time to keep" the secondary definition of the past as "set apart" and make it central. They threw away, while their name says they kept. These Conservatives were not conservative on the central character trait or quality or attribute of God. This is one of the greatest ironies of all of Christian history. How out of character with your name can you be?
I think the explanation though may not be difficult. In the late 1800s a Baptist named Charles Haddon Spurgeon (who I appreciate in many ways) was involved in what became known as the Downgrade Controversy. One of his banner phrases was the passage that reads "come out and be separate". This in turn became something that later Fundamentalists saw as sort of a creedo and banner statement of their stance . Members had to agree that it was a time to "separate" from the Modernists. Their new definition for holy helped support their stance because "set apart" or "separate", became the central character trait for who God is and who a saints is in their primary character.
I must also say that the Modernists were the ones who primarily dug into how "holy" ought to be defined especially in a Hebrew context. They searched as scholars. Their lexicons in the latter 1800s largely influenced, not just the Fundamentalists to define holy as "set apart", but also those within their own camp. It is another irony of history that their definition for holy helped the Fundamentalists to form and support a creedo of "set apart" or "separate". I don't know that they intended for this new definition to create a bigger divide between themselves and the Fundamentalists, but that was an unintended consequence at least. How out of character with their name can they be? They assisted their opposition.
So flashing back to the present. It is important that a person understands the times and what is relevant. What is most relevant is the present time and what approach fits or is relevant to that time. It is important not to get stuck in a time that is no longer relevant. We should not be sticks in the mud or sticks stuck in the mire of another time that is not relevant to our own. Some times can be relevant even if not the present. They can parallel the present, but that is not automatic. It is important to discern when it is a time to be an optimist or a pessimist. And it is also imporant to discern when it is a time to be a conservative or a liberal.
Even in wirting this piece, I have had to keep searching for a better word and I also had give up when I wasconvinced that searching further for the right word would not profit. I have also had to decide when to keep a sentence and when to throw it away. You and I may disagree on some of those decisions, yet they are naturally part of the times of life. If I were to keep everything, you would consider me a pack rat and my writing would not have faced the editing that it needed. If I threw out everything, then this page might still be blank and not worth anything at all. You get the picture. Solomon's wisdom matters.
These wise principles of Solomon are no less relevant today than they were back then. So I guess at the present time, I should be described as a optimistic conservative, who at the right time will make the liberal decision to throw away some of the three most likely definitions for holy, as it is found the Bible. I also at some point may decide, after I have completed my thesis paper at least, that it is time to finally give up writing more for the time being. Only if it produces results will I then need to once again search for more on its meaning. Maybe, at least temporarily, I will be able to say, "I have found what what's needed by searching".
May God give guidance from Solomon's principles. May we also be willing from the results of our decisions on what to do in our times, be willing to evaluate whether our wisdom is God's wisdom, as it was penned by Solomon. And if not, may we seek God's face for greater relevance and wisdom to know our times. Don't get stuck in the wrong time! You don't want to hear that punchy line, "Whatever!"
In Christ,
Jon
.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Emotional Intelligence
The odds today (3/30/12) of someone winning the current lottery jackpot is incredibly small and yet many people are willing to gamble their hard-earned money for its potential payoff (around a half-billion). I will not state my personal views on gambling, because then people "will not see the forest for the trees" and they will get caught up in the issue of whether this form of gambling is morally corrupt or not. Setting that tree in the forest aside for now, there are two important people who have influenced people's view of what to do in the face of uncertainty like that found in gambling. One of them suggests that the wise wager for the person with uncertainty is to consider the possiblitity that the claims of the Bible and God are in fact true, since the implications at the end of life can be catastrophic, if in fact they end up true. This is the argument of Blaise Pascal, who is known for "Pascal's Wager". The other of the two suggests boldness in the face of uncertainty, so a person must take a leap into the face of uncertainty. This is the argument of Soren Kierkegaard, who is known for his "leap of faith". I think the current state of biblical scholarship on the definition of holy is more like a "leap of faith" than a "Pascal's Wager".
This is important, because this general outlook toward risk and uncertainty is very important in many areas of life including scholarship. It is likely behind the sticker on some pickup trucks that reads: "No Fear". The current "No Fear" attitude among some scholars to the possibililty that the original Hebrew and Greek words for holy may not mean "set apart" is somewhat telling. It is important do as Edwin H. Friedman, author of A Failure of Nerve, suggests. He recommends that we do not look at just the intellectual aspect of an issue, but also the emotional processing connected with it. Uncertainty and its emotional component of fear or no fear is therefore extremely important.
People and some scholars today seem to have "No Fear" even when probability and statistics suggest that they ought to fear. For Pascal, it was not viable to take a "leap of faith", but rather he suggested that a person hedge their bet toward God because of the relative possible outcomes. This is not a radical leap of faith. It is not a person "with both feet firmly planted in the air." It was a moderate option to protect a person against the worst possible outcome. This is an important shift in emotional processing that works alongside the mind's intellectual aspect. It is part of the combination that makes up emotional intelligence of one kind. The leap of faith is a different kind of emotional intelligence. It dares against even against fear. That is a different kind of emotional intelligence. They both are combating "a failure of nerve", but in different ways. They view probability differently and handle it differently.
At one time (not necessarily a better time) biblical scholarship favored the approach of Pascal as it handled uncertainty in manuscipts or in interpretation by preserving both options in the face of uncertainty. In this way, a person made sure that at least one of the two choices they preserved was in all probability the right one. They thought it was dangerous to eliminate the less probable or minority position as long as uncertainty remained. This also follows the ancient practice of preserving marginal readings in manuscripts, even if in greater probability the one preserved in the main text was correct.
At a later time (not necessarily a better time) biblical scholarship moved more (yet not entirely) toward the approach of Kiekegaard and challenged uncertainty with greater boldness. The most extreme form is not seen in bilical scholarship so much as in the existential call to "be bold" in the face of uncertainty about one's own identity. What you see in biblical scholarship is that you can still find the marginal readings in a Greek text of the New Testament. Some readings may be ranked on their probability as very low and yet they are still preserved. Still at another level the argument as to which manuscript tradition is more reliable is more like the idea of setting one option aside and going with just one option. Having brought up this as only as example to illustrate my point, don't get caught in this tree and miss the forest. My point is to simply say that part of and not the whole of what has been done in action with regard to ancient Greek manuscrips is more like the emotional processing of the "leap of faith". If an emotional wager approach like that of Pascal is used, I think biblical scholarship on the texts would shift or change.
The key is to realize is that with the wager approach versus a leap approach, emotional uncertainty is dealt with differently. Peace is preserved not by eliminating an option or setting it aside dramatically in proof of a person's nerve and boldness, but rather by keeping both options on the table until further evidence gives proof that one option is no longer possible. It is somewhat like the statement that when all other options are made impossible, the the one that remains (however improble it may have once looked) is the right one. In other words, ambiguity is sometimes acceptable and only eliminated when another option becomes impossible.
I consider most of the possible meanings for the biblical word we translate as holy as now impossible. They are rightly eliminated. But also I believe we are still left with two possibilities. This ambiguity is not as threatening as some scholars may think as long as we wager correctly and keep both options on the table and especially are careful that the one with greatest implications is not eliminated. I think holy means whole has the greater potential implications for our understanding of God and our living of life. That is the one that most scholars have gambled on eliminating, because as the most renowned in the twentieth century (Rudolph Otto and Norman Snaith) of their company have said in the past they realized that "wholly other" and "set apart" are based on a probability, not on certainty.
It is only later that the issue of probability is set aside as seen the Evangelical Quarterly in 1979 when Brian Daines supposedly warns against playing games with biblical words and his example is that of the interrelation of the Engish terms holiness, wholeness and health. This leads to the full elimination of the option that holy means whole that just a generation before was still an option, even if then only a secondary option. But it is only in the abstract for his writing that this position is suggested. It is not in the heart of his own article. The abstract for his article boils it down to the fact that "the implications of semantics for biblical study have been set forth at a high academic level by such writers as Professor [James] Barr and Dr. [Anthony] Thiselton, ...." It seems that the writer of the abstact took two scholars refered to in Daines' footnotes and placed one of the postions of these scholars, Barr's position, in the place of Daines' postion. Daines says:
Second, Barr is fairly well-known to be given to exaggeration and is guilty of sometimes being hypercritical in making his points. I wish he were still living, so I could address him directly by email or phone. He certainly brought forward some great points from semantics and linguistics to biblical scholarship, but that does not make all that he says equally valid. With him you sometimes have to throw the bathwater out to find the baby. Thistelton is another admirable scholar, but I still have some reservations where I find he is not solid either. I have not run across his comments directly on the topic of holy, while I have those of Barr. Barr refers to this issue in his 1961 book on Semantics. Barr's argument is an overstatement of what he actually proves, because he is missing the point that is being made in many cases and so accuses some people of a double error that they are not making. I think he is accusing some people of ignorance in cases where they are not ignorant. For a play on words from Daines' example: He should be nicer than that.
So I suggest that in terms of wagering or emotional intelligence and processing that we keep both on the table till one of the two can be eliminated by its sheer impossibility. This is not easy, because both have some plausibility. My firm task is the eliminate one of the two by using the tools that Barr suggests and even a few more. I think the emotional processing of Blaise Pascal is more healthy than that of Soren Kierkegaard. I consider it more emotionally intelligent. Please pray for my emotional processing and intellectual processing to come together and to make greater sense of biblical words we translate as holy.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
This is important, because this general outlook toward risk and uncertainty is very important in many areas of life including scholarship. It is likely behind the sticker on some pickup trucks that reads: "No Fear". The current "No Fear" attitude among some scholars to the possibililty that the original Hebrew and Greek words for holy may not mean "set apart" is somewhat telling. It is important do as Edwin H. Friedman, author of A Failure of Nerve, suggests. He recommends that we do not look at just the intellectual aspect of an issue, but also the emotional processing connected with it. Uncertainty and its emotional component of fear or no fear is therefore extremely important.
People and some scholars today seem to have "No Fear" even when probability and statistics suggest that they ought to fear. For Pascal, it was not viable to take a "leap of faith", but rather he suggested that a person hedge their bet toward God because of the relative possible outcomes. This is not a radical leap of faith. It is not a person "with both feet firmly planted in the air." It was a moderate option to protect a person against the worst possible outcome. This is an important shift in emotional processing that works alongside the mind's intellectual aspect. It is part of the combination that makes up emotional intelligence of one kind. The leap of faith is a different kind of emotional intelligence. It dares against even against fear. That is a different kind of emotional intelligence. They both are combating "a failure of nerve", but in different ways. They view probability differently and handle it differently.
At one time (not necessarily a better time) biblical scholarship favored the approach of Pascal as it handled uncertainty in manuscipts or in interpretation by preserving both options in the face of uncertainty. In this way, a person made sure that at least one of the two choices they preserved was in all probability the right one. They thought it was dangerous to eliminate the less probable or minority position as long as uncertainty remained. This also follows the ancient practice of preserving marginal readings in manuscripts, even if in greater probability the one preserved in the main text was correct.
At a later time (not necessarily a better time) biblical scholarship moved more (yet not entirely) toward the approach of Kiekegaard and challenged uncertainty with greater boldness. The most extreme form is not seen in bilical scholarship so much as in the existential call to "be bold" in the face of uncertainty about one's own identity. What you see in biblical scholarship is that you can still find the marginal readings in a Greek text of the New Testament. Some readings may be ranked on their probability as very low and yet they are still preserved. Still at another level the argument as to which manuscript tradition is more reliable is more like the idea of setting one option aside and going with just one option. Having brought up this as only as example to illustrate my point, don't get caught in this tree and miss the forest. My point is to simply say that part of and not the whole of what has been done in action with regard to ancient Greek manuscrips is more like the emotional processing of the "leap of faith". If an emotional wager approach like that of Pascal is used, I think biblical scholarship on the texts would shift or change.
The key is to realize is that with the wager approach versus a leap approach, emotional uncertainty is dealt with differently. Peace is preserved not by eliminating an option or setting it aside dramatically in proof of a person's nerve and boldness, but rather by keeping both options on the table until further evidence gives proof that one option is no longer possible. It is somewhat like the statement that when all other options are made impossible, the the one that remains (however improble it may have once looked) is the right one. In other words, ambiguity is sometimes acceptable and only eliminated when another option becomes impossible.
I consider most of the possible meanings for the biblical word we translate as holy as now impossible. They are rightly eliminated. But also I believe we are still left with two possibilities. This ambiguity is not as threatening as some scholars may think as long as we wager correctly and keep both options on the table and especially are careful that the one with greatest implications is not eliminated. I think holy means whole has the greater potential implications for our understanding of God and our living of life. That is the one that most scholars have gambled on eliminating, because as the most renowned in the twentieth century (Rudolph Otto and Norman Snaith) of their company have said in the past they realized that "wholly other" and "set apart" are based on a probability, not on certainty.
It is only later that the issue of probability is set aside as seen the Evangelical Quarterly in 1979 when Brian Daines supposedly warns against playing games with biblical words and his example is that of the interrelation of the Engish terms holiness, wholeness and health. This leads to the full elimination of the option that holy means whole that just a generation before was still an option, even if then only a secondary option. But it is only in the abstract for his writing that this position is suggested. It is not in the heart of his own article. The abstract for his article boils it down to the fact that "the implications of semantics for biblical study have been set forth at a high academic level by such writers as Professor [James] Barr and Dr. [Anthony] Thiselton, ...." It seems that the writer of the abstact took two scholars refered to in Daines' footnotes and placed one of the postions of these scholars, Barr's position, in the place of Daines' postion. Daines says:
... some of the mistakes made by expositors....
a) That we can get the meaning of a word by examining its Hebrew or Greek root or even the root of the English translation.
It is a popular view that the 'true' or 'correct' meaning of a word is in some sense the original one, the oldest that can be traced. In fact the present uses of words often bears little relation to older ones. The original meaning of "history" was "investigation" and the English word "nice" originates from a Latin word meaning "ignorant". The same applies to the biblical languages. Even if the Hebrew word for "holy" came from a Semitic root meaning "to be separated" (which in itself is open to dispute) this does not imply that the Hebrew word as used in the Old Testament means this any more than if I say you are nice I mean that you are ignorant.
The meaning of a word can only be found by studying its contemporary use. Looking at an older state of the language simply sets up ideas that have to be modified or disregarded. An even worse error is to try to understand the meaning of Greek or Hebrew words by referring to the root meaning of words in the English translation. Therefore "holy" is claimed to mean "clean" in the Bible because
that was an early meaning of the English word. Such turns of argument fall into double error. The older meaning has nothing necessarily to do with present usage of "holy" in English let alone
the way words were used in another language thousands of years ago. (p. 210 The Evangelical Quarterly)
I have two comments I want to make. First, as a student of semantics (the study of meaning within the broader study of language [linguistics]), I disagree with the abstract's assessment, but I agree far more with Daines' balanced assessment on the meaning of holy. I also agree with the general principle that he and James Barr promote with regard to contemporary use. We have to be cautious with the use of root meanings and with etymological arguments. It can only be a part of our process in trying to learn the meaning of a word. Daines' example from Latin meaning of nice is valid. I have never heard anyone ever argue that holy at its root means clean. He does overstate, however, the idea of a "double error". Some though not all, who clarify the meaning of a word in English translation, are not making the argument for what the original means from a translation, but rather clariying what the translation was meant to communicate when the word was chosen by its contemporary translators. Charles Spurgeon I would place in this group and likely Ray Stedman years later. They are only clarifying an earlier contemporary meaning for earlier translators, not proving that the Hebrew means what they thought it meant. That is a separate issue. Their argument is an argument against those who later want to re-assign a meaning to an earlier use of the word holy. This does not exclude the separate issue of what the word means in the original Hebrew or Greek. For example holy, in English, did not mean "set apart" exclusively, unless we want to now assign it that meaning. It does not have that central meaning in its early use in English translations. That is a valid use of a root meaning and it does not lead to a double error as long as a scholar understands that this does not prove what is right, but what earlier translators thought was right. Daines seems to miss that point. Or maybe he applies his statement to broadly to include "all" as making this mistake when they refer to the earlier meaning of "holy" in English translation. It is a popular view that the 'true' or 'correct' meaning of a word is in some sense the original one, the oldest that can be traced. In fact the present uses of words often bears little relation to older ones. The original meaning of "history" was "investigation" and the English word "nice" originates from a Latin word meaning "ignorant". The same applies to the biblical languages. Even if the Hebrew word for "holy" came from a Semitic root meaning "to be separated" (which in itself is open to dispute) this does not imply that the Hebrew word as used in the Old Testament means this any more than if I say you are nice I mean that you are ignorant.
The meaning of a word can only be found by studying its contemporary use. Looking at an older state of the language simply sets up ideas that have to be modified or disregarded. An even worse error is to try to understand the meaning of Greek or Hebrew words by referring to the root meaning of words in the English translation. Therefore "holy" is claimed to mean "clean" in the Bible because
that was an early meaning of the English word. Such turns of argument fall into double error. The older meaning has nothing necessarily to do with present usage of "holy" in English let alone
the way words were used in another language thousands of years ago. (p. 210 The Evangelical Quarterly)
Second, Barr is fairly well-known to be given to exaggeration and is guilty of sometimes being hypercritical in making his points. I wish he were still living, so I could address him directly by email or phone. He certainly brought forward some great points from semantics and linguistics to biblical scholarship, but that does not make all that he says equally valid. With him you sometimes have to throw the bathwater out to find the baby. Thistelton is another admirable scholar, but I still have some reservations where I find he is not solid either. I have not run across his comments directly on the topic of holy, while I have those of Barr. Barr refers to this issue in his 1961 book on Semantics. Barr's argument is an overstatement of what he actually proves, because he is missing the point that is being made in many cases and so accuses some people of a double error that they are not making. I think he is accusing some people of ignorance in cases where they are not ignorant. For a play on words from Daines' example: He should be nicer than that.
So I suggest that in terms of wagering or emotional intelligence and processing that we keep both on the table till one of the two can be eliminated by its sheer impossibility. This is not easy, because both have some plausibility. My firm task is the eliminate one of the two by using the tools that Barr suggests and even a few more. I think the emotional processing of Blaise Pascal is more healthy than that of Soren Kierkegaard. I consider it more emotionally intelligent. Please pray for my emotional processing and intellectual processing to come together and to make greater sense of biblical words we translate as holy.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Thursday, March 15, 2012
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
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
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Overcoming Barriers to Understanding
For my post-graduate studies I am writing on the definition of holy, but as part of that I have to present my method for discovering the meaning of holy in the Bible. This turns out to be more critical than might be imagined. Like a car's suspension that effects the outcome in terms of a car's ride, so the method for defining a word can effect the outcome in terms of the definition arrived at by myself or anyone else. So what is my method?
In discussing methods to use for my thesis, I found that the discussion got very complicated. It was too complicated for anyone who does not have my educational background. But it also got too complicated for those who have my level of education. There simply was not a lot of common ground between different methods and I felt that any choice would limit who would read what I had to say, because of the divisions over the method to use. So I needed something better.
I think I have found a better method. I want to first state it, then where I found it and then I will demonstrate some of its usefulness with regard to defining holy in a beginning way. The method consists of five steps (not necessarily locked into this order): 1) total, 2) translate, 3) teach, 4) train and 5) transfer.
I found this method in Nehemiah 8. In Nehemiah 8:1-7, I find the idea of 1) total - "all" the people and "the book" of the law of Moses." The total of the people who could understand and the total of the book of the Law. Neither part of the process was less than the total of it. In Nehemiah 8:8, I find the keys to 2) translating - clarity and meaning. Something is clear when it is one rather than many. Many causes confusion. Imagine many voices saying a differen word in the same room. Now imagine everyone in unison saying one word. A one to one correspondence in translating is clearest, if it is possible. Moving from a dead language, like Hebrew was in Nehemiah, to a livinglanguage like Aramaic gave meaning in translation. In Nehemiah 8:7, 8:9-12, I find 3) teaching in the idea of "instruct" which I have understood as teaching to keep a pattern of T's going for memory's sake. I also think it is important to understand teachers as skilled in recognizing a time of joy and a time of sorrow. They are wise to time and place. In Nehemiah 8:13-17, I see 4) training because the people's inability to understand is replaced by their ability to understand. Understanding is an action, so it requires training. We see many actions performed by the people in this section that reflect their ability to undrestand. Finally, in Nehemiah 8:18, I see 5) transfer because they did things in accordance with regulation. It is important with regulations to transfer the same things rather than different things. Witness as an example the difficult case of circumcision in the New Testament in relationship to Gentiles.
So to communicate across barriers effectively, like in this example in Nehemiah, a method needs to involve not just a few or parts of a book, but the total of both. A method also needs to give clarity through keeping things simple or singular and through using a live language that has meaning. A method needs through instruction to make a bad situation better like a move from weeping to joy as appropriate for the time. A method also needs to replace inability to understand with ability through training. Finally, it must transfer the things in accordance with regulations, not extraneous things nor with things left out.
Let's look at this method's usefulness when dealing with defining holy. The implications for defining holy are many, but here I would like to scratch the surface.
First, I think it is unfortunate that many of the people involved in defining holy are left out of the discussion. Most writers on the topic do not think it is important to address what the total of God's people think on this word. They especially don't address the thoughts of many in church history, even though they are people who had the ability to understand. They do not take seriously those who would disagree with them. They also limit the contexts from which they define the word. Actually parallel passages where the word is used and close synonyms are found in separate parts of the Law are significant. So to limit oneself to just Deuteronomy or just the immediate context can be misleading.
Second, I think it is unfortunate that in the argument among translators and translations over form and meaning, few stopped to take seriously the balanced counsel of Nehemiah 8:8. We need to consider not just meaningfulness, but also clarity. Often meaning is greatly enhanced through a meaning to meaning translation, but at the expense of clarity. I think it is possible to keep a balance. In the case of holy, clarity has been compromised in the past by the use of many words for what is one word in Hebrew and one word to translate it from Hebrew into Greek. It is expressed not just through holy or holiness, but also through sancification, sanctify, saint, holy one, hallow, wholly, consecrate and set apart. It is hardly clear to the average reader that these all express the same basic word in both Hebrew or Greek. Also holy, if it does mean set apart should be replaced, since it does not carry meaningfulness like set apart. If on the other hand it means whole, it coud be retained because the close relationship is visible through their respective similar spellings.
Third, I think it is important to understand that teaching is important in terms of a change of place and time. Holy was not hard to understand in its own day. It is a change in time and place that partly explains the possibility of misunderstanding it in our day. These issues need to be addressed like Nehemiah and the others did, so that the opposite understanding does not occur on this word. Should we maybe be more joyful than sorrowful when we hear this word?
Fourth, I think it is important to train people in the method of understanding. We must replace the inability to understand with the ability. The test of our training is the ease with which someone can perform a task before or after training. Training does not mean that everything is equally easy. It does mean that after training, a task should be easier rather than harder. Nehemiah 8 should be heavily mined for its insights on understanding. This is only a beginning in what I am writing now.
Fifth, I think we need to be sure we are transferring the right things. Each word refers to a referent and while our translation of words is significant, so is the issue of whether the things transferred are the same as the things in the Word of God. Holy may be the translation, but does it refer to the transfer of wholeness into our lives or does it refer to the separateness of our lives from those who are sinners? Which fits in accord with God's regulations? Have we transferred the right things. One of my professors referred to this as transculturation, something different from just translation.
These are the tips of the iceberg in terms of implications. Over time, I will develop each of these separately more in-depth along with showing other angles on the vital topic of what holy means. I am convinced it must mean one of two things. Either holy means whole or it means separate. This method from Nehemiah 8 will help me and you sort this out. We face barriers to understanding holy, but so did they face barriers to understanding in their time. These barriers can be overcome through 1) total, 2) translate, 3) teach, 4) train and 5) transfer.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
In discussing methods to use for my thesis, I found that the discussion got very complicated. It was too complicated for anyone who does not have my educational background. But it also got too complicated for those who have my level of education. There simply was not a lot of common ground between different methods and I felt that any choice would limit who would read what I had to say, because of the divisions over the method to use. So I needed something better.
I think I have found a better method. I want to first state it, then where I found it and then I will demonstrate some of its usefulness with regard to defining holy in a beginning way. The method consists of five steps (not necessarily locked into this order): 1) total, 2) translate, 3) teach, 4) train and 5) transfer.
I found this method in Nehemiah 8. In Nehemiah 8:1-7, I find the idea of 1) total - "all" the people and "the book" of the law of Moses." The total of the people who could understand and the total of the book of the Law. Neither part of the process was less than the total of it. In Nehemiah 8:8, I find the keys to 2) translating - clarity and meaning. Something is clear when it is one rather than many. Many causes confusion. Imagine many voices saying a differen word in the same room. Now imagine everyone in unison saying one word. A one to one correspondence in translating is clearest, if it is possible. Moving from a dead language, like Hebrew was in Nehemiah, to a livinglanguage like Aramaic gave meaning in translation. In Nehemiah 8:7, 8:9-12, I find 3) teaching in the idea of "instruct" which I have understood as teaching to keep a pattern of T's going for memory's sake. I also think it is important to understand teachers as skilled in recognizing a time of joy and a time of sorrow. They are wise to time and place. In Nehemiah 8:13-17, I see 4) training because the people's inability to understand is replaced by their ability to understand. Understanding is an action, so it requires training. We see many actions performed by the people in this section that reflect their ability to undrestand. Finally, in Nehemiah 8:18, I see 5) transfer because they did things in accordance with regulation. It is important with regulations to transfer the same things rather than different things. Witness as an example the difficult case of circumcision in the New Testament in relationship to Gentiles.
So to communicate across barriers effectively, like in this example in Nehemiah, a method needs to involve not just a few or parts of a book, but the total of both. A method also needs to give clarity through keeping things simple or singular and through using a live language that has meaning. A method needs through instruction to make a bad situation better like a move from weeping to joy as appropriate for the time. A method also needs to replace inability to understand with ability through training. Finally, it must transfer the things in accordance with regulations, not extraneous things nor with things left out.
Let's look at this method's usefulness when dealing with defining holy. The implications for defining holy are many, but here I would like to scratch the surface.
First, I think it is unfortunate that many of the people involved in defining holy are left out of the discussion. Most writers on the topic do not think it is important to address what the total of God's people think on this word. They especially don't address the thoughts of many in church history, even though they are people who had the ability to understand. They do not take seriously those who would disagree with them. They also limit the contexts from which they define the word. Actually parallel passages where the word is used and close synonyms are found in separate parts of the Law are significant. So to limit oneself to just Deuteronomy or just the immediate context can be misleading.
Second, I think it is unfortunate that in the argument among translators and translations over form and meaning, few stopped to take seriously the balanced counsel of Nehemiah 8:8. We need to consider not just meaningfulness, but also clarity. Often meaning is greatly enhanced through a meaning to meaning translation, but at the expense of clarity. I think it is possible to keep a balance. In the case of holy, clarity has been compromised in the past by the use of many words for what is one word in Hebrew and one word to translate it from Hebrew into Greek. It is expressed not just through holy or holiness, but also through sancification, sanctify, saint, holy one, hallow, wholly, consecrate and set apart. It is hardly clear to the average reader that these all express the same basic word in both Hebrew or Greek. Also holy, if it does mean set apart should be replaced, since it does not carry meaningfulness like set apart. If on the other hand it means whole, it coud be retained because the close relationship is visible through their respective similar spellings.
Third, I think it is important to understand that teaching is important in terms of a change of place and time. Holy was not hard to understand in its own day. It is a change in time and place that partly explains the possibility of misunderstanding it in our day. These issues need to be addressed like Nehemiah and the others did, so that the opposite understanding does not occur on this word. Should we maybe be more joyful than sorrowful when we hear this word?
Fourth, I think it is important to train people in the method of understanding. We must replace the inability to understand with the ability. The test of our training is the ease with which someone can perform a task before or after training. Training does not mean that everything is equally easy. It does mean that after training, a task should be easier rather than harder. Nehemiah 8 should be heavily mined for its insights on understanding. This is only a beginning in what I am writing now.
Fifth, I think we need to be sure we are transferring the right things. Each word refers to a referent and while our translation of words is significant, so is the issue of whether the things transferred are the same as the things in the Word of God. Holy may be the translation, but does it refer to the transfer of wholeness into our lives or does it refer to the separateness of our lives from those who are sinners? Which fits in accord with God's regulations? Have we transferred the right things. One of my professors referred to this as transculturation, something different from just translation.
These are the tips of the iceberg in terms of implications. Over time, I will develop each of these separately more in-depth along with showing other angles on the vital topic of what holy means. I am convinced it must mean one of two things. Either holy means whole or it means separate. This method from Nehemiah 8 will help me and you sort this out. We face barriers to understanding holy, but so did they face barriers to understanding in their time. These barriers can be overcome through 1) total, 2) translate, 3) teach, 4) train and 5) transfer.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Holy: Understanding it Better in Terms of Wholistic Communication
I want to challenge a tendency of method in defining holy. It is that we assume that our method in defining the word holy is entirely sound, healthy or wholesome. Each of these descriptions, by the way, are translations for the same word in the book of Titus. I think that before we claim to have a sound method, we need to insure that is it comprehensive or that it is wholesome.
Wholesome or wholistic (to sometimes be distinguished from holistic) communication means looking at holy from four major angles of method: 1) logical, 2) rhetorical, 3) grammatical and 4) scientific. One of the problems is that these issues are often not addressed, because of the atomistic tendency of some of the educational world and some of communication theory. What I mean by atomistic is that they keep delving into smaller and smaller details of parts rather than rising to the level of looking at things in terms of the larger whole. This is like looking at the parts of bikes without also examining a fully assembled bike and the method of using it or its usefulness and benefit as a whole.
In other words, holy is often examined through just one of these four angles or some small part of a angle, rather than addressing it through all four angles. Each of these has to do with the method used to determine the meaning or definition of holy. It is not just a matter of the word holy itself, but also the method we use to determine its meaning.
This particular piece of writing will look at the things we learn in the classrom by studying more than by the things we learn in daily life through the real world. This is because we are looking at things called words that suit a classroom setting pretty well. I will look at some of the starting points for our methods of defining words. I will not in this blog attempt to give evidence or proof so much as lay out problems and potential solutions. What I hope to accomplish is to lay out at a higher level where the problems and potential solutions for method are located. .
Logically, there is a mathematical inconsistency between rhetoric and grammar that is not resolved. You could say that between the basic classical foundations of learning; grammar, logic and rhetoric, there remains an inconsistency. Rhetoric, in dealing with the larger components of language, recognizes five major parts (or four major parts with one of its aspects functioning as the whole). Grammar on the other hand, in dealing with the smaller components of language, recognizes eight major parts plus the whole of speech with its total of nine (including speech as a whole). Logically, five does not equal nine. This mathematical inconsistency should be resolved. Why five and nine or four and eight? Why are not the larger and smaller parts of communication mathematically parallel with each other? The solution to this inconistency could be through the universal or basic classes of meaning recognized in the literature dealing with semantics. If we can resolve this inconsistency, it would give us a better idea of what class of meaning best fits with the usage of holy in the Bible.
Rhetorically, persuasion is concerned with connecting with others. The problem is that the higher critical views of history have pushed aside taking seriously rhetoric for a number of years. Rhetoric got buried under scepticism about the honesty of persuasion. It as though Plato's sceptical view of rhetoric prevailed once again in history. Notice how the word rhetoric is usually used in our language today in negative sense. So a whole new branch of learning called speech communication was developed with little connection to rhetoric. This caused the insights of rhetoric to be ignored far too often in approaching the Biblical text. What I am finding is that understanding the methods of honest persuasion using rhetoric helps in better understanding the contexts surrounding holy, because now ideas like parallelism in speech seen as legitimate ways to try to communicate in order to persuade. This actually is very critical to understanding the false and true arguments from context for the meaning of holy. Too often context is examined too broadly without any sense of whether there is a connection to the word holy through a method of parallelism or otherwise or whether a word just happens to appear next to holy in a context. There has been too much guessing. This can be solved through better understanding classical and Hebrew rhetoric in its own right.
Grammatically, the problem is that too much of the material written on holiness depends solely on traditional or on structural grammar, for those who still care about rhetoric. Then add to this the problem that people have lost interest in the topic, because of the way it is taught. To many people it bears no relation to how they learned language before they arrive at school. So people fail to see any relevance for it. The traditional (not necessarily the classic) approach largely points to etymology and the structural approach largely points to usage or context. While these are both valuable, they do not measure up to the explanatory power of transformational grammar with its recognition of rules that capture an unending activity of communicating. The technology of transformational grammar must be fully used, even as the technology of the computer should be harnessed for good rather than evil. So the inconsistency of not using the insights of transformational grammar and yet using other technologies like the computer for its advantages needs to be corrected. Grammar also needs to be made relevant so more people care. That may be the greater problem.
Scientifically, the problem is that what I have found to be the greatest insight of linguistics (the study of language) is not being used, when it comes to understanding meaning and how definitions should be written. Whether it be the insights of archaeology and what we have learned about 6th century B.C. grammar in India, or it be the insights on universals because we have such a larger base of languages to examine today as opposed to the classical past or it be the insights into the human brain and how it works in psychology, we need to use natural knowledge to its full explanatory capability alongside of supernatural revelation. Both kinds of revelation should matter. My graduate studies in the area of the philosophy of science taught me a great deal about the importance of natural revelation alongside of supernatural revelation in the Bible. You ignore either one of these sources of revelation or knowledge or what was previously hidden at your peril. The most important insight for me from linguistics has been the core classes of meaning which also have a lot to do with the ability of search engines to work so effectively. Understanding language at a very fundamental level can really set the stage for what the various alternative meanings of holy really mean in terms of actual significance. So the inconsistency of not using the latest insights from linguistics or from the philosophy of science needs to be corrected for the linguistics we are using to be considered soundly scientific.
These four areas make up the wholesome or wholistic approach I would like to see pursued in defining holy. It would help in making sound its definition beyond its current shaky status, regardless of which definition is arrived at through effort. Again, all of this sketch is broad and not in detail. This is all very preliminary to the work that still must be done and is being done. There is a lot more that must be fleshed out for these insights to be seen as truly effective. I hope though that at least I have gotten you thinking in the some new sound directions.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Wholesome or wholistic (to sometimes be distinguished from holistic) communication means looking at holy from four major angles of method: 1) logical, 2) rhetorical, 3) grammatical and 4) scientific. One of the problems is that these issues are often not addressed, because of the atomistic tendency of some of the educational world and some of communication theory. What I mean by atomistic is that they keep delving into smaller and smaller details of parts rather than rising to the level of looking at things in terms of the larger whole. This is like looking at the parts of bikes without also examining a fully assembled bike and the method of using it or its usefulness and benefit as a whole.
In other words, holy is often examined through just one of these four angles or some small part of a angle, rather than addressing it through all four angles. Each of these has to do with the method used to determine the meaning or definition of holy. It is not just a matter of the word holy itself, but also the method we use to determine its meaning.
This particular piece of writing will look at the things we learn in the classrom by studying more than by the things we learn in daily life through the real world. This is because we are looking at things called words that suit a classroom setting pretty well. I will look at some of the starting points for our methods of defining words. I will not in this blog attempt to give evidence or proof so much as lay out problems and potential solutions. What I hope to accomplish is to lay out at a higher level where the problems and potential solutions for method are located. .
Logically, there is a mathematical inconsistency between rhetoric and grammar that is not resolved. You could say that between the basic classical foundations of learning; grammar, logic and rhetoric, there remains an inconsistency. Rhetoric, in dealing with the larger components of language, recognizes five major parts (or four major parts with one of its aspects functioning as the whole). Grammar on the other hand, in dealing with the smaller components of language, recognizes eight major parts plus the whole of speech with its total of nine (including speech as a whole). Logically, five does not equal nine. This mathematical inconsistency should be resolved. Why five and nine or four and eight? Why are not the larger and smaller parts of communication mathematically parallel with each other? The solution to this inconistency could be through the universal or basic classes of meaning recognized in the literature dealing with semantics. If we can resolve this inconsistency, it would give us a better idea of what class of meaning best fits with the usage of holy in the Bible.
Rhetorically, persuasion is concerned with connecting with others. The problem is that the higher critical views of history have pushed aside taking seriously rhetoric for a number of years. Rhetoric got buried under scepticism about the honesty of persuasion. It as though Plato's sceptical view of rhetoric prevailed once again in history. Notice how the word rhetoric is usually used in our language today in negative sense. So a whole new branch of learning called speech communication was developed with little connection to rhetoric. This caused the insights of rhetoric to be ignored far too often in approaching the Biblical text. What I am finding is that understanding the methods of honest persuasion using rhetoric helps in better understanding the contexts surrounding holy, because now ideas like parallelism in speech seen as legitimate ways to try to communicate in order to persuade. This actually is very critical to understanding the false and true arguments from context for the meaning of holy. Too often context is examined too broadly without any sense of whether there is a connection to the word holy through a method of parallelism or otherwise or whether a word just happens to appear next to holy in a context. There has been too much guessing. This can be solved through better understanding classical and Hebrew rhetoric in its own right.
Grammatically, the problem is that too much of the material written on holiness depends solely on traditional or on structural grammar, for those who still care about rhetoric. Then add to this the problem that people have lost interest in the topic, because of the way it is taught. To many people it bears no relation to how they learned language before they arrive at school. So people fail to see any relevance for it. The traditional (not necessarily the classic) approach largely points to etymology and the structural approach largely points to usage or context. While these are both valuable, they do not measure up to the explanatory power of transformational grammar with its recognition of rules that capture an unending activity of communicating. The technology of transformational grammar must be fully used, even as the technology of the computer should be harnessed for good rather than evil. So the inconsistency of not using the insights of transformational grammar and yet using other technologies like the computer for its advantages needs to be corrected. Grammar also needs to be made relevant so more people care. That may be the greater problem.
Scientifically, the problem is that what I have found to be the greatest insight of linguistics (the study of language) is not being used, when it comes to understanding meaning and how definitions should be written. Whether it be the insights of archaeology and what we have learned about 6th century B.C. grammar in India, or it be the insights on universals because we have such a larger base of languages to examine today as opposed to the classical past or it be the insights into the human brain and how it works in psychology, we need to use natural knowledge to its full explanatory capability alongside of supernatural revelation. Both kinds of revelation should matter. My graduate studies in the area of the philosophy of science taught me a great deal about the importance of natural revelation alongside of supernatural revelation in the Bible. You ignore either one of these sources of revelation or knowledge or what was previously hidden at your peril. The most important insight for me from linguistics has been the core classes of meaning which also have a lot to do with the ability of search engines to work so effectively. Understanding language at a very fundamental level can really set the stage for what the various alternative meanings of holy really mean in terms of actual significance. So the inconsistency of not using the latest insights from linguistics or from the philosophy of science needs to be corrected for the linguistics we are using to be considered soundly scientific.
These four areas make up the wholesome or wholistic approach I would like to see pursued in defining holy. It would help in making sound its definition beyond its current shaky status, regardless of which definition is arrived at through effort. Again, all of this sketch is broad and not in detail. This is all very preliminary to the work that still must be done and is being done. There is a lot more that must be fleshed out for these insights to be seen as truly effective. I hope though that at least I have gotten you thinking in the some new sound directions.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Holy: Understanding it Better Through 2 Chronicles 5:11
In 2 Chronicles 5:11, it reads in very literal translation: "And it happened as the priests were going from the sanctuary - for all the priests who were present had sanctified themselves without observing divisions." This translation demonstrates the possibility of a contrast between "sanctified" and "observing divisions." In that case, holy's or sanctified's basic meaning would be that of whole.
You could understand it this way " ... for all the priest who were present were themselves the whole without observing any divisions [among themselves]." This is at least plausible and the contrast with "without observing divisions" would make its meaning also contrast with being set apart or separate.
So this verse at least demonstrates what is at stake in terms of understanding a great number of passages throughout the Bible. By itself, the evidence is not earthshattering, but a number of passages with this same plausibility would be. Please think about it.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
You could understand it this way " ... for all the priest who were present were themselves the whole without observing any divisions [among themselves]." This is at least plausible and the contrast with "without observing divisions" would make its meaning also contrast with being set apart or separate.
So this verse at least demonstrates what is at stake in terms of understanding a great number of passages throughout the Bible. By itself, the evidence is not earthshattering, but a number of passages with this same plausibility would be. Please think about it.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
