Holy: Understanding It Better Through Gen. 1:1-2:4a (Total)

PREFACE

The definition of holy has certainly seen its share of conflict and controversy in the last 100 plus years.  But also it has high level of importance in the Bible and in terms of personal interest and its potential connection to a very timely topic - healthy.  The personal interest is seen in its close connection with a person's name, as for an example, God's name of Yahweh.  "Holy be your name" is part of the opening in the Lord's Prayer.  The topic of being whole or being healthy is currently one of major importance.  With the possible definition of "moral wholeness", it could tie directly into healthy as one of the hot topics of the 21st century.   So the overall or total approach to determining a word's meaning is looking at all four areas of interest or concern: 1) translate to an equal, 2) transfer from and to a location and time, 3) total to avoid need gaps, 4) train in the skills for application, and 5) teach what is what. 

So far in my entries this week, I have dealt with translation and transfer.  Today, I will be spending some time beefing up 1) translate and 2) transfer.  I will also use today to look ahead to 3) training and 4) teaching elements.  This is what I call the total.  It keeps me from leaving gaps in my attempt to persuade others of the meanings for Yahweh, blessed, and holy. 

In the Western world, we usually associate the total of something with the opening and closing of what we say, but I want to take a more Eastern approach and place it primarily in the middle.  This approach I learned from Mary Douglas, a rather famous anthropologist, who has written on the different structural pattern found in Hebrew writings in the Bible.  This does not mean that I will not also have the total of all the parts in the opening and closing, as is usually found in the West.  Rather it means I will keep my eye on the whole of the process also in the middle of my writing like the Hebrews. 

I value the total so much, because without it things are not complete or total and can therefore easily fail.  One writer in speaking of the persuasion cascade pointed out that his method would not work, if it was not completed through the whole of the steps.  He understood that there would then be gaps in the persuasion process which then could lead to persuasion failure.  I think this also applies to defining words and trying to make a good case for a particular view. 

The greatest example of the opposite of what I am saying is the view that the context is THE key to understanding the meaning of a word.  Now that the etymology of holy in the Hebrew, the Aramaic, and the Greek is seen as a matter of conflict and controversy; context is now being promoted as THE way to resolve its meaning.  I find that very unsatisfactory.  It is only one part of at least four perspectives in the total reading and understanding process of reading the Scripture. 

That is critical to understanding my approach.  Context alone for defining a word will not work in my view.  It requires a much more comprehensive approach.  Then from that larger perspective, a person can see the convergence of perspectives hopefully all pointing to the same thing. 

My goal through this blog is to give people another choice in the area of meaning that they have not previously been aware of as people, who desire to know the meaning of key words in their Bible.  I am trying to shed light on the topics of God's name, blessing, and holy that have been hidden in the darkness.   Beginning with a choice is critical in reaching the ultimate goal of celebration.

The 5 step persuasion process is like this for the one trying to persuade others:

1) choice by helping people see,
2) chance by enabling people to do,
3) connect by a willing opportunity,
4) change by filling empty hands to satisfaction, and
5) celebrate by people enjoying the experience of not having gaps in fulfilling their needs.

My goal through these 5 steps is to get people to seeing, able, willing, and ready.  It takes all of that to reach full blown personal eagerness. 

Here's another way to express in words what is desirable for those seeking answers to questions:

1) A choice that you see,
2) A chance for you to be able,
3) A connection that you willingly embrace,
4) A change that fills you up to ready, and
5) A celebration that is all that you need rather even one need short. 

Here's Jesus' purpose and goals for similar kinds of things (in Luke 4:18):

1) to restore sight to the blind, who are  those not seeing,
2) to free the oppressed, who are those unable,
3) to liberate the captives, who are those unwilling,
4) to tell the gospel to the poor, who are those unready, and
5) to fulfill the whole of the purposes or goals (ex. Jesus' bucket list or ministry goals), and not even one less than this to those suffering, who are those not eager due to a purpose gap. 

If you are not eager, then you are suffering.  If every one of the criteria is met: seeing, able, willing, and ready, then suffering is relieved.  The point is that you only have to be missing one of those things to suffer and not be eager. 

If you are not eager,

then you are suffering. 

So why are you not eager for work?  Have you ever thought about it lacking one or more of these goals or purposes?  Why are you not eager to go to church?  Could it be that this organization that is supposed to be built around Jesus' goals has lost its bearings? 

If you fulfill all these things on Jesus' bucket list of goals, then you will eliminate or at least alleviate suffering.  So you might ask this: "So how do I become eager?"  It is through finishing the goal list that Jesus laid out. 

If we changed all things to the direction of Jesus' goals, then I believe people will be so eager they will be breaking down the doors to churches.  We can then return to standing room only and people waiting outside to get in. 

Here's how you can become eager (based on the rewards for not just you but others equally):


So now, let's lay out the choices :

20th ct. choice - the definition of holy is set apart, and it has less to do with purity or with wholeness compared to what was previously thought. 

21st ct. choice - the definition of holy is moral wholeness, the implication is purity, and the significance is that this is what sets us apart (the definition and the implication altogether).

Let's lay out the chances:

20th ct. chance - not much of a chance, but the only real chance we have to draw people back to the church is through being contemporary in terms of music and technology. 

21st ct. chance - the practical aspect of making things morally whole or physically whole means that we can do things that were impossible previously

Let's lay out the connections:

20th ct. connect - the various denominational and non-denominational teams on the landscape will continue to be tied to the same leaders of the past in Protestantism and there will be little future hope of reconnecting in a tightly formed team

21st ct. connect - there will now be a real chance to join together in a way that is tightly bound to one another rather than in a loose alliance

Let's lay out the changes:

20th ct. change - the continued changes in technology will drive us to the greatest changes we are capable of making

21st ct change - the change will happen on a personal level with human beings and their moral character resting on a new quality standard and accomplishment. 

Let's lay out the celebration:

20th ct celebration - the best of that optimism happened in the 1950s and is unlikely to be revived to a higher pitch going forward

21st ct. celebration - the biblical stories of "it felt like we were dreaming" will be the same kind of reason we are celebrating. 


So as I go forward the next couple of days I hope I can demonstrate the value of training and teaching in terms of new capabilities and possibilities and also new sight and a reduction in blindness.  May God bless the remainder of your day and please visit all 5 blog entries this week to grasp the whole picture. 


In Christ,

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Answering the Question "Why?"

So why does the definition of holy matter?  There are fundamentally two answers to that question.  The first is the life-relevant answer.  The second is the teaching-relevant answer.  I have generally spent more time on the second than on the first in this blog.  I have a second blog that answers more the first question, but it depends a great deal on answering the teaching-relevant question that this blog focuses on the majority of the time.  Today, I want to expand more on both answers to the why questions you might have. 

By the way, before I get too far, I want to say that holy can be defined according to the level of adherents for each view, either as: (1) set apart, (2) pure, or (3) whole/wholly.  I'll say more on this as I progress, but I know some readers are visiting this blog just for the fast answer and they will not read any further.  For those who are reading further, here is what I am up to in my blog and in my paper for my post-graduate work. 

My plan is as follows:

I will define holy (Leviticus 19:1-2) as either: 1) set apart, 2) pure, or 3)whole/wholly depending on the evidence that I collect from Scripture in its original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek  ....

...  using both biblical exegesis and linguistic synthesis & analysis as my tools, including:
    1) 5 T's - Translate, Transfer, Total, Train, and Teach - Nehemiah 8 (issue: Whole)
    2)  clarity and meaning combined (issue: Amount)
    3)  contextual structural analysis diagrams to identify precise parallels (issue: Relationship)
    4)  pre-state and post-state diagrams as well as syntactical tools to clarify actions (issue Action)
    5)  the combination of lexicons based on both classical grammar and scientific linguistics to insure
    the best results (issue: Things) ...

... Because:
    1)  the definition of holy is a potential solution to corporate and individual struggles in the church 
     and even worldwide, based on its implications
    2)  other potential solutions that have been tried in recent decades and years have fallen short of
    solutions during past periods of church reformation and revival
    3)  there is a measure of uncertainty or lack of clarity for what holy is by definition, and there is
     a likely way to reduce the uncertainty that has been acknowledged by big name scholars (Otto,
     Snaith, Kline, etc.)
    4)  there is a moral obligation to pass on the gifts given to me by my teachers (and I believe the
     Holy Spirit) to the wider world
    5)  the effort to define holy fits with the tools that I received for exegesis and for linguistic
     synthesis, so it means that I can contribute something to the discussion because otherwise I should
     do nothing, so I don't waste the time of others.

So the first 5 focus on what is the "How?" for what I am doing.  The second 5 get at the nitty-gritty part of "Why?" am I doing all this.  For me life matters more than teaching, but also teaching is sometimes the means to life change.  May God richly bless you this day and may He guide my efforts at teaching, so they have worth and value to others and to myself.  Thank you for taking some time to read to the end of my writing today. 


In Christ,

Jon

Holy: Understanding it Better Through Textual Studies

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

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

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

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

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

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

"set apart"  B+
"pure" B-
"whole C-

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

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

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

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

In Christ,

Jon

Holy Means Whole (or Set Apart): According to Solomon's Wisdom

There is an under-appreciated piece of Solomon's wisdom that I recently recovered in Ecclesiastes 9:4. It says that there is hope for the living "because a live dog is better than a dead lion." Its application to the debate over the meaning of holy in the Biblical text is important.

It suggests a wiser approach than I have taken previously to defining this word. It seems appropriate at the very end of 2010 to do a little reflection. As I reflect back to creating my two blogs on the meaning of holy, I realize that I lacked some of Solmon's wisdom. I think I could have made a wiser decision by seeing that "a combined certainty of both possible definitions is better than a singular uncertainty of one definition."

Here is what I mean. Recently, I have run across a lot of admissions by great scholars and great minds that the idea that holy means "set apart" is "probably" or "possibly" the correct understanding. The problem for them, quoting some famous translators, is that: "they are wise [that] rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated by one, when it may be the other."

That would make these scholars potential fools for choosing just one definition "when it may be the other." I too have been a fool at times, thinking I must be decisive and choose one even in the face of real uncertainty.

Martin Luther explained Solomon's advice this way: "Better a sparrow in hand than a crane in doubt." What is not doubtful is that holy means either "whole" or "set apart." Both together with differing probabilities may not look like a majestic crane, yet it is a sparrow without doubt.

My problem is that I cannot say today that I can remove some important doubt about holy means whole. Internally, I have more certainty, but the important thing is the evidence I have been able to present to others. I can say that I am at 70% sure that holy means whole, but that leaves a significant 30% chance I might be wrong on a very important word to define correctly. Better to be aware it might be another meaning than to kid myself.

I am choosing to go with Solomon's dog and Luther's sparrow. I want to be wise. I want to avoid a situation of uncertainty that risks "throwing out the baby with the bathwater." Past scholarship has thrown out some bathwater. Let's proceed with caution and make sure the next toss is bathwater too.

From this position of wisdom, learning and studying can then create a stronger and stronger argument for one or the other definition. Then and only then may one definition take a singular place without the other. The nice thing is that I can relax and commit myself to understanding rather than to making sure I don't look like a fool.

So when you see that my title says "Holy Means Whole (or Set Apart), know that I am wiser than I was before. I am wiser and I am hopeful, because "a [sure] dog is better than a [doubtful] lion." Be wise and have a Happy New Year!

In Christ,

Jon