Preliminary Notes on a Scriptural Linguistics

[These are just some notes, as the blog title indicates, that I am storing away for the time being. Just thought I’d share and see if I could get some criticisms/help/etc. Solus Christus! -h.]

Notes

1. A common assertion made by linguists is that meaning can get “lost in translation.” They mean by this not only that languages do not correspond to one another, strictly speaking, in a one-to-one fashion, but that some ideas are confined to their language of origin. This idea is confused on a number of levels.

a.The inability of the translator to find an adequate expression or set of expressions for a given idea implies only the inabilty of the translator, not the deficiency of language.

b.Moreover, Scripture implies that the linguist’s dictum is false. Consider:

i.Gen 11:1-9 teaches us that “the Lord confused the languages of all the earth.” God determines whether or not humans can understand one another.

ii.Thus, the Scriptures teach us that “interpretations belong to God” in Gen 40:8b.

iii.Likewise, in Daniel 5 we see that the one in whom the Spirit of God dwells (i.e. Daniel)is able to interpret and translate foreign writing. The implication is not that such a feat can be performed by all Christians, but only this: Interpretation, and translation, belong to God.

iv.John 19:20 tells us that: “Many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Aramaic, in Latin, and in Greek.” The same fact is being expressed in three different languages. Each language is, therefore, adequate for the task of revealing Jesus Christ as the Son of God and King of the Jews.

v.This fact is repeated in Acts 2:1-13.

vi.Hence, we are commanded to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” (Matt 28:19-20a)

Language, in other words, is not an absolute impasse. Rather, Christ, who alone owns interpretation and reveals truth at will to whomever He wills, ensures us that he will be with us until the end of the age. (Matt 28:20b)

vii.The New testament contains many phrases which serve to explain to the reader a certain phrase or word. For instance, consider the following.

a. ““Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall call his name eImmanuel”(which means, God with us).” – Matt 1:23

b.”And when they came to a place called Golgotha (which means Place of a Skull),” – Matt 27:33

c.”Taking her by the hand he said to her, “Talitha cumi,” which means, “Little girl, I say to you, arise.” – Mk 5:41

d.”And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” – Mk 15:34

e.”Jesus turned and saw them following and said to them, “What are you seeking?” And they said to him, “Rabbi” (which means Teacher), “where are you staying?” – Jn 1:38

f.”He first found his own brother Simon and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which means Christ). He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).” – Jn 1:41-42

g.”and said to him, “Go, wash in mthe pool of Siloam” (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing.” – Jn 9:7

h.” Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned and said to him in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means Teacher).” – Jn 20:16

i.”Now there was in Joppa a disciple named Tabitha, which, translated, means Dorcas. She was full of good works and acts of charity.” – Acts 9:36

2. Language derives from one source: God. However, languages evidently developed from the original speech which God imparted to man in the garden. This is evident given the words we find in Genesis 10:5 & 31.

3. Inability to comprehend one another is the judgment of God. Genesis 11:1-9 tells us that the Lord “confused their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech” (7a). The implications of this are as follows:

i.Harmonious linguistic communication is natural.

ii.Linguistic confusion is unnatural.

iii.Harmonious linguistic communication is possible.

iv.Linguistic confusion is not necessary.

v.Linguistic confusion keeps men from sinning as deeply as they truly desire.

vi.Harmonious linguistc communication is to be found among those who have been redeemed.

-As Paul says, “…in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.” (1 Cor 14:19)

Matthew Did Not Quote the Apocrypha

Roman Catholic apologist Mark Shea’s article 5 Myths About 7 Books is supposed to be a refutation of common Protestant objections to the inclusion of the apocrypha in the canon of Scripture. Shea enumerates these 5 “Myths” about the apocrypha and proceeds to refute them, or try to refute them. Myth 2 is relayed in the following terms:

Christ and the Apostles frequently quoted Old Testament Scripture as their authority, but they never quoted from the deuterocanonical books, nor did they even mention them. Clearly, if these books were part of Scripture, the Lord would have cited them.[http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0120.html]

Shea believes that it is not only wrong to assume that citation implies canonicity, but that the objection is empty since the New Testament actually does cite the apocrypha. He writes:

…far from being ignored in the New Testament (like Ecclesiastes, Esther, and 1 Chronicles) the deuterocanonical books are indeed quoted and alluded to in the New Testament. For instance, Wisdom 2:12-20, reads in part, “For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend

 him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him.”

This passage was clearly in the minds of the Synoptic Gospel writers in their accounts of the Crucifixion: “He saved others; he cannot save himself. So he is the king of Israel! Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God'” (cf. Matthew 27:42-43).[ Ibid.]

Yet in the context of Matthew 27, contrary to Shea’s assertion, the passage Matthew has in mind is Psalm 22, as Matt 27:56 clearly indicates. Matthew understands that Christ is the greater Son of David, [cf. Matt 1:1b; 9:27; 15:22; 20:30-31; 21:9, 15; 22:41-46] and this understanding comes to a climax in Christ’s crucifixion.

The passage that Shea quotes from the apocrypha bears a superficial resemblance to Matthew 27, but Psalm 22 is quoted by Christ Himself as He fulfills that which was written of Him in the Scriptures. Hence, we see the following parallels:

1. The Cry of Dereliction: “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (identical in Ps 22 and Matt 27)

2. Mocking & Taunting: “they wag their heads at me…” (Ps 22:7)/ “…those who passed by derided Him wagging their heads…” (Matt 27:39b)

3. Division & Distribution of Garments: “…they divide my garments among them…[etc]…” (Ps 22:18)/”…they divided His garments among them by casting lots…” (Matt 27:35)

4. Gloating & Staring: “…they stare and gloat over me…” (Ps 22:17b)/ “…they…kept watch over Him…And over His head they put the charge against Him, which read…[etc]…” (Matt 27:36-37)[ While the word gloating is not used in Matt 27, the action is nonetheless being performed by the Jewish leaders and Roman soldiers.]

Our Lord’s suffering and crucifixion are being fully unfolded according to the Word of God, the words of David speaking by the Holy Spirit in Psalm 22, and this is something that Christ’s own cry of dereliction proclaims: He is fulfilling what was written of Him in “Moses and all the Prophets.”[ Luke 24:27]

Matthew isn’t drawing inspiration from the apocryphal writings; rather, Matthew is showing how Christ, the Son of David and David’s Adonai, is fulfilling the very prophecy of David. Far from confirming the canonicity of the apocryphal writings, therefore, Matthew’s writing (Scripture) is explaining David’s writing (Scripture).

-h.