This "Celtic Knot" is a widespread symbol across northern Europe and in northern China. It doesn't have any particular meaning today. But, 1500 years ago, people had given it meaning of some kind. It appears in too many places. Too bad the meaning has dropped from usage. No one makes the sign these days, except for a few tatoo shops.
The Sapir/Whorf Hypothesis says that the language a person speaks determines the world view that person has. For example, if the language has a direct object in it, then there is the belief that a person, place, object, or idea can receive the action or be the result of the action. In a language in which no direct object exists, then nothing receives the brunt of any action. It's all in how life is categorized. Word particles would serve as another example. When using earlier English, one could translate a famous phrase from Paul's letter to --"O Death, where is thy sting." But, modern translations just say, "Death, where is your sting?" What happened to the "O?" Modern speakers don't look on personifications as terms of address any longer. The earlier English usage required "O" in order to desginate a term of address. Our outlook on life has gone more casual; we don't need the formality of a particle any more. By way of comparison, Latin had a vocative case built into its language because any noun could be used as a term of address. Not all ancient languages had a case built into its language like Latin did.
So when it gets down to each person's experience of the Creator, language categorization matters. Does it matter to anyone today that the name for the Creator is merely the Capitalization of the name for the generic deity–god vs. God. The Hebrews of 1300 BCE said the Creator had a name. Why hasn't that been kept through the ages? Another label that gets used in religious circles is the term "lord." Modern English doesn't use that term any more. It died. So why do people insist on using an archaic term to apply to the Creator? What does that say about a person? That religion doesn't really cater to the modern person? That religion doesn't have modern parallels? That most people think religion is not for everyday living, just a blast from the past in case modern lifestyles don't satisfy a person?
Have you ever been to a class in which a passage from an ancient text had to be illuminated by the history or customs of the times? That's usually nothing more than an attempt to show how the world view from another language shaped the idea being expressed. Language seems to affect one's world view. An example of this is that we don't have a native word for the ancient concept of prophet. We have transliterated the Greek term so we could halfway understand the concept. Hebrew had several words for prophet based on the particular activity of the prophet being emphasized. We moderns could very well do without the word because we don't have that category of person in our society. We prefer something like "visionary." But it seldom has spiritual applications.
I would like to bring all of the above discussion to bear on a New Testament event. Just using the gospel of Mark, Jesus tells a number of people not to say anything or not to tell others after he healed them. Why? I have contemplated the question for years. Perhaps, it can best be understood because of the prinicple of the Sapir/Whorf Hypothesis. I don't know what language the Creator speaks. But, for those who have non-verbal encounters with Him, such as a healing, it would seem that using language would automatically categorize the experience in some way or another. Perhaps, the Son of Man wanted people to experience a healing as a whole experience and not reduce it to any category by trying to speak about it. It would be easier to internalize the experience without using words. The healing experience would work itself out in our actions as a response to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment