Under the sage direction of Dr. Cole, I’m taking Syriac this semester at SEBTS. One thing I never head into language-learning without is a good set of flashcards. These can take tons of time to make and while making your own is a good exercise, let’s face it, it’s also taxing. After seeing how popular the Seow Hebrew flashcards I posted are, I’ve decided to share my Syriac flashcards as well. They are based on John Healey’s Leshono Suryoyo published by Gorgias Press.

My Syriac flashcards come in the form of an Excel spreadsheet. You may not have known that Excel can be used for flashcards, but let me assure you it’s pretty sweet. You’ll need to enable the macro once you open the Excel file. Here’s a screenshot of what that looks like in Excel 2007.

I’ll be updating the file as the semester progresses. Right now the flashcards are incomplete and are only up to date with what we’ve covered in class so far. I’ll be updating the file and this post as I update the flashcards every week.

Download Leshono Suryoyo Syriac Flashcards

Download: SyriacFlashcards-HealeyLeshonoSuryoyo-KataDrew

Status: Chapter 6 (plus interrogatives and demonstratives)
Last updated: March 11, 2010

Required Font: Serto Jerusalem

Like Healey’s text these flashcards use the Syriac Serto script. The flashcards utilize and therefore require the Beth Mardutho Meltho Syriac Fonts, specifically the one in the package called Serto Jerusalem. The font pack containing Serto Jerusalem is freely available through the Beth Mardutho web site on the Meltho Font download page. Click the download link, fill out the form (if you wish), agree to the license, and then you’ll be able to directly download the fonts. The following operating systems are supported: Microsoft Windows, Linux/BSD, Unix, and Mac OS X.

I also use this font to do my homework in Word. To do this you need to add a Syriac keyboard through the Windows Control Panel by going to Change keyboards or other input methods.  From the Keyboards and Languages tab click Change keyboards… . Click Add and then scroll down to Syriac in the list of languages. I recommend the Syriac Phonetic keyboard. Then switch to this “keyboard” when you want to type in Syriac with the Serto Jerusalem font. Vowels are added by first entering the consonant on which they appear and then using Shift plus another key. For example, for a ptoho (the one in Serto that sorta looks like a Greek alpha), you hit the consonant on which you want it to appear and then the Q key while holding down Shift. The other vowels are found on the W, E, R, T, and Y keys if I remember rightly.

Help

If you need help with any of this, simply leave a comment and I’ll be glad to help.

There are very few books that I look forward to reading. I mean really look forward to, like the way a tweenie looks forward to the next Twilight. Though not so much interested in adolescent vampire fiction there was one book published at the end of last year that I couldn’t wait to sink my teeth into: Vern Poythress’ In the Beginning Was the Word: A God-Centered Approach to Language. (You can grab a free PDF of the entire book through Poythress’ site.)

Having come through the undergraduate linguistics program of a state school I can tell you that the last thing you’re going to hear in any linguistics classroom is a God-centered approach to language. The only mention of God you’re likely to hear is a confused reference toGenesis 11 and the tower of Babel. Linguistics is very much a natural science.

This is why I greatly anticipated Poythress’ work. If well-done, this book could be a valuable contribution to the field of linguistics and give voice to an alternative viewpoint that’s all too often not even considered. A God-centered approach to language makes sense given that the universe itself is God-centered, something most Christians will willingly concede over against a strictly naturalistic cosmology. Also, there’s a certain apologetic force to a God-centered approach to language that could really put a pebble in the shoe of the relatively unchallenged notion that language is the happy result of evolutionary processes. Yes, there is something inexplicably preternatural about language that points to the triune God.

Poythress in In the Beginning Was the Word, however, fails to harness the full force of the sleeping beast on which he rides. All in all I was greatly disappointed by In the Beginning Was the Word and would be surprised to find it having a lasting impression on the field of linguistics outside of Christian circles and even within. We need a book like this, but we need it to do more, and to do it more convincingly.

In the Beginning Was the Word

First

First, I was disappointed that in the book Poythress fails to interact with contemporary linguists and linguistic theory, not merely because this is the kind of thing that good scholars do, but more so because I believe there’s much in contemporary linguistics that could be used to bolster support for Poythress’ argument that a divine origin of language has more explanatory power than the strictly naturalistic explanations that prevail today. It should go without saying that a book published today on language should interact with Chomskyian linguistics, especially a work that bears much in common with and could find much support from his nativist approach to language. Chomsky has been called a “closet creationist” for instance. Steven Pinker in his The Language Instinct has to go to some surprising lengths to try to convince his readers that universal grammar is still compatible with the theory of evolution and that people needn’t run hastily to God for answers. This seems like an appropriate place for someone like Poythress to step into the discussion and proffer God. Instead, In the Beginning Was the Word strips itself of much of its potential power by not taking a broader look at what a God-centered approach language entails. Poythress commendably reasons from the Scriptures but in only doing so he fails to employ all available arguments for a God-centered approach to language. So much more could be said that the book’s almost a frustrating read.

Second

Secondly, prior to reading I had in mind to offer the book as a giveaway at a linguistics meeting on campus I was planning and even possibly to send a copy to one of my old college linguistics professors. After reading, I felt uneasy doing so and thereby endorsing the book for the simple reason that the argumentation within is incredibly weak. For example, consider the analogies Poythress attempts to draw between language and the triune God in order to establish the thesis that a biblically-faithful approach to language will start with communication between the persons of the trinity:

Let us now focus on the character of the rules of language. They reveal God in some striking ways.

First, the rules of English hold wherever English is spoken…Spoken English, and human knowledge of English, are not omnipresent. But the rules are.¹

In the above language is thought to reveal God on the following logic: God is omnipresent. Rules of language can be thought of as omnipresent. Rules of language therefore reveal God. I don’t find this as striking as the author does. It could be argued on this thinking that whatever is omnipresent “reveals God.” Seems like a stretch to me.

The author continues this way showing rules of language to be omnipresent, eternal, immutable, invisible (“We do not literally see the rule that ‘moved’ is the past tense of ‘move.’ We see and hear only the effects of the rule on our use of language. The rule is essentially immaterial and invisible . . . Likewise, God is essentially immaterial and invisible, but is known through his acts in the world.”²), truthful (“Real rules, as opposed to linguists’ approximations of them, are also absolutely, infallibly true. Truthfulness is also an attribute of God.”³), powerful, immanent and transcendent, rational, good, and beautiful.

Then watch his conclusion to this chapter:

“Rules for language are a form of the word of God. So they reflect the Trinitarian statement ofJohn 1:1, which identifies the second person of the Trinity as the eternal Word. . . .

Man is made in the image of God, and so his language is in the image of God. And so his language reflects the Trinitarian pattern.”⁴

I find this argument very unsatisfying for two reasons: (1) again it seems like a stretch and (2) so what? What’s the importance? It seems to me to belabor the thesis to multiple evidences by stretching analogies. The thesis is straightforward enough that in my mind little is gained by the above evidences.

Third

Third, I have a very hard time swallowing many basic statements in the book that attribute to God everything from etymology to grammar to the correspondence between the signified (a dog) and the signifier (“dog”). Are we only able to trust language if we endow words with a logical, God-established connection to the thing for which they stand? I think not. Again, I see little gained when Poythress asserts that God has designed the contemporary English word “dog” to represent perfectly the idea of a dog. I see no need to be this specific in a God-centered approach to language, especially on a matter on which we cannot be certain (regardless of the view of divine providence one subscribes to). I see no damage done to a God-centered approach to language by granting the abstract relationship between words and concepts.

Additionally, denying the abstract relationship between what we call a dog and the English word “dog” flies in the face of every and any linguistics book you’re likely to come across. Fair enough they are not working from a God-centered approach to language, but I’ve yet to come across any linguist finding rational links between signifier and signified (the small number of onomatopoeia excepted of course), something one would expect if indeed God has linked them together on rational grounds. Therein would lie great apologetic force if such a link could be observed. We must, however, look elsewhere for hints of God in language.

Fourth

Seventy-five percent of the book is only tangentially related to language or linguistics. Of the six parts, the book could conceivably be condensed down to the first section (pp. 1-78), the sixth section (pp. 289-297) and the appendices. The rest is largely unnecessary, especially part two.

Conclusion

I hope I have not been too harsh in offering my thoughts on In the Beginning Was the Word. If I am wrong or misinformed or misguided on any of the above, I will gladly and humbly lend my ear to the many whose understanding on the subject surpasses my own. As I have not come across any reviews of the work I hoped to present my thoughts in order to offer some follow up to the hype the book enjoyed in the weeks leading up to its publication. Finally, if I come across as harsh, it’s only because I had high expectations for this work.

Call for Review

In the interest of fairness I want to do something a bit different. If you are a linguist and have not read In the Beginning Was the Word and would like to read it and review it, I will send you my copy for free. You must only agree to read it, review it, and have your review published on my blog. Easy enough, right? But, if you’re a linguist and you’ve already read it, I’m still interested in your thoughts and/or review, although nothing free for you.

You may first want to know that I’m talking about senile seniors (65+) rather than sinister seniors (~18), those who are about to graduate high school and make a lot of stupid decisions in college. My seniors are the precious elderly saints who live at a local independent-living senior apartment complex. About last year this time one resident came into the restaurant where I was then working and told me that there were several believers at the senior home but no regular Bible study. She eagerly desired that someone come and teach the Scriptures and share the gospel with the residents. Any seminarian would be a fool be approached in such a manner and decline to spend time with elderly saints opening the Scriptures with them. There was only one response: I’ll do it.

Sounds good but what does one teach? Where should I start? I started off alternating between Old Testament, Gospel and epistle, after reading about a similar teaching pattern in the ministry of John Calvin, although he taught at least three times a week, teaching OT, NT and epistle every week. I just meet with my elderly saints once a week. Because it felt like we were jumping around every week and it was three weeks before we returned to where we left off in a given book, I decided to singularly adopt the Gospel of Matthew as the curriculum. This past Sunday we coveredMatthew 6:25-34.

Anyone that has a grandmother and takes a quick glance at the content ofMatthew 6:25-34 will think what a great set of verses to cover with senior saints. Grandmothers are well-known worriers and prayer warriors. Jesus speaks right to worry in this passage and says, Don’t do it, child! Look at the flowers, look at the animals! God’s got it under control. In fact, if you were asked to be a guest speaker at a senior home, you may in fact choose this passage as your text, if you indeed do such antiquated things as preach from a text!

You would be asked to speak. You’d think about it, pray about it, and flip through your Bible wondering which passage these saints need to hear.Matthew 6:25-34 would be such an obvious choice. But why limit yourself to “obvious choices”?

Throughout the course of working our way through the Gospel of Matthew my senior saints have been the most appreciative and engaged with the less obvious choice of passages. Next week we’ll coverMatthew 7:1-6 which will bring us near the end of the Sermon on the Mount. (I love the German “Bergpredigt” for some reason.) This means that over the last year or so we’ve covered less obvious topics for seniors such as anger, lust, retaliation, divorce, and especially oaths. I dare say no one would when asked to speak at a senior home choose any of these sections from die Bergpredigt. Why in the world would I talk to seniors about oaths and truth-telling? Why would I even mention sexuality to people quadruple my age? Because Jesus talked about it.

My seniors have been the most appreciative, responsive and engaged in the teaching when we covered these lesser discussed areas. They attend the Bible study because they are genuinely concerned about hearing what Jesus had to say. If Jesus talked about it, they want to hear about it. Don’t give us psycho-babble, give us the Scriptures, they tell me. Occasional preaching and teaching is important, but well-rounded total preaching and teaching is more so. Teaching through books of the Bible accomplishes this.

We therefore sell short those whom God has entrusted to our oversight when we pick the menu. His people are hungry for everything that’s in the garden, not just what’s well-known and easily prepared.

Consider:

You know his name wasn’t really Jesus Christ, right?

Jesus is just the Greek translation of Yeshua, which translates from Hebrew to Joshua.

But his name wasn’t Josh Christ, either, since his parents weren’t Joseph and Mary Christ.

So it’s really not blasphemy to say “Jesus Christ”, because it’s not taking the right name in vain.

Isn’t religion fun?

To be honest I felt giddy when I read the above. It’s perfect to blog. It involves linguistics and Jesus and it’s moronic; the first two I love, the last just makes good blog fodder. Why’s the above moronic?

The Third Commandment

“Do not take up the name of the Lord in vain” (Exodus 20:7). The argument above borrows whatever potency the author believed it to have from this, the third commandment found atExodus 20:7. Blasphemy seems to be the issue, but what exactly is blasphemy?

How about misuse or use for no purpose. Or, use as if it were nothing, thus “in vain.” Check out the use of the same word in Jeremiah:Jeremiah 2:30,Jeremiah 4:30,Jeremiah 6:29,Jeremiah 18:15,Jeremiah 46:11. You’ll gain a sense of what’s going on real quick.

It would be a mistake, however, to narrowly limit “taking the Lord’s name in vain,” as the above does, to a particular word (e.g., “Jesus” or “Jesus Christ” in whatever language). “The ‘name’ of God stands for so much more than the mere pronouncing of his title of address. It includes (1) his nature, being, and very person . . . (2) his teaching or doctrine . . . and (3) his moral and ethical teaching.”¹

Thus, speaking irreverently about almost anything pertaining to God is easily considered blasphemy.  I shouldn’t need to provide examples, but the point is that blasphemy isn’t only blasphemy if and only if you utter the right word in the right language. Blasphemy encompasses the content of and the heart behind language.²

The Name of the Lord

The author concludes “So it’s really not blasphemy to say ‘Jesus Christ’, because it’s not taking the right name in vain.” The question then arises, Which name should one take in vain if one wanted to take “the right name in vain”?

Exodus 20:7 has shem yhwh or “the name of YHWH,” often translated into English as “the name of the Lord” instead of “the name of Yahweh” with YHWH as a proper name. Taking YHWH in vain can be a bit problematic though as the Hebrew text doesn’t preserve the original vowels for the divine name. According to the above argument then it should be impossible to take the Lord’s name in vain and thus blaspheme. But is that true?

Blasphemy in the Bible

One can blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, who is God (Matthew 12:31).

Jesus was accused of blasphemy for affirming that he is the Christ, the Son of God because some believed he was lying (Matthew 26:63;John 10:31-39).

In the first case one needn’t know God’s name in the right language to blaspheme against him. In the second, Jesus didn’t even use God’s name, but was called a blasphemer.

Isn’t religion fun?

Shooting Down the Upshot

It’s true that Jesus’ name wasn’t the Anglo-Germanic word “Jesus” nor was “Christ” his parents’ surname. It’s anachronistic to even assume so.

Do we then conclude that it’s not really blasphemy to say “Jesus Christ” when we accidentally stub a toe? Absolutely not.

The name “Jesus Christ” is the English result of that long etymological history given above that represents the man profiled in the Bible. “Jesus Christ” is how we can talk about that God-man. Therefore to use it in vain is blasphemous.

Two Examples

If the above argument holds true, Muslims shouldn’t have been offended at the now famous Danish cartoons depicting Muhammed because, well, that’s not really the prophet Muhammad because in order for the cartoon to be idolatrous it would have to be correctly labeled in Arabic rather than in Danish.

Or, if blasphemy or defamation of character can only be done correctly if used in the right language, there’s no such thing as international libel. Americans shouldn’t be offended by what any nation says about them, if not said in English.

photo credit: Lawrence OP

Sing for Joy

Every Sunday morning the pretentiously titled local classical station–The Classical Station–airs several syndicated programs featuring sacred music. One of those is Sing for Joy, a production of Minnesota’s St. Olaf College. Every week the College Pastor presents choral music selected to coincide with the readings from the revised common lectionary. The result is a beautiful production that is well worth your listen, especially if you come from a non-liturgical tradition such as I. I’ve found that keeping up with the common lectionary vocally enhanced by world-class choirs is a delightful way to connect with the Church universal. Sing for Joy presents that certain bountiful depth of sacred music that is too often forgotten. My only disappointment is that the broadcasts, as far as I can tell, are not available via podcast. There is, however, a vast streaming archive available on their site of current and past episodes. You can listen wherever you are no matter the day of the week. Check it out.

Lectionary at Lunch

I discovered this second gem on iTunesU. Concordia Seminary St. Louis hosts an enviable Lectionary at Lunch group every Wednesday that is led by a professor who reads through the OT and NT lessons in Hebrew and Greek, translates them and discusses particular points of interest. The podcast of the group is available free of charge and is well worth your listen, especially if you’re interested in exegesis, translation and original language study. I can’t tell you how beneficial this is to listen to. Check it out.

photo credit: I, Timmy

You must do
what you cannot do
with what you do not have
for the rest of your life.

But Jesus will do
what he can do
with what he does have
through you
for the rest of your life.

Quoted in Camper Mundy – Giving & Receiving (Mark 6:30-44) [MP3]

Needed this for a project. Thought someone else might be able to benefit from a comma separated list of the books of the Bible:

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrew, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation

 
photo credit: krisdecurtis

We woke up yesterday and went to church here in Williamsburg where we’re vacationing for the week. I employed the best method possible in finding a solid, evangelical church to worship at on the Lord’s Day: the phone book. Flipping through, we had an extended list of almost every conceivable denomination. We decided that we wanted to do something a bit different and go to a service at a denomination of church that none of us had ever visited.

I was immediately partial to a Coptic Orthodox church, but my sister-in-law wasn’t so sure about the possibility of incense. I then suggested we go Presbyterian. Still, so many to choose from. Is it the PCA or PCUSA that are the more evangelical, missions-minded denomination? We went with a good orthodox sounding name:  Grace Covenant. We like grace and I’m interested in covenant theology. It seemed like a good fit.

Great service. I was struck by, and this is the main purpose of this post, the singing of carols after Christmas. All except for one of the songs sung yesterday morning were Christmas carols. They’re hymns nonetheless, but they’re primarily now known as Christmas carols.

Doesn’t it make all the sense in the world to sing most of our carols after Christmas rather than before? They tell of the newborn babe lying in a manger. If the purpose of Christmas is to re-live the advent of the Savior, then the month leading up to the Day should be spent reading prophecy and the opening chapters of Matthew and Luke, stopping short of the actual birth narratives. The songs sung should be sung to match. Instead, we sing of the Savior’s birth before we celebrate it happening. Yesterday morning, it was refreshing to reflect on the birth of Savior through Christmas carols after we had celebrated it–or should have–on Christmas Day.

There is so much theology packed into these carol-hymns. Check out the last verse of Hark, the Herald Angels Sing:

Adam’s likeness, Lord, efface,
Stamp Thine image in its place:
Second Adam from above,
Reinstate us in Thy love.
Let us Thee, though lost, regain,
Thee, the Life, the inner man:
O, to all Thyself impart,
Formed in each believing heart.

Let’s spend the month of January singing about the new-born King rather than jumping straight to Easter.

photo credit: tim caynes

For all the legend surrounding Santa Claus and Christmas, it’s surprising that the best story concerning the early Christian saint is forgotten.  Saint Nicholas was a real person. He was the bishop of Myra and defender of young women’s honor and Christian orthodoxy. It’s not only believed that he attended the Council of Nicea in 325 but that he also showed Arius who’s boss with a little fist-in-face action.

At the first Council of Nicea, Nicholas, bishop of Myra, met the arguments of Arius by bestowing upon the jaw of that venerable presbyter such a violent blow that a temporary disuse of that important organ of debate was rendered necessary (Lewis George Janes, A Study of Primitive Christianity, 294).

So when Santa comes to town, a lump of coal should be the least of your worries!

DeepDiscount.com is a little known online retailer that always offers free shipping on every order, no minimum. They provide very good competition for Amazon.com. While they largely specialize in DVDs, they’ve also got a bargain book section in which you’ll find some surprising works:

• David Clines, Word Biblical Commentary:Job 21-37 – $23.30 (Amazon $34.99) – link
• Stephen Smalley, Word Biblical Commentary: 1, 2, 3 John – $23.30 (Amazon $36.49) - link
• Alister McGrath, Christianity’s Dangerous Idea – $10.55 (Amazon $12.44) – link

These are just the first three to catch my eye. You can view an extended list of the books in the bargain bin. Also, if you’re looking for the perfect gift this Christmas, DeepDiscount has what’s sure to be a hit this holiday shopping season:

Joel Osteen’s Your Best Life Now – The Game for only $9.99 with free shipping. What else, right!? DeepDiscount rightly categorizes this in the “Fun Stuff” category. Get your copy today while supplies last!