Jim Jordan suggests that Daniel 2-7, written in Aramaic, is a fulfillment of the promise/threat of tongues (from Isaiah), and that this passage authorizes translation of Scripture into various languages. Which leads to several thoughts:
1) As Jordan points out, translation was not done until the intertestamental period, and is still not done by Muslims. Refusal to translate seems to be particularly connected with old world/old covenant systems (like Islam). The written word is kept close, hidden away, but with the coming of the new covenant the written word is spread abroad in many languages. This fits with the characterization of the post-exilic period as an “ecumenical age,” the age of the oikoumene.
2) The postmodern suspicion or critique of translation seems to be a reversion to a pre-Pentecostal mentality. For instance: The linguistic tribalism celebrated by Stanley Fish and other postmodern theorists. As I noted in an earlier post, Babel has become a dominant postmodern metaphor; which is to say, the reversal of Pentecost is a key postmodern theme. Social and linguistic fragmentation is inevitable when the Spirit withdraws, for the Spirit is the one who marries one to another.
Ethics of Rhetoric in Times of War
What we say matters. And the way we say it matters. This is especially true in times…
How the State Failed Noelia Castillo
On March 26, Noelia Castillo, a twenty-five-year-old Spanish woman, was killed by her doctors at her own…
The Mind’s Profane and Sacred Loves
The teachers you have make all the difference in your life. That they happened to come into…