But I'm Still In Love With Judas

Maundy Thursday is not only the day that Christians remember the Last Supper, but it also the day that Judas betrayed Jesus: kissing him in the garden of Gethsemane so as to mark him out to the soldiers of Roman officials. Whilst this one act has come to characterise Judas as a person of bad character, of deceit and lies, it appears awfully unfair that we do not consider the great role Judas played in the formation of the Christian religion. Without Judas, how would Jesus have been crucified, and with what importance, or to what effect?

Christians believe that Jesus died on Good Friday after being crucified by the Romans. Later on Easter Sunday, he rose from the dead and his bodily resurrection has become fundamental doctrine: Jesus was ‘born again’ to save our sins; to give us a second life. Although we may argue that God had always promised this and so it would have happened at any time, we cannot ignore how Judas provided the catalyst for crucifixion 2,000 years ago.

Being unsure of the divinity of Jesus and surrounding claims of this nature, Judas grew tired and upset of the growing fervour that overwhelmed this prophet. Many believe that when he started to preach, Jesus did not at first call himself the son of God and his humanity was only later stripped by those that saw his works and were struck by his manner of living, his reason and intellect and other attributes.

Judas then fell victim to that same emotion that plagues most of us: he grew jealous. Not only this, but, as we all do, he doubted and was confused. Together with his conflicting morals, Judas’ weaknesses were capitalised upon – he was manipulated and exploited by others into acting when unsure.

Therefore, Judas unwittingly represents a key figure in the story and that is to reflect and define human. The human is flawed and easily swayed by changing moods, beliefs and emotions. In short, people are sensitive to the slightest of outside influences. If we consider Judas alongside two other apostles, his part in Jesus’ death would appear the most important. These other figures are Peter and Thomas. Both deny Jesus three times. Not only did both deny him three times, but they did so deliberately and with full resolve. Peter was warned that he would deny Jesus thrice and yet this came to pass under the pressure of mounting agitation in order to avoid acquaintances that could have him arrested. Thomas doubts the resurrection and is fully acceptant of the impossibility of such an event. As such, these two are culpable for going against Christ to a much greater extent: for they did so being sound of mind and took conscious decisions. Judas was not in an such state.

Confusion and troubles have a great deal to account for then. One could argue that this makes Judas’ actions a great deal less praise-worthy, but we should consider that since Judas undertook a practical action to fix what he believed a wrong, we see misplaced principles. This apostle simply suffered misguidance and a pragmatism that it would be better to maintain a certain order. The other cases show devoted peoples that instantly forgot their beliefs and lost their self-respect.

In addition, Jesus warned all that there would be betrayals. Peter and Judas then reflect two different types of infidelities: the physical and the lexical. Although Judas actions led to the death of Jesus, it was the death of his mortality and allowed for transcendence to a state beyond such actions. Judas was the means by which there could be a metaphysical release. In comparison, disloyalty to the word of God should be taken more seriously: to show such unfaithfulness is to betray oneself, any religious traits and doctrine itself so that the very foundation of the religion is compromised by human tendency and uncertainty. The word no longer carries the same weight, because no one can trust God’s meaning if people constantly change beliefs and interpretations.

If Jesus knew that he was to be betrayed and announced that the disciple should go about his work, it should be seen as one of the most ordained acts in the founding of Christianity. Officials and Jesus both appear to have encouraged Judas. In such a delicate state, he was overwhelmed, as are all other humans at some stage. Judas is only saved by Christ’s sacrifice: he is forgiven his actions because he was so confused. Yet out of this, an entire religion was formulated and the order of a great many countries established. Without Judas, the legacy of Jesus would simply not exist.

Just as Jesus died to save us from our sins and troubles, Judas betrayed him for the same reason.

Da Changin’ Langwich: LOL.

“Tongues, like governments, have a natural tendency to degeneration”, or such was the belief of Dr. Samuel Johnson (the man widely regarded as having compiled the first dictionary of the English language). With the introduction of ‘LOL’ to the OED at the beginning of the month, many linguists certainly found themselves returning to this 18^th century statement. Whilst there are new words added to the reference book all the time, it appeared that the popular initialism was not a favoured entry: Facebook groups against the addition were established, one blogger termed the move “The Death of the Dictionary” and hundreds of linguists declared it an appalling decision that only served to highlight falling literacy levels.

LOL is now defined as an interjection, “originally and chiefly in the language of electronic communications: 'ha ha!'; used to draw attention to a joke or humorous statement, or to express amusement.”

Whether in favour of the new lexicon or against its inclusion, the term has become undeniably widespread and is recognisable even to those who do not use it, or are insulted by its very use. Once an idiom, the initials have come to represent a ‘lol-ternative’ method of expressing one’s amusement and it has filtered from email use into the mainstream of text messaging, media programmes and common vernacular of teen sociolects. In fact, the term has been in use since the 1990s; some argue that there are examples of people lolling before that time. If the dictionary is to remain an accurate and inclusive reflection of English, then surely those responsible for updating the OED are only duty-bound to consider the terminology. 

Rewind the clock twenty years. Consider the massive swaths of new lexemes that have entered our language and all the shifts that have taken place. A Mac would have been a mackintosh coat, not a computer. A browser would have been a casual shopper, not a form of internet access. Technology, its terms and the way it has altered our communication methods, has come to overwhelm and inundate our language with new and interesting changes, based on existing words, phrases and conceptions.

Therefore, language change is the very essence of keeping a language alive. To resist alteration would be to render a language obsolete: it would be unable to cope with changing social situations (WAG craze?), new scientific and technological advancement (dongle, anyone?), or unique and novel experiences (staycation/staycating already used by the BBC!). In short, it would lose relevance and function for its populous.

‘LOL’ as a term may be despised by a large group of citizens, but it represents an ever evolving language, which should be celebrated. David Crystal questions “How many people are actually laughing when they say lol?” Herein lies a specific insight to our language use: more frequently, we find that the language we use is the easiest form of expressing ourselves. No longer is there a need to be particular and almost ornate. It is much more preferable and inkeeping with our quick lifestyles if we are to communicate in an informal manner. 

Moreover, if we are to consider the original domain of ‘lol’, the internet and mobiles are areas of contention for many language experts. Controversial claims by Crystal insist that use of abbreviations and neologisms are evidence that our youth do indeed know how to use our language correctly. Without functioning knowledge of how to manipulate English, the subsequent forms would not make sense. Besides, you have to know there is a letter to miss, to miss it with a purpose.

Tony Thorne reaffirms such an idea: “Government educationalists get all worked up about words like LOL - they see them as substandard and unorthodox… But the small amount of research on this issue shows that kids who use slang abbreviations are the more articulate ones. It's called code switching.”

Indeed, the concept of code-switching helps illustrate the adaptability of our diverse and developing language. Simply being immersed in certain situations will signal that one register of language is more appropriate than any other mode of communication. We can agree that no person is about to lol at their boss and his ideas: they may suggest an alternative method instead. How constructive. The different prosodies and implications have their own subtleties: being able to use language in so many different ways allows us to convey our sentiments in different manners depending on circumstance, familiarity etc.

For language to evolve, there is bound to be debate. The English language has almost become global and this is because, more than any other language, it has such a plethora of expressions, terms and idioms that allow a person to explore their sense of meaning. It was for this reason that English was favoured over many Asian languages as official languages of state and education, even after decolonisation. Establishing language academies has failed in this country, despite the efforts of Swift among others. In France, the system struggles to maintain any control over the language.

Maybe then tongues do not degenerate. Rather they regenerate and branch out in new directions, building on previous language bases. To be able to grow, the language need incorporate all lexeme, regardless of domain and origin. It is quite impossible to be a descriptive grammarian or participant in language and take umbrage with one example of popular creation. Language works because we use it this way. The OED records our use of language. Idioms and quaint forms of expression have entered and exited our language for generations. The sheer alarm raised by one little instance is, in itself, quite lol-worthy. Or rather, one finds this trivial complaining most bemusing.

IN THE BEGINNING, THERE WAS THE WORD. (A.K.A. The Reason Behind My Blog)

In the short time that I have been alive, one factor has particularly shaped my passions in life: the ability to speak, to write, to have language with which to communicate. Whilst this statement may sound mundane, you should consider how far the simple act of speaking is taken for granted. How would one cope without the voice afforded by birth? The answer… with difficulty.

There is no substitute for a functioning language or mode of communication. The word is the way by which we connect with each other, communicate with each other, collaborate with each other. From birth, we have been immersed in language: first being talked at, then experimenting with our mother tongue and finally adopting our own idiolectal take on the language which is adhered to by one’s particular society. 

My own interest began with speech impediments as a child. I developed writing skills to compensate in part, and used hand gestures to aid daily life. From this, I grew more absorbed by language and use of the written word.

Alongside this use of language, my childhood tendency to question and to need answer has nurtured an appreciation for the news. Journalism, be it print or broadcast, takes language and uses words with such subtlety, such meaning, such expression. News channels cover events, happenings and changes to the world and personal lives and to cover all of these, we need ask relevant questions and be granted answers that satisfy our thirst for knowledge on the subject.

Consequently, it is my ambition to enter into the field of journalism; working for a newspaper would provide me with opportunity to communicate and question for the masses. In the beginning there was the word. In the future, I hope to continue to push the word with my print. 

This blog will cover various topics: whilst mainly focussed on recent news items, it will incorporate particular exemplum from my daily life as well as opinionated pieces regarding all manner of interests and recent media topics. I have embedded a link to my reporter page for ‘The Yorker’ student newspaper, with the University of York. I will repost this occasionally to refer and remind of the extra material available there. 

Voltaire said “When we hear news, we should always wait for the sacrament of confirmation.” But our beliefs and opinions shape news. News thrives from our interaction with the story itself. News is current and means something to the people. News is what we make it and how we communicate it. 

In the beginning there was the word. At present, the word changes each day: the word is whatever has made the headline. The word is news.

http://www.theyorker.co.uk/news/archive/reporter/595/