Self referential just means that everything required to understand is contained within the thing. Language is meant as the concept of rationality - rationality is language, fundamentally. Strong's Concordance is an external tool, which is helpful, but a strong indication that the NT isn't a self referential language. No need for Latin. That's a historical irony! Anyways, I try to deal with the language of symbols, which carry over between spoken languages, as well as over time between traditions.
Discussion
I misunderstood your note the first time I read it. IMO, the whole bible has to be understood within the context of the time. So its not a genuinely self referential language... But it does come close. Many verses only reveal their full meaning when combined with other verses, often in other books, that use the same symbols. The context of the OT was Egyptian, Babylonian, and phonecian (grr, spelling) symbolism. The context of the NT is the Hellenic world, and might require referencing Greek myths. Might. I'm not ready to prove that.
This, imo, should be a hint that much of, or maybe all, of the bible is not literal. I'm in Texas - I'm surrounded by biblical literalists who have no tolerance for a rational examination of symbolic meaning. This might be why I like pursuing it so much...