Any idea?
I read the Wikipedia explanation but it does not give a historical background.
Did others “speak in tongues” before the disciples? Was it common knowledge that those who speak in tongues are gifted or was it something that started with the Christian apostles? Does it have any roots in the Old Testament?
Thanks,
Maher
I thought the wiki was pretty complete actually.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
The linguistic analysis is very interesting. And there is no religious tradition that doesn’t have a mystical component and some variation of “ecstatic speech”. Hindus do it. Buddhists do it. Muslims do it.
I know a guy who used to be a Pentecostal who became an atheist and he can still speak in tongues. Uh oh.
Practitioners of course claim it as proof of the reality of their religion.
Yet notice the distinction between what the Apostles reportedly did and what Christians now do and claim is speaking in tongues:
** you do not have permission to see this link **And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.
** you do not have permission to see this link **Cretans and Arabs—we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.”
Thank you.
Wikipedia does not give a historical context from the times of Jesus. For example, there were other self-proclaimed Messiahs in that period. Did they or their followers speak in tongues too? Was it a well known sign of being filled with the spirit of God (not sure if the term “Holy Spirit” was coined back then – I don’t think so).
If we use Dr. Ehrman’s 3 rules for knowing whether a historical story probably happened indeed or probably not, does this story pass?
Was this story added later; when the stories of Jesus’s “healing miracles” were added?
Maher
“Dr. Ehrman’s 3 rules for knowing whether a historical story probably happened indeed or probably not”
There’s no probably happened indeed. There’s only probably did or probably did not happen (most likely happened). Historicity is purely an assessment of available data. Take Luke’s census, for example, it’s widely believed that it did not happen; yet if someone discovered a trove of Roman documents from that period detailing such a census, then the assessment would change.
The rules in question are not Ehrman’s these are the rules governing the profession. That’ is the tests for determining what constitutes real or useful information.
spiker said
Yet notice the distinction between what the Apostles reportedly did and what Christians now do and claim is speaking in tongues:
** you do not have permission to see this link **And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.
** you do not have permission to see this link **Cretans and Arabs—we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.”
This is Luke’s famous “creative writing”. He is offering a defense against what the outsiders thought about it, which is rendered in Acts 2:13: ‘Some, however, made fun of them and said, “They have had too much wine.”’ If the apostles really had been delivering brilliant speeches in a number of foreign tongues, such a criticism would have been impossible. However, Luke knew about the scorn from outsiders on the unintelligible, ecstatic babbling, and concocted an impressive defense story about mastering foreign languages. This is confirmed by Paul’s chapter on glossolalia: “So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?”
spiker said
The evidence for this is????
The evidence for this is pretty strong. Paul devoted a whole chapter to speaking in tongues and makes it abundantly clear that the speech itself was unintelligible and needed to be interpreted, and according to Paul should be so, one at a time. This is external evidence from a very early source. Luke’s writings 40-50 years later is less credible.
Of course if one believes literally in the gospel miracles, not much prevents one from believing that the apostles both delivered “Pauline” glossolalia (accused of drunkenness), assisted by simultaneous interpretations and also delivered intelligible speeches afterwards or before . But it is not very likely. One can see the nature of Luke’s storytelling: It starts inside a house, the sound of The Holy Spirit attracts all sorts of foreigners at once, and suddenly everyone is out in open air. This is too obviously a literary revolving scheme technique that should not be taken literally.
But once again I think you have to distinguish between speaking in tongues, i.e, ecstatic speech, and being able to speak a foreign language by magic. I agree that Luke’s stories are probably legends but Paul is dealing with a real situation in the church. It’s apparent Paul and his folks engaged in various forms of mystical practice. What I’ve always wondered is whether he brought this stuff into Christianity with him or did he derive any of it from Jesus’ disciples? Did Jesus speak in tongues? Have visions? Out of body experiences? There are hints in the gospels but I guess we’ll never really know. Of course if Jesus encouraged visionary experiences it would make it more likely his disciples would interpret visions of Jesus after his death as revelations.
Stephen said
But once again I think you have to distinguish between speaking in tongues, i.e, ecstatic speech, and being able to speak a foreign language by magic. I agree that Luke’s stories are probably legends but Paul is dealing with a real situation in the church. It’s apparent Paul and his folks engaged in various forms of mystical practice. What I’ve always wondered is whether he brought this stuff into Christianity with him or did he derive any of it from Jesus’ disciples? Did Jesus speak in tongues? Have visions? Out of body experiences? There are hints in the gospels but I guess we’ll never really know. Of course if Jesus encouraged visionary experiences it would make it more likely his disciples would interpret visions of Jesus after his death as revelations.
I did distinguish between the different phenomena and suggested that the second one is a Lukan invention, derived from the first one, in order to magnify the apostles, and to counter later anti-Christian polemics.
From the Gospel material it looks as if ecstatic speech is something that is associated with the introduction of The Holy Spirit, occurring after Jesus’ death. Luke postpones the introduction until Pentecost, while John introduces it already in 20:21. This may indicate that speaking in tongues was something that came about during the early re-constitution of the apostles’ activities.
It should not come as a surprise that Midrash could explain the Pentecost?
Numbers 11:34 So Moses went out and told the people what the Lord had said. He brought together seventy(Twelve) of their elders and had them stand around the tent. 25 Then the Lord came down in the cloud and spoke with him, and he took some of the power of the Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy elders. When the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied—but did not do so again.
Acts 2 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place(the Tent of Moses). 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.
moose said
It should not come as a surprise that Midrash could explain the Pentecost?
Numbers 11:34 So Moses went out and told the people what the Lord had said. He brought together seventy(Twelve) of their elders and had them stand around the tent. 25 Then the Lord came down in the cloud and spoke with him, and he took some of the power of the Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy elders. When the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied—but did not do so again.
Acts 2 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place(the Tent of Moses). 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.
This is not Midrash, but there is a similarity in the sense that both stories have God intervene by means of a medium – The spirit. God never appears directly to humans , always by means of an indirect agent – a very old tradition. Elsewhere there is no mention of speaking in tongues in the first story. Luke’s story explains speaking in tongues (= ecstatic speech) as a manifestation of the Spirit. The idea that the Spirit is God’s operational means can be seen in Luke 1:35 or Matthew 1:18, as well.
gmatthews said
spiker said
The evidence for this is????Evidence? What is this word “evidence”? You should know by now that exegesis is arrived at based on what seems more likely and what seems less likely. What part of gavriel’s post seems “less likely” to you?
And likelyhood is determined by evidence.
gavriel said
spiker said
The evidence for this is????The evidence for this is pretty strong. Paul devoted a whole chapter to speaking in tongues and makes it abundantly clear that the speech itself was unintelligible and needed to be interpreted, and according to Paul should be so, one at a time. This is external evidence from a very early source. Luke’s writings 40-50 years later is less credible.
Paul’s writing on this pertains to his experience with his own churches. I never argued that the disciples actually spoke in tounges. I asked about what REPORTEDLY (What is reported to have ) happened and what we know Christians do TODAY. I don’t see how differences mean someone is making stuff up.
spiker said
gavriel said
spiker said
The evidence for this is????The evidence for this is pretty strong. Paul devoted a whole chapter to speaking in tongues and makes it abundantly clear that the speech itself was unintelligible and needed to be interpreted, and according to Paul should be so, one at a time. This is external evidence from a very early source. Luke’s writings 40-50 years later is less credible.
Paul’s writing on this pertains to his experience with his own churches. I never argued that the disciples actually spoke in tounges. I asked about what REPORTEDLY (What is reported to have ) happened and what we know Christians do TODAY. I don’t see how differences mean someone is making stuff up.
Well my opinion is that the story about the apostles delivering intelligible speeches in a number of foreign tongues is a Lukan invention, since he elsewhere is famous for his obvious made-up stories, like the completely unhistorical Roman census, or the conscious and willingly elimination (by changing Mark) of any reference to a temporary retreat of the apostles to Galilee after the execution.
It is clear that Paul is talking about his experience within “his” domain, but is also strong evidence for the early practicing of ecstatic speech. Thus it is an argument from silence when he does not refer to the remarkable achievements of the pillars. But it would have been natural to bring this forth in this chapter, wouldn’t it?
Combined, the two viewpoints make it more likely than not that the the speeches never took place. Delivering speeches is a dominating literary technique in Acts. Luke constructed them in order to summarize what he thought was real historical trends in the early period.
spiker said
Gav“God never appears directly to humans , always by means of an indirect agent”
I am pretty sure that is not entirely correct. Moses saw God’s butt Exodus 33:23 ” thou shalt see my back parts”
I’m quoting in full from The New Annotated Oxford Bible:
23: “Then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back; but my face shall not be seen”
“Back” refers in this case not to “butt” (!) but to God in anthropomorphic, metaphorical terms, according to this splendid work. The ending you omitted confirms the view that God never can be seen/experienced directly. The biblical God presents himself indirectly. Humans experience directly only his shadow or his medium/means.
Gav:
1.) That was a joke!
2.) But I doubt moses was speaking metaphorically.
Many people have claimed to see things that aren’t there. I dont think we can go oh that must be anthrpomorphic metaphor!
Consider many religious rituals involve things that can cause hallucinations.Anything from drugs to fasting or other forms of sensory deprivation. Add to that a person who is convinced they will see a specific deity if they only get to that sweet spot and voila you have a great recipe for seeing and hearing one.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)