gavriel said
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.
You have a census that probably did not happen. That doesn’t mean Luke invented it. Its quite possible he did. But again what’s the evidence? Consider that some of his source material is hypothetical: this is to say no one knows the contents because these sources no longer exist. Are you sure he did not get the census story from L? Again what’s the evidence?
Gav:
Great point about the pillars! What evidence do we have that Paul would have heard that story?
Although, if Paul and his congregation hadn’t heard the story, it increases the likelyhood it is a later development.
However, the fact that they were “speaking in tounges” might mean the story was known and the “language” may have been the result of trying to achieve what the apostles did.
spiker said
“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.
Well, my sentence was worded wrongly. As for calling them Dr. Ehrman’s rules, this is because I read about them in his books and he continuously refers to them. I wasn’t trying to give him credit for something he doesn’t deserve.
Anyway, thank you for the interesting responses. It seems to me that the Luke lines on this subject were added at a later stage to prove right and support the Pauline story. This might also mean that this “phenomenon” was inspired by Roman/Greek mythology and did not come from ancient Palestine.
No evidence (sorry spiker). Just some analysis.
spiker said
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.
I got that(1), but actually you gave a bible verse that definitely confirms the old Jewish tradition that God appears to humans indirectly. Further, what matters is what the old Jewish traditions behind Exodus held to be true, not “many religious rituals” in general.
spiker said
You have a census that probably did not happen. That doesn’t mean Luke invented it. Its quite possible he did. But again what’s the evidence? Consider that some of his source material is hypothetical: this is to say no one knows the contents because these sources no longer exist. Are you sure he did not get the census story from L? Again what’s the evidence?
I’m afraid I think Luke invented it. It is a construction that is not likely to be created within an oral tradition, because it is too contrived. You can see something similar in Matthew’s infancy story, which is directly at odds with the Lukan invention. On the other hand, the driving forces behind the constructs, may be a result of oral tradition, in particular the will to have Jesus born in Bethlehem.
spiker said
Gav:
Great point about the pillars! What evidence do we have that Paul would have heard that story?
Although, if Paul and his congregation hadn’t heard the story, it increases the likelyhood it is a later development.
However, the fact that they were “speaking in tounges” might mean the story was known and the “language” may have been the result of trying to achieve what the apostles did.
Arguments from silence are admittedly weak, taken in isolation. But we know that Paul spent as a minimum two weeks with Peter in order to “learn more”. Don’t you think Peter would have talked about all the strange happenings following the execution?
Gav
re: Luke removes the disciples temporary retreat Sure Luke could have removed the embarrassing detail from Mark’s narrative. Yet why leave in Peter’s denials? The question remains why did Luke leave out that detail? Apart from embarrassment, we also have an indication that Luke may have thought Mark’s Gospel was inadequate. If Luke had information, he found more credible, “changing Mark,” if you will, doesn’t make him the first century William Lane Craig.
BTW the Pillars comment is also an argument from Silence
The argument that modern day tongues aren’t Biblical because the apostles spoke in known tongues on the day of Pentecost doesn’t wash. Paul says in 1 Corinthians “For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.” (NIV).
When I was a Christian I spoke in tongues. Believing it was evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit as I was taught (in a charismatic Lutheran Chruch, btw), I sought to do it. Finally one of the elders of the church came to visit to get me properly baptized in the Holy Spirit and while he was praying in tongues he told me to just try to say what he was saying. So I just let it go and did as he suggested. I felt nothing but silly, but later on I did begin to feel something and became convinced that it I “had it” and that it was something real. I continued to do it for the rest of my time as a Christian, a period of about 20 years – every time I prayed. I even attended a church where routinely in every meeting, three times a week, the entire congregation would erupt in “spontaneous” singing in tongues after a period of lively worship. It is something you would have to hear for yourself to fully appreciate.
I am no longer a believer but it is an interesting psychological phenomenon.
One could argue that, within the earliest actively prophesizing Pauline churches, speaking in tongues referred to speaking in the tongues of angels: “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels” (1 Corinthians 13:1). This divine speech in the language of angels would then need an interpreter to comprehend.
I don’t think that glossolalia (speaking in tongues, ecstatic speech) has any meaning that is specific to Christianity or the Holy Spirit. I think that it is a psychological phenomenon associated with a high level of religious excitement & expectation. The person speaks in a “language” that is unintelligible, except (supposedly) by another person interpreting. Not that there’s anything wrong with it. It can be a powerful shared experience and build group cohesion.
By contrast, what is described in Acts 2:6 is xenoglossia. The disciples were able to speak in actual foreign languages, so as to be understood by the many travelers present, no interpreter required. Xenoglossia would further the cause of sharing the Gospel with potential new converts; glossolalia in front of potential new converts would be counterproductive.
Here would be an interesting experiment: Record someone speaking in tongues, then play it back to different interpreters, and see if their interpretations match.
By contrast, what is described in Acts 2:6 is xenoglossia. The disciples were able to speak in actual foreign languages, so as to be understood by the many travelers present, no interpreter required. Xenoglossia would further the cause of sharing the Gospel with potential new converts; glossolalia in front of potential new converts would be counterproductive.
Good point. This episode also figures theologically as a reversal of the curse of Babel.
Here would be an interesting experiment: Record someone speaking in tongues, then play it back to different interpreters, and see if their interpretations match.
That would be interesting. Not sure it’s ever been tried. I do know that glossolalia has been subjected to linguistic analysis. No linguistic structures higher than phonemes, the smallest unit of sound, can be detected. That means it does not consist of words or sentences. Revealingly enough the phonemes present never diverge from those of the speaker’s own native language.
The vocative of God.
If speaking in tongues was real, then writing in tongues would be real. If there were letters and words on the paper that could be understood by everyone, that would be speaking in tongues. Seriously though, that doesn’t exist. I am 99% limited to the English language as my native language and source of interpretation.
However at the time, the Greek language was the most universal language. The speaking in tongues idea was maybe a comical idiom of the Greek language itself. Within Jewish thought the speaking in tongues would be like the language that existed before the Tower of Babel? I don’t know, but it makes sense to me.
Maybe if someone is known to be speaking to an crowd of foreign speakers about God while jumping around and making emotional arm and hand movements while being both joyful and fearful, those who don’t speak the language would understand anyways in a heartfelt and pitiful way.
Greek has an unknown 6th cases. “The vocative of God.”
If speaking in tongues was real, then writing in tongues would be real.
There is the phenomenon of automatic writing but that is usually in the speaking language of the writer.
Within Jewish thought the speaking in tongues would be like the language that existed before the Tower of Babel?
God spoke Hebrew. In fact, He created the world using Hebrew letters and numerical values. According to Kabbala. (From a scientific point of view it seems pretty clear that acquisition of language was intimately connected to the development of consciousness. You could claim that the world as we perceive it came into being through language.)
Glossolalia is a phenomenon observable in almost all mystical religious traditions. Buddhists do it. Sufi Muslims do it. It’s thought that the long stretches of seeming nonsense words in some Gnostic writings are attempts to transcribe glossolalic utterings. It’s clearly a human physiological response. I met a former Pentecostal, now an unbeliever, who can still do it at will.
who can still do it at will.
Is that at all remarkable? I haven’t tried but I’m pretty confident I could string random sounds together in a way that sounds vaguely like a natural human language, at will, if I ever tried. Actually, there are some fascinating videos floating around of non-English speakers ** you do not have permission to see this link **–it is utter gibberish but it is uncanny because it really does sound like it should be good English.
@Steefen
Myself, being raised and educated in a midwestern “Reformed” Protestant tradition; that is,
where the congregation during the 20th and 21st centuries are not also confessed KKK members and Sons of the Confederacy who are in positions of: community leadership, political authority, law enforcement, bankers, (I’m not exactly sure what went on at the “other” Protestant church across the street, and why is there like a dozen churches of different denomination in this town of 2000 people)
I’m not even really sure what the specific theological positions the church was, except not catholic or orthodox.
It all never convinced me that speaking in tongues was a real thing. One of the reasons I became an apostate almost twenty years ago because it was taught to me in my youth as being a literal miracle that anyone could someday do by power of the Holy Spirit. Then it was explained, well maybe only the Apostles and Disciples could do it then at the time. I’m not buying into it much. If the gifts of the Holy Spirit were a real thing, we’d all be doing legitimate miracles everyday and the Catholic Church of Rome would no longer have priests employed to travel the world to investigate the claims of miracles.
“who can still do it at will.”
Is that at all remarkable? I haven’t tried but I’m pretty confident I could string random sounds together in a way that sounds vaguely like a natural human language, at will, if I ever tried. Actually, there are some fascinating videos floating around of non-English speakers imitating what English sounds like–it is utter gibberish but it is uncanny because it really does sound like it should be good English.
I think the difference would be being able to enter some sort of altered state of consciousness. Glossolalia is more than just performance.
I had a remarkable experience many years ago. I was having lunch with some friends in a Chinese restaurant. At the next table was a group of ethnic Chinese who were having a conversation in which they were skipping back and forth between Chinese and English. At one point a woman was speaking in chinese and I was listening closely to the rhythm of her speech. (Not eavesdropping since I understand nary a syllable of Chinese.) In the middle of her speech she said a single sentence in English. I heard it. I knew it was English. But I didn’t understand it at all. I guess I was so focused on her Chinese that whatever part of my brain that governs comprehension was put on hold. I remember thinking, That’s what English sounds like to a non-speaker!
If I clear up my “Mental Clutter” do I have to have a bad haircut?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)