Greek Pagans Speaking in Tongues Debunked by Greek Literature

[CS1]

I'm not fearing for myself but for those who do not have a regard for the holy things of God. Those who ought to know better but are above the rest in their own esteem.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

well i don't know who you are referring too because it seems those who if the context of this Post

"Greek Pagans Speaking in Tongues Debunked by Greek Literature"


are very much regarding the Holy Spirit. it seems to me they are showing what many already know to be true that the "Gifts of the Holy Spirit" are to be regarded as Holy . That seems pretty good to me do you not agree?

 

[Stephen63]

Some of the liberals from the Higher Criticism school have promoted a theory that speaking in tongues was of pagan origin, and that the oracle at Delphi and other pagan priests experienced 'glossolalia.' Sadly, certain conservatives who do not care for speaking in tongues have tried to read this idea into the Bible.

This website actually examines the accounts from Greek literature that deal with these pagan prophecies. These prophecies were a form of high oratory, either given as direct prose or else in poetry. The research showed a lack of evidence for the idea that these prophecies were some kind of incoherent babbling.

Here is the article.
Delphi Prophetesses and Christian Tongues - Charles A. Sullivan

One of THE most wicked tricks of false teachers when they can't validate their doctrine presently is to write a work that goes back in time to attempt to rewrite History. They will "say" "We've found this new evidence that proves....." & get other liberals to "validate" it, & some more of them to write about it, & before you know it, the christian community is eating it all up.

It's no different than the way our govt keeps rewriting its own history & other countries' histories to prop up their agenda.

Disinformation & propaganda is one of Satan's weapons of choice in the last days.

 

[CS1]

One of THE most wicked tricks of false teachers when they can't validate their doctrine presently is to write a work that goes back in time to attempt to rewrite History. They will "say" "We've found this new evidence that proves....." & get other liberals to "validate" it, & some more of them to write about it, & before you know it, the christian community is eating it all up.

It's no different than the way our govt keeps rewriting its own history & other countries' histories to prop up their agenda.

Disinformation & propaganda is one of Satan's weapons of choice in the last days.

that is a good point I agree the one thing I would say is this writings are not authoritative the Word of God can stand on it's own very well. Nor does it need things like this to validate what God means. the Gifts of the Holy Spirit are relevant because the Word of God makes them so.

 

[notuptome]

well i don't know who you are referring too because it seems those who if the context of this Post

"Greek Pagans Speaking in Tongues Debunked by Greek Literature"


are very much regarding the Holy Spirit. it seems to me they are showing what many already know to be true that the "Gifts of the Holy Spirit" are to be regarded as Holy . That seems pretty good to me do you not agree?

The entire article is a straw man.

Where does it leave those who profess to know Christ as their Savior yet claim to speak tongues that mimic the pagan babblings?

Certainly no one would claim that apostolic Christians and Greek pagans were speaking in the same fashion.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[CS1]

The entire article is a straw man.

Where does it leave those who profess to know Christ as their Savior yet claim to speak tongues that mimic the pagan babblings?

Certainly no one would claim that apostolic Christians and Greek pagans were speaking in the same fashion.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I agree. the point i'm making is this article is not even needed the Bible is very clear that the tongues mention in the Book of Acts were languages because the bible says so. and it too is very clear this same event happened repeatedly throughout the book of Acts and "tongues " is a Gift of the Holy Spirit that is given as the Holy Spirit sees fit as 1 cor 12, 13, 14 states and other scriptures

 

[notuptome]

I agree. the point i'm making is this article is not even needed the Bible is very clear that the tongues mention in the Book of Acts were languages because the bible says so. and it too is very clear this same event happened repeatedly throughout the book of Acts and "tongues " is a Gift of the Holy Spirit that is given as the Holy Spirit sees fit as 1 cor 12, 13, 14 states and other scriptures

Now if you can get the rest in the Pentecostal and Charismatic churches to at least become uniform in that position we can have a biblical debate.

I suspect the purpose of the article was to defame another poster by misrepresenting his position on the subject.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Stephen63]

that is a good point I agree the one thing I would say is this writings are not authoritative the Word of God can stand on it's own very well. Nor does it need things like this to validate what God means. the Gifts of the Holy Spirit are relevant because the Word of God makes them so.

The liberals & critics have to resort to this, because, like you say, nothing's in scripture to validate it.

So they say "Since "this" has been found, that scripture can't mean what it says it does"

They've been doing this for years with the old gnostic writings.

 

[CS1]

Now if you can get the rest in the Pentecostal and Charismatic churches to at least become uniform in that position we can have a biblical debate.

I suspect the purpose of the article was to defame another poster by misrepresenting his position on the subject.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

that is because of maturity and error and pride play's into that. I prefer to stay as I have learned I think correctly to the contextual meaning and authorial intent . Those who have said " if you do not speak in tongues , you are not saved" are just wrong The Bible doesn't teach that. the same as those who say Tongues is not for today. The Bible doesn't teach that. as far as debate I would say the other guy won .. Why if all I can do is win the "debate " and lose the brother " then I'm not winning anything. the other person will still be of the same opinion. What good does that do? all i can do is present the Full word of God and leave them alone because if I am a stumbling block to them no matter what side I am on I will answer to God and so will they Hey I could be wrong !!!!! wow how many in here have ever said that ?...

 

[CS1]

The liberals & critics have to resort to this, because, like you say, nothing's in scripture to validate it.

So they say "Since "this" has been found, that scripture can't mean what it says it does"

They've been doing this for years with the old gnostic writings.

I am no fan of Gnosticism lol

 

[stonesoffire]

I think if you would read the whole thread "tongues again" you wouldn't judge a winner on either side. That whole thread was a tragedy that should not of been.

I agree though, the Word is adequate for debate. Or should be.

 

[CS1]

I think if you would read the whole thread "tongues again" you wouldn't judge a winner on either side. That whole thread was a tragedy that should not of been.

I agree though, the Word is adequate for debate. Or should be.

lol my word was figuratively lol

 

[Willie-T]

Anyone ever listen to a newscast when the speaker is talking in a language you don't know, and the translator is in the background, translating into your language?

Did you ever notice that in the first few seconds, BOTH the speaker and the translator may be speaking at the same volume? You can't make out a thing either of them are saying, UNTIL they reduce the volume of the speaker, and at the same time, increase the volume of the translator's voice.

Now, imagine being several hundred feet down a tiny, narrow, cramped Jerusalem street, jammed in there with 3,000 other people, trying to hear as many as fifteen (15) men all speaking 15 different languages at once.

Now, just sit there and imagine that scene for a few minutes. (Why, you can't even hear three people all talking at once in your own living room.)

Do you still want to claim they were all speaking known languages that God taught them?

 

[Stephen63]

Anyone ever listen to a newscast when the speaker is talking in a language you don't know, and the translator is in the background, translating into your language?

Did you ever notice that in the first few seconds, BOTH the speaker and the translator may be speaking at the same volume? You can't make out a thing either of them are saying, UNTIL they reduce the volume of the speaker, and at the same time, increase the volume of the translator's voice.

Now, imagine being several hundred feet down a tiny, narrow, cramped Jerusalem street, jammed in there with 3,000 other people, trying to hear as many as fifteen (15) men all speaking 15 different languages at once.

Now, just sit there and imagine that scene for a few minutes. (Why, you can't even hear three people all talking at once in your own living room.)

Do you still want to claim they were all speaking known languages that God taught them?

5Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. 7They were amazed and astonished, saying, “Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8“And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? 9“Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11Cretans and Arabs—we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.

I believe the answer is yes.

 

[Willie-T]

5Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. 7They were amazed and astonished, saying, “Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8“And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? 9“Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11Cretans and Arabs—we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.

I believe the answer is yes.

Sadly for you, the very answer you gave shows it is "No." They did not ask how these guys learned to SPEAK foreign languages. They asked how it was that they HEARD whatever they were saying in each of their own languages (Of which there were 15)

 

[maxwel]

Some of the liberals from the Higher Criticism school have promoted a theory that speaking in tongues was of pagan origin, and that the oracle at Delphi and other pagan priests experienced 'glossolalia.' Sadly, certain conservatives who do not care for speaking in tongues have tried to read this idea into the Bible.

This website actually examines the accounts from Greek literature that deal with these pagan prophecies. These prophecies were a form of high oratory, either given as direct prose or else in poetry. The research showed a lack of evidence for the idea that these prophecies were some kind of incoherent babbling.

Here is the article.
Delphi Prophetesses and Christian Tongues - Charles A. Sullivan

Presidente found a very fascinating article.

I looked over the article, and thought it was very interesting.

However, I think we should pick through the article a bit, and just try to get a good perspective of what it is, and what it isn't.



Potential Issues With The Article:


1. Not a historian:
The author, Charles A. Sullivan, holds no degrees in history or ancient languages, so he would not be considered a trained historian.

He seems to be very intelligent, but he's not a trained historian.

(The college he attended doesn't offer degree programs in history or ancient languages.)


2. No credentials which would support his historical expertise:
The author only holds a BA from a Bible College, so although he may be very intelligent, and he may be a great guy, he doesn't necessarily have the academic credentials to make significant historical claims if they are unsupported by other recognized historians.

This doesn't make him right or wrong, I'm just pointing out that he would not be considered an "authority" on historical subjects.


3. Comparisons Needed: As he is not a trained historian, and doesn't have credentials that would support his expertise as an historian, we would need to compare his article to works of recognized historians on the subject.

Without comparing his article to works of others, who are actual historians, we simply have no way to know if his research is either comprehensive or soundly derived.

(His research may be fine, but unless we do comparisons with research of recognized historians, we really have no way to know.)


4. Logic Problem: He is trying to prove a negative, which is logically very problematic.
He is trying to prove "There are no instances of glossolalia in ancient Greece."
He then tries to prove this by showing several texts where ancient historians DO NOT talk about glossolalia.
Logically, showing that some texts DO NOT HAVE A THING, is not proof the thing does not exist, nor is it proof that the thing dos not exist in OTHER TEXTS.

Unfortunately, trying to PROVE a negative is logically impossible.
The best he can do is PROVIDE REASONABLE EVIDENCE.

However, we have no way to KNOW if he has genuinely provided REASONABLE EVIDENCE unless we compare his article to other works by recognized historians.
(His article might be lacking in comprehensiveness, or lacking in correctly derived conclusions, or it might even be biased for personal reasons. We simply don't know without comparing his work with other people.)

So once again, as readers, we're simply stuck without doing more research.


5. He is admittedly a proponent of "speaking in tongues" in the modern church; so he admittedly has a bias, which has the potential to affect his research.

Having a bias does not prove his work is inaccurate.
But it does mean we should be aware of the possibility, and therefore compare his article to works of other people who do NOT have the same bias.



Conclusion:
1. Mr. Sullivan's work is very interesting, but as he is admittedly biased, and he is not an actual historian, we simply have no way to know if his historical research is comprehensive, completely unbiased, or interpreted correctly.
2. The only way to assess the veracity of Mr. Sullivan's work is to compare it to other works, by recognized historians.




Final Thoughts:

Presidente did a great job of bringing us a very interesting article, on a very interesting and important topic.

However, as interesting as this article is, like most things we read outside of scripture, it isn't really able to stand alone, and it needs further research.

 

[jaybird88]

5. He is admittedly a proponent of "speaking in tongues" in the modern church; so he admittedly has a bias, which has the potential to affect his research.

Having a bias does not prove his work is inaccurate.
But it does mean we should be aware of the possibility, and therefore compare his article to works of other people who do NOT have the same bias.

where did you read that? thats the 1st thing i looked for and couldnt find anything. the article read like a long winded filibuster with little substance which didnt help.

 

[maxwel]

One more thing:

I am NOT taking a stand that the article is right or wrong.


I'm just saying that the veracity of the article is totally impenetrable without more research... and probably some opinions of expert historians.

 

[presidente]

The entire article is a straw man.

Where does it leave those who profess to know Christ as their Savior yet claim to speak tongues that mimic the pagan babblings?

That doesn't make since. There is no straw man. What you are doing is presenting us with a red herring. VCO was arguing in another thread for the idea that pagans in the temple of Apollo and elsewhere 'spoke in tongues'. This article presents the actual pagan Greek texts in such a way that debunks that theory.

I can't say that no one out there is just babbling. But I do see in the Bible that there is a genuine speaking in tongues and that the Spirit manifests 'divers tongues' through individuals in the body of Christ. I'll choose to believe the Bible. Your interpretation, based on a weak theory on how to interpret one passage leads to disobedience to scriptures such as 'Let all things be done unto edifying', 'If it man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two or...', '....forbid not to speak with tongues...', 'Prove all things'.

Certainly no one would claim that apostolic Christians and Greek pagans were speaking in the same fashion.

If you haven't read what everyone has written, don't make such assertions. You obviously haven't kept up with the 'Tongues Again' thread. Thread. VCO believes that some people in the church were speaking the same kind of stuff the pagans where.

He quoted John MacArthur who has a whole sermon that says that the Corinthians in the church were speaking in pagan tongues. He presented the theory that when the singular 'tongue' is used, it refers to gibberish. (Paul commands to allow 'a tongue' in verse 27, another case of JM making pronouncements without doing his homework when it comes to spiriutal gifts. He also wrote something about never seeing the apostles fall into a trace, when both Peter and Paul did in Acts.)

zone posted a link to an article that argued that the Corinthians were doing the same thing. The author did not exactly state his own stance, but the article, by quoting other sources, seemed to promote the idea that Paul was against speaking in tongues, but did not want to come out and say it because he did not want to lose credibility. The author of that theory must have thought he was clever enough to know what Paul meant when he didn't really right it down. 'Scholars' can be pretty foolish sometimes.

It is also sad when conservatives embrace these theories created by people who don't really believe the Bible. There are plenty of theories made by people who did not believe that Jesus or the apostles did miracles. They come up with their liberal, doubting theories, and some Christians will be deceived and begin to listen to them and repeat them.

 

[jaybird88]

But I do see in the Bible that there is a genuine speaking in tongues. . . .

anytime someone speaks in the bible or anywhere they are speaking in a tongue.

there are no example in the bible of anyone speaking in the babble tongue spirit language

 

[presidente]

maxwel,

I read the article last night, and don't want to re-read it. Did he actually write that the purpose of his article was to disprove that there was the pagan equivalent of pagan 'glossalalia' in ancient Greek?

Many of the people promoting this theory tie it to the oracle at Delphi. John MacArthur did in one of his sermons. VCO argued that battalogeo, which the KJV renders as 'vain repititions' is related to a kind of fake pagan glossolalia. He said the Apollo priests used to say 'say batta batta.' I challenged him on it and asked for a primary source that showed this, and he would not answer.

The article is useful in that it demonstrates that both in ancient times in the time of Herodotus and in the first century in the time of Plutarch, the oracle of Delphi was known for speaking in actual sentences and that there was an expectation that she speak in poetry. If the 'Apollo tongues' people have evidence for their theory, they should present it.

As for his not being trained as a historian, so what? Maybe a historian could show evidence that he did not. That's possible. I've got a PhD, and I would not discount evidence based on whether the person who presents it has a PhD. Doctoral programs teach people to examine and evaluate evidence, not the credentials of the person, the opposite of the ad hominem argument.

In fact, I found the link to this site was posted on a forum by a man with a doctorate, in theology I think, and he must have thought it was good. I am pretty sure he has an academic degree and not a D. Min., too.

One point I think the author of the article should make is that the way he uses 'glossalalia' is the way certain types of scholars do, and not the way the Bible does.