Greek Pagans Speaking in Tongues Debunked by Greek Literature

[presidente]

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)

In Acts 2:6b
"because that every man heard them speak in his own language."

It says they heard them speak. It doesn't say they heard something other than what the men were speaking like a dubbed Kung Fu movie. Earlier in the chapter, it already said they spoke in languages.

 

[presidente]

Btw, the meat of the assertions in the article regarding ancient Greece can be easily verified by looking at English translations of the same passages he quotes. If Plutarch really argued that the oracle at Delphi could prophesy in prose rather than poetry, that pretty much debunks the theory in the other thread.

 

[Willie-T]

In Acts 2:6b
"because that every man heard them speak in his own language."

It says they heard them speak. It doesn't say they heard something other than what the men were speaking like a dubbed Kung Fu movie. Earlier in the chapter, it already said they spoke in languages.

[/SIZE]

Sorry. I won't let you play those kinds of games. The HEARING was emphasized...... NOT the speaking.

If you spoke French, and someone spoke in French, it would not amaze you. You would just figure you were listening to someone speaking in French.

And there would certainly be no one there saying you were drunk because you preached in French.

 

[presidente]

Sorry. I won't let you play those kinds of games. The HEARING was emphasized...... NOT the speaking.

If you spoke French, and someone spoke in French, it would not amaze you. You would just figure you were listening to someone speaking in French.

And there would certainly be no one there saying you were drunk because you preached in French.

Maybe the hearing is emphasized in your mind when you read it, but I don't see anything in there that emphsizes the hearing.

The way I read it, there were scoffers and there were people who understood the language. The ones who understood the language were surprised that Galileans could understand languages from their corners of the Roman Empire.

This debate is actually quite old. Two St. Gregories in the 300s took opposite stances on this issue.

 

[Stephen63]

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.

 

[maxwel]

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.

Presidente,

I agree that the article is "useful."


1. My point was NOT that it isn't "useful", but that we have no way to know if it's comprehensive, properly derived, or unbiased.

2. If we don't know that it's comprehensive or unbiased, then we shouldn't yet view it as if it is.

3. The only way for the layman to properly assess how comprehensive, properly derived, or unbiased it is, is to find corroborative research from other modern historians.

4. The whole issue of it being "comprehensive" is especially critical if, as I originally posted, he's actually trying to prove a negative, which he is. Proving a negative is logically impossible. However, we'd probably all be willing to stand on "reasonable evidence" if we felt that the evidence was comprehensive. If you're trying to prove a negative, and you expect people to go along with that, you should at least be able to show your research was comprehensive. We really shouldn't accept anyone's research as comprehensive (in a field where we're not experts) until we AT LEAST see corroborating research from other researchers.

I can show you, tomorrow, 10,000 passages in ancient Greek texts that do NOT mention glossolalia.
And it would all be meaningless.
It wouldn't prove anything.

I can also find 10,000 passages in ancient Greek texts that do not mention horses... but the Greeks DEFINITELY DID have horses.
We can't deal with negative propositions unless we have a reasonable assurance of comprehensive research.

So, we need comprehensive research to feel a negative is reasonably acceptable, and we can't have comprehensive research unless the research is corroborated by other researchers.

This is pretty simple stuff.

If you want to prove something is absent, you need to at least have comprehensive evidence, which pretty much includes some corroboration by definition.


5. The author definitely, unequivocally, is not a trained historian, and he has zero credentials as a historian.

Does this mean he cannot do historical research?
Not at all.

But it does mean that if he is admittedly biased on the topic, and he's also doing research which appears to be out of his field of study, we should AT LEAST just simply CORROBORATE his research with other modern historians.

The Bible DOES tell us to "test" and "prove" the things people tell us.
1Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
We also see the principles of reasonable skepticism and testing with the Bereans, and also in other areas of scripture.


I am ONLY suggesting we withhold our final verdicts on this subject until we see corroboration from other historians.



Conclusions:

A. I was just pointing out that we have many reasons to question the conclusions of the article until his research is corroborated.

B. REGARDLESS of the veracity of the article, it has LITTLE effect, either way, on the overall size and scope of the tongues debate.

C. I think you're a nice guy, and I really don't want to argue with you endlessly about this article. Again, it really has very minute weight in the whole tongues debate anyway.

 

[Stephen63]

I must say, I looked on the internet & Biblehub for something about the pagan babbling, & all I could find was a couple people say "it is believed" to have began with the pagans.

As far as I'm concerned, neither the one for or the one against is credible. Only Scripture stands.

Now, if someone could come up with some substantiated evidence either way I would certainly would like to read it.

 

[Kavik]

An older thread, but....

The Greeks, of course, were just one of hundreds of cultures that practiced glossolalia; most of these cultures still do practice it. I get where people tend to look towards what is now modern Greece with respect to glossolalia and its possible influences on certain groups within the early Christian church, but I think its also important to keep in mind they were by no means alone in the practice.

 

[presidente]

This is an old thread, but I'd like to comment on what Maxwel said.

The article shows evidence, from Plutarch, and others, that the oracle of Delphi was known for speaking in poetry. This does present evidence contrary to the theory that what was going on in Corinth was imitating a type of senseless speak done by the oracle of Delphi. It's not a majority position, but I have read it. An old John MacArthur sermon, for example, proposes this theory. Ironically, though t's a liberal theory, not an evangelical one. It is not consistent with a conservative approach to scripture.