@graceNpeace -
I have to respectfully disagree – there’s nothing in either the Pentecost narrative or Paul’s letter that does not refer to real language.
Here’s Corinthians with reference to real language:
First, and I think foremost, it is critical to understand that Corinth was a multi-cultural, linguistically diverse city on not one, but two ports. As a major seaport city, one would expect to find a constant influx and varied mix of visitors, travelers, transients, freedman and slaves. Though Greek was the language of Corinth, as well as the ‘English of its day; i.e. almost everyone in the Mediterranean basin was familiar with it to some degree, communication in general between people from different lands and countries must have been difficult at best as it would have had to be conducted in Greek; a language, not everyone knew equally well.
A church, any organization really, tends to reflect its environment. Since Corinth was multilingual, one would also expect to see this diversity reflected in its church and other social/religious organizations.
At first glance, Corinthians presents what at first may seem like a slew of evidence for tongues-speech (T-speech), most people focus on two passages: 1 Cor. 14:2, and 1 Cor. 14:13-14.
Many use 1 Cor. 14:2 as “proof” of tongues being spiritual language(s) – but upon closer examination, it simply describes real language, though a foreign one to those hearing it. Note that nowhere does the passage even remotely suggest that the speaker does not understand what he himself is saying.
For example, if I attend a worship service in ‘East Haystack’, Alabama two things are going to be evident: one; there’s only going to be so many people at that service (i.e. there will be a finite given amount of people there) and two; the chances that anyone in East Haystack speaks anything but English is pretty slim to nil. If I start praying aloud in say Lithuanian, there’s no one at that service that’s going to understand a bloody word I’m saying. Even though I’m speaking a real language, no one there will understand my “tongue”. That does not mean or imply that no one else understands Lithuanian; just no one at that particular service. So it ends up being a “real language no one understands” (within that given context). To the people listening to me, I am speaking ‘mysteries” in the Spirit (i.e. I’m praying earnestly from my heart and from deep within my being = praying ‘in the spirit’).
To explain it further, as one writer put it, “Think of it this way; if I showed up at a Bible study and began to speak in German, but no one else in the room could speak German, I might impress a few people, but no one would understand me. So if I speak in a language that no one else in the room can speak, I am in fact not speaking to men, but to God (who alone can understand all languages). Anything I say would be a mystery to those in the room. That is what Paul was trying to convey” by people speaking a foreign language at a public worship.
The person speaking is simply speaking in his own native language which no one at the worship service understands or speaks. In that sense he is speaking only to God since no one there speaks his language – to them he is speaking “mysteries”. Again, nowhere in the passage does remotely it suggest the speaker does not understand what he himself is saying.
Corinthians 14:13-14 seems to present a problem with respect to asserting that ‘tongues’ here is meant as real language(s). “Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.”
Verses 13 & 14 – To paraphrase this a bit, “If a person speaks in a foreign language (as his first language), let him pray that he can adequately translate what he’s saying into the language of Corinth (Greek). If I speak in my own language and no one there understands it, though I may be praying from deep within my being, my mind does not produce fruit (in others)”
It seems somewhat odd at first, but when you take into consideration the intricacies of translating (even something that appears easy and straightforward at first glance), it’s really no wonder that Paul admonishes the person to pray for guidance that he may translate it (adequately and correctly) into Greek. Translating prayer from one language to another is particularly difficult due to the many nuances expressed in the original language that may or may not be able to be expressed ion the target language.
With respect to verse 14, I am going to quote from an article (A New Look At Tongues Part II) by Robert Zerhusen who explains it much better than I can:
“1 Corinthians 14:14 is probably the main text used to argue that the language speaker did not understand his language. Paul says that if he should speak in a language (without translation), "my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful [akarpos]." Lenski takes akarpos as passive: "my nous or understanding" is inactive and thus akarpos--"barren," "unfruitful," producing no distinct thoughts".
Paul could however have been using akarpos in the active sense:
A decision upon its meaning centers in akarpos ("unfruitful") whether the adjective is passive in sense, meaning the speaker himself receives no benefit, or active in sense, meaning his nous (understanding) provides no benefit to others...The view that assigns akarpos a meaning of "produces nothing, contributes nothing to the process"... is not convincing, because akarpos does not mean "inactive." It is a word for results and does not apply to the process through which the results are obtained. The present discussion does not center on the activity or nonactivity of the tongues speaker's mind, but rather on potential benefit derived by listeners.
The whole context of 1 Corinthians 14 is the effect upon the hearers of untranslated languages.
Paul’s concern is the edification of the group. Therefore, 14:14 should be taken as "My spirit prays but my mind does not produce fruit [in others]." This says nothing about whether or not the speaker understood his own utterance.”
There’s just nothing here that does not suggest real language.
Throughout this entire section of his letter Paul’s main concern is clarity, understanding, and intelligibility during a public worship service such that everyone there can benefit, not just one or two people.
How do you establish this when you’re in the middle of a huge multi-cultural and linguistically diverse city where everyday communication can be a challenge?
In this case, yes, I would definitely posit that Paul states the phenomenally obvious solution (though in an extremely elaborate and eloquent way). In so many words… “Make sure people can understand each other in a public worship so everyone has an opportunity to benefit from what’s being said. If you have some guy come in and start speaking his native language and no one understands it, it’s not doing anyone any good but him – everyone needs to have the opportunity to benefit, so…best case scenario is to have him learn enough Greek so he can translate what he’s saying, but obviously this isn’t going to happen overnight (particularly if he’s not going to be in the city all that long), so in the meantime either have him find a translator or, if no translator can be found, better for him to not say anything at all so as not to add to or create any further confusion.”
I don’t think it’s any more complicated than that; real language issue, real language solution to the issue.
Given the demographic make-up of Corinth, and the common everyday issues such cultural and linguistic diversity bring, to postulate anything here but real language being referenced just doesn’t stand up to the reality of the situation. Not everything in the Bible needs to be divine or miraculous; sometimes it just describes common everyday issues; in this case here, one of clarity and communication in a place where those two things were difficult to achieve at best.
Let’s take a look at the Pentecost narrative with respect to real language –
In general, there are many “misreadings” (for lack of a better term) that most people don’t even think about when reading both Acts and Corinthians. Many people tend to gloss over things that are critical to fully understanding the context of the text, or assume one thing means something else entirely. These misreadings have resulted in many misinterpretations of the texts.
What do I mean by a misreading? Perhaps the best example is the “list” in Acts 2:9-11 – the common belief and assumption is that it is a list of languages. But look closely at that list again…..what do you notice? It’s not a list of languages, is it? It’s a list of geographic locations and ethnic groups. Is there any sort of relevance to these places referenced in the list? Well, yes indeed; upon closer inspection, we discover that they are specifically those lands and areas of the Jewish Diaspora (Cyprus and Syria are missing – perhaps due to copyist errors over time). Both the Western and Eastern Diaspora are included which is significant, but we’ll get to this later. For now, they represent the “Jews of all nations under heaven” ( ‘all “X” under heaven’ simply being an idiomatic expression – just like ‘40 days and 40 nights’ was idiomatic).
So what about the languages? Read the entire narrative again carefully. Did you notice anything? It may not be apparent at first, but it’s there. Not one place in the entire Pentecostal narrative is even one language ever referenced by name…not one. Further, and perhaps more importantly, nowhere in the entire narrative does it suggest or imply that communication was even a problem to begin with! For me, this would send up a few red flags if I were to postulate modern Pentecostal/Charismatic tongues for those of Acts.
So if communication was not the issue, what was the problem?
The Pentecostal narrative, contrary to how many interpret it, does not describe xenoglossy, nor does it describe a miracle of hearing one’s own language when someone is speaking another (a phenomenon called “akolalia” by some); the “other languages” referred to were simply Greek and Aramaic; the mother tongues (sic!) of those local Jews, as well as those of the Diaspora, visiting Jerusalem for Shavuot.
With respect to the Diaspora, again to try and keep it brief and without several pages of explanation, Jews of the western Diaspora spoke Greek as their native language; These places had been Hellenized for centuries and any local languages had already replaced by Greek for several generations; those of the eastern Diaspora spoke Aramaic. Eastern Diasporan Jews would have been familiar with the local languages of where they lived, but would not have spoken them as their first/primary language. Jews of the eastern Diaspora typically lived in larger communities and sought to maintain their distinct Jewish identity. One way of doing this was to preserve the language – i.e. keep Aramaic the language of the home and community. The Jews already in Judea would have spoken Aramaic as well, though some living in larger cities possibly grew up with Greek.
So, wait a second – only two languages here, Aramaic and Greek (one of the reasons why no languages are referenced in the narrative – no need to; it would have been stating what was common knowledge) AND the apostles spoke both – so what was the issue?? Why are they referred to as “other languages”? Other than what? Why all the commotion if the apostles were simply speaking in languages they and everyone else knew?
The answer lies in an overlooked aspect of Judaism; ecclesiastical diglossia. Things like teaching, evangelization/prophesying, religious instruction, etc. such as what occurred at Pentecost by the social and cultural standards of the day had to be done in Hebrew, the holy language of Judaism (though Greek was slowly gaining influence as an acceptable alternative). The Jews gathered there expected to hear Hebrew, the culturally (and religiously) correct language to use in this situation and on this occasion – instead they heard the apostles speaking in their native languages of Greek and Aramaic; both of which the apostles would have spoken. The result was amazement, wonder, astonishment and even ridicule at such an obvious breach of cultural “etiquette”. These men were Galileans after all; they should know better! I don’t think these individuals were anywhere near as ‘country bumpkin” as they’re usually made out to be. Some of the crowd even accused them of being drunk for daring to violate this ‘cultural etiquette’.
It seems kind of silly by today’s standards, but in many religions to worship, pray, etc. in a language that was not specific to the religion was/is unthinkable. It just wasn’t something that was done. Even today, Muslims in places such as Indonesia for example, do not recite the Qu’ran in Bahasa Indonesia, but rather the classical Arabic it was written in. Zoroastrians still use Avestan (Middle Persian) as their liturgical language; the Copts still use the Egyptian of Cleopatra’s day (though Coptic is preferred, Arabic is recognized as an acceptable alternative). Buddhist monks of the orient use a form of Sanskrit (an ancient language of India) in their chants, etc. Up until recently a RC mass was done in Latin, never the vernacular. Services in the local vernacular have only been happening since the 1960’s! This ecclesiastical diglossia is still very much around today.
I believe that the apostles were keenly aware that in order for the message to spread, it had to be done in local languages, not by adhering to what was the expected cultural norm.
Let’s quickly get back to our list for a moment. Was there any significance to specifically name the lands of the Jewish Diaspora? As we have just discussed, it certainly does not appear to have been to represent and demonstrate linguistic diversity since we’re only talking about two languages. Indeed, it could very well be argued that Luke’s purpose in presenting this list (with Cyprus and Syria missing) may strongly suggest that the first apostolic ministry was to the Jewish Nation as a whole (Diaspora included).
There is another theory or school of thought on the ‘list’ found in Acts – I’m not familiar with the details, but it has to do with something similar the Romans did. Here’s a summary from an article about it for what it’s worth (the full article is unfortunately only available by paid subscription to the site): “As C. K. Barrett noted, "The list of nations, including both countries and races, presents several problems and has never been satisfactorily explained." The present study attempts to fill this void. I hope to show that the list of nations in Acts 2 echoes similar lists from this period that celebrated Rome's position as ruler over the inhabited world. Acts adopts this well-known rhetorical tool to advance its own theological claims regarding Jesus and the church. The list of nations stands as one part of a larger narrative strategy that responds to Rome's claim of universal authority and declares that the true empire belongs not to Caesar but to Jesus, who as Lord and Savior reigns over all people. Placing the list of nations within the context of Roman political propaganda invites us to reexamine the purpose of Luke-Acts. Through the list of nations and the critique of Roman imperial ideology, Luke-Acts provides its audience with a stronger sense of who they are as Christians and a proper understanding of their relation to the Roman world.”
An interesting take on what many (incorrectly) believe to be a list of languages.
I guess you can look at the Pentecostal narrative in different ways, but no matter how you look at it, the Jews gathered there spoke only two languages as their mother ‘tongues’ and the apostles spoke them both.
