CS1 -
I only offer what the text says and why would anyone assume that the speaker did know what he was speaking when the Bible says unknown tongue? I would see that as adding false narrative into the passage to support an assumed conclusion, founded in human reasoning and not in what 1cor chapter 12, 13 and 14 say.
The Bible does not say ‘unknown’ tongue though; as I’m sure you know, the ‘unknown’ was added much later on. The passage just simply says ‘language’.
There are two ways of looking at that passage – either the speaker understands what he’s saying, or he doesn’t. It’s demonstrated numerous times further above in this thread that the speaker understands exactly what he’s saying; it’s his native language. It’s the other people at the gathering/public worship who do not understand him as they do not speak/understand his language, even though he is praying ‘in the Spirit’ (i.e. earnestly and from the heart, inspired by his belief/faith). In this respect, he speaks only to God; to others he is speaking ‘mysteries’ (they have no clue what he’s saying).
Given the cultural and linguistic diversity in a dual port city like Corinth, this explanation is not difficult to understand; not only is it simple and logical, but it describes an all too common issue in multi-lingual communities, not to mention, also makes the most sense from a historical perspective given what is known about ancient Corinth. It is simply describing a typical real-life language issue in a multi-lingual community.
For tongue speakers however, the above explanation doesn’t seem to be acceptable or viable as it negates ‘tongues’ (in the modern Pentecostal/Charismatic understanding of what they are). For these, the passage can only be interpreted as the speaker not understanding what he’s saying either,
What caused the 3.000 to be saved is hearing the message being spoken in their native languages of Aramaic and Greek (the ‘mother tongue’ of all Jews (and converts) present at Pentecost) – both of which were spoken by the apostles. The crowd expected Hebrew, they got their native languages (Greek and Aramaic) instead.
Tongues is (read ‘(foreign) languages are’) a sign for those who don’t believe – yes, because people are now able to be taught about Christ’s message in their native languages rather than, as most religions did it in those days (and some still do today) a prescribed/culturally required (liturgical) language.
Dino 246-
18 I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all.
19 however in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue. (NASB, emphasis added)
These words "with my mind" as contrasted with "in a tongue" in both vs. 14 and 19 make it clear to me that the "tongue" is not simply a language that Paul had learned. This strongly suggests that tongues are a gift of the Spirit, not a naturally-learned language.
If he spoke in any language he had learned, he would be speaking with his mind. Even if the language were unknown to his hearers, he would simply be speaking a foreign language, not a Holy Spirit-empowered language.
The emphasis in that passage (as well as most of 1 Cor.) is understanding and clarity – here, Paul is thankful he speaks several languages (more than most people) and is “not afraid to use them” so-to-speak to spread his message; however, he’d rather speak just a few words in a language he understands completely (i.e. his native language – with his mind/understanding) in order to instruct people correctly, than myriad words in a (foreign) language he may speak, but not as comfortably and certain as his native language.
As anyone who has learned a foreign language can tell you, when you want to say something of import in that language, it’s not always as easy as it sounds. Many times, you’re just kind of winging it hoping you have all the nuances correct. Many words for example can have several meanings you may not be aware of, etc., etc. It’s easy to say something you think means one thing and have it completely loose something in your translation. Just because a person speaks a foreign language, doesn’t mean they have native speaker proficiency.
Not to bore you with a story, but I have translated a very simple meals grace into several First Nations languages spoken here in New England – a few simple lines, really maddeningly simple in fact, yet a phenomenally difficult and very frustrating, time-involved task in order to try and get the nuances of the original properly conveyed in the translation – still not 100% convinced I have it right (even though they are maddeningly simple in my native language which I speak ‘with my understanding’) .
The point is, I could easily say, I’d rather speak the grace “with my mind” (in my native language), than in many words in a tongue (read ‘language’) I may speak, but am not 100% confident in my translation.
I would argue that again, the passage is discussing very common issues and problems with real languages, nothing more than that.