Yesterday, October 22nd, this article encouraged readers to wait for the book to come out. Unfortunately, the book idea is stalled again. But that is good news. Too many people have come to this article wanting a summary now. Your request has resulted in a two-part summary being developed. It is nearly complete and will be posted. Part I should be ready by October 30th.
How glossolalia entered the christian doctrine of tongues vernacular and became the entrenched form of interpretation.
The 1800s was the era of a major transition in the interpretation and understanding of the doctrine of tongues. This is a time when the traditional interpretation which consisted of a supernatural spontaneous utterance of a foreign language gave way to enigmatic themes such as ecstatic utterances, prophetic utterance, ecstasy, and glossolalia.
Table of Contents
- Why speaking in tongues became a popular item for scholars to publish in the 1800s
- Ecstasy vs. Glossolalia
- The people behind the new definition
- The propagation of the new definition
- August Neander and his influence on Philip Schaff in promoting tongues as an ecstatic utterance
- The expansion of the new definition into the world of English literature
Why speaking in tongues became a popular item for scholars to publish in the 1800s
A major factor that fostered such serious study was the Irvingite movement’s claim in the 1830s to have revived the gift of tongues. This movement has already been covered in detail and can be found in the above link. This brought the study of the gift of tongues out of a long slumber and into the critical attention of religious scholars throughout Europe.
The assertion about the Irvingites may be an over-generalization because the story of the alteration begins a few short years before them, but without this controversial apocalyptic and tongues-speaking group, international inquiry to the doctrine of tongues would never have occurred. There would have been no catalyst for propagating a new definition.
Ecstasy vs. glossolalia
One has to be mindful of the use of the word ecstasy used throughout this article.
Medieval catholic mysticism had defined ecstasy as a prerequisite state before a divine encounter – very similar but not exactly to what renewalists today call baptism in the Holy Spirit. Indeed, this was a such an important word in the late medieval vocabulary that the massive sixteenth-century Greek dictionary by Stephanus, Thesaurus of the Greek Language, allowed considerable space to define this Greek word. Ecstasy was a well known concept in catholic circles at this time. The German academic community had taken this familiar religious symbol to express this phenomenon. However, the idea of ecstasy was not sufficient in the long run. It was the starting point in the evolution of the doctrine of glossolalia.
The people behind the new definition
The rise of glossolalia can be traced to Germany in the late 1700s and the 1800s. This is the apex where the Rennaissance, Reformation, Humanism, Protestant and anti-Catholic fervor all combined together to produce some of the greatest historical and philosophical works from a christian framework. These influences are reflected in the introduction of glossolalia to the christian doctrine of tongues.
The story of glossolalia begins with five German scholars who promoted a fresh new approach to Biblical interpretation that purposely tried to avoid the trappings of traditional and enforced interpretations of Biblical texts:
Friedrich Schleiermacher whose method of interpreting the Bible along with his systematic theology, has granted him one of the most powerful and influential personages that only the likes of Augustine can topple. He did not like institutional dogma or forced creeds and approached theological subjects from a sociological perspective. He promoted that any process cannot be forced to conform to an established framework and a conclusion does not have to arrive at a preconceived end.
A fellow teacher of Schleiermacher at the University of Berlin, W.M.L. de Wette, an Old Testament specialist who refined the idea of myth as a valid form of exegesis.(1)Protestant Theology and the Making of the Modern German University. Pg. 194
- Ferdinand Christian Baur the founder, leader and teacher at Tübingen School of Theology(2)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Christian_Baur who was deeply influenced by Schleiermacher and later by the philosophical influences of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel is a major figure in his own right but his direct influence on glossolalia is faint. However, he created a new framework for Biblical interpretation which allowed such ideas to spawn.
Freidrich Bleek, a student of de Wette and highly praised by Schleiermacher himself, became one of the foremost German Biblical scholars of all time. He rose to prominence when he published “Origin and Composition of the Sibylline Oracles,” and “Authorship and Design of the Book of Daniel.”(3)http://www.1902encyclopedia.com/B/BLE/friedrich-bleek.html
Last, but perhaps the most influential on the modern definition of speaking in tongues, was August Neander. August Neander was a disciple of Schleiermacher but more conservative in his views and less speculative on theological subjects.(4)1902 Encyclopedia Britannica He also taught at the University of Berlin along with Schleiermacher and de Wette.
Schleiermacher and de Wette do not have a direct say in the development of glossolalia being added to the christian doctrine of tongues, but their framework to allow such an inclusion is obvious.
The propagation of the new definition
The late 1800s historian, author and Biblical exegete, Heinrich Meyer believed the first known academics to publish a critical work on tongues defined as an ecstatic utterance were Freidrich Bleek and FC Baur around 1830, just before the Irvingite movement’s break-out.(5) Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Corinthians. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Translated by D.D. Bannerman. W.P. Dickson, editor. 1887. Pg. 366. He wrote:
Bleek believes that glôssai is a poetic, inspired mode of speech, whereas Baur believes it to be “a speaking in a strange, unusual phrases which deviate from the prevailing use of language.” – partly borrowed from foreign languages.(6)Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Corinthians. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Translated by D.D. Bannerman. W.P. Dickson, editor. 1887. Pg. 371.
The Exegetical Handbook authored by Heinrich Meyer believed that most commentators followed the standard definition that speaking in tongues was either a spontaneous speaking in a foreign language or the ability to easily learn a new language through study before Bleek and Baur came out with their alternative opinion.(7) Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Corinthians. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Translated by D.D. Bannerman. W.P. Dickson, editor. 1887. Pg. 365
A German dissertation on tongues in 1836 entitled, Die Geistesgaben der ersten Christen: insbesondre die sogenannte Gage der Sprachen, by a man named David Schulz concluded that the greatest thinkers on the subject were Bleek, Baur and Augustus Neander.(8)David Schulz. Die Geistesgaben der ersten Christen: insbesondre die sogenannte Gage der Sprachen. Breslau: A. Gosohorsky. 1836. pg. 3 Neander came a little later than the first two, but his contribution had more of a universal impact.
These three are so important that almost all modern scholarly and clinical Biblical interpretation trends on the gift of tongues can be traced to them.
Two nineteenth-century Anglican scholars, Chr. Wordsworth and Rev. Edward Hayes Plumptre would disagree. Plumptre believed the glossolalia doctrine to be the “theories of Bleek, Herder, and Bunsen,”(9) “Tongues, Gift of” by E.H. Plumptre. Dictionary of the Bible. William Smith, LL.D. ed. London: John Murray. 1863. Pg. 1556 and Wordsworth attributes Heinrich Meyer, de Wette, and Bunsen.(10)Wordsworth, Chr. The Greek New Testament. Vol. 2. London:Rivertons. 1930. Pg. 44 However, the texts they allude to cannot be located, and this study is unfortunately restricted to English translations of German texts. Based on English texts found so far, Heinrich Meyer’s evaluation and other works combine to mark Bleek, Baur and Neander as the top three.
August Neander and his influence on Philip Schaff in promoting tongues as an ecstatic utterance
Neander was the more prolific expositor and his literature was highly praised. He was referred to by more theologians on the doctrine of tongues than any other. It was through him the modern definition became an entrenched one throughout western Christendom.
His legacy in religious studies was so great that, Philip Schaff, who edited the highly praised and popular publication, History of the Christian Church, conceded that his work was an updated and modernized version of Neander’s writing.(11) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Schaff Schaff was trained in Germany, but moved to the US as a professor and widely disseminated Neander’s views. Neander also influenced Frederick Farrar, an English theologian and writer, who convincingly brought Neander’s thoughts to the positive attention of English readers.
The basis of Neander’s opinions can be credited to two writers, one named Herder, which is not detailed any further in Neander’s writing but is likely Johann Gottfried Herder, and “particularly Bauer, in his valuable essay on the subject in the Tubinger Zeitschrift für Theologie, 1830, part ii., to which I am indebted for some modifications of my own view.”(12)Augustus Neander. Planting and Training of the Christian Church by the Apostles. London: Henry G. Bohn. 1851. 3rd ed. Vol. 1 Pg. 15. The spelling of Bauer rather than Baur may be a transliteration problem but it was FC Baur he was referring to.
Neander also knew that the new definition clashed with the traditional one and readily admitted a sharp departure, “If, then, we examine more closely the description of what transpired on the day of Pentecost, we shall find several things which favour a different interpretation from the ancient one.”(13) IBID. Neander. Pg. 12
The “ancient one” described by Neander, was a very worded text, believing that at the times of the apostles, Pentecost was a miraculous outpouring, enabling unlearnt men to speak in languages they did not know, then in later times, this would not reoccur. From that point, the universal promulgation of the Gospel had to be done through extensive language study.
“Accordingly, since the third century it has been generally admitted, that a supernatural gift of tongues was imparted on this occasion, by which the more rapid promulgation of the gospel among the heathen was facilitated and promoted. It has been urged that as in the apostolic age, many things were effected immediately by the predominating creative agency of God’s Spirit, which, in later times, have been effected through human means appropriated and sanctified by it; so, in this instance, immediate inspiration stood in the place of those natural lingual acquirements, which in later times have served for the propagation of the gospel.”(14) IBID. Neander. Pg. 9
He felt that the use of xenoglossolalia was unnecessary for the expansion of Christianity:
“But, indeed, the utility of such a gift of tongues for the spread of divine truth in the apostolic times, will appear not so great, if we consider that the gospel had its first and chief sphere of action among the nations belonging to the Roman Empire, where the knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages sufficed for this purpose…”(15) IBID. Neander. Pg. 10
And then further reckoned that not only had the miraculous ability to speak a foreign language at Pentecost ceased, but it was replaced by a spiritual language:
“Thus the speaking in foreign languages would be only something accidental, and not the essential of the new language of the Spirit. This new language of the Spirit is that which Christ promised to his disciples as one of the essential marks of the operation of the Holy Spirit on their hearts.”(16) IBID. Neander. Pg. 14
He clearly concluded that the tongues indicated in I Corinthians to be ecstatic:
“something altogether different from such a supernatural gift of tongues is spoken of. Evidently, the apostle is there treating of such discourse as would not be generally intelligible, proceeding from an ecstatic state of mind which rose to an elevation far above the language of ordinary communication.”(17) IBID. Neander. Pg. 11
Neander personally visited the Irvingite congregation while Irving was still leading, and concluded that although the Irvingites believed they were spontaneously speaking in a foreign language unknown to them, he observed that the reality demonstrated otherwise; “Still less can I admit the comparison with the manifestations among the followers of Mr. Irving in London, since as far as my knowledge extends, I can see nothing in these manifestations but the workings of an enthusiastic spirit, which sought to copy the apostolic gift of tongues according to the common interpretation, and therefore assumed the reality of that gift.”(18) IBID. Neander. Pg. 12
Schaff felt that Neander had failed in his examination of tongues and charged him with being a victim of rationalism.(19) Philip Schaff. History of the Apostolic Church with a General Introduction to Church History. Trans. By Edward D. Yeomans. New York: Charles Scribner. 1859. Pg. 201 — though it is hard to find the difference in his position with Neander’s. Schaff believed the gift of tongues to be, “an involuntary, spiritual utterance in an ecstatic state of the most elevated devotion, in which the man is not, indeed, properly transported out of himself, but rather sinks into the inmost depths of his own soul, and thus, into direct contact with the divine essence within him . . .”(20) Philip Schaff. History of the Apostolic Church with a General Introduction to Church History. Trans. By Edward D. Yeomans. New York: Charles Scribner. 1859. Pg. 199
He simply reinforced Neander’s position. One of the major proofs he used was by analogy of the Irvingites;
“The speaking with tongues in the Irvingite congregations, as it manifested itself in the earlier years of this sect in England, was at first a speaking in strange sounds resembling Hebrew, after which the speakers continued in their English vernacular…”(21)Philip Schaff. History of the Apostolic Church with a General Introduction to Church History. Trans. By Edward D. Yeomans. New York: Charles Scribner. 1859. Pg. 198
He then reported of an eyewitness account of a Michael Hohl, who described an Irvingite experience. He saw a person going into a trance, produce violent convulsions and then, “An impetuous gush of strange, energetic tones, which sounded to my ears most like those of the Hebrew language”.(22) Philip Schaff. History of the Apostolic Church with a General Introduction to Church History. Trans. By Edward D. Yeomans. New York: Charles Scribner. 1859. Pg. 198 Schaff then used the Irvingite experience to conclude:
“Could we appeal to the Irvingite glossolaly, as a reasonable analogy, we should here have a similar elevations, in which according to Hohl’s account above quoted, the ecstatic discourses were delivered first in strange sounds, like Hebrew, and afterwards, where the excitement had somewhat abated, in the English vernacular. Yet this analogy might be used more naturally to illustrate the relation between speaking with tongues and interpretation of tongues.”(23) Philip Schaff. History of the Apostolic Church with a General Introduction to Church History. Trans. By Edward D. Yeomans. New York: Charles Scribner. 1859. Pg. 202
He also hesitatingly used the Irvingites, with some caveats, as a point in the evolving tongues history:
“The speaking with tongues, however, was not confined to the day of Pentecost. Together with the other extraordinary spiritual gifts which distinguished this age above the succeeding periods of more quiet and natural development, this gift, also, thought to be sure in a modified form, perpetuated itself in the apostolic church. We find traces of it still in the second and third centuries, and, (if we credit the legends of the Roman church), even later than this, though very seldom. Analogies to this speaking with tongues may be found also in the ecstatic prayers and prophecies of the Montanists in the second century, and the kindred Irvingites in the nineteenth; yet it is hard to tell, whether these are the work of the Holy Ghost, or Satanic imitations, or what is most probable, the result of an unusual excitement of mere nature, under the influence of religion, a more or less morbid enthusiasm, and ecstasis of feeling.”(24) IBID. Schaff. Pg. 197
Philip Schaff was very intrigued by the gift of tongues and it must have been an important religious topic within the religious realm during his time. In the first ever meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in the US which was held in January 1880, Schaff chose to publicly read his work, “The Pentecostal and the Corinthian Glossolalia.”(25) http://www.sbl-site.org/SSchapter1.aspx
Schaff’s view on speaking in tongues was limited to an academic audience. It wasn’t until the next author, Frederick Farrar, published a book that met a much wider audience in the English speaking world and the doctrine took the next step to being a universal standard.
The expansion of the new definition into the world of English literature
This new definition was restricted to Germany, but this significantly changed in the English world when Frederick Farrar published in 1879; The Life and Work of St. Paul.
This author and his works may be forgotten in the annals of history, but in his time, he was well-known. Not only did this Englishman tirelessly work his way through the ranks to be the Dean of Canterbury(26)http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/farrar/bio.html, but a friend to Charles Darwin and later a pallbearer at Darwin’s funeral.
Farrar promoted that the tongues of Pentecost had nothing to do with a foreign language. “Pentecost, does not contain the remotest hint of foreign languages. Hence the fancy that this was the immediate result of Pentecost is unknown to the first two centuries, and only sprang up when the true tradition obscured.”(27) Frederick W. Farrar. The Life and Work of St. Paul. London: Cassell and Company. 1897 (originally published in 1879). Pg. 53ff
Once again the influence of Neander is clearly stated. “I do not see how any thoughtful student who really considered the whole subject can avoid the conclusion of Neander, that “any foreign languages which were spoken on this occasion were only something accidental, and not the essential element of the language of the Spirit.”(28) IBID. Farrar. Pg. 53ff
He introduced a newly-made noun into the English language, glossolalia, with this statement:
“The glossolalia, or “speaking with a tongue,” is connected with “prophesying”–that is, exalted preaching–and magnifying God.”(29)IBID. Farrar. Pg. 53
It is clear that the noun glossolalia was first coined and used in the English language around 1879. The Oxford Online English Dictionary previously attributed Farrar and an author named Lily as the creators but both have been removed from the present Dictionary with no reference to any antecedents at all.(30)http://dictionary.oed.com. I can’t say when this was removed but am absolutely sure it existed. This is how I originally found Farrar’s name. The Websters Revised Unabridged Dictionary 1913, traced the introduction of the word glossolalia from only Farrar.(31)Websters Revised Unabridged Dictionary 1913. Found on the web here
Nothing substantial has been found yet on the author named Lily, though by virtue of Oxford Dictionaries association with Farrar, his views must have been closely aligned.
The formulation of glossolalia was clearly developing. However, questions still linger. Do the primary source books agree that glossolalia was introduced around 1879? Were there strong objections to the new definition? These questions and more are answered in this series.
For further reading:
An examination on why the traditional doctrine of tongues as a supernatural endowment of a foreign language all but died and was replaced by the doctrine of glossolalia.
This series of articles will demonstrate how the new definition originated in the early 1800s and has progressed to the strong doctrine that presently exists.
The reader will discover a rich story behind the development of this concept with exact names, disputes, and places. The series will clearly show the change from a miracle of speech or hearing to glossolalia. This change was a process that took over a century to develop and became universally and unquestionably entrenched.
What is glossolalia and were the ancient Christian writers aware of this practice?
Though there are a number of words to describe modern tongues speaking such as ecstasy, ecstatic utterance, frenzy, etc., glossolalia will be used throughout this series as a blanket term.
Glossolalia, ecstasy, and ecstatic utterances are the same words to explain something that is unintelligible and meaningless. “Glossolalia is language-like because the speaker unconsciously wants it to be language-like.”(32)a quote from William Samarin as found in: Robert Carroll. The Skeptic’s Dictionary. A collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons. 2003. Pg. 135
This new definition has its own history separate from that of the ecclesiasts who guarded the old doctrine of tongues as a miracle of either a person spontaneously speaking a foreign language or the recipient hearing sounds in one’s own tongue. Rarely has the new definition of glossolalia been critically examined or traced from its initial beginnings to the present. This is what the series, A History of Glossolalia, is all about.
This series is part of the Gift of Tongues Project that has a fourfold purpose of collecting, digitizing, translating and analyzing important texts relating to the christian doctrine of tongues. The overwhelming evidence collected so far maintains the church had always understood the miraculous use of tongues at Pentecost as either spoken or heard as foreign languages. Historical leaders such as Augustine, Gregory Nazianzus, Epiphanius, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, the Ambrosiaster text, Pachomius, the Venerable Bede, Pope Benedict XIV and more have covered the subject. The details may be different but all agree that it was a foreign human language. Their critical debates were whether it was a miracle of hearing or speaking, or whether the language constructed itself in the mind or converted at the last moment on the lips.(33)For more information on whether it was a miracle of speaking or hearing, see Gregory of Nazianzus on Pentecost and Michael Psellos Michael Psellos on the Tongues of Pentecost.
These church writers were not aware of an alternate interpretation of tongues as ecstasy or glossolalia.
Michael Psellos in the eleventh century was well aware of the Greek prophetesses going into an ecstatic state and speaking in foreign languages. He knew that there could have been a relationship between this and the Christian practice but dispelled the correlation outright. Neither did he believe that the ancient Greek prophetesses spoke gibberish or a highly exalted language. He believed they were speaking a foreign human language. When the connection between the Greek prophetesses and Christian tongues was made in the early 1800s, Psellos important contribution to the debate was neglected out of ignorance or wilfully ignored.(34)Michael Psellos on the Tongues of Pentecost.
The initial problem connecting glossolalia with the christian doctrine of tongues.
An implicit bias in the doctrine of glossolalia is its absence or little use of the church Fathers. Many scholars who were proponents of tongues as glossolalia failed to recognize or integrate base Christian texts, selectively choosing weaker ones instead. They neither wrestled with the church texts in any detail to assert or repudiate their claims.
The church fathers focused mainly on the Day of Pentecost in Acts where they believed the experience to be people supernaturally endowed with the ability to speak in foreign languages. Paul’s coverage of the tongues problem in Corinth has been more difficult for the ancient church writers to cover. Most have avoided literally explaining it, choosing to go into allegory or emphasizing the moral force of the text: the need for charity instead of pride. Noted exceptions to this were: Epiphanius, who saw the Corinthian problem as an ethno-linguistic conflict, the Ambrosiaster text, which summed it up as conflict between Aramaic and Greek speaking Jews; and the Cyril of Alexandria text which explained problems arising from hypothetically speaking in Eastern languages such as Mede in a Greek speaking community. These church writings can be found documented at the Gift of Tongues Project.
Problems connecting Montanism and their glossolalia with the christian doctrine of tongues.
Scholars from the realm of higher criticism have introduced Eusebius’ coverage of the Montanist movement and their ecstasies as the historical definition of speaking in tongues in the church. However, the Greek keyword for tongues doesn’t even occur in the text. This omission is very problematic and weakens this solution. The ecclesiastical writers made no connection with the Montanists regarding speaking in tongues. Neither can any person find documents with the church specifically arguing for or against Montanist tongues. The Montanist experience for explaining Christian tongues didn’t arrive until 1500 years after the Montanist experience by Conyers Middleton in his publication, Free Inquiry.(35)see Conyers Middleton and the doctrine of tongues This is a later interpretation that cannot be substantiated through early historical literature.
An overview on the history of glossolalia series.
How the doctrine of glossolalia first appeared and took over this subject matter is a complex journey that requires a series of articles to answer. To get started, here are a number of brief thoughts to set things up for the articles to follow:
The nineteenth-century Irvingite Movement can be blamed for renewed interest into the subject. They brought the tongues theology out of a deep sleep and into the critical attention of the international community; from the layperson to magazines, newspapers and scholars. It summoned a deep theological debate that was in the cross-hairs between the traditional supernaturalists and the quickly rising rationalist movement. The Irvingite event was the litmus test for both parties credibility.
The rise of the glossolalia definition and the abandonment of the traditional one was also largely due to the casualty of ecclesiastical writings being dropped as historical literature and switched to the category of legends and myths. There is a purposeful de-emphasis of ecclesiastical writings in the primary, secondary and tertiary sourcebooks from the 19th century onwards.
This has had a profound impact on the controversies surrounding this doctrine. In fact, if this de-emphasis on ecclesiastical writings did not exist, it would change the modern debate altogether.(36) A more detailed account on why and how the Ecclesiastical writings were dropped and not considered a legitimate source for scholarly study can be found at this link, The Historical Rejection of Patristics and its Legacy
The series of articles.
These are all generalizations here, which the Gift of Tongues Project normally tries to avoid. In this case, some introduction was necessary. This is a large work and is broken into a number of articles. Here is the complete listing:
- Introduction to the History of Glossolalia
- A History of Glossolalia: Did it exist before 1879?
- A History of Glossolalia: Objections
- A History of Glossolalia: Patristic Citation
- A Critical Look at Tongues and Montanism
- Eusebius on Montanism: the Latin and Greek text
References [ + ]
|1.||↑||Protestant Theology and the Making of the Modern German University. Pg. 194|
|4.||↑||1902 Encyclopedia Britannica|
|5.||↑||Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Corinthians. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Translated by D.D. Bannerman. W.P. Dickson, editor. 1887. Pg. 366.|
|6.||↑||Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Corinthians. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Translated by D.D. Bannerman. W.P. Dickson, editor. 1887. Pg. 371.|
|7.||↑||Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Corinthians. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Translated by D.D. Bannerman. W.P. Dickson, editor. 1887. Pg. 365|
|8.||↑||David Schulz. Die Geistesgaben der ersten Christen: insbesondre die sogenannte Gage der Sprachen. Breslau: A. Gosohorsky. 1836. pg. 3|
|9.||↑||“Tongues, Gift of” by E.H. Plumptre. Dictionary of the Bible. William Smith, LL.D. ed. London: John Murray. 1863. Pg. 1556|
|10.||↑||Wordsworth, Chr. The Greek New Testament. Vol. 2. London:Rivertons. 1930. Pg. 44|
|12.||↑||Augustus Neander. Planting and Training of the Christian Church by the Apostles. London: Henry G. Bohn. 1851. 3rd ed. Vol. 1 Pg. 15. The spelling of Bauer rather than Baur may be a transliteration problem but it was FC Baur he was referring to.|
|13.||↑||IBID. Neander. Pg. 12|
|14.||↑||IBID. Neander. Pg. 9|
|15.||↑||IBID. Neander. Pg. 10|
|16.||↑||IBID. Neander. Pg. 14|
|17.||↑||IBID. Neander. Pg. 11|
|18.||↑||IBID. Neander. Pg. 12|
|19.||↑||Philip Schaff. History of the Apostolic Church with a General Introduction to Church History. Trans. By Edward D. Yeomans. New York: Charles Scribner. 1859. Pg. 201|
|20.||↑||Philip Schaff. History of the Apostolic Church with a General Introduction to Church History. Trans. By Edward D. Yeomans. New York: Charles Scribner. 1859. Pg. 199|
|21.||↑||Philip Schaff. History of the Apostolic Church with a General Introduction to Church History. Trans. By Edward D. Yeomans. New York: Charles Scribner. 1859. Pg. 198|
|22.||↑||Philip Schaff. History of the Apostolic Church with a General Introduction to Church History. Trans. By Edward D. Yeomans. New York: Charles Scribner. 1859. Pg. 198|
|23.||↑||Philip Schaff. History of the Apostolic Church with a General Introduction to Church History. Trans. By Edward D. Yeomans. New York: Charles Scribner. 1859. Pg. 202|
|24.||↑||IBID. Schaff. Pg. 197|
|27.||↑||Frederick W. Farrar. The Life and Work of St. Paul. London: Cassell and Company. 1897 (originally published in 1879). Pg. 53ff|
|28.||↑||IBID. Farrar. Pg. 53ff|
|29.||↑||IBID. Farrar. Pg. 53|
|30.||↑||http://dictionary.oed.com. I can’t say when this was removed but am absolutely sure it existed. This is how I originally found Farrar’s name.|
|31.||↑||Websters Revised Unabridged Dictionary 1913. Found on the web here|
|32.||↑||a quote from William Samarin as found in: Robert Carroll. The Skeptic’s Dictionary. A collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons. 2003. Pg. 135|
|33.||↑||For more information on whether it was a miracle of speaking or hearing, see Gregory of Nazianzus on Pentecost and Michael Psellos Michael Psellos on the Tongues of Pentecost.|
|34.||↑||Michael Psellos on the Tongues of Pentecost.|
|35.||↑||see Conyers Middleton and the doctrine of tongues|
|36.||↑||A more detailed account on why and how the Ecclesiastical writings were dropped and not considered a legitimate source for scholarly study can be found at this link, The Historical Rejection of Patristics and its Legacy|