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.
Finding an acceptable solution for the greek keyword glôssa γλῶσσα and why christian doctrine of tongues is the best catch-phrase for the subject.
Glôssa is pivotal for the doctrine of tongues. This word is found in Paul’s address to the Corinthians, Luke’s description of the first Pentecost and subsequent similar narratives in his Book of Acts. This noun is further used by later Greek ecclesiasts and authors on the subject.
The challenge is how a contemporary researcher is to translate this word without a modern bias.
The translation of glôssa has to properly reflect English literary tradition, linguistic changes over the last 200 years, historical and political influences and adherence to the intended meaning penned by the original authors.
When the Greek keyword appears, or if it is found in a Latin text, which is lingua, my mind always wants to automatically translate it as tongue.
The word tongues, which is seldom used in our modern language to specifically mean a modern, regular or contemporary language, is usually understood to be something out-of-this-world, unusual or even weird. Sometimes it is used a synonym to language, but rarely in contemporary literature is it used as the predominant descriptor.
As I have worked over both Greek and Latin Patristic texts, from the likes of Greek writers such as Irenaeous, Origen, Gregory Nazianzus, Cyril of Alexandria, Epiphanius, John of Damascus etc., to the Latin writers of Augustine, the Venerable Bede, Thomas Aquinas, the Ambrosiaster authors, and many more, they do not contain references to the gift being a strange, mystical or heavenly language that needs a new definition. It simply means a human language to them. To advance such a thought that it was different from a human language, they would have had to add an adjective to both the Greek or Latin words for language to make it distinct. They never did that. An adjective was added later on in the English Bible, but this had different political motivations altogether — it was a direct shot against the authority of the Catholic Church and its control over the masses by its exclusive use of Latin in church affairs.
Secondly, one must keep in mind that the noun language was the dominant English word used to translate glôssa/γλῶσσα before the introduction of the Geneva Bible in 1534.
More detailed information on this change can be found in a previous post The Unknown Tongues in the English Bible.
It would not be fair to translate the church fathers on the subject using ‘tongues’ instead of languages. It significantly changes the nuance of the text when it is done.
One could argue that I am forcing my own interpretation on the text. However, it is believed that language is more accurate to what the writers meant. So, sticking to the facts, language is the word of choice on the majority of occasions. My own sentiments would like to adhere to the traditional English text and prefers tongues but that simply isn’t the right thing to do. Every once in a while tongues is inserted within the many articles generated for the Gift of Tongues Project for stylistic purposes when the noun language appears too often in a text.
Another similar problem is using the catch-phrase gift of tongues. In religious circles gift of tongues is typically used to describe the currently practiced phenomena in pentecostal and charismatic churches. There is a problem with this because it is too exclusive and hardly open to any scrutiny. The Corinthian tongues church problem and the tongues of fire at Pentecost may not be related. There are a variety of different expressions about speaking in tongues over the centuries that it is dangerous to lump them all into one simplistic category.
Many scholars use glossolalia as the conventional phrase. For the most part, I try to avoid gift of tongues and glossolalia because they already subscribe to a narrow modern definition. One will see the christian doctrine of tongues more commonly in my works because it is more comprehensive and inclusive of different epochs and traditions. It also allows one to trace the evolution of this doctrine over the centuries without having to subscribe to a particular set of doctrines or force an outcome.
A significant problem with avoiding gift of tongues and glossolalia and using the newly coined, the christian doctrine of tongues, is with the Google search engine. By minimizing the phrases gift of tongues and glossolalia Google Search ranks all my articles lower because the general readership definitively links this subject with gift of tongues and glossolalia.
Gift of tongues has a proper place when referencing the problem tongues of Corinth, but it does not extend beyond that. However, current religious tradition extends it beyond this realm. The gift of tongues and the Gift of Tongues Project are often used here as transitory phrases. It is a beginning point to bring the reader into a much deeper awareness of the christian doctrine of tongues that has developed over 2000 years of church history. ■
For more information:
- The following is a pentecostal review of the word tongues in the English Bible: Tongues or Languages? Contextual Consistency in the Translation of Acts 2* by Jenny Everts. Journal of Pentecostal Theology. 4. April 1994. Pg. 71–80
How the adjective ‘unknown’ became a crucial contributor to the Christian doctrine of tongues.
The Authorized King James version of the Bible made the translation, unknown tongues in the Book of I Corinthians a universal term, and fueled a later theology.
The problem is, the adjective unknown or in different English Bible editions, strange, diverse or other, does not exist in any ancient Latin or Greek text of I Corinthians.
It may be one of the most misused words in contemporary Christian mysticism.
How did this adjective get added to the English Bible, what influences led up to this, and what did they mean by it?
This article will look into the mystery of this adjective. However, attempting to encapsulate a couple of hundred years of thinking from a different culture, place and time and narrate it into an easy-to-read modern format is a challenge.
This phrase did not exist in early Christian literature but began to surface in the 13th century and rose to prominence in English Bible translations during the Reformation.
Misunderstandings of the Christian practice of tongues can be traced at least to the eighth century. The Venerable Bede commented on Acts 2:4 how the Greek should be understood as aliis linguis (other languages) rather than variis linguis (various languages). Bede believed that Pentecost was not about people understanding the languages being spoken, but a fulfilment of Isaiah 28:11, where the people heard languages they did not know. Aliis suited this position better.(1) MPL. Vol. 92. Bedæ Venerabilis: Liber Retractionis In Actus Apostolorum. Col. 999.
The first known reference to unknown tongue or alternatively translated, unknown language, can be found by the great 13th century Catholic teacher, Thomas Aquinas:
“I give thanks to God that I speak more than you all,” and it is being said, “they were speaking in various languages, etc.” (Acts 2:4) and many more had obtained this gift from God in the early Church, but in Corinth because they were curious, they were more cheerfully wanting this gift than the gift of prophecy. Because it is now being said here to speak in a tongue, the Apostle means in an unknown language, and not having these things explained, as if he was to speak in the German tongue to some Gallic [person] and the result that it is not explained, this is speaking in a tongue. From whence all speech having not been understood nor explained, no matter what it is, is specifically speaking in a tongue.(2) My translation from S. Thomae Opera. Robert Busa, S.I. ed. Fromman-Holzboog. 1980. Reportationes 088 R1C cp 14 Pg. 387 lc1. For more information on Thomas Aquinas on the doctrine of tongues see Thomas Aquinas on the Miracle of Tongues Intro.
Aquinas’ usage is the first documented time that the term unknown tongue is doctrinetically used. His text in Latin reads, lingua ignota. This Latin phrase was also used by Hildegard of Bingen in the 12th century regarding a self-made secret language,(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_Ignota but it is an isolated case not related to Ecclesiastical usage.
Lingua ignota is not used in the Latin Bible, but quietly began to develop in the English translations. It was popularized by the English Geneva Bible and subsequently followed by the King James version, which made the concept universal in the English speaking world.
Aquinas undoubtedly had influence on later leaders but this correlation has not been concretely made.
The preface to the 1611 Authorized version holds an important as to why unknown tongues was added to their Bible:
But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknowen tongue? as it is written, Except I know the power of the voyce, I shall be to him that speaketh, a Barbarian, and he that speaketh, shalbe a Barbarian to me. The Apostle excepteth no tongue, not Hebrewe the ancientest, not Greeke the most copious, not Latine the finest. Nature taught a naturall man to confesse, that all of us in those tongues which wee doe not understand, are plainely deafe; wee may turne the deafe eare unto them. The Scythian counted the Athenian, whom he did not understand, barbarous: so the Romane did the Syrian, and the Jew, (even S. Jerome himselfe calleth the Hebrew tongue barbarous, belike because it was strange to so many) so the Emperour of Constantinople calleth the Latine tongue, barbarous, though Pope Nicolas do storme at it: so the Jewes long before Christ, called all other nations, Lognazim, which is little better then barbarous. Therefore as one complaineth, that alwayes in the Senate of Rome, there was one or other that called for an interpreter: so lest the Church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations in a readinesse. Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtaine, that we may looke into the most Holy place; that remooveth the cover of the well, that wee may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which meanes the flockes of Laban were watered. Indeede without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacobs well (which was deepe) without a bucket or some thing to draw with: or as that person mentioned by Esau, to whom when a sealed booke was delivered, with this motion, Reade this, I pray thee, hee was faine to make this answere, I cannot, for it is sealed.(4) http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)/Preface
This preface tried to remedy two serious problems within the Catholic Church at the time. First of all, it was the reading out loud of Scripture in the Latin vernacular, which the majority of worshipers did not understand. Secondly, the King James preface promoted that the Bible was to be available in any language for anyone to read or listen to. This was a powerful argument at the time and had gone viral throughout Christendom. It was also perceived as a threat to the authority of the Church.
The Latin language was considered a sacred universal language. A language that could connect the ancients thoughts and literature of the past with the present. The language was considered to have the ability to communicate clearly heightened forms of knowledge and logic that other common languages did not possess and thus limited their societies intellectual and spiritual well-beings. The popular thirteenth-century writer, Dante Alleghieri, best known for his work, The Divine Comedy attempted to write a four part series of books on the history and role of language called De vulgari eloquentia and also another writing called the Convivio.. He only completed one and a half volumes with em>De vulgari eloquentia but gives an important picture on the role of Latin and other languages within Europe in his time. However, it is a work that is certainly abstract. He was trying to give credence to other languages as a language of regular discourse, but Latin as an unchanging artificially created human language better suited for universal affairs and technical details. The writers of the Dictionary of Untranslateables: A Philosophical Lexicon describe him best:
In the Convivio, three reasons are adduced in support of Latin’s superiority. The first of these is its “nobility”: Latin is perpetual and incorruptible, and this is what allows ancient writings still to be read today. Then, its “virtue”: anything that achieves what it sets out to do the highest degree possible is considered virtuous, and Latin is the vehicle that best allows human thought to become manifest, while the vulgar is unable to convey certain things. And finally, its “beauty”: Latin is more harmonius than the vulgar, in that it is a product of art, and not of nature. Latin, or the grammatica, is in any case a human creation, thanks to its inventors (inventores grammatice facultatis) which is regarded (regulata) by a “common consensus” and is therefore impervious to any “individual arbitrary” intervention. . . .We see, then, how ordinary and everyday variations of different individual ways of speaking (sermo) are unable to affect Latin, which remains the same through the ages, this being a necessary condition for the transmission of ancient knowledge.(5)Dictionary of Untranslateables: A Philosophical Lexicon. (A translation of Vocabulaire Européen des Philosophy) Barbara Cassin ed. Translated by Steven Rendall, Christian Hubert, Jeffrey Mehlman, Nathanael Stein, and Michael Syrotinski. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 2004. Pg. 548
Dante represents the Catholic mindset throughout the European world. This Latin sentiment would lead to leadership to refuse any encroachment on the Latin language which the Protestants and other groups and individuals pressed for. It wasn’t only an assertion about the primacy of the Latin language but fear that the rise of common languages would lead to ignorance. These languages were perceived as primitive and unable to historically attach themselves to the past with any intellectual acuity, nor move forward with any structure. This condition was an invitation to the dark ages according to the elites.
This uprising eventually led to the Council of Trent which began in 1545 — presided by Pope Paul III. Pope Paul began his leadership of the Catholic Church in 1534, which was the same year the Tyndale version first produced “other tonges shall cease” in I Corinthians 13:8. It demanded a response.
The Council of Trent, 4th Session came up with strong language that all publications had to be approved by the Church authorities prior to printing. Special emphasis was on the Latin Bible as being the only authentic one, all the rest are inferior. It failed to address the fact that the majority of the Church audience did not understand Latin or how to remedy this problem.
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,–considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,–ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.
Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, –wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; [Page 20] or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.
And wishing, as is just, to impose a restraint, in this matter, also on printers, who now without restraint,–thinking, that is, that whatsoever they please is allowed them,–print, without the license of ecclesiastical superiors, the said books of sacred Scripture, and the notes and comments upon them of all persons indifferently, with the press ofttimes unnamed, often even fictitious, and what is more grievous still, without the author’s name; and also keep for indiscriminate sale books of this kind printed elsewhere; (this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever, on sacred matters, without the name of the author; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined, and approved of, by the Ordinary; under pain of the anathema and fine imposed in a canon of the last Council of Lateran: and, if they be Regulars, besides this examination and approval, they shall be bound to obtain a license also from their own superiors, who shall have examined the books according to the form of their own statutes. As to those who lend, or circulate them in manuscript, without their having been first examined, and approved of, they shall be subjected to the same penalties as printers: and they who shall have them in their possession or shall read them, shall, unless they discover the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors. And the said approbation of books of this kind shall be given in writing; and for this end it shall appear authentically at the beginning of the book, whether the book be written, or printed; and all this, that is, both the approbation and the examination, shall be done gratis, that so what ought to be approved, may be approved, and what ought to be condemned, may be condemned.”(6) http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html The Council of Trent .The Fourth Session. Trans. J. Waterworth (London: Dolman, 1848), 17-21.
One naturally has to look at the German by Luther at this time period to see if there are any similarities of approach. He does not follow the same convention of the English translators about adding the equivalent adjective of unknown in the German language. However, he does meddle with the Corinthian texts on tongues. Heinrich August Meyer noted in his Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Corinthians, wrote that “Luther too, up to 1528, had “tongues” but from that date onward has “languages.” In chap. xiv., however, he has still “tongues” in 1545.”(7) Heinrich August Meyer. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Corinthians. Edinburgh: T & T Clarke. 1887. Pg. 368 Why did Luther change from tongues to languages and vacillate between the two? It is not known.
R.P. Spittler did give some clarity to why this was done, though it is not final, “For Luther and his foes, “speaking in tongues” had to do with Roman Mass offered in Latin. Luther said the vernacular.”(8) R.P. Spittler. “Glossolalia” as found in The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. Stanley M. Burgess ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House. 2003. Pg. 674
So now it is becoming clear that unknown tongues were becoming a popular doctrine in 1534 as a dispute against the Catholic Church. It was a strong statement that anything said in Latin, and not the local vernacular was not profitable.
This was a debate between Roman and Protestant Latin leaders based on Latin religious doctrine. The intensive study of Greek Scripture had not arrived.
Where and when did the adjective get added to the tongues sequences? The solution to the addition of unknown tongues can be found in the history of the translation of the English Bible.
The Wyclif Bible, the earliest known English translation published in 1380, does not contain the adjective at all. It also predominately used the word langagis (languages) instead of tongues in the key-texts.
The Tyndale begins adding an adjective first in 1534 but not significantly. The Geneva Bible expands on this pattern in 1557 and the King James Bible entrenched this phrase in 1611.
The adjective and noun Unknown tongues in the King James Bible became one of the framework pieces for a later phenomenon of tongues speaking, which is defined as a heavenly, prayer, ecstatic, or private language. See the The History of Glossolalia for more information.
For more detailed information on how the English Bibles evolved with this adjective, see The Unknown Tongues in the English Bible Part 2.
References [ + ]
|1.||↑||MPL. Vol. 92. Bedæ Venerabilis: Liber Retractionis In Actus Apostolorum. Col. 999.|
|2.||↑||My translation from S. Thomae Opera. Robert Busa, S.I. ed. Fromman-Holzboog. 1980. Reportationes 088 R1C cp 14 Pg. 387 lc1. For more information on Thomas Aquinas on the doctrine of tongues see Thomas Aquinas on the Miracle of Tongues Intro.|
|5.||↑||Dictionary of Untranslateables: A Philosophical Lexicon. (A translation of Vocabulaire Européen des Philosophy) Barbara Cassin ed. Translated by Steven Rendall, Christian Hubert, Jeffrey Mehlman, Nathanael Stein, and Michael Syrotinski. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 2004. Pg. 548|
|6.||↑||http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html The Council of Trent .The Fourth Session. Trans. J. Waterworth (London: Dolman, 1848), 17-21.|
|7.||↑||Heinrich August Meyer. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Corinthians. Edinburgh: T & T Clarke. 1887. Pg. 368|
|8.||↑||R.P. Spittler. “Glossolalia” as found in The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. Stanley M. Burgess ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House. 2003. Pg. 674|