Tag Archives: Eusebius

The Adamic Calendar and the Life of Christ

A brief portrayal of the Adamic calendar especially as it relates to the birth and resurrection of Christ.

The Adamic calendar system was created from data found in the Old and New Testaments. These contain detailed genealogies that include lifespans. From these lifespans, religious institutions have calculated not only the origin of human history, but theoretically can pinpoint the creation of the earth.

Sometimes this system is known by its Latin name, Anno Mundi or AM in shortened form.

The most well known genealogical lists are found in the Books of Genesis, Matthew, and Luke. This is where the majority of calculations are made from.

A number of articles on this website have been dedicated to tracing the development of the western calendar system. The Adamic is one of the many ancient calendars used, but it wasn’t one of the best systems that existed. Neither can it be accurately relied upon, but since it was historically used, it must be investigated further.

This calendar method has enjoyed cyclical popularity. It never became a universal standard. It has been found in fourth, seventh, twelfth, and 16th century pieces of literature, especially among religious institutions or writers. The 16th century introduced a renaissance of the concept. This can be traced to James Ussher and his book, Annalium pars postierior.

The modern religious Jewish community still uses a form of the Adamic calendar albeit without the Christian symbols.

Roger Pearse has covered the Adamic calendar with his article: Does Eusebius Give a Date for the Creation in his Chronicle. Here he accurately reveals misinformation on the subject, including the coverage found at Wikipedia, and proceeds to correct the ancient Church record. Eusebius, and many early Church authorities, as Pearse substantiates, saw the genealogies as the beginnings of human history, not the history of the earth itself.

Pearse goes into great detail to win his case, but here are some additional thoughts. These ideas are from a slightly different angle. The Adamic calendar does not count so much to me in when the earth was created, but in aiding to identify when Christ was born or crucified.

The third century Christian chronographer, Julius Africanus, understood almost all the calendars in use during his time and explained how to convert them into Attican expressions. He believed the Attican Greek Olympiad calendar to be the most universal of all of them. But he, along with others also used the Adamic calendar too. He wrote:

“The period, then, to the advent of the Lord from Adam and the creation is 5531 years.”1

Now this date has no meaning unless it is relevant to some specific period of measurable time. Africanus gave the Battle of Actium as his reference point:

“The date of which event is the 11th year of the monarchy and empire of the Romans, and the 4th year of the 187th Olympiad. Altogether, from Adam 5472 years are reckoned.”2

Now to reconcile the Olympiad with the Adamic calendar takes some basic math. The Battle of Actium occurred on the 4th year of the 187th Olympiad according to Africanus. This falls on 29 BC. This is two years off the normal 31 BC date given for what was considered the actual date of battle but still we can use this for measurement. Now if basic math is applied, the outcome is 30 AD that Christ was crucified on.3 . The term used here advent is confusing, and I am assuming from his dating that it does not refer to His birth, but resurrection. This calculation becomes more important in understanding a Christian Arabic parchment below.

The Christian Arabic community in the 12th century carried on a similar tradition to that of Africanus. One manuscript reads:

“And from Alexander, son of Philip the Greek until the incarnation of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ–let there be adoration of the recollection of Him–three hundred and fifty years. And from our Lord the Christ–Let there be adoration at the recollection of Him–to this year, which is the intended era, a thousand one hundred and fifty-five years. And what is past of the years of the world to the end of this year are six thousand six hundred and eighty-three years. And from Adam until our Lord the Christ five thousand five hundred years.”4

The dates were set at the death of Alexander the Great and the passion of Christ, not at the beginning of the reign as the Romans did. The era of Alexander began at 323 BC. Add 350 to this and this results in 27 AD. This was the Arabic Christian’s supposed death and resurrection of Christ. But the Adamic calculation was perplexing “And from Adam until our Lord the Christ five thousand five hundred years”. It doesn’t use the terms ‘advent’ or ‘incarnation’ here, and it is 31 years shorter than Africanus’ account. The neglect of these terms and the significance of 31, which likely reflects the age of Christ, suggests a number of outcomes.

  • The author utilized the same Adamic calendar as Africanus, then the birth date of Christ would be 2 BC.

  • Or, the author intended to subtract 31 from the 27 AD calculation from the era of Alexander, then it would be 4 BC.

  • It also could be argued that the author had drawn from different traditions

The Adamic system had its detractors such as the Venerable Bede. He had a new computational system for the age of the earth and was accused of heresy.5 When he first wrote De Temporibus Liber, in AD 703 he was well aware of the sensitivities and sneaks in his position, “. . .Christ was born, having completed from Adam 3,952 years. Now there is another date of 5199”6; the 3,952 being his position and 5199 the traditional one.

It also should be noted that the 8th century accepted date of Christ’s birth being 5199 years after the creation of the earth, is not consistent with Africanus’ 5531 reckoning. The 5199 was based on Eusebius’ calculations which became the entrenched position of the Church. Bede was well aware of this fact.

Bede’s AM 3,952 calculation was 1247 years different that Eusebius’. He followed the Hebrew Masoretic rather than the Greek Septuagint Bible on the ages of the Patriarchs for his hypothesis.7 The difference between the Hebrew and the Greek adds up to 1376 years according to William Whitaker,8 which makes this a reasonable, but not exact certainty.

22 years later, Bede was more liberal in the use of his own dating. He still recognized the historic value in the Adamic system, but its importance is devalued going forward after the time of Christ.

In reference to time before Christ, the Adamic is still recognized. This can be found in De Temporum Ratione where he paralleled both systems in this writing. In it he wrote headers such as “A.M. Hebr. 3352. Sept. 4700”9, to describe a date in antiquity. The first date referring to the Hebrew tradition and the second one, abbreviated “Sept.” for the Greek Septuagint dates.

His calendar utilized the birth-year of Christ as being the dividing point. Any time recorded after the birth of Christ he still used the Hebrew system but abandoned the Septuagint dating one altogether. In the place of the Septuagint he used Chr. instead. For example, the year of Christ’s birth is marked as, “A.M. 3952. Chr. 1.””10

It is interesting that Bede begins the birth of Christ with the Chr. symbol. He does not use the AD one. It demonstrates that Dionysius Exiguus reckoning of Easter system, which eventually evolved into the AD calendar, had not not evolved or taken hold internationally yet. Chr. as Bede called it, may have been one of the precursors of the AD system becoming entrenched some 100 years later.

Also important to many calendar specialists, is the fact that he did not start with a zero date, but with the number one.

This is a general introduction to the Adamic Calendar system. There is much more to this topic than documented here. The research so far gives some clues to the precise birth year of Christ, but nothing substantial.

The History of Tongues as an Ecstatic Utterance: The Montanists Part 1

Montanist ‘glossolalia’ and Christian tongues.

Many scholars believe the late 2nd century Montanist movement to be the first cited corporate tongues phenomena outside of the New Testament writers. Some propose that it was the last vestige of the gift before the institutional Church dismissed such an activity.

Are these assumptions correct?

The Montanist accounts, along with Origen, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria are key Patristic texts used by scholars who parallel Christian tongues with Hellenistic origins. Therefore it is important to examine these texts very closely. Origen has been covered already in Origen on the Gift of Tongues. Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria have been addressed slightly in this section A History of Tongues as an Ecstatic Utterance. Only a small amount of time spent on these last two because the texts really don’t say much. The Montanists, on the other hand, are more controversial.

For details on the Montanism, the Wikipedia website is a good place to start. In a simplified form, it was begun by a man named Montanus around 162 AD and aided by two women, Maximilla and Priscilla. Montanism lasted up until the 6th century.

The movement is revealed through three major sources, Eusebius of Caesarea, Epiphanius Bishop of Salamis, and Tertullian. The first two write about the Montanists in very negative and vitriolic terms while Tertullian defended them. There are other accounts too, such as Jerome and Didymus of Alexandria, but these give less substantial offerings than the ones above.

The most important source for the Montanists and glossolalia is Eusebius’ account. One must keep in mind his critical report of the Montanist movement is over-the-top rhetoric and makes the reader wonder why so much resources and time were utilized against them. The strong attack causes one to either pity the Montanists or think there is an ulterior motive by the established Church against them. Judging by the voracity of words, the Montanists must have been a populist movement that the institutional Church felt threatened by.

Eusebius himself has his own internal doubts about the account provided to him by an unknown author and stated, “They say that these things happened in this manner. But as we did not see them, O friend, we do not pretend to know.” Ancient Christian writers typically do not directly confront matters of opinion that differ from official Church positions. Disagreement of Church polity is usually subtly suggested in a brief, generalized statement. This is what happened here. Therefore, Eusebuis’ history should be taken with a degree of skepticism.

If one looks closely into the details, the actual historic evidence that equates Montanism with the gift of tongues is very weak. It is not directly found in the Eusebius document. The greek keyword glôssa/γλῶσσα does not appear in the text.

Eusebius’ source was trying to demonize the Montanists in almost every way. The wording and semantics are purposely kept distant from anything familiar to the Christian faith. Yet the history of glossolalia counts them as the last corporate movement until at least the 1700s to practice it.

This weakness regarding the Montanists and glossolalia was also echoed by Christopher Forbes in his book, Prophecy and Inspired Speech, “If Montanist prophecy was in any sense analogous to glossolalia it is quite remarkable that no ancient writer ever noticed or commented on this fact. Though it is certainly true that Montanist prophecy was characterised by ecstasy (in the modern sense), and occasionally by oracular obscurity, there is no unambiguous evidence whatsoever that it took glossolalic form.”1

However, this view goes against the majority of modern historians. For example Rex D. Butler retorted that the elements of the Montanist text all correlate with glossolalia. He gave numerous arguments against Forbes’ position. First of all he contends there is a contradiction. If the prophecy was given in intelligible speech why was the prophetess Maximillia an interpreter ἑρμηνεύτην?2 Secondly, he charged that Forbes failed to recognize that the prophets utilized both intelligible and unintelligible speech. Third, he argued against Forbes definition of ξενοφωνεῖν. Forbes believed it to mean to speak as a foreigner while Baxter believed it to mean to speak strangely. Baxter further adds if it is combined with λαλεῖν, which is found in the Eusebius text as λαλεῖν καὶ ξενοφωνεῖν, then it should be translated as chatter or babble. Finally Baxter concluded, “Forbes arguments are not suffficient to overturn the historic understanding that Montanists engaged in glossolalia.”3

Butler failed to fully address Forbes argument. First, he neglected to cite Forbes complete comment which included, “If Montanist prophecy was in any sense analogous to glossolalia it is quite remarkable that no ancient writer ever noticed or commented on this fact.” Forbes is right. There are no Ecclesiastical writings that affirms the Montanist correlation with Christian ‘glossolalia’. Neither are there any pro-glossolalia interpretations of this text or any other until after at least 1825.

This whole argument goes into a number specific areas that goes beyond the differences between Baxter and Forbes. To fully resolve the issue of how to properly understand this text there are three aspects that need to be understood.

  • How to correctly translate the following Greek words as they appear in the text: παρεκστὰσει(2χ)/παρεκστῆναι, ξενοφωνεῖν, ἐκφονημάτων, ἐκφρόνως, προφητοφόντας. ἀμετροφώνους, and εκστάσει.
  • Has Montanism always been correlated with the Christian rite of tongues or is this a recent phenomenon? If so, when did it begin and how did it develop?
  • Is the Montanist example supplied because there are so few examples of any kind? Or, are there much better ones that have been glossed over?

These three questions will be answered in the third part of this series on Montanism. The next article The Montanists Part 2 supplies the basis for the whole coverage. It is the actual Eusebius text from Migne Patrologia Graeca in both the Greek and the Latin. It is also contains an English translation.

Eusebius on Montanism: the Latin, Greek and English source texts

The actual Greek and Latin text of Eusebius’ account of the Montanist movement along with an English translation.

The Greek and Latin supplied here was input and corrected by the author of this blog. As usual this comes with a disclaimer titled Notes on ancient Greek copy and this website. This text was also compared against a digital Greek copy located at Skeptic.net in pdf format. The related portion inside the pdf starts at 5.16.7. Where there was a discrepancy on where to place the difficult-to-read Greek accents between the author’s input text and the pdf, the pdf usually set the precedent. In the matter of punctuation, the pdf supplies corrections of what appears to be many flaws in the MPG typesetting. This blog text, except in one or two instances, retains the original punctuation found in MPG.

Note: These are not the full chapters. Only the portions relevant to Montanism and glossolalia have been provided.

The Parallel Greek from Eusebius. Historiæ Ecclesiasticæ. MPG. Vol. 20. Lib. V:XVI. Col. 465ff

«… Κώμη τις εἶναι λέγεται ἐν τῇ κατὰ τὴν Φρυγίαν Μυσίᾳ, καλουμένη Ἀρβαδαν τοὔνομα • ἔνθα φασί τινα τῶν νεοπίστων πρώτως, Μοντανὸν τοὔνομα, κατὰ Γράτον Ἀσίας ἀνθύπατον, ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ ψυχῆς ἀμέτρῳ φιλοπρωτείας δόντα πάρoδον εἰς ἑαυτὸν τῷ ἀντικειμένῳ, πνευματοφορηθῆναί τε καὶ αἰφνιδίως ἐν κατοχῇ τινι καὶ παρεκστάσει γενόμενον, ἐνθουσιᾶν, ἄρξασθαί τε λαλεῖν καὶ ξενοφωνεῖν, παρὰ τὸ κατὰ παράδοσιν καὶ κατὰ διαδοχὴν ἄνωθεν τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἔθος δῆθεν προφητεύοντα. Τῶν δὲ κατ’ ἐκεῖνο καιροῦ ἐν τῇ τῶν νόθων ἐκφωνημάτων ἀκροάσει γενομένων, οἳ μὲν ὡς ἐπὶ ἐνεργουμένῳ καὶ δαιμονῶντι καὶ ἐν πλάνης πνεύματι ὑπάρχοντι καὶ τοὺς ὄχλους ταράττοντι ἀχθόμενοι ἐπετίμων, καὶ λαλεῖν ἐκώλυον, μεμνημένοι τῆς τοῦ Κυρίου διαστολῆς τε καὶ ἀπειλῆς, πρὸς τὸ φυλάττεσθαι τὴν τῶν ψευδοπροφητῶν ἐγρηγορότως παρουσίαν • οἳ δὲ ὡς ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι καὶ προφητικῷ χαρίσματι ἐπαιρόμενοι καὶ οὐχ ἥκιστα χαυνούμενοι, καὶ τῆς διαστολῆς τοῦ Κυρίου ἐπιλανθανόμενοι, τὸ βλαψίφρον καὶ ὑποκοριστικὸν καὶ λαοπλάνον πνεῦμα προὐκαλοῦντο, θελγόμενοι καὶ πλανώμενοι ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ, εἰς τὸ μηκέτι κωλύεσθαι σιωπᾷν. Τέχνῃ δέ τινι, μᾶλλον δὲ τοιαύτῃ μεθόδῳ κακοτεχνίας ὁ διάβολος τὴν κατὰ τῶν παρηκόων ἀπώλειαν μηχανησάμενος, καὶ παρ’ ἀξίαν ὑπ’ αὐτῶν τιμώμενος, ὑπεξήγειρέ τε καὶ προσεξέκαυσεν αὐτῶν τὴν ἀποκεκοιμημένην ἀπὸ τῆς κατὰ ἀλήθειαν πίστεως διάνοιαν, ὡς καὶ ἑτέρας τινὰς δύο γυναῖκας ἐπεγεῖραι, καὶ τοῦ νόθου πνεύματος πληρῶσαι, ὡς καὶ λαλεῖν ἐκφρόνως καὶ ἀκαίρως καὶ ἀλλοτριοτρόπως ὁμοίως τῷ προειρημένῳ, καὶ τοὺς μὲν χαίροντας καὶ καυχωμένους1 ἐπ’ αὐτῷ, μακαρίζοντος τοῦ πνεύματος, καὶ διὰ τοῦ μεγέθους τῶν ἐπαγγελμάτων ἐκφυσιοῦντος, ἔσθ’ ὅπη2 δὲ καὶ κατακρίνοντος3 στοχαστικῶς καὶ ἀξιοπίστως αὐτοὺς ἄντικρυς, ἵνα καὶ ἐλεγκτικὸν εἶναι δοκῇ 4 ὀλίγοι δ’ ἦσαν οὗτοι τῶν Φρυγῶν ἐξηπατημένοι5 τὴν δὲ καθόλου καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν Ἐκκλησίαν βλασφημεῖν διδάσκοντος τοῦ ἀπηυθαδισμένου πνεύματος, ὅτι μήτε τιμὴν μήτε πάροδον εἰς αὐτὴν τὸ ψευδοπροφητικὸν ἐλὰμβανε πνεῦμα. Τῶν γὰρ κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν πιστῶν πολλάκις καὶ πολλαχή τῆς Ἀσίας εἰς τοῦτο συνελθόντων, καὶ τοὐς προσφάτους λόγους ἐξετασάντων καὶ βεβήλους ἀποφηνάντων καὶ ἀποδοκιμασάντων τὴν αἵρεσιν, οὕτω δὴ τῆς τε Ἐκκλησίας ἐξεώσθησαν, καὶ τῆς κοινωνίας εἴρχθησαν. » Ταῦτα ἐν πρώτοις ἱστορήσας, καὶ δι’ ὅλου τοῦ συγγράμματος τὸν ἔλεγχον τῆς κατ’ αὐτοὺς πλάνης ἐπαγαγὼν, ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ περὶ τῆς τελευτῆς τῶν προδεδηλωμένων ταῦτά φησιν • [Col. 469] « Ἐπειδὴ6 τοίνυν καὶ πρφητοφόντας ἡμᾶς ἀπεκάλουν, ὅτι μὴ τοὺς ἀμετροφώνους αὐτῶν προφήτας ἐδεξάμεθα • τούτους γὰρ εἶναί φασιν, οὕσπερ ἐπηγγείλατο τῷ λαῷ πέμψειν ὁ Κύριος, ἀποκρινάσθωσαν ἡμῖν πρὸς Θεοῦ, ἔστι τις7, ὦ βέλτιστοι, τούτων τῶν ἀπὸ Μοντανοῦ καὶ8 γαναικῶν λαλεῖν ἀρξαμένον, ὅστις ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων ἐδιώχθη, ἤ ὑπὸ παρανόμων ἀπεκτάνθη ; οὐδείς οὐδἐ9 γέ τις αὐτῶν κρατηθεὶς ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος ἀνεσταυρώθη ; οὐ γὰρ οὖν • οὐδὲ μὴν οὐδὲ ἐν συναγωγαῖς Ἰουδαίων τῶν γυναικῶν τις ἐμαστιγώθη ποτὲ, ἤ ἐλιθοβολήθη ; οὐδαμόσε οὐδαμως. Ἄλλῳ δὲ θανάτῳ τελευτῆσαι λέγονται Μοντανός τε καὶ Μαξίμιλλα. Τοὐτους γὰρ ὑπὸ πνεύματος βλαψίφρονος ἑκατέρους ὑποκινήσαντος, λόγος ἀναρτῆσαι ἑαυτοὺς, οὐχ ὁμοῦ, κατὰ δὲ τὸν τῆς ἐκάστου τελευτῆς καιρὸν φήμη πολλή καὶ10 οὕτω δὲ τελευτῆσαι καὶ τὸν βίον καταστρέψαι, Ἰούδα προδότου δίκην. Καθάπερ καὶ τὸν θαυμαστὸν ἐκεῖνον τὸν πρῶτον τῆς κατ’ αὐτοὺς λεγομένης προφητείας οἷον ἐπίτρόπον τινα Θεόδοτον, πολὺς αἱρεῖ λόγος, ὡς αἰρόμενόν ποτε καὶ ἀναλαμβανόμενον εἰς οὐρανοὺς παρεκστῆναι τε καὶ καταπιστεῦσαι ἑαυτὸν τῷ τῆς ἀπατς πνεύματι καὶ δισκευθέντα, κακῶς τελευτῆσαι. Φαςὶ γοῦν τοῦτο οὕτως γεγονέναι. Ἀλλὰ μὴ ἄνευ τοῦ ιδεῖν ἡμᾶς, ἐπίστασθαί τι τῶν τοιοῦτων νομίζομεν, ὦ μακὰριε.

The Parallel Latin from Eusebius. Historiæ Ecclesiasticæ. MPG. Vol. 20. Lib. V:XVI. Col. 466ff

« …Vicus quidam esse dicitur in Mysia contermina Phrygiæ nomine Ardaba. In quo aiunt Monatanum quemdam ex iis qui fidelium numero recens ascripti fuerant, immodica primi loci cupididate captum, primum sub Grato Asiæ proconsule aditum in se adversario spiritui præbuisse : et dæmone repletum subito quodam furore ac mentis excessu concuti cœpisse, et nova quædam atque inaudita proloqui ; hariolantem ac prædicentem futura, præter morem atque institutum Ecclesiæ a majoribus traditum et continua deinceps successione propagatum. Porro ex his qui tunc temporis adulterinos hominis sermones audierant, alii quidem ut abreptitium et dæmoniacum ac spiritu erroris actum, turbasque in populo excitantem indignabundi objurgabant, et loqui ulterius prohibebant. Quippe qui in mente haberent discrimen a Domino prænotatum, minasque quibus jubemur adventum falsorum prophetarum vigilanter ac sollicite observare. Alii vero velut sancto Spiritu et prophetiæ gratia elati inflatique, mirum in modum, et distinctionis a Domino præmonstratæ penitus obliti, illum infatuantem et adulatorem vulgique seductorem spiritum ultro ad loquendum provocabant, capti ejus illecebris, et in fraudem inducti. Hac igitur arte seu potius fraude ac versutia diabolus adversus eos qui dicto Domini audientes non erant, exitium machinatus, cum ab illis immerito coleretur, mentes eorum a vera fide secubantes semnoque oppressas excitavit paulatim ac vehementius inflammavit. Quippe duas alias mulierculas suscitavit, et adulterino spiritu replevit, adeo ut ipsæ quoque perinde ac supra memoratus ille, insana quædam et importuna atque aliena loquerentur. Et eos quidem qui ea re delectabantur atque intumescebant, spiritus ille beatos prædicabat, et promissorum magnitudine supra modum inflabat. Interdum tamen conjecturis et fide dignis argumentis utens, palam eos condemnabat, quo scilicet etiam objurgatorius videretur. Hi perpaucie erant Phryges, hujusmodi fraude decepti. Universam vero, quæ per orbem terrarum sparsa est, Ecclesiam, idem ille arrogantissimus spiritus maledictis appetere eos docebat, eo quod nec honorem, nec auditum ullum ad ipsam pseudopropheticus spiritus reperiret. Nam cum fideles qui in Asia erant, sæpius et in plurimis Asiæ locis ejus rei causa convenissent, novamque illam doctrinam examinassent, et profanam atque impiam judicassent, damnata hæresi isti ab Ecclesia et fidelium communione expulsi sunt. » His in principio operis commemoratis, ac per totum deinceps librum confutatione illorum erroris adjecta, supradictus scriptor in secundo libro de illorum quos dixi obitu ita scribit : « Quando igitur, inquit, prophetarum nos interfectores vocarunt, propterea quod loquaces ipsorum prophetas non admisimus (hos enim esse affirmant, quos Dominus populo se missurum esse promiserit), respondeant nobis, quæso, per Deum : esine aliquis eorum qui jam inde a Montano et mulierculis garrire primum cœperunt, qui a Judæis persecutionem passus sit, aut ab impiis trucidatus ? Nemo certe. Nec vero ullus eorum pro Christi nomine prehensus, in crucem actus et : sed neque ulla mulier in Judæorum synagogis aut flagris cæsa aut lapidibus impetita ets. Nusquam profecto, nec unquam. Imo longe alio mortis genere interiisse dicuntur Montanus et Maximilla. Ambo enim, ut fama est, ab insano spiritu incitati, laqueo sibi gullam fregerunt : non quidem simul, sed suæ quisque mortis tempore : atque ita instar proditoris Judæ vitam finierunt. Sic etiam admirabilis ille Theodotus, qui primus prophetiæ illorum quasi procuratur quidam fuit, plurimorum sermone perhibetur false mentis excessu abreptus fuisse, perinde ac si levaretur aliquando et assumeretur in cœlum : cumque se totum fraudulentissimo spriritui permisisset, ab eo in altum jactatus miserabili exitu perisse. Et id quidem ita factum esse narrant. Sed quoniam ipsi non bidimus, nequaquam existimamus nos quid quam eorum certo cognoscere. »

The English from A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church:11

7. There is said to be a certain village called Ardabau in that part of Mysia, which borders upon Phrygia. There first, they say, when Gratus was proconsul of Asia, a recent convert, Montanus by name, through his unquenchable desire for leadership, gave the adversary opportunity against him. And he became beside himself, and being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy, he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to the constant custom of the Church handed down by tradition from the beginning.

8. Some of those who heard his spurious utterances at that time were indignant, and they rebuked him as one that was possessed, and that was under the control of a demon, and was led by a deceitful spirit, and was distracting the multitude; and they forbade him to talk, remembering the distinction drawn by the Lord and his warning to guard watchfully against the coming of false prophets. But others imagining themselves possessed of the Holy Spirit and of a prophetic gift, were elated and not a little puffed up; and forgetting the distinction of the Lord, they challenged the mad and insidious and seducing spirit, and were cheated and deceived by him. In consequence of this, he could no longer be held in check, so as to keep silence.

9. Thus by artifice, or rather by such a system of wicked craft, the devil, devising destruction for the disobedient, and being unworthily honored by them, secretly excited and inflamed their understandings which had already become estranged from the true faith. And he stirred up besides two women, and filled them with the false spirit, so that they talked wildly and unreasonably and strangely, like the person already mentioned. And the spirit pronounced them blessed as they rejoiced and gloried in him, and puffed them up by the magnitude of his promises. But sometimes he rebuked them openly in a wise and faithful manner, that he might seem to be a reprover. But those of the Phrygians that were deceived were few in number. “And the arrogant spirit taught them to revile the entire universal Church under heaven, because the spirit of false prophecy received neither honor from it nor entrance into it.

10. For the faithful in Asia met often in many places throughout Asia to consider this matter, and examined the novel utterances and pronounced them profane, and rejected the heresy, and thus these persons were expelled from the Church and debarred from communion.”

11. Having related these things at the outset, and continued the refutation of their delusion through his entire work, in the second book he speaks as follows of their end:

12. “Since, therefore, they called us slayers of the prophets because we did not receive their loquacious prophets, who, they say, are those that the Lord promised to send to the people, let them answer as in God’s presence: Who is there, O friends, of these who began to talk, from Montanus and the women down, that was persecuted by the Jews, or slain by lawless men? None. Or has any of them been seized and crucified for the Name? Truly not. Or has one of these women ever been scourged in the synagogues of the Jews, or stoned? No; never anywhere.

13. But by another kind of death Montanus and Maximilla are said to have died. For the report is that, incited by the spirit of frenzy, they both hung themselves; not at the same time, but at the time which common report gives for the death of each. And thus they died, and ended their lives like the traitor Judas.

14. So also, as general report says, that remarkable person, the first steward, as it were, of their so-called prophecy, one Theodotus—who, as if at sometime taken up and received into heaven, fell into trances, and entrusted himself to the deceitful spirit—was pitched like a quoit, and died miserably.

15. They say that these things happened in this manner. But as we did not see them, O friend, we do not pretend to know. …”

The Greek from Eusebius. Historiæ Ecclesiasticæ. MPG. Vol. 20. Lib. V:XVII :

(Col. 473) Περί Μιλτιάδου καὶ ὦν σθνέταξε λόγων

Ἐν τούτῳ δὲ τῷ συγγράμματι καὶ Μιλτιάδου συγγραφέως μέμνηται, ὡς λόγον τινὰ καὶ αὐτοῦ κατὰ τῆς προειρημένης αἰρέσεως γεγραφότος. Παραθέμενος γοῦν αὐτῶν λέξεις τινάς, ἐπιφέρει λέγων • « Ταῦτα εὑρὼν ἔν τινι συγγράμματι αὐτῶν ἐνισταμένων τῷ Μιλτιάδου τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ συγγράμματι, ἐν ᾧ ἀποδείκνυσι περὶ τοῦ μὴ δεῖν προφήτην ἐν ἐκστάσει λαλεῖν, ἐπετεμόμην. » ᾽Υποκαταβὰς δὲ ἐν ταὐτῷ τοὺς κατὰ τὴν Καινὴν Διαθήκην προπεφητευκότας καταλέγει, ἐν οἷς καταριθμεῖ Ἀμμίαν τινὰ καὶ Κοδρᾶτον, λέγων οὕτως • « Ἀλλ’ ὅ γε ψευδοπροφήτς ἐν παρεκστάσει, ᾧ ἕπεται ἄδεια καὶ ἀφοβία, ἀρχομενος μὲν ἐξ ἑκουσίου ἀμαθιας, καταστρέφων δὲ εὶς ἀκούσιον μανίαν ψυχῆς, ὡς προείρηται. … »

The Latin from Eusebius. Historiæ Ecclesiasticæ. MPG. Vol. 20. Lib. V:XVII :

(Col. 474) De Miltiade et illius scriptis.

In eodem quoque libro Miltiadis cujusdam scriptoris mentionem facit, qui adversus supradictam hæresim librum conscripserit. Citatis enim quibusdam verbis illorum hæreticorum, ita deinde scribit : « Hæc ego cum reperissem in quodam libro ipsorum adversus Miltiadem fraterm nostrum, qui peculiari oper docuerat no deceere prophetam in exstasi loqui, in compendium redegi. » Deindi aliquanto post in eodem libro universos Novi Testamenti prophetas enumerat, inter quos Ammiam quamdam et Quadratum recenset his verbis : « Pseudo-propheta autem, inquit, in falso mentis excessu, cujus comes est licentia et audacia, a spontanea quidem imperitia initium sumens, in amentiam autem, ut jam dixi, involuntariam desinens. Hujusmodi vero spiritu nullum unquam nec in Vetere nec in Novo Testamento prophetam afflatum poterunt demonstrare. …»

The English from A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church:12

…Chapter XVII.—Miltiades and His Works.

1. In this work he mentions a writer, Miltiades, stating that he also wrote a certain book against the above-mentioned heresy. After quoting some of their words, he adds:

“Having found these things in a certain work of theirs in opposition to the work of the brother Alcibiades, in which he shows that a prophet ought not to speak in ecstasy, I made an abridgment.”

2. A little further on in the same work he gives a list of those who prophesied under the new covenant, among whom he enumerates a certain Ammia and Quadratus, saying:

“But the false prophet falls into an ecstasy, in which he is without shame or fear. Beginning with purposed ignorance, he passes on, as has been stated, to involuntary madness of soul.

3. They cannot show that one of the old or one of the new prophets was thus carried away in spirit. …”

For further reading:

A Chronology of the Herods: More Details

This article has been removed. The results have been added to the following article, The Chronology of the Herods.

History of Glossolalia: Patristic Citation

How ecclesiastical literature has been woefully neglected by the sourcebooks in drawing conclusions on the christian doctrine of tongues and reasons why this happened.

There is a considerable amount of literature devoted by many christian writers over the first thousand years since the inception of the church on this topic. However, many are not popularly available in English. They remain in their Greek, Latin, Syriac and likely many more original forms, waiting to be rediscovered.

Had the last few generations had access to this literature in their modern language, then the tongues argument would be significantly different. The Gift of Tongues Project demonstrates that the arguments from both the pro and con camps are based on ignorance of ecclesiastical literature.

The selective and inaccurate use of Church writings make the topic appear historically obscure. The lack of comprehensiveness naturally produces an outcome of glossolalia.

Glossolalia may not necessarily be the wrong the conclusion but it has omitted very important ecclesiastical writings in the process.

The deficiency of ecclesiastical usage is clearly found throughout:

Moulton and Milligan’s, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, alluded to the fact that the tongues in Acts were ecstatic. Not a single reference was made from the Church Fathers.1

Walter Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament tried to develop a connection between Hellenistic ecstasy and christian tongues. The author or the revisionist of this dictionary used only one patristic writing to emphasize the concept, and it is a weak one – Origen’s writing, Against Celsus.2

Thayer’s A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Nove Testamenti declared the Corinthian problem was people in ecstasy and made no reference to early Church writings.3

Johannes Behm’s article, γλῶσσα, in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, also failed to give a comprehensive account of tongues in the early Church. The author does quote Origen from the book, Against Celsus, and Irenaeous, Against Heresies, to support his view that the Christian gift of tongues parallels similar phenomena in different religious systems and various time periods.4 However, Behm failed to point out that in both his examples, the word γλῶσσα does not even occur. He neglected the use of γλῶσσα employed by Origen and Irenaeous elsewhere.

Behm is an interesting and controversial figure within theological circles and is debated whether his contributions should be blotted out of the historical records. He was ignominiously deposed from his position at the Friedrich Wilhelms University in Berlin after World War II in 1945 because of his Nazi affiliation. It is unclear what happened to him after he was dismissed.5

The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament used only one Patristic reference, Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata to substantiate their connection of tongues with Hellenism.6

Lampe’s, 1978 version of the Patristic Greek Lexicon does touch on some relevant passages but fails to be comprehensive. It does refer to nine distinct writers but does not offer anything new outside of the standard modern interpretations.7

Hans Conzelmann’s well received, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians used only Origen to support his claim that “speaking with tongues is unintelligible to a normal man, even a Christian.” However, if one examines the source text quoted more closely, there is little about tongues and more about prophecy. It is a weak correlation.8

The Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, which claims to be an authority of Patristic interpretation on Scripture, quotes nine church fathers, including a weak reference to Augustine, neglecting his larger and more important works on the subject. The Ancient Christian Commentary has a strong emphasis on Chrysostom’s commentary on Corinthians – a book far from being definitive. Their coverage makes it appear that there is little Patristic literature on the subject.9

The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible in Five Volumes, defined the New Testament doctrine of Tongues as “ecstatic spirititual utterances not consciously or rationally controlled by the speaker,” without one reference to ancient Church literature.10

The New International Bible Encyclopedia gave scant reference to the ancient Church sages on the subject, quoting Irenaeous, Tertullian, and Chrysostom as found in the source-books. He does use Origen’s commentary on Romans to demonstrate briefly the view of tongues as a foreign language. He also believed tongues as an ecstatic utterance needs to be tempered but fails to give a clear alternative.11

Many discussions on the historical definition from a Pentecostal perspective can be traced to George H. Williams and Edith Waldvogel’s analysis which is found in The Charismatic Movement, Michael P. Hamilton ed. The authors surveyed the glossolalic movement from the early Church onwards. It is well-written and one of the better researched publications but it has a number of important flaws as it relates to the ecclesiastical writings:

  • It follows the same pattern and almost identically cites the same Church Fathers found in the source-books. One can see a heavy influence here; especially the focus on Montanism.12. It does add Pope Leo I, Pachomius, Bede and Thomas Aquinas to the historical record but fails to clearly show the reader that all these examples specifically demonstrate the miracle being speaking or hearing in a foreign language.

  • Williams and Waldvogel limited their analysis of Church literature to those already translated into English. As noted above, most of the critical literature on the subject is not popularly available in English. They made a critical mistake to assume already existent English translations are fairly representative of the historic Christian doctrine.

  • Neither do they alert the reader to different historic movements, perceptions or doctrines that existed during early centuries of the Church that differed from their own. Consequently, they made no effort to resolve any historical tensions.

  • Williams’ and Waldvogel’s historical record regarded three forms of tongues as equally authentic: ecstatic, foreign languages and as a psychological phenomenon.13 They aggregated all three together as one comprehensive unit without first establishing a historical precedent for doing such. These three streams could be independent of each other, each one introduced at different time periods, or simply one or more could be a wrong assumption.

  • They do briefly recognize Augustine and Gregory Nazianzus’ contribution but fail to recognize how powerful their opinions, and the ensuing controversies surrounding especially Nazianzus, influenced the Church for over a thousand years.

An analysis of the Patristic literature cited in the sourcebooks.

There are numerous references from the ecclesiastical writers on the Christian doctrine of tongues. From personally looking at and indexing approximately 135 volumes of Migne Patrologia Graeca, there are at least 34 passages that clearly define the gift of tongues, 51 more references that are strong indicators, 109 indirect references or parallels and Biblical citations about the tongues phenomena. There are 360 occurrences of keywords that can be analyzed for grammar, syntax and comparative work and 35 references to early Church liturgy that helps understand the context of tongues. This is a conservative tally, there are more that are coming to light as this study proceeds.

Out of the 34 or more passages covered by Ecclesiastical writers spanning over a one thousand year period, only seven have been popularly used in the primary sourcebooks. These seven are not the best choices regarding the topic at hand, but better fit in with the ideology that the Christian rite of tongues is a syncretization of Greek pagan practices — an effort to transform the Christian message into an international one.

Many of the other 34 can be found at the Gift of Tongues Project Intro page. Not all are available because they have yet to be analyzed, digitized, or translated.

The seven typically used to affirm tongues as an ecstatic utterance will be analyzed and compared to the historical corpus of literature available on the subject. They are going to be listed along with the relevant quote, and some commentary.

1. Irenaeous:

Against Haeresies I, 13, 3

It appears probable enough that this man possesses a demon as his familiar spirit, by means of whom he seems able to prophesy, and also enables as many as he counts worthy to be partakers of his Charis themselves to prophesy. He devotes himself especially to women, and those such as are well-bred, and elegantly attired, and of great wealth, whom he frequently seeks to draw after him, by addressing them in such seductive words as these: “I am eager to make you a partaker of my Charis, since the Father of all does continually behold your angel before His face. Now the place of your angel is among us: it behooves us to become one. Receive first from me and by me [the gift of] Charis. Adorn yourself as a bride who is expecting her bridegroom, that you may be what I am, and I what you are. Establish the germ of light in your nuptial chamber. Receive from me a spouse, and become receptive of him, while you are received by him. Behold Charis has descended upon you; open your mouth and prophesy.” On the woman replying, “I have never at any time prophesied, nor do I know how to prophesy;” then engaging, for the second time, in certain invocations, so as to astound his deluded victim, he says to her, “Open your mouth, speak whatsoever occurs to you, and you shall prophesy.” She then, vainly puffed up and elated by these words, and greatly excited in soul by the expectation that it is herself who is to prophesy, her heart beating violently [from emotion], reaches the requisite pitch of audacity, and idly as well as impudently utters some nonsense as it happens to occur to her, such as might be expected from one heated by an empty spirit. (Referring to this, one superior to me has observed, that the soul is both audacious and impudent when heated with empty air.) Henceforth she reckons herself a prophetess, and expresses her thanks to Marcus for having imparted to her of his own Charis. She then makes the effort to reward him, not only by the gift of her possessions (in which way he has collected a very large fortune), but also by yielding up to him her person, desiring in every way to be united to him, that she may become altogether one with him.14

This passage is weak in establishing the nature and definition of tongues. It would make a stronger case for defining the office of prophecy. The Greek word for tongues, γλῶσσα, does not appear in the text.

The more relevant passage that ought to have been quoted is from Irenaeous’ Against Heresies text, Book V, Chapter 6:1:

For this reason does the apostle declare, “We speak wisdom among them that are perfect,” [1 Corinthians 2:6] terming those persons “perfect” who have received the Spirit of God, and who through the Spirit of God do speak in all languages, as he used Himself also to speak. In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms “spiritual,” they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit, and not because their flesh has been stripped off and taken away, and because they have become purely spiritual.15

There are others too, not so strong as the above that allude to foreign languages such as Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 12:1, and Book 3, Chapter 17:2. None of these are mentioned or wrestled with in the source-books when drawing up their conclusion of tongues as an ecstatic utterance.

2. Origen

This third century writer is the most quoted. Why he was chosen as the leading Church writer on the subject is questionable. It may be that he was one of the earlier writers on the subject, along with the fact that his works have such a high standard of both piety and intellectual foresight that many other writers shortly after him lacked. As demonstrated in my previous article, Origen on the Gift of Tongues, his contribution to the subject is very small compared to other writers such as Gregory Nazianzus or Augustine, Bishop of Hippo.

Against Celsius VII:8-9

” Then he goes on to say: “To these promises are added strange, fanatical, and quite unintelligible words, of which no rational person can find the meaning: for so dark are they, as to have no meaning at all; but they give occasion to every fool or impostor to apply them to suit his own purposes.”16

A number of authors use this passaged to correlate the historical gift of tongues with ecstasy. However, it does not have the word for tongues γλῶσσα in it. Nor does Origen even propose or intend this to be a didactic on tongues.

The following have used this to support their position: Frederick Farrar, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Johannes Behm: Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Bauer: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.

Origen’s Commentary in the Epistle to the Romans is closer to what he believed, though it is seldom found or discussed in the major works.

Commentary in the Epistle to the Romans 1:13

Now one must ask how the Apostle is under obligation to the Greeks and the non-Greeks with the teachers of wisdom and the foolish ones. How is it then he heard from these very ones from which he was bound under obligation? I indeed believe thereupon him to have accomplished the obligation within the diverse nations that he received through the grace of the Holy Spirit [the ability] to speak in the languages of all the nations, even as he himself says, “I speak in tongues more than you all,” because then the knowledge of languages is not according to anything within himself, but he received on behalf of those which were about to be preached. The obligation is being brought forth in all those which he receives from God the knowledge of language.

C.M. Robeck Jr. in The New International Bible Encyclopedia wrote about Origen’s Commentary in the Epistle to the Romans 1:13 as an affirmation that he “viewed it as a bridge to cross-cultural preaching.”17 Romans 1:13, is a good argument, but he then cited 7:6 which is very vague. It is difficult to find the correlation with 7:6 and he may be stretching his argument here. This discussion once again can be found in more detail inside the previous article, Origen on the Gift of Tongues.

The most important Origen contribution has been overlooked by most authors. His position is defined in Against Celsus 8:37: “if I may so say, but one voice, expressing itself in different dialects.” This is the first time the concept of one voice — many dialects occurs in any Patristic writing. This tongues doctrine may be the earliest definition found by any writer on the subject. Gregory Nazianzus covered this one voice — many dialects position and caused more tension than resolution. This is a very serious oversight.

3. Eusebius

Ecclesiastical History V:16

There is said to be a certain village called Ardabau in that part of Mysia, which borders upon Phrygia. There first, they say, when Gratus was proconsul of Asia, a recent convert, Montanus by name, through his unquenchable desire for leadership, gave the adversary opportunity against him. And he became beside himself, and being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy, he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to the constant custom of the Church handed down by tradition from the beginning.18

Almost all authors who trace tongues as an ecstatic utterance ultimately arrive at this passage for validation. The problem with this passage is twofold. Number one, the greek word for tongues, γλῶσσα, does not appear, and secondly Eusebius does not make any correlation between the Montanist ecstasy and the gift of tongues. It is extrapolated by modern researchers.

If the higher criticists were more familiar with ancient church writings, they would have been able to build a stronger case around the Donatists than the Montanists (see An Analysis of Augustine on Tongues and the Donatists for details). However, the Donatists were not even mentioned in any source work.

This whole controversy is an important one. It is covered in more detail here: A Critical Look at Tongues and Montanism.

4. Tertullian

Against Marcionem V: 8

Let Marcion then exhibit, as gifts of his god, some prophets, such as have not spoken by human sense, but with the Spirit of God, such as have both predicted things to come, and have made manifest the secrets of the heart; let him produce a psalm, a vision, a prayer – only let it be by the Spirit, in an ecstasy, that is, in a rapture, whenever an interpretation of tongues has occurred to him; let him show to me also, that any woman of boastful tongue in his community has ever prophesied from among those specially holy sisters of his.19

This is the first time the Greek word γλῶσσα is used in the primary proof-texts of tongues as ecstasy. It is an obscure passage though. It does not give enough information to build an argument.

Irenaeous, Origen, Eusebius and Tertullian, these four are the most referenced and earliest citations on the gift of tongues. These Church writers are all first cited together in August Neander’s 1832 publication Geschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der christlichen Kirche durch die Apostel later translated into English as History of the Planting and training of the Christian Church by the Apostles.20 As outlined earlier in A History of Glossolalia: Origins Neander is one of the leading founders of the modern definition. The Patristic construct that he promoted has not been analyzed or changed much since his publishing in the mid 1800s.

5. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis

PKE Feine’s account found in the The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge is the only modern author found to use Epiphanius’ account as validation for tongues as ecstasy.

Against Haeresies XlVIII: 4 (MPG: Vol. 41. Col. 861ff)

There is no translation given because the subject matter does not make a compelling argument and it is a waste of resources and time to translate from the Greek into English.

It is difficult to pin-point exactly why this passage was referenced in relation to the gift of tongues. Tongues is not directly referenced and it is a problem to even find the inference. The greek key-word γλῶσσα is not used in this passage, nor any noun of the equivalent meaning. The word ecstasy is located but only in relation to prophecy.

He described the Montanist practice of ecstatic utterance from Epiphanius’ book, Against Heresies (Adversus Haereses XLVIII:4) to strengthen his argument but then neglected to mention Epiphanius’ direct discourse on Pentecost (Adversus Haereses XXXIX) and incredible description of the Corinthian tongues (Adversus Haereses XLII) — a place where Epiphanius argued that the conflict in Corinth was about ethnic problems between Attic, Aeolic and Doric Greeks. Both of these passages, which the writer ignored, seriously erodes his argument of tongues as an ecstatic utterance relative to the Greek culture of the time. Feine also quoted the Montanist practice from Eusebius’ book, Ecclesiastical History, where the term γλῶσσα does not occur.

The discussion of Epiphanius on the tongues of Corinth, Adversus Haereses XLII, omitted by all the source-books, can be found here: Epiphanius on the Problem Tongues of Corinth.

6. John Chrysostom

Homily 29 on I First Corinthians

Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. You know that when you were Gentiles, you were led away unto those dumb idols, howsoever ye might be led.

This whole place is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place. And why do they not happen now? Why look now, the cause too of the obscurity has produced us again another question: namely, why did they then happen, and now do so no more?21

This passage has been utilized and interpreted many ways. It is not used by the majority of the source books, but does exist in the more conservative religious publications. Some have used it to mean the gift had died in the earliest ages of Christianity. Others have interpreted it to mean that the institutional Church quelched it, and later it was re-introduced by the Montanist movement.

The utilization of Chrysostom’s statement makes it appear as a final event that already happened in history and is not bound to be repeated again.

Unfortunately, the majority of publications are being too selective here. He wrote more on this subject that gives some insights.

It is clear from reading Chrysostom’s Homilies on I Corinthians, especially 29-36 that he believed it was speaking in foreign languages. There is no doubt. For example he wrote in Homily 35:

There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and no kind is without signification:” i.e., so many tongues, so many voices of Scythians, Thracians, Romans, Persians, Moors, Indians, Egyptians, innumerable other nations.22

One of the most important contributions that Chrysostom wrote which reflected the mood and theological position of his era has been left out in any publication. It is found in Homily 35 in his Homilies on I Corinthians:

At this point he makes a comparison between the gifts, and lowers that of the tongues, showing it to be neither altogether useless, nor very profitable by itself. For in fact they were greatly puffed up on account of this, because the gift was considered to be a great one. And it was thought great because the Apostles received it first, and with so great display; it was not however therefore to be esteemed above all the others. Wherefore then did the Apostles receive it before the rest? Because they were to go abroad every where. And as in the time of building the tower the one tongue was divided into many; so then the many tongues frequently met in one man, and the same person used to discourse both in the Persian, and the Roman, and the Indian, and many other tongues, the Spirit sounding within him: and the gift was called the gift of tongues because he could all at once speak various languages.23

Here Chrysostom outlined a framework to the miracle of tongues very similar to that of Origen, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Augustine Bishop of Hippo asserted. The idea of tongues as a supernatural endowment of foreign language(s) unknown beforehand by the speaker.

There may be more in Chrysostom’s writings on the subject too. He has not been covered in any detail yet in the Gift of Tongues Project. This is just a preliminary finding.

Whether it continued or ceased in the Church is a different question than the nature and definition of tongues.

7. Clement of Alexandria

Stromata I:431:1?

Plato attributes a dialect also to the gods, forming this conjecture mainly from dreams and oracles, and especially from demoniacs, who do not speak their own language or dialect, but that of the demons who have taken possession of them. He thinks also that the irrational creatures have dialects, which those that belong to the same genus understand.24

This early Church writer is quoted only occasionally to prove that the miracle of tongues was an ecstatic utterance.

The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament used this citation to support the claim of tongues as an ecstatic utterance.25 It is difficult to find the actual quote due to different numbering and chapter conventions between English translations. The chapter and verse subdivision I:431:1 is not typical and cannot be confirmed. Conjecture postulates that it would likely be 1:2 in the English translation of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and this is the quote given above.

Clement made no allusion or direct correlation between Plato’s discourse and that of the miracle of tongues in the Bible.

The above seven are the main Ecclesiastical citations used by most of the major books on defining the gift of tongues. There are other seldom used citations such as the Testament of Job,26 Justyn Martyr27, Cyprian, Hippolytus28, Novatian29, a certain Dionysius,30 and Firmilian,31 but these have not been repetitively used within scholastic circles such as the ones stated above. They offer no further contribution to the nature and definition of tongues but all, except for the Testament of Job, are more aimed at the continuance or cessation of the miraculous in the Church.

Hilary of Poitiers is referred to but his position is under-appreciated: “And we learn that all this prophecy was fulfilled in the case of the Apostles, when, after the sending of the Holy Spirit, they all spoke with the tongues of the Gentiles.”32. He clearly defined the miracle as foreign languages but few have seriously consulted his position.

Patristic citations severely under-reported.

In comparing what works are available and what have been cited in the source-books, it has been found that the majority of church writings available are severely under-utilized, and the ones that are chosen are very selective and weak. Most of the important ones cited in major dictionaries do not even contain the word γλῶσσα in it. This is what has led to the current theological dilemma.

Why have the ancient Church records been neglected on this subject?

There is a number of reasons why patristics and ecclesiastical writings have been ignored within major source-books on this subject. One of the reasons is the rejection of patristics as a valid source of history. There was once a time where Patristic studies had an elevated status, but for various reasons, had to be dethroned. Most of the primary source books come from an era that reflects this. This is outside the scope of this article. More on this can be found at The Historical Rejection of Patristics and its Legacy, which documents the rise of the rationalist movement and the de-authorization of Patristics and Ecclesiastical writings.

The second reason is because there are so few that have access to, or knowledge of the Church Fathers in Latin or Greek. Access to ecclesiastical writings have always been very limited until the advent of digital technologies. It would be a very difficult task to sew together the various writers manually. The last ten years have opened up the availability of Church writers in a way unheard of in the vestibules of history. This subject can be reopened under a new light.

Another problem is the lack of Protestant scholars trained in patristics. The contemporary practice and debate of the tongues doctrine is largely restricted to a number of protestant sects — it hardly dints the catholic psyche. There are few, if any, Protestants, especially those of the the gifts of the spirit persuasion that are trained in Latin or Greek. The contemporary catholic scholars on the other hand, many who have the expertise, have had little interest in the subject, because it has little impact on their communities. This has also added to the contemporary tension on the christian doctrine of tongues.

For further reading:

More on the Historical Rejection of Patristics

The controversy of magic and miracles in the Reformation, how both sides used Patristics for their own conveniences, and the rise of the word ceased in the Christian religious vocabulary.

The fifteenth to nineteenth centuries were focused on the Church tradition of miracles. The Church, which controlled the civil, and religious laws, established its authority and decision making through the works of miracles. It could not easily be questioned. As was previously written, this mysticism influenced every sphere of life; from politics, to health, taxes, and the natural sciences. It did not allow for dialogue, external accountability, or encourage scientific exploration.

The Medieval and Reformation supernaturalists had a greater propensity towards mysticism and overstated the ancient writers to propel their positions. It makes the modern reader think the Patristic writers were more deeply into the supernatural, magic, and miracles than they really were.

In order to bring a new civil order, the foundation of magic and miracle had to be broken. One of the biggest, and most convincing proofs against the mysticism of the time, was that the age of miracles had simply passed, or in its proper theological term, ceased. As previously noted in The Historical Rejection of Patristics and its Legacy, the idea popularized by Conyers Middleton had accelerated over time and became a movement called cessationism. By negating the power of miracles, certain established traditions, individuals, or practices were no longer considered divine, a new social framework could be built.

Both positions were in the extreme, and neither seriously took into account what the earlier writers represented.

If the fourth century writers were allowed to speak for themselves without the perceptions of either camp, miracles were not a priority – not because they had ceased, but it just didn’t fit in with the dialogues and practices of the day. The fourth century writers were more interested in developing doctrines around a Greek philosophical framework than in emphasizing the miraculous. The emphasis was on acquiring knowledge in such a way that changed your worldview and applying these life-lessons in everyday life. In fact, if one does not comprehend the Greek philosophical underpinnings in this period, then understanding of the earlier Church writers is compromised. The author and scholar Panagiotes K. Chrestou agrees, and made this point early on in his helpful book, Greek Orthodox Patrology: an introduction to the Study of the Church Fathers.

Secondly the earlier Church writers did not believe magic and miracles were necessary signs to validate the Church, their leadership or their devoutness, so, not much time was devoted to it. They did occur on certain occasions but neither the Church nor the individual was to be defined by them.

Eighteenth and nineteenth century Protestant theologians and Rationalists interpret the earlier Church writers de-emphasis on the supernatural to mean that the initial miracles of the Church had ceased. The absence should not interpreted this way.

For more info on Patristics and philosophy, read the article, Patrology and Greek Philosophy.

This is an addendum to a previously posted article, The Historical Rejection of Patristics and its Legacy.

The Written and Oral Traditions of Church Literature

The researcher, translator and/or reader of any piece of Church literature must be cognizant of the fact that most ancient Church writings available today have a twofold interpretation process; the written and oral traditions.

The written is easier to identify than the oral. Since the oral tradition has been lost for centuries, it is the role of the researcher/translator to reconstruct this.

The importance of this is not so apparent, but as one translates and begins to find older texts within other works without citations, one will find the medieval community depended on the oral tradition for these points.

The Christian chronological tables are one of the best examples. Africanus was the first Church father to try and reconcile dates and history into a uniform time frame. Only fragments of his work called the Chronography, exist today. Eusebius published his own version based on this. We only have fragments of this work today. Jerome admittedly took from Eusebius’ timetables and created a more expanded version which we have available today called the Chronological Tables. The Chronological Tables set the basis for the 7th century Chronicon Paschal, which expanded the explanations even more. The Chronicon Paschale does not succintly mention Africanus, Eusebius, or Jerome in its citations.

It is a known fact that many medieval monks, copyists, and authors frequently inputted text from the ancient sages within their works and did not feel the necessity nor the importance of noting the original authors they quoted from.

There are always exceptions. The 8th century writer/scholar/teacher in almost any field, the Venerable Bede, was one of the few that did try to cite all his sources during this period.

Another problem example is Origen’s Catena on I Corinthians. It is by no means an old document, likely this version dates around the 10th century or later. It is intermingled with Eastern Attica and later Byzantine Greek. The Biblical citations use the Old Slavonic typeface. The grammar and vocabulary is very similar to Chrysostom. Some word usage can only be found in Chrysostom. One is not entirely sure if the text is totally true to Origen, or has some insertions from Chrysostom or an editor put in some later thoughts.

Some manuscripts depart from the original and demonstrate new thoughts. Some manuscripts such as Against Heresies by Epiphanius contained in Migne Patrologia Graeca is not really that old. Many parts are later additions. The copy that MPG used may even be a Greek translation of the Latin. However, there is an old remnant of Against Heresies found in St. Anastasii Sinaitae Questiones which one can compare and get a good idea of what the original was.

Still the newer copy demonstrates what the writers thought and interpreted their religious world to be in their epoch. It has important value for tracing a religious doctrine or movement throughout the centuries.

One must understand this is not a bad thing, nor a conspiracy by the Church to hide, correct or improve problematic texts. The medieval period was a transition time between oral and written communication. Most of the population was not literate and there was still a heavy dependancy on transmitting Church doctrine, law, practice and interpretation orally. The oral tradition worked almost evenly alongside the written text. The making of handwritten texts were a long, expensive and tedious process and was not a process that would allow for the general population to have copies in their own home.

The oral tradition was very important because illiteracy was also very high. Harry Gamble outlines literacy and the role of oral and written tradition in, “Books and readers in the early church: a history of early Christian texts.” This is written more about the early Church than the medieval age, but it appears from a literacy perspective to still hold for this period as well.

This oral tradition over the years became disrupted, and much of the wealth that was contained in such knowledge was lost. The medieval monastic orders orally knew which parts of the chronologies to ascribe to Africanus, Eusebius and Jerome but this was never written down. Today, since this tradition was lost, we do not know exactly in many texts who said what.

What does this all mean then? When one cites Origen, Ambrosiaster, Jerome, Epiphanius, or any other ancient writer, be cautious, just because they are listed at the header of the document as the author, they may not necessarily be so. It may be a later tradition based on that author or an uncited text from another author.