Tag Archives: Roman

A Jewish-Greek Perspective on the Tongues of Corinth

An introduction to a series about the tongues of Corinth from Jewish and Greek sources along with tracing the perceptions of this rite through the centuries.

There are many solutions attempting to explain the problematic passages penned by Paul and this has been documented throughout the Gift of Tongues Project. A work whose fourfold goal is to locate source literature on the subject, digitize the original texts, translate into English with critical notes, and trace the perception of tongues in the church from inception until modern times.

These goals are close to completion and after compiling all the information regarding the tongues of Corinth, the evidence points to a different solution than the popular ones existing today—an explanation from Jewish sources. An approach to the mystery tongues of Corinth from a Jewish perspective has been lacking and appears to provide the two best solutions.

Researching Jewish traditions about speakers and interpreters has uncovered two very important customs that are so close to Paul’s narrative that it would be hard to call them accidental parallels. The first solution relates to the reading out loud of Scripture in Hebrew with an immediate translation in the local vernacular. The second one is the custom of instructing in Hebrew and providing a translation into the local language.

There is also a third alternative: the use of Aramaic as the principal language of conflict in Corinth. This could be a solution if more information comes forward. For the time being it will be relegated a distant third option and only small snippets of this subject will be addressed. The majority of this series will be devoted to the first two concepts.

These first two options have existed all along but few have paid attention to them in the Christian community. This Jewish-centric approach has been minimized for two reasons: antisemitism and ignorance of Jewish literature in both Catholic and Protestant communities, and the hyper-emphasis on the Greek and Latin cultures to exclusivity by rationalist scholars in the 1800s.

The option of instructing in Hebrew with a translation into the local language best fits the Corinthian narrative. However, the rite of public reading in Hebrew with an immediate translation into the local language does have some strengths that cannot be discounted. The solution could even be a mixture of the two, or even the third Aramaic theory, but this synthesis will not be investigated in any detail.

Both these Hebrew theories may seem far-fetched to most readers. The above statements are introductory teasers. The articles in the series will not only explain but substantiate such claims. As one reads through all the articles, you will understand why the GOT Project proposes these two customs as the best solutions for understanding the tongues of Corinth.

In both instances, the reader will be shown how the church adapted these Jewish customs in the Greek, and later, Latin context.

The discussion does not stop with a Jewish explanation. The context is about Jewish liturgy in a Greek-dominated city. The research will also note the tensions created by the Greek culture, life, and language that surrounded them. This influence also has a great contribution to the Corinthian tongues saga.

The use of Hebrew in the ancient Jewish liturgy outside of Israel is the most important aspect of this claim. If the Hebrew connection could not be supported, then this solution would be invalid. However, there are substantial evidences that prove such a theory, but since this is new to most readers, I will write at great lengths, and provide important details.

The first letter to the Corinthians is old – written in the first century. The letter was addressed to the earliest gathering in Corinth that was a combined assembly of Messianic Jews and Greek converts. As with any new fledgling organization, they were struggling with what Jewish customs were to continue and which ones were to be left behind. What Greek modes of practice were to be included, and which ones to be excluded.

This is an updated series from what was posted almost a decade ago.

The four dominant themes about Corinthian tongues over the last five-hundred years.

  • A historical Catholic view. Early Catholic writers and leaders, except two and a half writers, Epiphanius, the Ambrosiaster text, and a tad owing to John Chrysostom, do not literally address Paul’s statements on tongues. This is largely due in part to earlier church writers emphasizing allegorical and/or promoting personal obedience rather than a critical interpretation of the Bible.

    For example, Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, often cited I Corinthians 13:1, “If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love”, to encourage his followers. He never did explain the context that propelled Paul to write such an exhortation.

    Origen wrote a commentary on I Corinthians and offered a few tidbits. However, they are not definitive enough. He spent most of his energy in I Corinthians to reinforce his idea of the role of knowledge in the Christian life.

    For more about Origen on I Corinthians see: Origen on the Doctrine of Tongues

    The I Corinthians reference for tongues is sparsely referred by early church writers. It is not a subject that was important to them.

  • The Cessationist view of Corinthians. This interpretation believed that any miracle, including that of speaking in tongues, died with the early church and could never be repeated. Therefore, any research on the Corinthian tongues problem is only for historical purposes. The tongues of Corinth have no impact on the modern Christian life.

    For more information on the Cessationist framework on speaking in tongues, see the series starting with: Cessationism, Miracles, and Tongues Part 1

  • The higher-Criticism explanation. Higher-Criticism is the dominant modern theory of explaining the tongues of Corinth and Pentecost. This doctrine believes that the christian rite of tongues has its origins with the Greek prophetesses at Delphi. These women performed inside a temple that had fissures underneath issuing volcanic fumes. The inhalation of the fumes would put the prophetess in an ecstatic state and would prophesy in what was believed to be unintelligible utterances. Ecstasy, glossolalia, and ecstatic utterance are keywords for this interpretational system. The higher-criticists supposed the earliest Christians synthesized this ancient Greek rite as part of making Christianity a universal religion. Church writings and ecclesiastical history are willfully excluded from this premise.

    For more information on higher-criticism and tongues see the series starting with: Introduction to the History of Glossolalia for more information.

  • Pentecostals, Charismatics, and Third-Wavers. Most of the leaders in these movements rely on other tongues found in I Corinthians and one instance in the Book of Acts to substantiate their tongues doctrine. Some call it a private prayer language, while others name it glossolalic prayers. In fact, other as in other tongues does not exist in the original Greek of I Corinthians. The adjective other was added to I Corinthians by European protestant translators as a polemic against the Catholic Church. The protestant translators never intended this idiom as a strange or mystical experience.

    The reader should not be thrown off by the use of the noun tongues in Paul’s I Corinthians English text either. English Bible tradition set the translation as tongues which is old and dated. The noun languages should be used instead.

    For more information on the development of other tongues in the English Bible see: The Unknown Tongues in the English Bible

None of the above theories provide a complete or adequate framework to explain Paul’s reference to speaking and interpreting in I Corinthians.

The series of articles

The context of such an approach along with the wealth of information has necessitated breaking this into a seven-part series:

  1. The role of Hebrew in the Jewish-Aramaic World. The rise of Aramaic and the loss of Hebrew in the everyday Jewish life. How they compensated for this using interpreters/speakers in the their liturgy and education.

  2. Greek, Hellenic Judaism, and the Problem Tongues of Corinth The rise of Greek as the primary language of most Jews and how they adapted the ancient faith to accommodate this.

  3. Hebrew as the First Language of Mankind. A look into the perception of Hebrew as a sacred language shared by both Hebrews and Christians. Both communities have a basic theology that it was the language of God, Adam and Eve.

  4. The Public Reader, the Synagogue and Corinth. It follows the development of the public reader in the Jewish faith and how it may align with the tongues of Corinth.

  5. The Public Reader in the Church. How the Jewish public reader assimilated into a Christian rite, the evolution of this office over the centuries and its potential link to the tongues of Corinth.

  6. The Language of Instruction in the Corinthian Church. The instruction in Hebrew and the translation into the local language is the best explanation found to describe Paul’s narration on speaking in tongues. This article sets to unfold the reasons behind Paul’s reference to tongues.

  7. Lightfoot on the Problem Tongues of Corinth. Excerpts about Corinth from the seventeenth-century English Churchman and rabbinic scholar, John Lightfoot. A difficult and complex read, but well worth the effort

Structure, approach, and complexity

The ecclesiastical literature, along with a number of pieces demonstrated in Rabbinical writings within this series, are mostly fourth-century or later works. This is the only material a researcher can work from. No matter which way one approaches this problem, the person is forced to look at later texts to rebuild an earlier scenario.

Michael Graves, author of The Public Reading of Scripture in Early Judaism offers cautions to such an approach:

Yet, the use of Jewish liturgical practices to reconstruct early Christian worship is not without difficulties. One of the major problems is the fact that many Christian historians, to some extent following older Jewish scholarship, have operated with the assumption that Jewish liturgy was essentially fixed and uniform in the first-century AD. This assumption, however, cannot be reconciled with the available evidence. Recent scholarship on the history of Jewish worship has painted a more complex picture of Jewish liturgical development, thus forcing scholars of Christian liturgy to rethink the potential relationships between early Jewish and Christian forms of worship. Out of this new research has arisen greater awareness of the diversity and flexibility in the earlier stages of development, and also a more skeptical stance toward the use of later documents to reconstruct the customs of earlier times. Of course, total skepticism toward rabbinic reports is unwarranted, and one cannot dismiss older historical and philological studies as having nothing to offer. But when the sources present a picture of diversity, or when no evidence exists for a given practice at a certain time and place, one must avoid simply harmonizing one tradition with another or an earlier time period with a later one.1

Mr. Graves is right. Unfortunately, there is no alternative than to draw from later pieces of literature and reconstruct from there.

Whatever conclusion any researcher portrays on this topic is a calculated and thought-out opinion. No conclusion, including my own, can be considered final because of the lack of primary data.

The intercultural city of ancient Corinth

The city of Corinth is geographically located in a critical position. It is situated on a narrow finger of land called an isthmus which connects the southern tip of Greece with its mainland. In historic times, Corinth was caught between two rival cities; Sparta in the South, and Athens, slightly to the north-east. The Corinthian residents greatly suffered by choosing the wrong sides during many conflicts. Corinth was sacked and left desolate in 146 BC by the Roman consul Lucius Mummius2 in 146 B.C and left that way until 44 BC where it was purposely repopulated by the Romans.

Military servicemen, freedman, and those of the lower classes from abroad who were looking for better economic opportunities, flocked to the new city. The Jewish immigrants came to Corinth, possibly freedmen, slaves of the Romans occupants, merchants and artisans from Alexandria, some perhaps forced out of Israel by economic, political, or military instability, also made this their home. If Corinth follows the pattern of Rome, the Jewish population was very poor.[ref[http://www.livius.org/articles/concept/diaspora/jewish-rome/?[/note] The city prospered quickly. Corinth became one of the most important cities in the Roman Empire.3

The power of the Greek language

The Greek language in the first-century was an international language of commerce and communication throughout the Roman and Parthian empires (from the border of Afghanistan to the western reaches of the Mediteranean basin). It was very similar to how English is used today throughout the world. However, just as in the application of the English language, it was applied unevenly, and there were tensions within ethnic groups about its transformative influence on their languages and cultures.

There were more Jews that lived in the Greek-controlled lands than there were that lived in Israel major or Syria. Greek was the principal language of most Jews, though Hebrew and Aramaic remained part of the Jewish religious identity.

A proper understanding of Paul’s Hebrew identity

In order to explain Paul’s reference to tongues from a Jewish background, it is necessary to briefly dwell on the character of Paul himself.

Paul was a Pharisee, a self-proclaimed Hebrew of Hebrews from the tribe of Benjamin.4 He was educated under one of the leading Jewish teachers of the first-century, Gamaliel I.5 Paul had no ambition to overthrow or abandon Jewish culture. Rather, he wanted to strengthen and expand the central tenets of the Jewish faith: salvation and holiness. His initial strategy was to preach in the synagogues of any town, village or city that he visited. It later expanded to the non-Jewish community.6

Paul was born in Tarsus, a south-central city in what is now in the territory of Turkey. A calculated guess is that he would have spoken Greek as his mother tongue. One must keep in mind that he lived close to the Aramaic dominated land of Syria. The location of Tarsus would have exposed Paul to the Aramaic culture and language at an early age. Paul was later trained in Jerusalem. He would have received religious instruction in Hebrew, spoke Aramaic because of the large amount of Jewish pilgrims from Syria and out East that came to Jerusalem for religious or commercial reasons, and taught Greek for civil matters. His teacher, Gamaliel I, would have encouraged Greek so that his disciples could intervene and communicate with the Government.7

It is described in Acts chapters 21 and 22 Paul discussing a matter with a Roman commander in Greek, and then speaking to the public in in the language of the Hebrews–probably meaning the Hebrew language since this incident happened in Jerusalem (If this incident occurred in the Galilee or other northern reaches of Israel, it would have been Aramaic or Greek). Paul may have known Latin, but this has not been validated by any principal source.

Mastery of three, maybe even four languages, is why Paul proudly boasted in his first letter to the Corinthians “I speak in tongues more than you all”8

Paul’s religious identity incensed both the traditional Jewish inhabitants of Israel major and the Hellenized Jews. He started a major debate with the Hellenistas (Greek Jews which is commonly described as Hellenized Jews), in Jerusalem early on his career which led to a serious death threat. Paul was secretly led out of Jerusalem and sent back to Tarsus in fear of his safety.9

Hellenized Jews feared Paul’s message would undermine the traditional Jewish identity. Paul went to great lengths, such as perform a Nazarite vow, to show his allegiance to the customary Jewish faith.10

Paul saw the tension between Jewish and Greek identities as a major obstacle to his vision of an expansionist form of Judaism. On two occasions he wrote a reference to this.

The first one, in his letter to the Romans11 stating there is no distinction between a Jew or a Greek–Ἕλλην Hellen. Paul was referring to a person of Greek origin who was not Jewish in this instance, not a Hellenized-Jew.

He then reiterated this theme again in Galatians. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus12

There was a tension that a true Jew cannot be Greek or vice versa that will be described in detail in this series. This problem may also have crossed into the Aramaic language and culture–the identity of a true Jew was the ability to speak Aramaic, but information about this is missing.

Even with this brief explanation shown above, his writing style, life and practice were steeped in Jewish influences. The founding of any community with his personal involvement would reflect this.

The reader must keep these things in mind as the series progresses in its explanation of the tongues of Corinth.

The composition of the original Corinthian assembly

The initial Corinthian assembly was a mixture of Jews and Greeks. There is not a single reference to Christianity because Christianity did not exist yet. This Corinthian assembly was under the Jewish umbrella. It would take well over a century before the Jewish Messianic movement would become entirely distinct from its origins and be solely called Christianity. Jerusalem, and later, Yavneh (the city where the Jewish leadership were forced to move to after the destruction of Jerusalem), would no longer be the centre of its existence.

In fact, it was in Yavneh, sometime between 80 and 110 AD, where the critical decision was made that you could not be Jewish and believe in Jesus. This was where the complete severance between the two groups occurred.

The structure of Corinth was clearly Jewish, but the attendance was of mixed ethnicity.

  • The initial Corinthian Church had two names attached to it—Titius Justus and Crispus. Crispus was a previous leader of a synagogue and from Jewish ancestry; Titius Justus was described as a worshiper of God, suggesting that he was not Jewish and his name infers a Roman lineage.13

  • The mentioning of a converted synagogue leader, who must have exercised some internal authority in the development of the Corinthian Church, would have had a serious influence on the liturgy.

  • Paul’s address on the tongues of Corinth are reminiscent of Jewish tradition. Speaking, interpretation, the office of an interpreter, and the Amen are all found in Jewish liturgical traditions.

Pamela Eisenbaum, in her well written and researched book, Paul was not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle strongly asserted that both Paul, and the earliest church were Jewish entities:

But in the first century the letters could not possibly have functioned as a marker distinctive of Christian identity. First, there is the obvious reason that there was not such religious category “Christian.” As far as can be determined by historians, archaeologists, and biblical scholars, there were no distinctively Christian institutions, buildings, or symbols in the first century, and few scholars believe that Christians did not materially distinguish themselves until the late third or early fourth century.14

. . . Modern readers of Paul tend to assume that Pharisees and other Jews would have considered Paul an apostate, a Jewish heretic who was no longer part of the Jewish community because of his belief in Jesus, and thus not really Jewish. In the context of the first century, however, Paul’s belief in Jesus did not make him less Jewish. Belief in a messianic savior figure is a very Jewish idea, as can be demonstrated by a historical analogy.15

Final thoughts before you read the rest of the articles

Discovering and applying the Jewish modes of worship and liturgy are the best solutions for explaining the tongues of Corinth. You can find the logic and substantiation behind this in the articles mentioned above.


Photo of reading from the Torah courtesy of Roylindman (Template:Roy Lindman) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons

Pachomius on Speaking in Tongues

Pachomius receiving the gift of tongues

The alleged fourth century account of Pachomius speaking in tongues is an important document in the tongues debate. It distinguishes itself as one of the few, if any, personal experiences of tongues speaking within the realm of ecclesiastical literature. The many other remaining accounts are theological assertions.

This distinct characteristic makes the Pachomian text a very important study, and requires serious further investigation.

Pachomius was a fourth century Egyptian Christian who was influential in establishment of the christian cenobite movement — a tradition that stressed communal rather than isolated personal monastic living. This system of religious living became the example for later monastic movements.

A short literary analysis clearly demonstrates that the author(s)/editors of this work, believed this gift to be the supernatural endowment of foreign languages. There was no other allusion to anything else.

The complete English translation of this text can be found at Pachomius Receiving the Gift of Tongues in English and Greek.

There are still some questions from a technical perspective that need to be answered, such as did Pachomius hear and speak in one sound, or in many languages. Was this a temporary or permanent gift for Pachomius? What words were used in the Greek and Syriac that relates to tongues? Were these consistent with the ancient usage or are there new words added to the tongues vocabulary?

One voice, many sounds? Or did he speak in all languages sequentially?

He prayed for three hours, entreating God earnestly for this. Suddenly something like a letter written on a piece of papyrus was sent from heaven into his right hand. Reading it, he learned the speech of all the languages. Having sent up praise to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, he came back to that brother with great joy, and began to converse with him faultlessly in Greek and Latin.1

The answer is neither. The text indicates that he had the understanding of all languages and could choose whichever language was most convenient at that moment.

Was this a temporary or permanent endowment?

There is no explanation here on whether it was temporary or permanent. However, the authors/editors of this work wrote about Pachomius in heightened mythical proportions. They would no doubt believe that Pachomius would have the ability when required.

The keywords

The Greek text contains the typical keywords in the Christian tongues doctrine, plus a new one:

  • τὴν ἑλληνικὴν γλῶτταν. –The Greek Language. Γλῶτταν is found in the writings of Chrysostom and other eastern writers. Lidell and Scott name γλῶτταν as the Attic alternative to γλῶσσα. This is the only occasion it is used in the text, whereas γλῶσσα is used afterwards. Why? It may be that it was a fixed idiom that grammatically forced Greek writers of any subdialect to conform to. One was to properly write it as τὴν ἑλληνικὴν γλῶτταν and not τὴν ἑλληνικὴν γλῶσσαν.

  • τὰς γλώσσας τῶν ἀνθρώπων –the languages of men. The Pachomius’ text clearly defines the gift of tongues as human language.

  • εἰδέναι με τὴν ὁμιλίαν αὐτῶν –that I may know their languages. Ὁμιλίαν is not used in the Greek New Testament in reference to the tongues doctrine. This Greek word is the basis for what is now known in English as homily. It could be understood here that the emphasis is not so much on the language itself, but an organized speech, instruction, or lecture.2. However, the Syriac has ܕܐܸܕܲܥ ܡܿܲܡܠܲܠܗܘܿܢ –that I may know their speaking which attests to the fact that the word homily had yet to mean instruction or lecture at this timeframe. Language or vernacular is a better English equivalent in this context.

  • ἔμαθεν πασῶν τῶν γλωσσῶν τὰς λαλιάς –he learned the speech of all the languages. Λαλιάς means speech, conversation, loquacity, talk or chat.3 and is used in the plural here. It literally translates as he learned the speeches of all their languages. However speeches is awkward. The singular works better in English and still conveys the thought properly. The root of this form is part of the modern term glossolalia but it does not convey this sense here.

  • καὶ ἤρξατο αὐτῷ διαλέγεσθαι –and he began to converse with him. Nothing surprising or unusual here. Alternatively it could read, and he began to speak with him.

  • εἰς τὴν διάλεκτον –in that language. Διάλεκτον is a synonym to γλῶσσα with a slight more emphasis on speech, than language, but the distinction between the two is so fine, there is no cause to dispute between the two.

The miracle of speaking in Greek and Latin

Greek was the international vernacular which was slowly being supplanted by Latin. Pachomius’ ability to speak in these two languages was symbolic of the Christian faith being established for all the nations. It was an international religion.

Literary Fiction, Legend, or Reality?

The life of Pachomius is full of magic, miracle, and mysticism. It does not reflect a typical written legacy of Patristic literature of the fourth century. It does blend in better within the seventh century and forward where the emphasis on magic and miracle were much more prominent. One of the parallels is the Venerable Bede’s account of St. Aidan. My first initial thought about this text concluded that it was the legend of Pachomius added three hundred or so years later. The Catholic Encyclopedia has noted that at least one major scholar has concluded this, but others have found this document of historic value, and deny such a claim. Regardless of whether it is the legend or accurate portrayal of Pachomius, the text on him speaking in tongues has historic and didactic value in tracing the Christian doctrine of tongues evolving from inception until this time.

The Source Texts

The actual Greek and Syriac texts with an English translation can be found at charlesasullivan.com:

It is speculated that the original work referring to Pachomius speaking in tongues was in Greek, though there have been arguments for the Latin, and lesser, that of Coptic. There is an old Latin text published by Rufinus that is available in Migne Patrologia Graeca Volume 34, but it does not contain the Pachomius tongues speaking sequence.

Specialists in this field have been attempting to reconstruct a source text of the Lausaic History along with its appendages, but there is no uniformity on this. For more information see Dom Cutler Butler’s, The Lausiac History of Palladius.

The Greek text presented on this site, and used as the basis for the English translation is from Francisci Halkin’s Sancti Pachomi Vitae Graecae. This edition is based on “XI,9 of the Biblioteca Laurentiana of Florence (Ms. F.) which was copied in 1021 in the monastery of Apiro in Southern Italy.”4

The Syriac text is found in “The Book of Paradise: Being the Histories and Sayings of the Monks and Ascetics of the Egyptian Desert” which was published and translated by E.A. Wallis Budge. Budge gives an unclear account of the original manuscript he worked from. He explained that he was shown a Syriac text by the Vicar of the Chaldean Patriarch, which, for political and religious reasons, could not be purchased or borrowed. He secured to have the text hand copied. The hand-copied edition is dated around 1890, while the original is estimated to be twelfth to fourteenth century.5 It is not exactly known which original manuscript Budge was referring to. One suggestion has it as Moṣul MS 956 There are other editions available, such as:

  • London, British Library, Add 17175
  • London, British Library, Ms Or. 2311
  • Rome, Vatican Syriac Mss 372 – 377: A copy of the Paradise dated AD 1223 can be found spread over 6 Vatican Syriac Mss; 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377
  • London, British Library, Add 17264
  • London, British Library, Add 172637

These manuscripts have yet to be consulted and compared.

The Syriac text was originally translated from the Greek by a Syriac Monk named Anan-Isho in the later half of the seventh century. There have been arguments that this text has further interpolations than the original, but in the case of the Pachomius receiving the gift of tongues text, there is little difference between the Greek and Syriac.

The section relating to Pachomius receiving the gift of tongues is not considered a part of Palladius’ original work. Dom Cuthbert Butler attributes this specific text and the text that surrounds it are “those of Mark, Eulogius, Adolius, Moses the Indian, Pior, Moses the Libyan, Evagrius, and the Brother who lived with him.”8

It can be generally established that the text of Pachomius receiving the gift of tongues reflects an Egyptian Christian perception anywhere from the fourth to seventh centuries.

Pachomius Receiving the Gift of Tongues in English and Greek

The following is a translation from Greek on Pachomius receiving the gift of tongues. The actual Greek copy is found below the English translation.

Pachomius on the Gift of Tongues which he received

English Translation

As found in: Pachomian Koinonia. Cistercian Studies: Number 46. Volume 2. Translated by Arnand Veilleux. Kalamazoo, Michigan. Cistercian Publications Inc. Pg. 51-52.

About the Roman [brother].

It happened also that the Blessed Man was visiting the brothers in their cells and correcting the thoughts of each one. He came also to a certain Roman [brother], coming from a great family, who also knew the Greek language well. the Great Man, coming to him to admonish him for his profit and to know the movement of his heart, spoke to him in Egyptian. The brother did not understand what he told him; nor did the Great Man know what the Roman [brother] said, because he did not know Greek. So the Great Man was compelled to call a brother who could interpret what they both said. But when the interpreter came, The Roman [brother] did not want to tell the Great Man the faults of his heart through another person. He said, ‘I want only you after God, and nobody else, to know the evils of my heart’. Hearing this, the Great Man ordered the interpreter to withdraw and he made a sign with his hand to the Roman [brother] to wait until he came back to him.

The Blessed Man left him and went to pray by himself. Stretching out his hands to heaven, he prayed to God, saying, ‘Lord Almighty, if I cannot profit the men whom you send to me from the ends of the earth because I do not know the languages of men, what need is there for them to come? If you want to save them here through me, grant, O Master, that I may know their languages for the correction of their souls.’

He prayed for three hours, entreating God earnestly for this. Suddenly something like a letter written on a piece of papyrus was sent from heaven into his right hand. Reading it, he learned the speech of all the languages. Having sent up praise to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, he came back to that brother with great joy, and began to converse with him faultlessly in Greek and Latin. When that brother heard it, he said that the Great Man surpassed all the scholars in that language. After correcting the brother as was required, and determining the penance corresponding to his faults, he commended him to the Lord and left him.

Original Greek Text

As found in: Sancti Pachomii Vitae Graecae. Subsidia Hagiographica 19. Francisici Halkin S.I. ed. Bruxelles: Société des Bollandistes. 1932. Pg. 154-155.

Περὶ τοῦ ῾Ρωμαίου.

Ἐγένετο δὲ πάλιν τὸν μακάριον ἐν τοῖς κελλίοις ἐπισκεπτόμενον τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς καὶ ἐπανορθούμενον ἑκάστου τὰ νοήματα παραβαλεῖν καὶ πρὸς ῾Ρωμαῖόν τινα ἀπὸ μεγάλου ἀξιώματος τυγχάνοντα, εἰδοτα καὶ τὴν ἑλληνικὴν γλῶτταν καλῶς. Ἐλθὼν οὖν πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ μέγας ἐπὶ τὸ νουθετῆσαι αὐτὸν πρὸς ὠφέλειαν καὶ γνῶναι αὐτοῦ τῆς καρδίας τὰ κινήματα, αἰγυπτιστὶ ἐλάλει αὐτῷ ὁ μέγας• οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν δὲ ὁ ἀδελφὸς τί ἐλάλει αὐτῷ• οὐδὲ ὁ μέγας ᾔδει τί ἔλεγεν ὁ ῾Ρωμαῖος, διὰ τὸ μὴ εἰδέναι ἑλληνιστί τὸν μακάριον. Ἠναγκάσθη οὔν ὁ μέγας καλέσαι ἀδελφὸν τὸν δυνάμενον ἑρμηνεῦσαι τὰ παρ᾽ἀμφοτέρων λεγόμενα. Ἐλθόντος δὲ τοῦ ἑρμηνέως, οὐκ ἠβούλετο ὁ ᾽Ρωμαῖος τὰ τῆς καρδίας αὐτοῦ πλημμελήματα δι᾽ἑτέρου εἰπεῖν τῷ μεγάλῳ• καὶ λέγει οὔτως• « Σὲ μόνον Βούλομαι μετὰ Θεὸν τῶν τῆς καρδίας μου κακῶν γνώστην εἶναι, καὶ οὐχ ἕτερόν τινα. » Ἀκούσας δὲ ταῦτα ὁ μέγας ἐκέλευσεν ἀναχωρῆσαι τὸν ἑρμηνέα• καὶ νεύσας αὐτῷ τῇ χειρὶ ἐκδέξασθαι ἕως οὖ ἀπέλθῃ πρὸς αὐτόν, καταλείψας αὐτὸν ἀπῆλθεν προσεύξασθαι πρὸς ἑαυτὸν ὁ μακάριος• καὶ ἐκτείνας τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν προσηύξατο πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν λέγων• « Κύριε παντοκράτωρ, εἰ οὐ δύναμαι ὠφελῆσαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους οὕς ἀποστέλλεις πρός με ἀπὸ τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς διὰ τὸ ἀγνοεῖν με τὰς γλώσσας τῶν ἀνθρώπων, τίς χρεία παραγενέσθαι αὐτούς ; Εἰ θέλεις σῶσαι αὐτοὺς ἐνταῦθα δι᾽ἐμοῦ, δός μοι, δέσποτα, πρὸς διόρθωσιν τῶν ψυχῶν αὐτῶν εἰδέναι με τὴν ὁμιλίαν αὐτῶν. » Καὶ ἐπὶ ὥρας τρεῖς προσευχομένου αὐτοῦ καὶ πολλὰ παρακαλοὺντος τὸν Θεὸν περὶ τούτου, ἄφνω ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατεπέμφθη ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ τῇ δεξιᾷ ὡς ἐπιστόλιον χάρτινον γεγραμμένον• καὶ ἀναγνοὺς αὐτὸ ἔμαθεν πασῶν τῶν γλωσσῶν τὰς λαλιάς. Καὶ δόξαν ἀναπέμψας τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τῷ υἱῷ καὶ τῷ ἁγίῷ πνεύματι, μετὰ χαρᾶς μεγάλης ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἐκεῖνον• καὶ ἤρξατο αὐτῷ διαλέγεσθαι καὶ ἑλληνιστὶ καὶ ῥωμαϊστὶ ἀπταίστως, ὥστε τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἀκούσαντα λέγειν περὶ τοῦ μεγάλου ὅτι πάντας ὑπερβάλλει τοὺς σχολαστικοὺς εἰς τὴν διάλεκτον. Διορθωσάμενος οὖν αὐτὸν καθὼς ἔδει καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν πλημμεληθέντων αὐτῷ μετάνοιαν προσήκουσαν ὁρίσας αὐτῷ, παραθέμενος αὐτὸν τῷ Κυρίῳ ἐξῆλθεν ἀπ᾽αὐτοῦ.