Questions and Answers about Glossolalia (Tongues)

DRAFT

 

 

These Q & A paper concern questions left unanswered by the article "Glossolalia and 1Co 14", or arising after reading it. Please read (and study) this article. I am thankful to all those who made remarks and critics about this first article and incited me to produce this present Q & A paper.

Contents:

You say that glossolalia is an occult experience. Do you mean that all Charismatics who practice it are demonized?

Answer:

No, in no way, unless you commit the fallacy of ambiguity. By "occult experience" I simply mean a spiritual experience where one stops using the control of his mind, so as for example to lose control on the meaning of the sounds he utters. Such an experience can be merely psychological, as were the experiences I used to practice when I was charismatic, as much as it can be demonic, if an evil angel is taking advantage of this opportunity. So glossolalia is not necessarily demonic.

You may ask: "how can we then know when the experience is demonic or psychological?" Christian exorcists and psychologists have documented this in their books, I recommend in particular the books of Birch and Dickason(1).

 

Occult =mystical?

I have since then come to see that mystical experiences are different from occult experiences 

2 differences:

1. occult gives up reason, mystical do not

St Thomas Aquinas, who may be the greatest philosopher, has given adequate theories of human, divine, angelic and animal knowledge. Concerning the knowledge of fleshy, incarnated human, several operations (the creation of concepts, the judgement, the reason) can be discerned in the intellect. During a mystical experience, the divine "light of glory"will shortcut the most basic operations, not all, so that the reason and the intellect in general are not disconnected (Summa Theologica I, 12.)

2. mystical: can happen to someone not seeking it, while occult not, at least first time

 

How is it that "glossa" does not refer to the phenomenon of "glossolalia", given that both words share the same ethymological root?

Answer:

"Glossa" nevers refers in Greek to glossolalia. In the nineteenth century some German deist (liberal) theologians tried to argue that the biblical teachings were not based on factual and supernatural events, but that they were the outcome of a mixture Judaism and pagan mythology. So they attempted to show that the stories of Jesus' virgin birth or resurrection were coming from pagan influences upon judaism. In their undertaking, they (e. g. the theologian Jakob Behm) also tried to show that the languages mentionned in 1Co 14 were not normal languages that could be understood (1Co 14:2,14) and that they were actually the occult phenomenon practiced in Hellenestic paganism(2). They invented then the word "glossolalia", by taking two words occuring in 1Co 14 ("glossa" is "language", and "laleo" is "to speak") for referring to the alleged Christian practice of this occult experience.

Later the charismatics took over this German theology (though forgotting the occult and liberal aspects) and kept the word "glossolalia".

Wood, Leon J. The Prophets of Israel. GRand Rapids: Baker, 1979.

 

You say that glossolalia is a normal pagan practice. Can you tell us more about this, in relation to the charismatic movement?

 

The practice of glossolalia and other charismatic experiences in modern paganism (shamanism, etc...) has been well documented by researchers specialized in occultism, such as Mircea Eliade, Félicitas Goodman, etc (3). ///// Goodman and German char + shamanism demonism I never heard of anyone contesting this. And this is not peculiar to glossolalia. The charismatic experiences, from faillible prophecy to animal sounds and behavior to vizualition, etc. are actually all found in shamanism (see the book of Eliade, etc.) I spoke once about the charismatic movement with a shaman (sorcerer) who has not contact with Christians, and he was very happy to hear about it, he found it marvellous that so many Christians were getting into shamanism by themselves alone and he attributed it to the power of the spirit world. I think he is right in that the latest charismatic waves (Toronto, Pensacola) have reached such a degree of occultism that their experiences, their spirituality are hardly distinguishable from those of shamanism. Of course the setting (protestant church, etc.) of the place or meeting where the experiences are practiced has a Christian look, but shamanism takes many different forms according to all culture. It is the spirituality that is the same, as a pagan accustomed to the spirituality of the Hindu Avatars has rightly said after trying the spirituality of the Toronto revival(4). Glossolalia was only the first of all the occult practices that the charismatic movement has been strongly introducing into Christianity.

Concerning antiquity... (cf study my study 1co 14tongues in bibl study) + Iamblichus, Proclus...

H. Bacht:

magic formulas/tongues:

Hoorst, Peter van der (ed.) Bronnen voor de studie van de wereld van het vroege christendom. Deel 2: Pagane bronnen. Kampen, Netherlands: Kok, 1997. pp. 96-122.

 

Deu 18:10

1. It may useful to mention that I too am an ex-neomontanist ("charismatic") , having been involved with "charismatic" and Pentecostal churches for several years in different European countries, and having practiced some of these experiences (glossolalia.) 

2. My article on glossolalia was written for a one-hour long Sunday class, and although it was written with a scientific approach, it has the limitations inherent to the goal of presenting a lecture for a church attendance, that is it is incomplete and simplified. (by "scientific"I do not mean "relevant to the empirical sciences", as this word has been badly influenced by positivism in the Anglo-saxon world.) I had started working on complementary articles, but I had to stop for time reasons, and will not be able to continue before quite a while. The complementary stuff I was developping is all contained in draft form in a temporary file:
http://www.apologetique.org/en/rticles/neomontanism/Tongues_FAQ2.htm
I hope to come back to this as soon as I can.


3. Coming to Mr. Goldman's comments, he says that my article is pseudo-science. I am well read on the subjets of epistemology, logic and philosophy of "science", and try to argue in a sound way. I consider he has the burden of proving that my approach is not scientific.


4. Concerning Goldman's that I am lying about the Greek words used in the LXX (Septuagint) and NT (New Testament), he seems to expect to find the phrases "speaking in tongues" or the word "glossolalia" in the dictionaries or translations he mentions. This is seems naive to me, as both the neomontanist ("charismatic") meaning of the phrase "speaking in tongue" is a recent meaning given by charismatics on the basis of their interpretation of the NT ("tongue"used simply to mean "dialect, language"in English.) The same is true of the neologism "glossolalia"with was created by liberal theologians. The word glossolalia has made its entry in the fields of psychology (where "glossolalia" was studied as a disorder) and anthropology (because glossolalia is practiced in shamanism and other occult religions.) These words were not used in the traditional study of classical Greek, and the less by the ancient Bible translations. Instead the classical dictionaries use ancient wordings such as "oracles", "speaking with frenzied speech", etc. I also made it clear in my lecture that there did not use to be a clear way for referring for what we know call "tongues", "glossolalia", 

Here is what I said the definition section of my lecture: "Because the other ways for naming this phenomenon are less precise ("oracle", "omen") or cumbersome ("ecstatic utterance", "unintelligible utterance"), we will use the word "glossolalia." "

So one should not naively expect to find neologisms like "glossolalia"or "speaking in tongues" in classical dictionaries (nor in ancient translations), but rather wordings such as oracles, divination, etc.


5 . Concerning the root "mantis" (deu 18:10). One finds mostly the general wording "oracle", and also words such as "soothsaying, demonic prophecy, divination, etc." However when one looks up the verses of Greek literature cited, one can find many where those refer to the phenomenon we nowadays would call "glossolalia"or "tongues." A clear example of this is the third volume of the Kleine Pauly ( Ziegler, Konrat & Walther Sontheimer (Hg.) Der Kleine Pauly. Lexikon der Antike, auf der Grundlage von pauly's Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. 5 Bde.- Stuttgart: Druckenmüller, 1964-1975 (auch: München, 1979. DTV 5963)), which I have picked up from my library. The entry for mantik (pp. 967-976) refers clearly to an irrational, ecstatic spiritual experience of charismatic people expressing a divine revelation that can be interpreted (p. 967) . It makes it clear that it can very possibly be an experience where the practioners are in state such that they are beyond discursive thought, and with possibly features of (demonic) possession such as a change of the voice (p. 970.), which is specific of glossolalia.


6. Concerning the verb klidonizw (alos in Deu 18:10 ) it is a very rare word for which many dictionaries have no entry. An entry can be found in Pape's famous dictionary ( Pape, W. Griechisch-Deutsches Handwörterbuch. 2 Bde. Brauschweig: Friedrich Bieweg und Sohn Verlag, 1849.), and it says (volume 1, page 1333) or in the Liddel (Liddel, Henry G.; Scott Robert; Jones Henry S. (ed.) A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. Oxford: Oxford U., 1940. p. 958) where it is said that it is related to omen, oracles (e. g. to give an omen.). 


7. My point 5 and 6 (lexical analysis) show that my semantic assertions about Deu 18:10 are a priori permitted, possible. Mr Goldman has the burden of proving that they are not valid in the particular instantiation of Deu 18:10.


8. A syntactic analysis of Deu 18:10 greatly enhance these lexical basis and makes my semantic assertions about these words more than possible, such an analysis makes them quite probable.
I will explain. Now if we look at the lexical context of these words in Deu 18:10, we have an enumeration of:
(1)- practictioner of mantic experience (mantevomenos" (manteuomenoV))
(2)- an interpretor ("giver") of the mantic experience ( "mantian klidonizomenos" (manteian klhdonizomenoV) )
(3)- a diviner
(4)- a sorcerer
There is much variation among the translations for these four occult activities. From these lexical juxtapositions it is sound to conclude that:
- (2) is the interpretor of the activity named in (1), (the same root mantis is used in both case)
- given that divination (3) is mentioned separately, it sound to conclude that (1) and (2) are not related to divination, wich makes the possible translation "glossolalia"very probable
- as glossolalia was usually followed by interpretation, the interpretation being given by another person, and that we have here a list of different kind of occultists, it is quite reasonable to conclude that (1) refers to a glossolalist and (2) to the interpretor of the glossolalia of (1)


9. his appeal to the some existing translations of the unclear (at least a priori) words in Deu 18:10 is a circular reasoning as I am precisely challenging these translations with my arguments about the meaning of these words.

 

And a point I forgot:
Mr Goldman wrote 
"b.- the separation of the words by Gedressac is wrong 'mantian' goes along with 'mantevomenos'"

To which it is easy to reply. (and there would be no need of replying for one familiar with the syntax of Biblical languages.)

1. if manteian would go along with mantevomenos then one would have a meaningless repetition (it would make no more sense that saying "doing a deed") (except in the case of a paronomastic infinitivus absolutus) and therefore it is to be rejected. 

2. Still the question remain: do we have here the exception named above, the paronomastic infinitivus absolutus?
(it is a Hebrew idiom used to emphasize an action, by repeating twice a verb, one conjugated and the other being a gerundive. These are usually literally translated into Greek, e. g. in Heb 6:14 "blessing I will bless")
This is not the case in the Greek (LXX) because manteian is noun, not a verbal form.
The same is true of the Hebrew original kesamim (oracles, occult utterance) which is also a noun.
So there is no case of a paronomastic infinitivus absolutus here, and manteian does not go along with mantenomenos.

3. on the contrary klidonizomenos accepts very well an accusative like manteian

4. so it is quite obvious that manteian relates to klidonizomenos .

 

 

Your arguments against glossolalia are philosophical, biblical and psychological. Why did you not consider ecclesiastical history?

Due to the time limitation, I skipped "historical" arguments because I find historical, tradition-based arguments a weaker kind of arguments than those you cite.

However, if one values historical argumentation, he will find very strong support in the Christian tradition for an argument against glossolalia and and even an argument against charismatism in general.

1. Glossolalia and Biblical interpretation by the church fathers

One could argue that the interpretation of the Bible by the early Christians theologian greatly differ from the charismatic ones. Concerning the issue of languages versus glossolalia (see for example Edgar's book(5)\\\ too sleptical about historical knowledge). Let us look at what was written by the church fathers and their contemporaries. (see also below the section on glossolalia and church history.)

double: check text and notes for variations

Origen and Celsus(6)

The non-Christian Celsus dismissed Christian claims of divine revelation because he said he had heard in the Middle-East some Christian prophets(7) speak with unintelligible, unknown utterances(8). Origen, the great Christian intellectual in the Early Church, answered that Cesus cannot be believed because (authentic) prophecy ceased with the end of the recording of Holy Scripture; Origine concluded that Celsus had made up a fake testimony and was actually referring to prophecy contained in Holy Scripture, which Origen then defended as being intelligible and making sense(9). What is especially interesting concerning glossolalia is that Origne also added before this that the "Holy Spirit flees meaningless utterances"(10) and in other passages he insisted that the Holy Spirit enhances one's intelligence and intelligence\\\\\*******, and that ecstase, trance, frenzy, losing one's mind, losing one's awareness, obscurantism are not the work of the Holy Spirit, but rather of demons(11). Origen's conceived glossolalia and charismatisc experiences as not coming from the Holy Spirit but from deceiving demons.

Although Origen was right in showing that the prophecy mentionned by Celsus did not conform to the work of the Holy Spirit, he may have been wrong in thinking that Celsus made up his testimony about Christian prophecy. What Celsus described matches what we know of the montanist experiences (montanism is a charismatic movement that was launched by Montanus in the 2nd half of the second century). Let us consider the feature of the prophets witnessed by Celsus:

- they prophetically spoke as saying "I am God or the Son of God or the Holy Spirit"(12): this very closely and uniquely matches montanist oracles such as "I am the Father and I am the Son and I am the Paraclete."(13); we have here strong evidence to identify the Christians mentionned by Celsus as some montanists

- their prophecies were strongly eschatological, insisting on the imminent destruction of the world and the coming back of God, and this is in perfect agreement with the well-known montanist predictions

- their prophecies were immediately followed by some unknown, frantic, obscure and meaningless utterances, : this can be best understood as a suddain glossolalic inspiration and matches similar well-known descriptions of montanist utterances by Eusebius(14). (This also matches the performances of modern charismatic leaders, who, right after some words of prophecy or of a speech, suddenly utter some glossolalic sounds)

- they collected money (the greek ageirw is not well translated into French in the Source Chrétiennes) in the cities and villages(15): this perfectly matches what Eusebius repported about montanism in Middle-East: "[Montanus] appointed collectors of money, who organized the receiving of gifts under the name of offerings, who provided salaries for those who preached his doctrine in order that its teaching might prevail though gluttony"(16). (This is also present on modern charismatism, as is sadly the case with the tele-evangelists for example)

- finally, Celsus thought that the paranormal power of the Christians he met was demonic(17), just as orthodox Christians thought that the charismatic experiences of the montanists were demonic*******.

- ******* place Asia...

We have enough evidence here to identifies the prophets mentionned by Celsus as being montanist, and thus to think that accept Celsus' Testimony as authentic. But why could not Origen think of montanism here? When speaking about the Holy Spirit, Origen mentionned some irrational heretics whose ascetic life seem to matches the ascetism of the montanists, yet he did not mention any practice of occult experiences (18). It is not so clear whom Origen was speaking about.

* In the most simple, that is if those he mentionned were not montanists then we may infer that he had not heard about montanism and so did not link the heretics mentionned by Celsus with montanism.

* Or the people he mentionned may have practiced a milder form of montanism, with an emphasis on ascetism, not on the experience, in the manner of the Tertullianists (who were also in North-Africa, like Origen).

* Besides, if the heretics in question were indeed montanist, Origen may have not been interested in these heretics because of their irrationality. Origen condemned the heretics he mentionned for being irrational and lead by a deceiving spirit instead of being led by the Holy Spirit. Hippolytus wrote about the montanist writings that they "are silly, their attempts weak and worthy of no consideration. It is not necessary for those who possess a sound mind to pay attention to them"(19). Being keen on sound-mindedness and having condemned the montanists for being irrational, Origen may very well have thought like Hippolytus that the montanists did not deserve consideration, he then may not have been aware of all the montanist oracles.

So we have here some ways of explaining why Origen could not believe that anyone ever prophesied "I am God or the Son of God or the Holy Spirit" nor that a Christian would prophesy in a frantic, ecstatic state or practice glossolaly, and we can understand why he so simply dismissed Celsus' testimony as a lie.

In any case Origen thought that the Holy Spirit had never (and could not) inspired glossolalia and we can assert that Origen could certainly never have conceived the idea that the languages mentionned in 1Co 14 were glossolalic.

Irenaeus

Charismatics often pretends that Irenaeus commented Actes 2 as an occurrence of tongues and that he also reported that Christians would speak in tongues in his days(20). But is it so?

Irenaeus' comment on Actes 2(21) refers to the miracle of languages. Moreover, there is here no mention of unintelligible utterances or of ecstasy or of raving on the ground, or of being out of one's mind, or of whatever hint of an occult phenomenon such as glossolalia. Let us also note that in the latin text we have (the original Greek is lost), Irenaeus uses the latin word "lingua", which refers to normal language and not to glossolalia.

In the same manner, concerning Irenaeus's so-called report of glossolalia, we have not one hint of glossolalia here either(22). This passage is especially interesting because Irenaeus uses the Greek word "glossa" (as is known because the Greek original was preserved in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, V.7:6), which word "glossa" never refers to glossolalia as we have shown in the article "Glossolalia and 1Co 14", contrary to the liberal interpretations of 1Co 14 last century. In the ancient latin version of Irenaeus' text, "glossa" is translated by the latin word "lingua", which, like "glossa", never refers to glossolalia but to normal languages. So we have here, as in other similar cases, confirmation that "glossa" does not refer to the phenomenon named "glossolalia" by the liberal theologians, because (note that the word "glossary" derives from this very Greek word "glossa" and that "language" derives from "lingua".)

This second passage contains a sentence that may be misleading: "(...) In the same manner we do also hear many brothers 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 of men and declare the mysteries of God whom also the apostle calls 'spiritual'". Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History (V.7:6) thought that Irenaeus was referring to events in his (Irenaeus') own time, and this is understandable when considering the present tense ("we do also hear") in the sentence. But:

So there is no clear evidence that this second passage would refer to Irenaeus' time, and it anyway does not mention glossolalia but real languages ("lingua").

On the contrary, when Irenaeus speaks of the prophecy inspired by demons among the Marcionite heretics, he mentions the case of a women who started to prophesy by uttering gibberish (Adv. Her. I,13,3 SC 264 p. 195, esp. l. 33, 47-58.)

/////// by contrast clear mention of glossolalic utterance, see below marcionism**********

 

Saint Chrysostom

* St. Chrysostom, the famous patriarch of Constantinople and Biblical scholar, commented 1Co 12-14 in his homelies. His writings on this subject are clearer than those of the other Church Fathers, so I will quote them.

He thought that the languages mentionned here as gifts were similar those miraculous spoken in the book of Acts, and that they therefore had ceased with the apostolic period:

"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 hath produced us again another question: namely, why did they then happen, and now do so no more?" (Homilies in First Corinthians, XXIX.1.)

So he thought they were real languages, and not a phenomenon such as glossolalia:

"yet the Spirit they saw not, for It is invisible; therefore God's grace bestowed some sensible proof of that energy. And one straightway spake in the Persian, another in the Roman, another in the Indian, another in some other such tongue: and this made manifest to them that were without that it is the Spirit in the very person speaking." (Homilies in First Corinthians, XXIX.1.)

Commenting on 1 Co 12:1 he wrote that he understood glossolalia as a possible feature of occultism:

"In the idol-temples, saith he, if any were at any time possessed by an unclean spirit and began to divine, even as one dragged away, so was he drawn by that spirit in chains: knowing nothing of the things which he utters. For this is peculiar to the occultist, to be beside himself, to be under compulsion, to be pushed, to be dragged, to be haled as a mad-man."

(Homilies in First Corinthians, XXIX.2.)

St. Chrysostom shows thus that uttering things that are unintelligible to the speaker himself, or to be in trance is a feature of occultism. Chrysostom too recognized that the glossolalia practiced among the pagan was an occult phenomenon foreign to orthodox Christianity.

He also cites Plato to strengthen his argument:

"But if any should say that these too are considered as believers, come, even from them that are without will I make this manifest to you. Hear, for example, Plato saying thus: (Apol. Soc. c. 7. ) "Even as they who deliver oracles and the occultists say many and excellent things, but know nothing of what they utter. (...) For these and such like things, (for one might mention many more,) point out to us both of these facts which follow; the compulsion which holds down the demons and makes them slaves; and the violence to which they submit who have once given themselves up to them, so as to swerve even from their natural reason." (Homilies in First Corinthians, XXIX.2.)

His point here is that those practicing glossolalia should not even be considered as (orthodox) Christians ("believers") because they practice irrational experiences similar to the demonic experiences practiced in paganism. He contrasts this with intelligible experience of the men of God in the Bible, excluding thereby glossolalia as demonic:

"And God thrusts them not on by compulsion, but advising, exhorting, threatening; not darkening their mind; for to cause distraction and madness and great darkness, is the proper work of a demon: but it is God's work to illuminate and with consideration to teach things needful." (Homilies in First Corinthians, XXIX.2.)

34....

ed the , regarded the genuine gift of tongue mentionned in 1Co 12 as the ability to speak normal, foreign languages though he acknowledged that 1Co 14 was a difficult passage to interpret (he was indeed right, some verses such as 1Co 14:21-25 are still difficult to interpret, as we will see below) (Homilies in First Corinthians, XXIX and XXXVI)

Saint Augustine

* St Augustine said that the tongues of Actes were foreign and not learned tongues that were miraculously spoken, as a sign adapted to the (apostolic) time (Epistle of St John, VI:10).

 

2 Glossolalia and Charismatism in church history

 

Origen and Celsus(23)

The non-Christian Celsus dismissed Christian claims of divine revelation because he said he had heard in the Middle-East some Christian prophets(24) speak with unintelligible, unknown utterances(25). Origen, the great Christian intellectual in the Early Church, answered that Celsus cannot be believed because (authentic) prophecy ceased with the end of the recording of Holy Scripture; Origine concluded that Celsus had made up a fake testimony and was actually referring to prophecy contained in Holy Scripture, which Origen then defended as being intelligible and making sense(26). What is especially interesting concerning glossolalia is that Origne also added before this that the "Holy Spirit flees meaningless utterances"(27) and in other passages he insisted that the Holy Spirit enhances one's intelligence and intelligence\\\\\*******, and that ecstasy, trance, frenzy, losing one's mind, losing one's awareness, obscurantism are not the work of the Holy Spirit, but rather of demons(28). Origen's conceived glossolalia and charismatic experiences as not coming from the Holy Spirit but from deceiving demons.

Although Origen was right in showing that the prophecy mentionned by Celsus did not conform to the work of the Holy Spirit, he may have been wrong in thinking that Celsus made up his testimony about Christian prophecy. What Celsus described matches what we know of the montanist experiences (montanism is a charismatic movement that was launched by the shaman Montanus in the 2nd half of the second century). Let us consider the feature of the prophets witnessed by Celsus:

- they prophetically spoke as saying "I am God or the Son of God or the Holy Spirit"(29): this very closely and uniquely matches montanist oracles such as "I am the Father and I am the Son and I am the Paraclete."(30); we have here strong evidence to identify the Christians mentionned by Celsus as some montanists

- their prophecies were strongly eschatological, insisting on the imminent destruction of the world and the coming back of God, and this is in perfect agreement with the well-known montanist predictions

- their prophecies were immediately followed by some unknown, frantic, obscure and meaningless utterances, : this can be best understood as a suddain glossolalic inspiration and matches similar well-known descriptions of montanist utterances by Eusebius(31). (This also matches the performances of modern charismatic leaders, who, right after some words of prophecy or of a speech, suddenly utter some glossolalic sounds)

- they collected money (the greek ageirw is not well translated into French in the Source Chrétiennes) in the cities and villages(32): this perfectly matches what Eusebius repported about montanism in Middle-East: "[Montanus] appointed collectors of money, who organized the receiving of gifts under the name of offerings, who provided salaries for those who preached his doctrine in order that its teaching might prevail though gluttony"(33). (This is also present on modern charismatism, as is sadly the case with the tele-evangelists for example)

- finally, Celsus thought that the paranormal power of the Christians he met was demonic(34), just as orthodox Christians thought that the charismatic experiences of the montanists were demonic*******.

- ******* place Asia...

We have enough evidence here to identifies the prophets mentionned by Celsus as being montanist, and thus to think that accept Celsus' Testimony as authentic. But why could not Origen think of montanism here? When speaking about the Holy Spirit, Origen mentionned some irrational heretics whose ascetic life matches the ascetism of the montanists, and with some similar doctrine about the Holy spirit, yet he did not mention any practice of occult experiences (35). He does not name this heretics, although they were different ways of calling them (montanists, phrygians, cataphrygians, "the new prophecy"...) All commentators agree that Origin was referring to montanists here, and it seems clear. Since he does not name them, it is possible that he was not well acquainted with them.

Besides, Origen may have not been interested in these heretics because of their irrationality. Origen condemned the heretics he mentionned for being irrational and lead by deceiving demonic spirits instead of being led by the Holy Spirit. This matches what Hippolytus wrote about the montanist writings, that they "are silly, their attempts weak and worthy of no consideration. It is not necessary for those who possess a sound mind to pay attention to them"(36). Being keen on sound-mindedness and having condemned the montanists for being irrational, Origen may very well have thought like Hippolytus that the montanists did not deserve consideration, he then may not have been aware of all the montanist oracles and not have been able to recognize that Celsus was referring to montanists.

It is therefore very likely that Origen was badly acquainted with the montanist movement, so that we can explain why Origen could not believe that anyone ever prophesied "I am God or the Son of God or the Holy Spirit" nor that a Christian would prophesy in a frantic, ecstatic state or practice glossolaly, and we can understand why he so simply dismissed Celsus' testimony as a lie.

In any case Origen thought that the Holy Spirit had never (and could not) inspired glossolalia and we can assert that Origen could certainly never have conceived the idea that the languages mentionned in 1Co 14 were glossolalic.

Whereas there is no trace of glossolalia among orthodox Christianity, this is not the case of heretic Christian sectes that were excommunicated by the early church.

For example:

Marcionites

*Iranaeus

when Irenaeus speaks of the prophecy inspired by demons among the Marcionite heretics, he mentions the case of a women who started to prophesy by uttering gibberish (Adv. Her. I,13,3 SC 264 p. 195, esp. l. 33, 47-58.)

montanists

see more ref. in Boulluec

The charismatic Shaman Montanus and his prophetesses wrote a Third Testament (E. R. Dodd, "Man and the Demonic World" in Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety: Some of Aspects of the Religious Experience from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine. Cambridge: Cambridge U., 1965, pp. 37-68.)

Eusebius incl Origne, did not believe),

* the early church denounced montanist leaders such as Pricilla as demonic ("of the devil"), denounced the whole movement as a heresy(Eus. V:19), excommunicated the montanists and drove them out of the churches (Eus. V:16:10.).

 

The problem of the conversion of Tertullian

Charismatics sometimes reply by pointing to the conversion of Tertullian to montanism.

First, let us note that from all the church fathers, he is also the only one who became montanist, many church fathers (Hippolytus, Epiphanius, Eusebius, etc.) denounced montanism on the contrary as a serious heresy.

Second, it is true that Tertullian was an intellectual, yet he came to reject rationality and philosophy and some scholars who have studied him have concluded that he was paranoid(37), so Tertullian should not be followed in his conversion to montanism. If charismatics want to follow Tertullian in irrationality, then they have no point in trying to argue and seem rational here.

Besides, the form of montanism that Tertullian espoused was a moderate form, with an emphasis on ascetism and not on charismatic experiences. He was attracted to montanism because of its puritanism, anti-intellectualism and ascetism; he conceived ecstasy as a peaceful, sleepy state, much different from the trances, glossolalic utterances and convulsions of the regular montanists(38). Tertullian said himself that he made the choice that his group would not be in communion with the montanist churches (Adversus Praexam 1.) We even know from Saint Augustine, who lived in Carthage after him, that Tertulliam broke with the montanists, that those of his group were then called the "Tertullianists" and not the "montanists", and that they came back later to orthodoxy(39).

Finally, Tertullian was definitely seen as an heretic. The Church fathers in the second century used to avoid naming him, and when he is was spoken of, it was negatively. Or, when a church father such as Cyprian was much inspired by his earlier writings, he still carefully avoided naming him and the influence of his writings(40).

Marcionites (Irenaeus...) Hanson p. 55

Gnostics (Hanson p. 56)

Middle-Ages: not true... not really charismatic refer...

* some small charismatic groups arose among the French jansenites and also among the calvinist provencal underground church (the later charismatics are known with different names such as the French, or Cevenol, or Provencal, or Camisard Prophets). These charismatics were also rejected as heretics by their own denominations. Even Carson, a proponent of "private" glossolalia(41), must admit about such groups that:

"In each instance, the group involved was small and generally on the frange of Christianity. (...) Fourth, very often, the groups that did emphasize what today would be called charismatic gifts were either heretical or quickly pushed their "gifts" to such extremes that their praxis proved dangerous to the church. For instance, with varying degrees of rapidity, the leaders of the Evangelical Awakening came to warn people against the dangers of the so-called French Prophets."(42)

Conclusion

Sometimes, throughout church history, some unlearned, irrational popular Christian sects have advocated occult practices such as glossolalia. The church fathers never interpreted the New Testament as containing some cases of glossolalia; Orthodox Christians, from the early church onward until recently, were even discerning enough to reject glossolalia as an occult practice and excommunicate charismatics because they were practicing occult experiences. This is no more the case, and the reason for this may be due to the acceptance of the recent reinterpretation of the New Testament by liberal theologians last century, who considered that New Testament Christians were practicing the same occult experiences as their pagan contemporaries.

 

 

Does not the citation of the prophet Isaiah in 1Co 14:21 refer to gibberish, thus to glossolalia?

1Co 14:21 contains a citation of Isa 28:11. "through foreign languages and lips I shall speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to me, says the Lord" (concerning this vere, seen question below) What about some charismatic that say that Isa 28:10 is gibberish and therefore a recording of glossolalia, and connect it to Isa 28:11?

Answers:

First, concerning Isa 28:10 it is true that it contain several phrases that are repeated a few times, but they are Hebrew, certainly not Gibberish. The Hebrew for this verse reads "precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little."

Second, the context given by Isa 28:9 ("Whom will he teach knowledge? And whom will he make to understand the message? Those just weaned from milk? Those just drawn from the breasts?", Isa 28:9, NKJV), which is the verse directly preceeding Isa 28:10(43)

, makes it clear that verses 10 and 13 represent a satyre of what the prophet Isaiah says, these are the words of those he tries to rebuke, they make fun of him, as Isaiah himself says in verse 14 ("Therefore hear the word of the LORD, you scornful men, Who rule this people who are in Jerusalem", Isaiah 28:14, NKJ)

In conclusion, Isa 28:10 does not refer to glossolalia, and there is no point in connecting it with Isa 28:11. Concerning the later verse, see below.

 

How to understand then the citation of Isaiah in 1Co 14:21?

 

What is strange in this verse 21 is that God is not speaking to the foreign unbelieving nations through His people, but God is speaking to His own people through the foreign and unbelieving nations! How can we account for this?

Answer

First we need some key information about Israel(44):

Second, we can now understand the passage in Isaiah. God had to repeat His commandements (Isa 28:10,13) through his prophets to the disobedient Jews (Isa 28:1-9, 14-15), like one would to disobedient children (Isa 28:9); God was also warning them that he would punish them and that they would be able to recognize that He would be acting in their punishment, because He would do so through nations speaking a foreign language, the sign,indication that God's hand was beyond their fall (Deu 28:49, 51-57). In this context, the foreign languages seem te be meant for the believers , this explains why it is said that God would speak to His people through foreign languages.

Concerning the use of this verse by Paul, see below.

 

 

***** check hoehner in walvoord, p.53-

 

What about the lack of analogy between 1Co 14:21 and 1Co 14:22?

In verse 21, Paul said that God will use the foreign languages to speak to His people, the believers, that is that foreign languages are a sign to believers. But in verse 22 he said that "in a similar manner" (Greek wste) languages are a "sign not to believers, but to unbelievers"; this "in a similar manner" expresses an analogy between verses 21 and 22. But what is this analogy between these apparently contradictory verses?

Answer

This may be the most difficult question about this chapter fourteen. Many Bible commentators simply do no deal with this issue My answer may seem far-fetched, but this is still the one that makes most sense of the connection between these two verses, as far as I know.

Let use formal logic to clarify this mind-boggling issue.

The apparent underlying proposition in verse 21 is:

(21) Foreign languages are a sign for the believers

The underlying proposition in verse 22 are:

(22a) = Neg (21) = Foreign languages are not a sign for the believers

(22b) Foreign languages are a sign for the unbelievers

The problem is clear: (22a) is the negation of (21)

Let us have a look at some of the alternatives for explaining the connection between verse 21 and 22, assuming that (21) is the correct meaning of verse 21.

1. Paul distorted verse 21 (prop. 21) to make it fit verse 22 (prop. 22). The problem with this alternative is that (22) is the logical negation of (21), such an extrem distortion does not make sense and does not fit Paul's rhetoric

2. Paul was only concerned with the idea that foreign languages had the function of a sign, an attestation.

It it is quite acceptable and probably correct that the foreign languages of the nations who punished Israel had such a function, but that does not explain why Paul would now seem to negate (21), so this alternative, althoug adopted by many commentators, lacks explanatory power and is inadequate.

3. In verse 22 Paul did not express his view, but the view of his adversaries, it is a rhetorical question(45). This alternative provides a reason for the negation of verse 21, and has therefore a greater explanatory power than 1. and 2. But not only does the text contain no evidence for such a rhetorical question but it also contain a link between the two verses ("in the same manner") which is fatal to this alternative.

 

None of these alternatives is satisfying. So we have to come back to our formalization of verses 21 and 22 and see what we can change. We might now simply try to solve the problem by assuming that Paul meant the same thing in both verses. It is not so clear what he meant with verse 21, so we might just give is the same meaning as verse 22, which gives the following pair of propositions:

(21 bis) Foreign languages are a sign for the unbelievers

(22a) Foreign languages are not a sign for the believers

(22b) Foreign languages are a sign for the unbelievers

The contradiction between verses 21 and 22 is now gone.

 

However there is a new problem. In verse 21 seem to be speaking to the believers ("My people", that is God's people), so how can (21bis) account for verse 21?

1. The immediate answer would be to say that in the context of Isaiah, the languages were meant for disobedient believers or Jews, and in the context of Corinthians for the pagan, unbelieving Greek. But this leads to commit the fallacy of ambiguity for the word "unbeliever":

- in Isaiah, the unbelievers are disobedient Jews, that is those who belong to the people of God (see "My People" in verse 21) but who are unfaithful to the divine revelation they have received through the prophets

- in 1Co 14:22-25, the unbelievers are the non-Christian, those who do not belong to the people of God. and these may include some Greek who did not have access to the biblical specific revelation and cannot be called disobedient to this specific revelation they have not received yet (see Act 14:16 17:30). So this alternative creates another problem that is at least as serious and cannot be accepted

2. Another alternative is that these foreign languages were not meant for unbelievers but only for Jews. In Isaiah, the disobedient Jews were the unbelievers (as in 1Co 14:21-22) whereas in Corinth the Jews were the believers (as in 1Co 14:23-25), and the unbelievers were the Greek. This alternative succeeds in removing with the apparent contradiction between verses 21 and 22 without directly commiting a fault; it also explains the apparent contradiction between verses 22 and 23-25. This alternative certainly more acceptable than the other ones and deserve more attention(46). However some fatal problem appear when we consider the context of these two verses:

- what about the Greel believers in 23-25

- why only to unbelieving Jews in 23-25?

My answer is a developement of the analysis of Ralph Shallis. Shallis argued, although not formally(47),

bringing upon them

take their words turn their own words against them, justice of God

foreign countries: foreign language

one more argument: foreign languages

 

What about 1Co 14:22-27, the Pagan visitors and the apparent contradiction between verse 22 and verses 23-27?

Answer:

This passage is at least as difficult to understand as 1Co 14:1-19, because it contains an apparent contradiction: in verses 21-22, Paul says that prophecy is for the Christians and foreign languages for the non-Christians; but he seems to hold a contrary view in verses 23-25. One has simply to analyze the context of the different verses, and the contradiction disappears.

The point of Paul was that abilities, gifts for speaking for speaking foreign languages should be used to break language barriers, be it evangelistic language barriers abroad (v. 21-22) or be it edification language barrier within an international church such as Corinth (v. 23-25). The Corinthians had failed to understand this, they would speak in languages that the other could not understand (v. 2-19,26-28), and this is why he blamed them so severely for their lack of thinking and intellectual development (v. 20). Verses 20 to 25 bring one more argument to the case that the languages of the chapter were foreign languages, not glossolalia.

 

Does not Charismatism differ from Montanism in that it does not have such an Occult Origin?

Montanus, the founder of Montanism, was indeed a former pagan priest and practionner of quite occult practices. But does not (20th century) charismatism differ from Montanism concerning its origin?

Answer:

Actually there is a striking parallel between the origins of Montanism and charismatism. Charismatism started with the Pentacostalism, which is the first charismatic wave at the beginning of the 20th century. Now, William Seymor, the "20th century Montanus", was the initiator of the Pentecostal wave and the famous Azusa Street revival. Seymor was so much involved in occult experiences that even some other Pentecostals denounced him as being under demonic possession. Even worse, Seymor attracted spiritualists, hypnostists, mediums and other persons involved in the occult societies around Los Angeles to his famous Azusa Street revival, and he let them lead the seances and trances of the revival. Although Seymor was rebuked by some Pentecostals for letting the spiritists and medium supervise the revival, he always refused correction(48).

 

Does not the context given by 1Co 13:1 indicate that the languages of 1Co 14 are "angelic languages"?

This argument was and is still used by liberal theologians(49) to support the contention that these tongues were practiced for the Pagan worship of angels in the early church. It was taken over by some charismatics, who simply removed the premises of this argument concerning the worship of angels.

Response:

1. This is invalidated by the arguments in the article "Glossolalia and 1Co 14". These are summarized below:

which show that the languages in 1Co 14 were normal human languages that could be:

learned

understood

translated

identified (Paul could know with certainty that he spoke more language than all the Corinthians together)

+ argt 1Co 14:20-25

+ 5 argts against this ccl (bibl, philo...)

2.a Either these languages cannot be understood, but uttering them would then be of no benefit (there cannot be any edification without understanding, see the other article) and therefore meaningless.

2.b. Or they can be understood, but then the objects of these languages are accessible to the human understanding, and could as well be expressed with human languages, therefore they would be no reason for uttering such languages, given that human languages are then as good and we already know them.

In either case, uttering these "angelic languages" would be meaningless and absurd.

3. Digression////////////////

4. only hypothesis, actually irrealist///////////////

Nowhere in the Bible is there any affirmation that angels have their one language. ** context --> irrealistic

- if I were

- if I would give my body...

 

Are not Spiritual Gifts supernatural?

 

True some gifts are supernatural :

wonder

propephy: god beyond time knows all event can reveal events that are future revelatively to the moment He reveals them to the prophet

apostles: wonders.

 

1. bible: God open the sea/winds blows

Pb of divine action/human one

In the same way gifts

many gifts: pastor, administration...not supernatural

2. ** missionary / character

3. becoming pastor or teacher just like this!

4. some were supernatural (miracles, revelation),

If mention that these were, it implies that the other were not (else all would be miraculous)

 

How can there also be question of speaking one's mothertongue in 1Co 14, given that this is no spiritual gift?

 

* but 1co 14 not nec. of gift, broader, foreign languages in general

* 1Co 13 neither about gifts, but particular acts

* ability to speak a foreign language in a given country could not be considered a gift in relation to speaking language of that country, even if the foreign language in question is one's mothertongue

 

How can glossolalia be inspired by another spirit given that Paul speaks in 1Co 14:4 of praying with one's own spirit?

 

 

Edifying onseself by speaking?

tongues, trances, altered states of conciousness, psy but also depression (Samarin...)

but BB: never mentionned in passage about personal edification, edif... reason God..

Does not 2Co 12:4 imply that some things cannot be uttered and therefore justify glossolalia?

 

Charismatic often use the following verse to assert that glossolalia is a heavenly language that permits to overcome the limitation of our human language:

(NKJ) 2Co 12:4 how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Responses:

1. There is here absolutely no reference to the gift of foreign language (1Co 12,14) nor to the miracle of speaking unlearned foreign language (Act 2,10,19).

2. If these things are inexpressible, then they simply cannot be uttered, even through a deeply occult preactice such as glossolalia. This charismatic argument is utterly absurd.

3. Even if these things cannot be expressed, then how is it that the languages spoken in 1Co 14 could be translated (1Co 14:5,13,26-28)?

4. This verse clearly teaches that these things are inexpressible not because they are beyond human power, but because humans ought not to utter these holy things. The Greek (ouk evxon: "not lawful") at the end of the verse expresses a strong interdiction. Therefore "inexpressible" in the first part of the verse should be translated in the context of the verse, and should be properly translated by "words too sacred to tell", which is actually the best translation of the Greek arrhta rhmata (see the entry for arrhto in the BAGD.) (this is also Origen's interpretation, see Princ. II.7:4. He too stress that the apostle said "it is not lawful" instead of "it is not possible" )

5. Paul clearly forbids uttering these things. So the charismatic attempt to utter them is a serious sin.

 

A charismatic argument against charismatic experiences

 

Charismatic argt:

I was praying and the Lord said to me that He was upset by all the occultism that has pervaded the church through the charismatic movement. He said to me `go and let them know My will! and Let their spirits be abraze with My Holy Spirit, not with the demons." Halleluja!! The Lord has spoken. So all these experiences and doctrines coming from the charismatic movement must stop. Amen, Halleluja, the Holy Spirit is still active with His gifts, teaching us the truth and right ways." Hallelujah.

 

 

Notes

1. I especially recommend the book writen by Birch, who is very experienced with spirits of tongue:

George A. Birch, The Delivrance Ministry (Camp Hill, PA: Horizon House, 1988.)

Here are some other useful books:

2. see for example:

3. See for example:

4. Hank Hanegraaff, "The Counterfeit Revival" in Christian Research Journal (vol. 20, Nr. 1, Summer 1997), pp. 14-16.

5. See: Thomas R. Edgar, Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit : Affirming the Fullness of God's Provision for Spiritual Living (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996.), pp. 204-208.

6. I am referring to the best available Greek text (with critical apparatus, notes, etc.), the one in the collection Sources Chrétiennes.

7. Origène, Contre Celse: Tome IV, Livres VII et VIII, Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes par M. Borret, Sources Chrétiennes tome 150 (Paris: Cerf, 1969), VII:12, p. 41, l. 20-31.

8. Ibid., VII:9, pp. 35-37.

9. Ibid., VII:10-11, pp. 37-39.

10. Ibid., VII:8, p. 34, l. 23-24.

11. Ibid., VII:3-4, pp. 17-23; the editor, Bousset, notes that Origen's views were similar to Chrysostom's, who contrasted the intelligible, illuminating work of the Holy Spirit to the the pagan mantis which was ecstatic, glossolalic and impure.

12. Ibid., VII:9, p. 34, l. 10-11.

13. Arland J. Hutgren and Steven A. Hagmark, The Earliest Heretics, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), p. 128 (the verse cited is from Didymus, De Trin. III.41:1.; see also Hippolytus, Ref. 8.12 cited in Hutgren, pp.129-130.)

14. Ibid, V.16:7-9; V.17:2.

15. Origène, ibid, VII:9, p. 34, l. 9-10.

16. Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, with an introduction and an English translation by Kirrsopp Lake, vol. 1, Loeb Classical Library vol. 153, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926), V.18:2.

17. Origène, Contre Celse: Tome I, Livres I et II, Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes par M. Borret, Sources Chrétiennes tome 132 (Paris: Cerf, 1967), I.6. pp. 90-93.

Origen writes that he ignores why Celsus accuses Christians of such things, he probably did not think that they had met some charimatics Christians. I will here cite a comment on this verse by Hinson, who is himself a proponent of glossolalia:

"Here, however, we begin to see also the reason for the disappearance of glossolalia as an apologetic method. It was difficult indeed to determine whether inspiration of this sort might come from demons or from the Holy Spirit of God! Celsus, who had written his anti-Christian polemic at the very peak of the Montanist activity, ca. 178, ascribed it to demons. 'It is by names of certain demons, and by the use of incantations', he asserted, 'that the Christians appear to be possessed of (miraculous) powers."

E. Glenn Hinson et al, Glossolalia: Tongues Speaking in Biblical, Historical and Psychological Perspective (Nashville: Abingdon, 1967), p. 55.

18. Princ. 2.7.3

19. Hutgren, p. 130.

20. See for example: E. Glenn Hinson et al, Glossolalia: Tongues Speaking in Biblical, Historical and Psychological Perspective (Nashville: Abingdon, 1967), pp. 48-50.

21. Irénée de Lyon, Contre les hérésies: Livre III, Tome I, Introduction, texte critique, traduction, notes et tables par A. Rousseau et L. Doutreleau, Sources Chrétiennes tome 210 (Paris: Cerf, 1974), III.12:1.

22. Irénée de Lyon, Contre les hérésies: Livre V, Tome II, Introduction, texte critique, traduction, notes et tables par A. Rousseau et al., Sources Chrétiennes tome 153 (Paris: Cerf, 1969), V.6:11, pp. 72-81.

23. I am referring to the best available Greek text (with critical apparatus, notes, etc.), the one in the collection Sources Chrétiennes.

24. Origène, Contre Celse: Tome IV, Livres VII et VIII, Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes par M. Borret, Sources Chrétiennes tome 150 (Paris: Cerf, 1969), VII:12, p. 41, l. 20-31.

25. Ibid., VII:9, pp. 35-37.

26. Ibid., VII:10-11, pp. 37-39.

27. Ibid., VII:8, p. 34, l. 23-24.

28. Ibid., VII:3-4, pp. 17-23; the editor, Bousset, notes that Origen's views were similar to Chrysostom's, who contrasted the intelligible, illuminating work of the Holy Spirit to the the pagan mantis which was ecstatic, glossolalic and impure.

29. Ibid., VII:9, p. 34, l. 10-11.

30. Arland J. Hutgren and Steven A. Hagmark, The Earliest Heretics, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), p. 128 (the verse cited is from Didymus, De Trin. III.41:1.; see also Hippolytus, Ref. 8.12 cited in Hutgren, pp.129-130.)

31. Ibid, V.16:7-9; V.17:2.

32. Origène, ibid, VII:9, p. 34, l. 9-10.

33. Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, with an introduction and an English translation by Kirrsopp Lake, vol. 1, Loeb Classical Library vol. 153, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926), V.18:2.

34. Origène, Contre Celse: Tome I, Livres I et II, Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes par M. Borret, Sources Chrétiennes tome 132 (Paris: Cerf, 1967), I.6. pp. 90-93.

Origen writes that he ignores why Celsus accuses Christians of such things, he probably did not think that they had met some charimatics Christians. I will here cite a comment on this verse by Hinson, who is himself a proponent of glossolalia:

"Here, however, we begin to see also the reason for the disappearance of glossolalia as an apologetic method. It was difficult indeed to determine whether inspiration of this sort might come from demons or from the Holy Spirit of God! Celsus, who had written his anti-Christian polemic at the very peak of the Montanist activity, ca. 178, ascribed it to demons. 'It is by names of certain demons, and by the use of incantations', he asserted, 'that the Christians appear to be possessed of (miraculous) powers."

E. Glenn Hinson et al, Glossolalia: Tongues Speaking in Biblical, Historical and Psychological Perspective (Nashville: Abingdon, 1967), p. 55.

35. Princ. 2.7.3

36. Hutgren, p. 130.

37. B. Nisters, Tertullian: Seine Persönlichkeit und sein Schicksal (Münstrer, 1950), p. 114.

38. Pierre de Labriolle, Histoire de la litérature latine chrétienne, 2nd ed. (Paris: Belles Lettres, 1924), pp. 124-138.

39. Augustine, Haeresibus, 56.

See in particular:

Pierre de Labriolle, Histoire de la litérature latine chrétienne, 2nd ed. (Paris: Belles Lettres, 1924), pp. 92-93.

40. Pierre de Labriolle, p. 93.

41. Carson endorses "private" glossolalia in his book Showing the Spirit: a Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987.), p. 104-5.

42. Ibid, pp. 166-7.

43. Whom will he teach knowledge? And whom will he make to understand the message? Those just weaned from milk? Those just drawn from the breasts? (Isa 28:9, NKJV)

44. some good biblical references about this verse can be found in Le don de parler diverses langues, by Ralph Shallis (Rev. ed. Liginiac, France: Editions du C.C.B.P., 1982), pp. 328-348.

45. B. C. Johanson, "Tongues, a Sign for Unbelievers? A Structural and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians XIV.20-25", New Testament Studies 25 (1978-79): 180-203.

46. This alternative was expounded in the prestigious journal Bibliotheca Sacra:

Zane C. Hodge, "The Purpose of Tongues", Bibliotheca Sacra 120 (July 1963): 226-233.

47. Ralph Shallis Le don de parler diverses langues, (Rev. ed. Liginiac, France: Editions du C.C.B.P., 1982), pp. 328-348.

48. This is well documented in many books, and one can find some data about it in popular and accessible works such as famous Hanegraff's bestseller Counterfeit Revival.

49. G. Dautzenberg, "Glwssa" in Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament Ed. H. Balz, Horst and G. Schneider Gerhard (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Vol. 1) pp. 251-255.

See also references in note 2