"To Speak in a Tongue"

The Old Testament and Early Rabbinic Background of a Pauline Expression by Edward A. Engelbrecht

Nils Engelsen, in his 1970 doctoral dissertation, “Glossolalia and Other Forms of Inspired Speech according to 1 Corinthians 12-14”,[1] pulled together the research current in his day on the topic of "tongues." He supported the general conclusion that the expression "to speak in a tongue" was being used by Paul in a technical way to describe ecstatic activity in the Corinthian congregation. This is also the conclusion of Roy Harrisville in his article interacting with Engelsen's dissertation, "Speaking in Tongues: A Lexicographical Study.”[2] Both of these studies point away from Paul as the first to use the expression in this technical way. It is argued that the expression instead has its derivation in pre-Christian Judaism. The difficulty with this thesis is that there are no specific sources which use the expression to describe unintelligible, ecstatic speech prior to Paul, making the conclusions of Engelsen and Harrisville rather tenuous. Since "to speak in a tongue" occurs a number of times in the Old Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Rabbinic literature, it is necessary to consider these writings to determine the origin and meaning of Paul's expression. This article proposes that "to speak in a tongue" was a common Semitic idiom adapted by Paul. It was suggested to him by the prophecy of Isaiah 28:11, which he used to address the difficulties at Corinth. The expression's application in Semitic literature is not to ecstatic speech but to speaking in a foreign language.

After surveying New Testament usage, Harrisville begins his search for the origin of Paul's expression in the most obvious place— the Old Testament. In the Septuagint he discovers that “tongue” is used with “speak” 7 times.[3] Other appearances, where the words stand independently of one another, result in a list of twenty passages suggestive of New Testament use. However, after considering the relationship of these passages to Paul's application of the expression, Harrisville surmises,

We cannot conclude without further ado that the Septuagint usage has in any way influenced that of the New Testament. The similarities between the Septuagint and New Testament references are, in the last analysis, few and far between. Indeed, the Septuagint translator appears to have known nothing of a technical term for speaking in tongues.[4]

Engelsen begins his dissertation with a different methodology. Rather than examining the occurrences and uses of glossa and lalein, he seeks out examples of ecstatic speech. After a complete survey of ecstatic utterance in pre-Christian Greek literature, Engelsen affirms, The term glossais (glosoon) lalein, or any similar expression particularly referring to inarticulate speech, does not occur in any of the texts. So far it has not been evidenced in Greek literature outside the New Testament."[5] Harrisville agrees after noting one possible exception, two reconstructed lines of a hymn to Imanthes-Asclepius in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri.[6] While examples of ecstatic speech are common, the expression "to speak in a tongue" is essentially unknown in pre-Christian Greek apart from the passages in the Septuagint mentioned above.[7]

Harrisville rounds out his survey with a look at Qumran literature. There he finds two explicit references to Isaiah's prophecies. In the Masoretic text it is God who will speak to His stubborn people through the strange tongues of their Assyrian captors. But in the examples from Qumran the passage is reapplied to the "lying prophets" or "seekers after smooth things." They have exchanged teaching and understanding for "lips of uncircumcision, and for the foreign tongue of a people without understanding, that they might come to ruin in their straying" (Thanksgiving Hymn 2:18). Again in hymn 4:16, "They come to inquire of Thee from the mouth of lying prophets deceived by error who speak [with strange] lips to Thy people, and an alien tongue, that they may cunningly turn all their works to folly."[8] Harrisville concedes that these examples do not apply directly to ecstatic speech, but he suggests that the apotalyptic and prophetic environment of the community that produced the Qumran literature provided fertile ground for the development of “tongue speak” as technical terminology for ecstatic speech. Thus, despite differences in methodology, Harrisville and Engelsen come to essentially the same conclusion: The expression "to speak in a tongue" as used by Paul to mean ecstatic utterance has its origin in pre-Christian Judaism.[9]

There is, however, a common problem in the methodology of both these studies. They begin with the assumption that Paul understood "speaking in tongues" to mean "ecstatic speech" and do not fully consider other possible meanings. Because of this decision, Harrisville and Engelsen end up searching for examples of ecstatic speech rather than considering how the actual examples of the expression relate to Paul's use. In other words, they find no examples of this expression used for ecstatic speech prior to Paul. Still they fail to question the meaning that they have attributed to the expression in Paul's usage. They conclude that because of the frequency and consistency with which Paul uses the expression, it must have meant ecstatic speech sometime prior to him even though there is not a single text testifying to this use. What other possible meaning could the expression "to speak in a tongue" have? Harrisville concluded that the Old Testament passages using this expression had precious little to do with Paul's usage. These passages need to be reexamined leaving aside the concern to find some connection with ecstatic speech.

Old Testament Examples

Isaiah 28:11 says, "Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people." Paul quotes this very passage to direct the worship practices of the Corinthian congregation. Here the meaning of the expression in Isaiah is easily discerned; it describes the language of the Assyrians who have captured the Israelites and are leading them away into captivity. "To speak in tongues" in Isaiah 28:11 means "to speak foreign languages."

A similar expression occurs in Esther 1:22. The King's decree is given "to each people in its own language, proclaiming in each people's tongue that every man should be ruler over his own household." The verb and the noun are the same in Isaiah 28. The only differences are the use of the Hebrew preposition rather than the use of the Hebrew modifier. Despite these variations the basic expression and its meaning are like that of Isaiah, "to speak a foreign language."

A third example is Nehemiah 13.24, which says, "Half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod or the language of one of the other peoples, and did not know how to speak the language of Judah." Same Hebrew verb and noun. The preposition as in Esther (qoph) rather than (beth). Yet the meaning once again is “to speak a foreign language.”

A final example is found in Jeremiah 5:15 that says, "I am bringing a distant nation against you—an ancient and enduring nation, a people whose language you do not know, whose speech you do not understand." The last colon of this poetic parallelism literally reads, "And you will not understand what it [i.e., this nation] says." The verb of speaking and noun for language in the previous, parallel line is the same. The passage as a whole is dramatically similar to Isaiah 28:11—God will bring a nation that speaks a foreign language to judge His people.

Depending on how one dates passages of Scripture, the prophecies of Isaiah 28 and Jeremiah 5 may stem from one of the curses for disobedience recorded in Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy 28:49 says, "The LORD will bring a nation against you from far away, from the end of the earth, like an eagle swooping down, a nation whose language you will not understand, a fierce-looking nation without respect for the old or pity for the young." The expression here is very similar in context to those given above. At the very least this passage testifies to the same tradition of foreign language as a sign of God's punishment upon His rebellious people.

It is this tradition of foreign language as a sign of God's punishment that lies behind Paul's quotation and application of Isaiah 28:11. This passage also appears to be the impetus behind his choice of "to speak in a tongue" as a description of the phenomenon at Corinth.[10] Isaiah's prophecy becomes a proof passage for Paul's halakic counsel that tongues are not beneficial unless translated, while prophecy is always beneficial.[11]

Previous studies into the origin and meaning of Paul's expression have not taken note of the consistent use of this theme and idiom in the Old Testament because they have concentrated upon the Septuagint text rather than the Hebrew. This turns out to be a real problem because as one begins to search the Hebrew and Aramaic texts beyond the Old Testament one finds this expression again and again.

Examples in the Dead Sea Scrolls

The two passages in the Thanksgiving Hymns in the Dead Sea Scrolls have already been mentioned since they were treated by Harrisville and Engelsen.[12] They are allusions to Isaiah 28:11 or 33:19 describing the language of the invading Assyrians. It is not clear what "language" is being attacked by the writer of the Thanksgiving Hymns. The application of the expression is different from Isaiah 28:11 in that language becomes a sign of the sinfulness of the user rather than of the people against whom the language is used. In Isaiah 28:11 it is the Assyrians speaking against sinful Judah. In Qumran it is the sinful false prophets speaking against the Qumran community. This is more the sense in Isaiah 33:19, "You will see those arrogant people no more, those people of an obscure speech with their strange, incomprehensible tongue." Otto Betz has argued compellingly that these allusions to the prophecies of Isaiah have become another way of calling the opponents of Qumran false prophets.[13] If he is correct, then this would be the first time that "to speak in a tongue" meant something other than "to speak a foreign language."

Examples in the Mishnah

The same expression as found in the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Thanksgiving Hymn of Qumran appears in the Mishnah, which along with other Rabbinic literature was not considered by Harrisville and Engelsen. In fact it appears that no modern study has consulted these texts regarding the meaning of "to speak in a tongue."[14] Sotah 7:1 says, "These are said in any language: (1) the pericope of the accused wife [Num. 5:19-22], and (2) the confession of the tithe [Deut. 26:13-15], and (3) the recital of the Shema [Deut. 6:4-9], and (4) the Prayer, (5) the oath of testimony, and (6) the oath concerning a bailment."[15] This is a list of liturgical passages that could be recited in any language, that is, spoken in any tongue. Unlike the Old Testament, the verb of speaking is different, though this does not affect the meaning. A further example occurs at Shabbat 16:1 concerning Holy Scriptures "written in any language." In contrast Sotah 7:2 says,

And these are said in the Holy Language (1) the verses of the first fruits [Deut. 26:3-10], (2) the rite of Halisah [Deut. 25:7, 9], (3) blessings and curses, (4) the blessings of the priests [Num. 6.24-26], (5) the blessing of a high priest [on the Day of Atonement], (6) the pericope of the king [Deut. 17:14-20], (7) the pericope of the heifer whose neck is to be broken [Deut. 21:7f.], and (8) [the message of] the anointed for battle when he speaks to the people [Deut. 20:2-7].

See also Sotah 7:3; 7:4; and 8:1. These passages are specifically designated for the holy language, that is Hebrew. The expression is the same as above.

Another example from the Mishna is Megillah 2:1, concerning the public reading of Scripture:

He who reads the Scroll backwards has not fulfilled his obligation. [If] he reads it by heart, [if] he read it in Aramaic translation or in any [other] language, he has not fulfilled his obligation. But they do read it to those, who speak a foreign language in a foreign language. Still, one who speaks a foreign language who heard it in Assyrian [Hebrew], has fulfilled his obligation.

The prepositional phrase is the same as in the passages mentioned above but with a different verb to designate reading as opposed to recitation. The expression at the end of the passage regarding speaking a foreign language employs the word used for the "foreign lips" of Isaiah 28:11. This creates an interesting parallel since both expressions used for the foreign language of the Assyrians appear here together again in the Mishnah.

Examples in the Targums

The same type of expression found in the Hebrew of Tannaitic literature occurs in the Aramaic of the Targums. Here the verbs "to speak" or "to call" used in a particular language. Hebrew is distinguished from other languages as “the holy language" or the "language of the sanctuary." Targum Onkelos (first or second century A.D.) simply translates the Hebrew of Isaiah 28:11 and 33:19. Targum Neophyti 1 (pre-third or fourth century A.D.) adds several other passages Genesis 2:19; 11:1; 31:47; and 45:12; Esther 1.22 and 2.21. Targum Ps-Jonathan (redacted after seventh or eighth century A.D.) also uses this expression—Genesis 11:1; 31:47; 321; 42:23; 45:12; Deuteronomy 25:7 and 8. This is probably not an exhaustive list of the use of this expression in the Targums. To this list of Aramaic examples could be added the many uses of this expression in the Syriac of the Peshitta.

Conclusions

It needs to be stated once again that the expression "to speak in a tongue" is unknown in pre-Christian Greek literature apart from a few examples in the translation of the Old Testament. In contrast, the Hebrew Bible, the Thanksgiving Hymns of Qumran, the Mishnah, and the Aramaic of the Targums provide numerous examples of the expression.[16] In light of this evidence it is not difficult to conclude that "to speak in a tongue" is a semitic idiom and that earlier studies which concentrated on finding its origin and meaning in Greek literature were misguided. It should also be noted that "to speak in a tongue" is never used in the sense of "ecstatic utterance" and (apart from two polemical passages in the Thanksgiving Hymns) consistently refers to the speaking of a foreign language or the holy language, Hebrew.

The expression used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 as well as other passages of the New Testament initially meant "to speak a foreign language." Whether Paul understood the expression in this sense cuts to the very heart of the interpretation of the passage. It could easily be argued that Paul has reworked this expression to mean "ecstatic utterance." The fact that it meant "to speak a foreign language" almost everywhere else does not necessarily establish that meaning for Paul in 1 Corinthians. However, there may be a simpler way of looking at the passage. It is possible that Paul saw speaking in tongues, whatever it actually was, as genuine language (like those described in Acts 2) rather than mantic, ecstatic babbling. Then his halakic interpretation of Isaiah 28 would have suggested both the use of the expression and its basis for warning against abuses of God's gifts.

---

[1] Ph.D dissertation, Yale University, 1970.

[2] Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 38 (January 1976): 35-48. Much of the research on the subject of glossolalia was conducted during the 1970s when the charismatic movement was making its initial impact upon mainline denominations. Since that time tongues have ceased to be a major topic of scholarly inquiry.

[3] lbid., pp. 38-39. The passages are Job 33:2; Pss. 36(37):30; 38(39):4(3); 108(109):2; Is. 19:18; 28:11.

[4] lbid., p. 39.

[5] Engelsen, p. 20.

[6] See Harrisville, p. 39.

[7] A key set of passages in the study of the origin of speaking in tongues has been chapters 49-52 in the pseudepigraphic Testament of Job. Here we are told that Job's daughters speak and sing in the "languages" of the angels. The expression "to speak in a tongue" is never used. The Greek word for language is instead dialektos, the term used by Luke in Acts. There are several difficulties with applying this passage directly to 1 Corinthians. The first is the history of the text itself R. P. Spittler suggests that the originally Jewish work about Job was edited by the Montanists in the second century, adding the references to angelic languages, See The Old Testament Pseudepigraha, vol. 1, edited by James H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1983), p. 834. Also the term 61,04E1c-roc can refer to a manner of speaking and not specifically to language (although that interpretation seems unlikely here). Lastly, what Paul means when he says "the languages of men and angels" in 1 Corinthians 13 causes difficulty. He may just be offering up polar extremes to illustrate the absurdity of a Christian without love (as he does throughout the rest of the chapter in a most hyperbolic manner). In this case "languages of men and angels" may be another way of saying "any language." There is also the problem that already in the Mishnah (second cent. A.D.) and Targum Neophiti 1 (pre-third or fourth cent. A D.) Hebrew was considered the holy or heavenly language. In the Babylonian Talmud Hebrew is specifically called the language of the angels. While these sources are later than Paul, they may reflect early tradition. Thus Paul's comment could be a reference to both sacred and profane language, again meaning "any language" and not that "speaking in tongues" was specifically angelic in character.

[8] The translations are from G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 3rd ed. (Sheffield, England: J.S.O.T. Press, 1987), pp. 169 and 175. In his article "The Historical Background of Qumran HebreW," Scripta Hierosolymiyana 4 (1958), C. Rabin concludes that these are references to Mishnaic Hebrew, p. 146.

[9] Harrisville suggests what he thinks are the only other alternatives to this hypothesis, ". . . to fix the origins of the technical term with Jewish Christianity or with Paul" (p. 46).

[10] Herodotus uses a form of phaw with glossa to express speaking a language. See History 1.58; 4.108 and 155; 8.135. This is also used by Polybius in his Histories 2.17. A variety of verbs occur with glossa in Dionysius of Halicarnassus' Roman Antiquities: [2.50], [5.28], and [8.56]. Such expression would have been available to Paul, but he elected not to use them. Instead he used an expression from the Old Testament.

[11] For a discussion of Paul's use of halakic interpretation in 1 Corinthians 14 see Peter J. Tomson's Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), pp. 131-144. It is also suggested by E Earle Ellis in Paul's Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1957), p. 108 that Isaiah 28:11-12 had a pre-history in anti-Jewish polemics. See also Gerhard Dautzenberg Urchristliche Prophetie: Ihre Erforschung. ihre Voraussetzungen im Judentum und ihre Struktur im ersten Korintherbrief (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1975), p. 244.

[12] IQH 2 (p 169)—"They have exchanged them for lips of uncircumcision and for the foreign tongue of a people without understanding, that they might come to ruin in their straying." I QH 7 (p. 175)—"...from the mouth of lying prophets deceived by error who speak [with strange] lips to Thy people, and an alien tongue. Despite the release of many new Qumran texts, further uses of "to speak in a tongue" have not come to light.

[13] Betz does not deal with the question of whether there was another language involved. "Zungenreden und sii.f3er Wein: Zur eschatologischen Exegese von Jesaja 28 im Qumran und im Neuen Testament." in Bibel und Qumran (Berlin: Evangelische Haupt-Bibelgesellschaft, 1968), p. 22.

[14] H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck's Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrash, 6 vols. (Munich: Beck, 1922-1961) essentially skips over the question of the origin of "to speak in tongues" in 1 Corinthians 14.

[15] Jacob Neusner, Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988).

[16] Examples could be multiplied from later Midrash literature and the Babylonian Talmud.

GLOSSOLALIA AS FOREIGN LANGUAGE

 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EARLY TWENTIETH-CENTURY PENTECOSTAL CLAIM by D. William Faupel

In 1947, Assemblies of God historian Carl Brumback observed:

If speaking in tongues were taken out of the Pentecostal movement, perhaps nine-tenths of the opposition would disappear; Pentecost might possibly become the most popular religious movement in the Protestant world.[1]

From the perspective of the 1990s it is clear that Brumback was prophetic. Pentecostalism as a world-wide phenomenon has exploded. In 1984 Vinson Synan estimated that there were 51 million Pentecostal adherents, making this movement the single largest Protestant tradition.[2] Ten years later Harvey Cox claimed that the number had scared to 410million, with 20 million adherents being added every year.[3] Since 1960, the practice of glossolalia also has spread in the form of the Charismatic Movement throughout the Protestant world and within the Roman Catholic and Orthodox traditions as well.

To the Wesleyan community, Pentecostalism's "success" has been acknowledged with mixed emotions which are deeply rooted. On the one hand, there is rejoicing that the Pentecostal Movement is being used to advance God's kingdom. At the same time, Wesleyan leaders remain troubled as Pentecostal practice penetrates the worship experience of many of their own adherents. This anxious feeling undoubtedly is exacerbated by the growing awareness of the close relationship the two movements share both historically and theologically.

Since the publication of Synan's The Holiness-Pentecostal Movement in 1971, Wesleyans for the most part have acknowledged that Pentecostalism is the product of their own holiness tradition of the 19th century.[4] Later, Donald Dayton's Theological Roots of Pentecostalism,[5] appearing in 1987, traced the theological development within this historical context. Both works focus on the continuities of the two movements. Grant Wacker more recently has analyzed the points of contention that led Pentecostalism to separate from the Holiness Movement. After examining the enflamed rhetoric adherents of each side hurled at the other, he nonetheless concludes:

Except for the specific question of tongues, it is difficult to think of any point of doctrine, lifestyle, or cultural orientation that Pentecostals failed to share with a majority of their ... holiness forebears.[6]

Even the restoration of the gift of tongues had been anticipated by most holiness advocates as part of the end-time revival which they felt was coming at the turn of the twentieth century. W. B. Godby, an evangelist of the Methodist Church South, was typical when he wrote: "This Gift (of Tongues) is destined to play a conspicuous part in the evangelization of the heathen world amid the glorious prophetical fulfillment of the latter days."[7] He then cited evidence that the gift was already being restored, describing an account in the work of Bishop William Taylor where a woman missionary, not knowing the African languages, found that she could preach fluently in the native tongue when arriving at her station.[8]

Despite such anticipation, within months of the outbreak of the revival at Azusa Street in Los Angeles, California, in 1906, Wesleyan) leaders were denouncing Pentecostalism as a spurious work of the devil. Why was this so? Why did two movements that held so much in common, including an anticipation of the restoration of glossolalia, divide so deeply and so bitterly?)

Part of the answer to this question was precisely the conviction by Wesleyan and other Evangelical leaders that the gift of tongues would be restored as "missionary languages" to enable the rapid evangelization of the world before the end of the church age. Early Pentecostal adherents, of course, shared this perspective. Indeed, they claimed that the gift of tongues they received was in fact one of the languages understood by people who "heard the message” even though they themselves had no previous knowledge of the language through which it was conveyed.

Investigations by Evangelical and Wesleyan leaders called this claim into question. It was in large part on the basis of such research that they concluded that Pentecostalism was a spurious counterfeit produced by Satan. This article seeks to examine the historical evidence of the early Pentecostal claim, trace the movement's subsequent understanding of the nature and purpose of glossolalia, and evaluate its initial claim.

The Initial Pentecostal Claim

At the outset of the Pentecostal revival, adherents believed that glossolalia had been given for three purposes: (1) as the eschatological sign that initiated the era of the Latter Rain; (2) as the seal of the Holy Spirit that ensured membership in the Bride of Christ; and (3) as the means by which God's final message could be proclaimed to the nations.[9] Of these expectations, the last one proved to be the most controversial. Missionaries went forth, first from Los Angeles, and later from other Pentecostal centers, confident that they were able speak in a foreign language at will.[10] Charles Fox Parham, the initial Pentecostal theologian, held this view until the end of his life.[11] His most famous comment on the subject appears in his account of the coming of the Holy Spirit to Bethel College.

I had felt for years that any missionary going to the foreign field should preach in the language of the natives. That if God had ever equipped His ministers in that way He could do it today. That if Balaam's mule could stop in the middle of the road and give the first preacher that went out for money a “bawling out" in Arabic, that anybody today ought to be able to preach in any language of the world if they had horse sense enough to let God use their tongue and throat.[12]

After Parham was discredited as the leader of the Pentecostal revival in 1906, his successor of the Apostolic Faith work in Texas, W. F. Carothers, maintained the same conviction, although he expressed it in more cautious terms:

Just what part the gift of tongues is to fill in the evangelization of heathen countries is a matter for faith as yet. It scarcely seems from the evidence at hand to have had much to do with foreign mission work in the New Testament times, and yet, in view of the apparent utility of the gift in that sphere and of the wonderful missionary spirit that comes with Pentecost, we are expecting the gift to be copiously used in the foreign field. We shall soon know.[13]

William Seymour carried the same conviction with him when he left Parham's work in Houston, Texas, to go to Los Angles, California. Shortly after the revival broke out at the Azusa Street Mission, his new magazine, The Apostolic Faith, confidently declared: “Missionaries for the foreign field, equipped with several languages, are now on their way and others are waiting for the way to open and for the Lord to say 'Go'”[14] A month earlier, this same periodical had asserted:

The gift of languages is given with the commission "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature.” The Lord has given languages to the unlearned, Greek, Latin, Hebrew, French, German, Italian, Chinese, Japanese, Zulu and languages of Africa, Hindu and Bengals and dialects of the Indians, Exquimaux, the deaf mute language, and, in fact, the Holy Ghost speaks all the languages of the world through his children.[15]

When A. H. Post, who had pastored Methodist churches in California for over thirty years, heard about the strange experiences that were taking place at the Azusa Mission, he went to investigate. He, too, was soon reporting that people were receiving actual languages for the purpose of world evangelization. “From here God has sent those living witnesses ... into China, India, Africa and Jerusalem, each able to speak in any language to whom God sends.”[16]

The Need For Reassessment

The initial expectation was soon dashed by bitter disappointment. S. C. Todd, a missionary with the Bible Missionary Society, investigated mission stations in China, India, and Japan where Pentecostals had come “expecting to be able to preach to the natives of those countries in their own tongues.” By their own admission, he found that "in no single instance have they been able to do so."[17]

All but a few Pentecostals were forced by the evidence to modify their view. A. G. Garr, the first missionary to leave Azusa, went to India fully expecting to preach in Hindustani. After a few months, he admitted his failure on this point, but nonetheless remained to carry on a successful ministry for several years, preaching to these British subjects in English.[18] Even Charles Parham conceded: “To my knowledge not a single missionary in the foreign field speaks in the tongue of the natives as a gift from God."[19] Yet Parham remained convinced from his own experience that actual languages were available: "For twenty-five years I have spoken and prayed in other languages to the conversion of foreigners in my meetings.”[20] He was almost alone, however. Most Pentecostals came to echo the view of Herman Harvey, a minister who joined forces with Aimee Semple McPherson, when he acknowledged:

It is clearly not the purpose of God to bestow a language that will work automatically upon heathen and sinners of other lands and tribes. When the Spirit was first poured out in California a few years ago a sad mistake was made by some who acted upon the belief that all they had to do was to reach some heathen land and the language would always be the very dialect needed.[21]

Despite this disconfirmation and reassessment, successful missionary activity was carried on unabated by adherents of the movement. Though disappointed, they were not shaken in their primary belief that God had called them to bear witness to the nations. Unable to speak the languages of the natives, the early Pentecostal missionaries went to existing mission stations. In many cases they were successful in persuading these, in whole or in part, to accept the Pentecostal message.[22] Having secured this alternate means to proclaim their message, they remained confident that they were being faithful to the command of the Gospel and that, through their efforts, they were hastening the end of the age.

The disconfirmation of the initial expectation for glossolalia forced adherents to reexamine the Scriptures to discover a more "biblical understanding” that squared with the reality of their experience. The 1934 exposition of Harold Horton has remained the prevailing view. He saw an eight-fold purpose for the use of glossolalia. These can be summarized in four categories: (1) The Scriptural evidence of Spirit Baptism; (2) Private edification; (3) Communal edification when interpreted; and (4) a sign to the unbeliever.[23]

Thus, the emphasis shifted from a public prophetic understanding to a more personal devotional perspective. The view of tongues as sign and seal, while retained, was divested of its initial eschatological significance. Reports which have persisted that, on rare occasions, actual languages have been spoken, have been understood to be a “sign to the unbeliever." An Evaluation of the Early Twentieth-Century Claim

The advent of the “Charismatic Movement" in the 1960s, which introduced glossolalia throughout Christendom, has heightened interest in the nature of the phenomenon. The view that “tongues” are actual languages persists among adherents. Reports recur that, in some cases, these languages are understood by persons present.

Studies now completed or in progress have found no evidence that this phenomenon has either the form or the structure of human speech. Robert Anderson, who takes seriously though not uncritically these Pentecostal claims, cites several studies where tape recordings of glossolalia have been analyzed by linguists who found no resemblance to traditional human language in them.[24] The charismatic John Sherrill played forty different samples of tongue-speech to a group of linguists in New York City. Although they recognized language-like patterns, they were agreed that none of the tapes contained any of the languages with which they were familiar.[25]

Linguist William J. Samarin concludes that, in the hundreds of examples he studied, all lacked several essential elements of languages: vocabulary, grammar, syntax, etc.[26] As a result of his study, he defined glossolalia as “a meaningless but phonologically structured human utterance believed by the speaker to be a real language but bearing no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead."[27]

In the most comprehensive study of the phenomenon to date, Cyril Williams finds no first-hand evidence that actual language did occur and is most hesitant to accept the claims of second-hand testimony.[28] Although Walter Hollenweger has rightly cautioned that final judgment should be withheld until sufficient tape recordings are made and analyzed, it would appear from subsequent studies that this question is being answered in the negative.[29]

In view of this accumulating evidence, how can one account for the thousands of reports that actual languages were uttered, unknown by the speaker but understood by an observer? Samarin maintains that these claims are not simply the result of deliberate fraud or pious deceit.[30] In an attempt at an alternate explanation, this writer has analyzed over two thousand accounts he has on file. These can be classified into four general categories: (1) accounts which are based on rumor and hearsay; (2) reports where the observer is a "believer"; (3) narratives where the observer is converted as a result of hearing a message in a recognized language; and (4) incidents where the observer appears to be uninterested in the content of the message. Attention is now directed to an evaluation of each category in turn.

1. Accounts Based on Rumor and Hearsay. A large number of the reports are based on third- and fourth-hand information. They are vague in detail. These narratives can be accounted for simply on the basis of the Pentecostal world-view and the reporter's inclination to accept accounts without question. Such reports provide no basis on which to be accepted as evidence.

2. An Adherent's Testimony. The greatest number of accounts this writer has on file are of incidents where the message was understood by a Pentecostal believer. A typical example of this occurred at the Azusa Street Mission

S. J. Mead, a missionary who labored for over twenty years in Liberia, attended the Azusa Street meetings. He heard many African dialects spoken with which he was familiar. A colored woman spoke at length in tongues as the Spirit was pleased to use her. Immediately after she had spoken, Brother Mead arose and interpreted the message and gave the name of the tribe in Africa that spoke the language.[31] Samarin's analysis of recordings which he has heard led him to conclude that glossolalia often has many superficial similarities with those languages which the speaker is generally familiar, such as intonation, simple words and phrases, and syntax-like features.[32]

The example cited above is subject to question in light of his findings. A “colored woman" is the speaker. It is quite possible that she was "generally familiar” with an African dialect and that in a state of altered consciousness, she could have reproduced general intonation, a few words or phrases, etc. The competence of Mead's ability to recognize "many African dialects” must also be questioned. Ian Stevenson's research leads him to conclude: "Persons only casually familiar with foreign languages ... who perhaps studied them superficially in high school, but never mastered one-may easily mistake the semblance of a foreign language for the reality."[33] Given the initial Pentecostal world-view and its expectation for glossolalia, Mead would be predisposed to his conclusion based on a few words or general intonation.

Samarin cites a similar case that he was able to investigate. It involved a woman who had grown up in a Pentecostal church.

A man rose to give a message in tongues. She immediately recognized it as the language she had learned in Africa as a missionary several years before. And as he spoke, she under stood the sense of what he was saying. Immediately after the meeting was over, she met with her husband and son, who also spoke the language. All of them had been amazed to hear it from the lips of someone who could not possibly have had the opportunity to learn it as they had.[34] Talking with the woman later, Samarin discovered that, although she had ome knowledge of the language, she spoke it with a heavy accent and lid not know the intonations of its structure. Furthermore, the length of he discourse that she had recognized as the language was less than a minute, and she could only report that the man had been praising Jesus. After investigating several reports of a similar nature, Samarin concluded: ‘Cross-examination destroys the credibility of this sincere person who claimed to hear a language she personally knew.”[35]

3. A Convert's Testimony. The third category of tongue-speech which is recognized as known language involves an unbeliever of a nonEnglish speaking origin who attends a Pentecostal meeting, hears an exhortation in his own language, and as a result, becomes a convert to the movement. A. W. Orwig summarized the countless such incidents which occurred at the Azusa Mission as follows:

Persons of many nationalities were also present, of which Los Angeles seems to be filled, representing all manner of religious beliefs. Sometimes these, many of them unsaved, would be seized with deep conviction for sin under the burning testimony of one of their own nationality, and at once heartily turn to the Lord. Occasionally, some foreigner, although somewhat understanding English, would hear a testimony of earnest exhortation in his native tongue from a person not at all acquainted with that language, thereby be pungently convicted that it was a call from God to repent of sin; often such repentance followed just as on the Day of Pentecost.[36]

Many such accounts are of a second-hand nature and, like the first category, can be attributed to an uncritical acceptance of hearsay and rumor. The Pentecostal world-view predisposed the reporter to accept the claim without question. Others, like the summary cited, are eyewitness accounts and cannot be easily dismissed without challenging the integrity of the observer. Samarin's findings help to explain these cases. The “languages" heard in such instances are often those known by some members of the group. Although unknown by the speaker, this person would be “generally familiar” with the language and could have reproduced intonation, some words or phrases, etc.

There is a critical difference among the reports in this category, however. The person who understands the language is an unbeliever who does not share the Pentecostal world-view. Yet this person is convicted of sin and is converted as a result of the message.

Eddison Mosimann, a psychiatrist who studied the glossolalia phenomenon in Switzerland, provides a possible clue. His investigation stemmed from an interest raised in this subject when one of his patients, a Pentecostal, claimed that she heard real languages. In his investigation, Mosimann found that: (1) there were many reported cases of this occurrence among Pentecostals; (2) the people involved were absolutely sincere in their belief; (3) the message provided an answer to a crisis they were facing; and (4) the actual utterance, when analyzed, was no language at all. His conclusion was that the "miracle” was in the hearing rather than in the speaking.[37] Cyril Williams concurs. After extensive investigation, he concluded that auditory illusion is the most likely explanation in such cases.[38]

As A. W. Orwig noted, Los Angeles was a microcosm of immigration that took place to the western and northern American cities at the turn of the twentieth century. The recently displaced immigrant experienced heightened intensification of the common psychological effects of urban life: “loneliness, alienation and despair.”[39] An encounter by the Pentecostals must have been a refreshing release. Stanley Frodsham quotes an early eyewitness who attended the Azusa Mission:

It is noticeably free from all nationalistic feeling. If a Mexican or a German cannot speak English, he gets up and speaks in his own tongue and feels quite at home, for the spirit interprets through the face and the people say “Amen.”[40]

In the emotionally charged atmosphere of the early Pentecostal revival where glossolalia was thought to be a known foreign language and where everyone found acceptance regardless of nationality, race, economic status, etc., it is not difficult to conceive that the lonely, alienated immigrants heard in their own language, a message consistent with that which the Pentecostals were proclaiming in English. Accepting the message, these persons were received into full fellowship of the community of faith. At last, they had found their new home.

Given the initial Pentecostal understanding for the purpose of glossolalia, the speaker of the utterance quite naturally felt God was issuing a call to take the Pentecostal to the country of the language which had been spoken. It was only as the missionaries arrived on site that they discovered what they had been able to do in their homeland, they could not reproduce on the mission field. Others, like Parham, who did not go abroad, could honestly believe until their dying day that they had, upon occasion, spoken an actual language which had been unquestionably confirmed by the subsequent conversion and testimony of an American immigrant.

4. An Outsider's Testimony. By far the smallest category of reports involves instances where an apparent disinterested observer heard a dis-course in a language they understood but which was unknown to the speaker. One such incident occurred to John Follette, who at the time was a student at Elim Bible Institute in Rochester, New York. He gave a public utterance in tongues shortly after the Pentecostal revival swept this holiness school into the new movement in June, 1907. Elizabeth Baker, the leader of the school; gave the interpretation. She stated that he was seeing a vision of Christ's nativity. Follette was unable to speak in English at that point, but signified by gestures that she was correct. Following this sequence, he burst forth in song.

At the close of the service a lady and a gentleman who were present, called one of the sisters aside and asked, "Who was that young Jew who spoke and sang tonight?" He was told that there was no Jew present but that it was one of the students. With great surprise he informed us that he and his wife had understood several languages, among them the Hebrew, and, he said, "The young, man spoke and sang in the most perfect Hebrew, and we understood every word he was saying, and the interpretation given was correct."[41]

It is, of course, impossible to cross-examine the participants of this account. It would appear, however, that the lady and gentleman were competent to understand Hebrew. There is no indication that they were facing a personal crisis or that they were converted to Pentecostalism as a result or this experience. The integrity of Mrs. Baker and the Reverend Follett is beyond question. The only credible explanation appears to be that in this case Hebrew was actually spoken.

In seeking to allow for the possibility that in a few instances, Pentecostals actually spoke in known languages, Robert Anderson offers the theory of cryptomnesia which he defines as "the ability to recall in a trace, a language which one has heard or seen but never consciously com-mitted, to memory.[42] To be operative, he suggests "cryptomnesia requires the deep state of dissociation that was quite common among the early Pentecostals." He continued: "Today Pentecostals rarely achieve this state so it is not surprising that the available recordings of tongue-speech contain no language."[43]

Though it is true that trances were a common phenomenon in early Pentecostalism, the most credible reports of glossolalia as language came from instances where such a state of deep dissociation was not in evidence. Follette certainly experienced a degree of dissociation—he was experiencing a vision while speaking in tongues and was unable to speak in English for a while after he was finished. However, he was sufficiently aware to comprehend and affirm by a gesture the interpretation Mrs. Baker was giving. This level of dissociation is quite common among. charismatics. Since no tape recordings to date reveal evidence that language has been spoken, Anderson's theoretical possibility for cases of cryptomnesia in early Pentecostalism cannot be validated.

Of the two thousand and more cases this investigator has analyzed, only six cannot be accounted for by some alternate explanation. These few cases are now impossible to investigate further and therefore stand as a haunting possibility that in rare instances when actual language, unknown to the speaker, might be uttered. However, in view of the lack of evidence from present day tongue-speech, and in light of the disconfirmation experienced by the early Pentecostal missionaries, it must be concluded that, if actual language ever has been spoken, it has been extremely rare.

Such an understanding does not deny that foreigners heard glossolalia in their own languages as reported in the Acts of the Apostles and in early Pentecostal literature.[44] It does not disconfirm glossolalia as a sign to the unbeliever. It reinforces the present Pentecostal understanding  that one who speaks in tongues speaks not to other persons but to Go However, it removes glossolalia  from the realm of known human languages  and places it in the arena of the language of faith. Such understanding was expressed by an early observer:

Those who speak in tongues seem to live in another world. The experience they have entered corresponds exactly with that which is described in the 10th chapter of Acts. The tongues they speak in do not seem to be intended as a means of communication between themselves and others rather it seems to be a means of communication between the soul and God.[45]

Afterword Almost one hundred years have now passed since glossolalia in its present form reemerged within the Church. Far from proving to be the "passing fad" that early opponents predicted, its presence and practice have become the norm for an ever-increasing percentage of Christendom. Wesleyans no longer view the phenomenon's origin as from Satan; but at the same time they continue to question whether it reflects New Testament practice. The primary reason given is the conviction that biblical tongues were actual languages while the contemporary phenomenon is not.[46]

It should be clear from this article that this writer concurs that the available evidence suggests that the present practice of glossolalia is not known language. Charismatics and Pentecostals are gradually coming to accept this view. But the reverse question must also be addressed. Does the contemporary experience of Pentecostals suggest that glossolalia experienced in the New Testament also was not actual language? Though beyond the scope of this essay, this question can become one basis for future Wesleyan/Pentecostal dialog.

---

[1] Carl Brumback, “What Meaneth This?” A Pentecostal Answer to a Pentecostal Question (Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1947), 115.

[2] Vinson Synan, In the Latter Days: The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the Twentieth Century (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1984), 17.

[3] Harvey Cox, Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of Religion in the Twenty-first Century (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1994), xv.

[4] Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans, 1971.

[5] Grand Rapids, MI: Francis Asbury Press, 1987.

[6] Grant Wacker, "The Travail of a Broken Family: Radical Evangelical Responses to Early Pentecostalism." Unpublished paper given at the twenty-third annual meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Guadalajara, Mexico, November 11-13, 1993, 19. This article in a revised form has been accepted for publication in a forthcoming-issue of the Journal of Ecclesiastical History. This remarkably even-handed article paints an empathetic picture of the pain adherents of both movements experienced in the separation from each other.

[7] W. B. Godby, Spiritual Gifts and Graces (Cincinnati, OH: God's Revivalist Office, [1896]), 43.

[8] ibid.

[9] See my article "The Function of 'Models' in the Interpretation of Pentecostal Thought,” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies I (Spring, 1980), 51-71, for the conceptual framework in which the phenomenon was understood.

[10] While historians of Pentecostalism have acknowledged the presence of this view, they have failed to recognize that this was the prevailing understanding at the outset of the revival. For example, the respected British Pentecostal theologian Donald Gee observed in 1941: "In those early days of the movement there was a tendency to seek after identification of the languages spoken, doubtless because of traditional, but mistaken and unscriptural views that the gift of tongues was "for preaching the gospel to the heathen" (Donald Gee, The Pentecostal Movement, London, ENG: Elim Publishing House, 1941, 2). Other Pentecostal historians making similar statements include, Carl Brumback, “Suddenly... From Heaven": A History of the Assemblies of God (Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1961), 112; and Vinson Synan, The Holiness-Pentecostal Movement, 111.

[11] Vinson Synan, The Holiness-Pentecostal Movement, 111.

[12] Charles Fox Parham, “The Latter Rain: The Story of the Original Apostolic or Pentecostal Movement,” Selected Sermons of the Late Charles F. Parham and Sarah E. Parham, Co-Founders of the Original Apostolic Faith Movement, comp. Robert L. Parham (Baxter Springs, KN: Apostolic Faith Bible College, 1941), 75-6.

[13] W. F. Carothers, The Baptism in the Holy Spirit and Speaking in Tongues (Houston, TX: The Author, 1906), 21.

[14] The Apostolic Faith (Los Angeles), I (October, 1906), 1.

[15] The Apostolic Faith (Los Angeles), I (September, 1906), 1.

[16] A. H. Post, The Way of Faith and Neglected Themes, reprinted in George F. Taylor, The Spirit and the Bride (Dunn, NC: The Author, 1907), 94.

[17] Cited in A. E. Seddon "Edward Irving and Unknown Tongues," Homiletic Review (February, 1909), 109.

[18] Twentieth Anniversary of the Garr Auditorium (Charlotte, NC: n.p., 1950), 3.

[19] Charles F. Parham, The Apostolic Faith (Baxter Springs), XXV (June, 1925), 2.

[20] Ibid., 2.

[21] Herman L. Harvey, "The Gift of Tongues," The Bridal Call (April, 1919), 7-8.

[22] See chapter five, “Birth: The Emergence and Spread of Pentecostalism.”

[23] Harold Horton, The Gifts of the Spirit (London, ENG: F. J. Lamb, 1934), 137-144. More recent presentations expressing similar views include: Robert Chandler Dalton, "Interpretation of Glossolalia According to Present Pentecostal Theology and Exegesis," Tongues Like as of Fire: A Critical Study of Modern Tongue Movements in Light of Apostolic and Patristic Times (1947). Reprint, Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1973), 104; and Carl Brumback, What Meaneth This, 261-337.

[24] Robert Mapes Anderson, Vision of the Disinherited (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1979), 16-9.

[25] John L. Sherrill, They Speak with Other Tongues (New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 1964), 112-3.

[26] William J. Samarin, Tongues of Men and Angels: The Religious Language of Pentecostalism (New York, NY: Macmillan Company, 1972), 104-9.

[27] Ibid., 2.

[28] Cyril G. Williams, Tongues of the Spirit: A Study of Pentecostal Glossolalia and Related Phenomena (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1981), 184.

[29] Walter J. Hollenweger, The Pentecostals: The Charismatic Movement in the Churches (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1972), 342.

[30] William J. Samarin, Tongues of Men and Angels, 110.

[31] Stanley H. Frodsham, “Pentecost in Los Angeles,” With Signs Following: The Story of the Pentecostal Revival in the Twentieth Century (Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1928), 39.

[32] William J. Samarin, Tongues of Men and Angels, 112.

[33] Ian Stevenson, Xenoglossy: A Review and Case Report (Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1974), 11.

[34] William J. Samarin, Tongues of Men and Angels, 113-4.

[35] Ibid., 114.

[36] W. Orwig, "Azusa Street Scenes," The Apostolic Faith Restored, ed. B. F. Lawrence (St. Louis, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1916), 78-9.

[37] Eddison Mosimann, Das Zungenreden geachichtlich und psycholagisch inter scicht (Tubingen, West Germany: J. C. G. Mohr, 1911).

[38] Cyril G. Williams, Tongues of the Spirit, 184.

[39] Robert M. Fogelson, The Fragmented Metropolis: Los Angeles, 1850-1930 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), 75-7, 146ff.

[40] Stanley H. Frodsham, With Signs Following, 34.

[41] Elizabeth V. Baker. Chronicles of a Faith Life (Rochester, NY: The Author. 1916), 138-40.

[42] Robert M. Anderson, Vision of the Disinherited, 19.

[43] Ibid.

[44] For an excellent article arguing that the event which occurred on the day of Pentecost was a miracle of hearing rather than a miracle of speaking, see Jenny Everts, "Tongues or Languages? Contextual Consistency in the Translation of Acts 2" Journal of Pentecostal Theology IV (April, 1994), 71-80. Everts ar,,ties for this s A un . ..ng or t e reports of glossolalia in early Pentecostalism in "Missionary Tongues?" unpublished paper given at the twenty-third annual meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Guadalajara, Mexico, November 11-13, 1993.

[45] "The Promise of the Father and Speaking in Tongues in Chicago," Word and Work (August. 1907), 207.

[46] See, for example. No Uncertain Sound: An Exegetical Study of I Corinthi-am 12, 13. 14 (Marion. IN: Weleyan Church Corporation, 1975), 60: and Richard S. Taylor, Tongues: Their Purpose and Meaning (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press, 1973 ). 7-15.