The weight of evidence, however, does not support this position. Even though the Pentecost story in Acts emphasizes the intelligibility of the tongues, a careful reading indicates that the miracle consisted precisely in the hearing, not the mode of speaking (pace TDNT 1:725). The bystanders do not ask, “how can they all be speaking our own languages,” but rather, “since all who are speaking are Galileans, how is it we hear them in our own native languages?” (2:8). This perception was also not given to all the bystanders. Some who did not hear that way concluded that the tongues were a drunken raving (2:13). According to the pattern of “tongues, then interpretation,” furthermore, Peter’s “clear statement” (apophthengomai, Acts 2:14) on that occasion ought to have “translated” the “great things of God” expressed by the tongues. What he interprets, however, is the ecstatic state of the speakers, not their discourse (2:14–16). Finally, Acts’ other accounts of tongues make no mention of their intelligibility. The isolation of the Pentecost event suggests that the element of communication was emphasized by Luke to suit his narrative purposes.
The reference to “new tongues” in Mark 16:17 is too obscure to be helpful in defining the nature of the phenomenon. The “longer ending” of Mark in which it occurs is certainly not part of the original gospel. At best, the phrase provides another witness to the perception that tongues were practiced by Christians, but it is impossible to date the text before the middle of the 2d century. The textual evidence for the adjective “new,” furthermore, is weaker still.
As for Paul, he could hardly make clearer his conviction that tongues are an intrinsically noncommunicative form of utterance (1 Cor 13:1; 14:2, 4, 7–9, 16–17, 23). What, then, does he mean by “interpret”? Recent research into the contemporary use of Paul’s term diermēneuo by Philo and Josephus suggests that the term often means simply, “to put into words,” or “bring to articulate expression.” When Paul tells the tongue-speaker to pray that he might “interpret,” therefore, he does not mean “provide a translation,” but that the tongue-speaker make the transition from glossolalia to a mode of speech intelligible in the assembly (14:13) (Thiselton 1979: 15–36).
The evidence from modern glossolalists that their speech is real language, finally, is spurious. Careful linguistic study has demonstrated that glossolalia is not a “real but unknown” language, but rather “language-like” in its patterning of sounds (Samarin 1972: 74–128). Observation of the “interpretation of tongues” in practice, furthermore, shows that it is not the translation of a language but a separate utterance altogether. The stereotypical character of the reports of real languages being heard by native speakers, and the impossibility of verifying these reports, suggest that they are simply folklore (Christie-Murray 1978: 248–52).
3. Ecstatic Utterance. The textual and comparative evidence supports the definition of tongues as an utterance which is a form of ordered babbling. As we have seen, Paul does not consider tongues to be intelligible, and he clearly contrasts speech which is “in the Spirit” (en tō pneumati) but does not use the mind (nous), with speech which does use the mind and therefore can build up the community (1 Cor 14:14–15, 19). Glossolalia is private and noncommunicative. God is praised and the person who prays edified, but neither the mind nor the community bear any fruit from this activity (14:2–3, 14, 17, 28).
This definition of glossolalia also corresponds to the greater part of the ancient and contemporary parallel phenomena. In at least the older manifestations of Israelite prophecy, we find a combination of “inspiration” by God’s Spirit, trance-like states with the physical signs of dissociation, and the uttering of inarticulate cries (cf. 1 Sam 10:5–13; 19:18–24). There remains considerable debate on the question of whether classical prophecy was also accompanied by such ecstatic states (Wilson 1980: 21–35). Something akin to glossolalia is also found in the Hellenistic popular religious phenomenon known as mantic prophecy, usually distinguished from “technical” prophecy, which was nonecstatic (cf. Cic. Div. 18. 34). The divine spirit was thought to possess the prophet (mantis) taking over his or her mind (enthousiasmos) and directing the utterance of oracles. Sometimes, as at the shrines of Dodonna and Delphi, the oracles were linguistically clear, if ambiguous in meaning. Even these, however, often required “interpretation” by qualified cultic personnel, called “prophets” (prophētai). Such prophecy was highly esteemed, even by the sophisticated (cf. Plato, Ion 534 A–D; Phdr. 244A, Ti. 71 E–72B and Plut. The E at Delphi 387 B). It is not certain how inevitable was the state of trance or ecstasy (furor, mania) in such prophecy, although it is frequently mentioned (cf. e.g. Plut. De def. or. 417C; Cic. Div. 32. 70). Still less certain is the presence of glossolalia-like speech (Aune 1983: 30–35). There are scattered reports of strange sounds and garbled or foreign words (cf. Herodotus, History 8. 135; Plut. De def. or. 412 A), but these tend to be associated with wandering prophets (especially the priests of Cybele) and soothsayers (cf. e.g. Dio Chrysostom, Oration 10.23–24, Apuleius, The Golden Ass 8.27) or with those attacked as charlatans (cf. esp. Lucian’s Alexander the False Prophet 13, 22, 49, 51, 53). It is obviously in the nature of the phenomenon (ecstatic oral babbling in a cultic setting) that accurate literary transcriptions of the speech for comparative study would rarely if ever be carried out. That Paul himself saw tongues as equivalent in appearance at least to such mantic prophecy seems certain from his word-choice in 1 Cor 14:23. He proposes the hypothetical case of the whole church speaking in tongues, and their being observed by “ignorant and unbelieving” people who would conclude, “You are raving” (hoti mainesthe). In context, this can only mean, “you are prophesying the way all other cults do, in a frenzy.”
The understanding of glossolalia as a structured babbling, furthermore, corresponds with the best evidence derived from the linguistic study of modern tongue-speaking (Samarin 1968: 55–73). There is less agreement concerning the degree of ecstasy involved in the contemporary phenomenon. Problems of definition here are obvious. Some observers define glossolalia in terms of psychological dissociation, virtually making it the oral expression of trance (Goodman 1972: 26–34). Others deny the necessary precondition of trance for the use of tongues, or point out that the initial experience is frequently accompanied by dissociation, but that subsequent tongue-speaking often is without any visibly altered state (Samarin 1972: 26–34). Psychological studies reject the older view that glossolalia is intrinsically connected to psychopathology (Richardson 1973: 199–207). Nor is there any psychological type which appears to be predisposed to the experience. On the other hand, it appears that the ability to be hypnotized, and to submit to authority, are positively correlated with the experience (Kildahl 1972: 50–53). In this light, the divided allegiances of the Corinthian community (cf. 1 Cor 1:12) could be correlated with the experience of tongues, since both Cephas and Paul were also glossolalists, Paul by self-acknowledgment (1 Cor 14:18), Cephas by reputation (Acts 2:4–11). Glossolalia has for the most part a positive integrating effect for the individuals who experience it, although (as also in Corinth) it tends to foster a sense of elitism among those who have had the experience which proves disruptive in communities (Kildahl 1972: 66–75). First person accounts of the experience of glossolalia emphasize—especially for the first occurrence—positive feelings of release, freedom, and joy (Goodman 1972: 24–57). Glossolalia can be characterized in shorthand, therefore, as the linguistic symbol of spiritual release.
Although some modern glossolalia occurs in private (Hutch 1980: 255–66), it is ordinarily a public, cultic, phenomenon. It is connected above all to experiences of conversion (the connection with Acts 10:46 and 19:6 is clear), and to the practice of prayer (as in 1 Cor 14:2, 28). The understanding of glossolalia as a form of prophecy is rarer (Acts 2:4–11), as is the interpretation of tongues.
B. Prevalence and Importance
How prevalent was the practice of glossolalia in earliest Christianity? Estimates must be modest. All the evidence supports is that tongues were spoken by some members of the Corinthian congregation in the early 50s of the 1st century (Clement makes no mention of it writing to them 40 years later), and was thought by the author of Luke-Acts to have been a feature of some early conversion experiences.
Other NT texts sometimes cited as referring to glossolalia probably do not. Apart from Mark 16:17 there is nothing in the gospel tradition about tongues. Indeed, Jesus’ condemnation of the “babbling” of gentiles in prayer could only be read by Christians as an implied criticism of any such practices among themselves (Matt 6:7). Paul speaks of “spiritual hymns” by which Christians could praise God “in their hearts” (Col 3:16 and Eph 4:19). He says that the Spirit helps Christians when they do not know how to pray, with “unutterable groanings” (stenagmois alalētois, Rom 8:26). He tells the Thessalonians not to “quench the Spirit” (1 Thess 5:19). All these are too general or vague to conclude that they refer to glossolalia.
More significantly, Paul does not list “tongues” or the “interpretation of tongues” among the spiritual gifts in two other lists outside 1 Corinthians (Rom 12:3–8 and Eph 4:11). He does not mention tongues in connection with his own conversion experience or that of others (cf. e.g. Gal 3:1–5). In fact, as we shall see, Paul is ambivalent in his attitude toward glossolalia. But not even Luke connects tongues to his account of Paul’s conversion (Acts 9:3–8), although a bright light figures prominently in that event, as it does also in many modern accounts of initial glossolalic experiences. Nor is tongues ever connected with the “laying on of hands” (as in modern practice), except in Acts 19:6 (cf. in contrast Acts 9:12). Finally, there is no hint of the practice of glossolalia in any other Christian writing before the middle of the 2d century.
Even for the earliest period of Christianity, therefore, glossolalia appears to be at best a sporadic and ambiguous occurrence. Two inferences about that first period are therefore inadequately supported by the data: that tongues was a normal and expected accompaniment of the Spirit (and therefore, by implication, an essential component of authentic Christianity), or that tongues demonstrates how the first Christians lived in a charismatic fog of trance or dissociation.
In the 2d and 3d century, glossolalia is mentioned by several Christian writers. The most noteworthy outburst is associated with Montanus (ca. 160) and the two women prophets who accompanied him. Montanus was a former priest of Cybele, a goddess whose worship also involved mania (cf. Apuleius, The Golden Ass 8.27). He apparently regarded himself as a passive instrument of the Holy Spirit, “like a lyre struck with a plecton” (Epiphanius, Panarion 48.4.1). His “strange talk” (xenophonein) was understood by him to be a form of prophecy, and his speech was accompanied by the frenzy associated with mantic prophecy (cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 5.16. 7–10). Even in Montanism, such inspired utterance did not seem to survive the founders (5.17.4), although Tertullian could refer to the presence of ecstatic utterance in his group as a proof of its truth, against Marcion (Tert. Adv. Marc. 5.8). Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 200) also claims to be acquainted with the phenomenon of tongues, although his report is succinct: “We have heard many brethren in the church having prophetic gifts and speaking through the spirit in all tongues and bringing to light men’s secrets for the common good and explaining the mysteries of God. Such persons the apostle calls spiritual” (Haer. 5.6.1; cf. also Eus. Hist. Eccl. 5. 7. 6). Irenaeus appears to understand tongues to be the speaking of “different languages.” He also reports, however, on the activity of a Valentinian Gnostic called Marcus, whom Irenaeus regards as a magician and charlatan, but whose repertoire includes prophecy. He also seduces women and coaxes them to prophesy, and the manner of their speaking again suggests glossolalia or mantic prophecy (Haer. 1.14–16). There are occasional passages in gnostic writings, furthermore, in which a series of such syllables strung together looks very much like transcribed glossolalia (cf. Pistis Sophia 4.142). The Paris Magical Papyrus also contains concatenations of numinous “names.” In these cases, however, it is impossible to say whether glossolalia generated the literary product. At least some Christian preachers used babbling speech even in public, according to the anti-Christian polemicist Celsus (ca. 180), who characterized their utterances as being “without form or meaning” (Or. Cels. 7.9).
Arguments from silence are notoriously suspect, but the paucity of evidence for glossolalia in the second 200 years of Christianity suggests that it became an increasingly marginal activity. Most of the occurrences come from Montanists or Gnostics, groups which were rejected by the Orthodox party. The silence itself, however, can variously be weighed. It may indicate that tongues was practiced rarely and then by dissident groups. Or, it may suggest that the orthodox writers, suspicious of charismatic activity, ignored manifestations of popular religion such as glossolalia which did not meet their increasingly high standards (Eus. Hist. Eccl. 5.17. 2–4). In either case our information comes from the orthodox side, and the historian can at this distance only observe that by the 4th century, John Chrysostom confesses himself at a loss to interpret the passages about tongues in 1 Corinthians, guessing that Paul must be referring to the ability to speak different languages (Hom. in 1 Cor. 29, 32, 35). In the 5th century, Augustine dismisses tongues as a special dispensation of the primitive church which is no longer of pertinence (Hom. in 1 John 6.10).