Lexical Definitions for the Greek Word Glossa
BibleWorks™ Copyright © 1992-2013 BibleWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. BibleWorks was programmed by Michael S. Bushell, Michael D. Tan, and Glenn L. Weaver. All rights reserved. Bible timelines Copyright © 1996-2013 BibleWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. Map datasets Copyright © 2013 BibleWorks, LLC: source of underlying data for some of the images was the Global Land Cover Facility, http://www.landcover.org. Detailed Jerusalem image Copyright © 2005 TerraServer.com. All rights reserved.
BDAG - Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition. Copyright © 2000 The University of Chicago Press. Revised and edited by Frederick William Danker based on the Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und für frühchristlichen Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English Editions by W.F.Arndt, F.W.Gingrich, and F.W.Danker. This edition is an electronic version of the print edition published by the University of Chicago Press.
LEH - A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, Revised Edition, edited by Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie, Copyright © 2003 Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart. Used by permission. You may export text from this database for your own personal use and research. But you may not export large portions of the data for the purpose of inclusion in other Bible software packages and subsequent distribution to other people.
LNLEX - Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd Edition, Edited by J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida. Copyright © 1988 by the United Bible Societies, New York, NY 10023. Used by permission.
LSJM - A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th Revised Edition, by Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones, and Robert McKenzie. Copyright © Oxford University Press 1996.
EDNT - Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (3 vols.), Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, eds. Copyright © 1994, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
TDNT - Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Abridged), by Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, and Geoffrey W. Bromley. Copyright © 1985 by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Note: Some of the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic fonts do not always correctly copy from MSWord into the forums format.
1. Friberg Lexicon:
5515 γλῶσσα, ης, ἡ tongue; (1) literally, the organ of speech and taste
tongue (MK 7.33); figuratively, as a means of verbal communication
tongue, language (AC 2.11); (2) by metonymy
tribe, people, or
nation that speaks a common language (RV 5.9); (3) as a religious technical term for glossalalia
tongues(-speaking), understood variously to be unintelligible ecstatic utterance (1C 14.2), heavenly language (1C 13.1), or foreign languages not learned through natural means by the speaker (AC 2.4); (4) as the shape of fire
forked flames (AC 2.3)
2. UBS Lexicon:
1300 γλῶσσα , ης f tongue; language; utterance
3. Louw-Nida Lexicon:
8.21 γλῶσσα, ης
f - 'tongue.' ἡ γλῶσσα μικρὸν μέλος ἐστίν 'the tongue is a small member of the body' Jas 3.5. Though in Jas 3.5 the tongue is referred to as a part of the body, it is used essentially as a symbol for speech, and since in some languages the tongue is not regarded as an organ of speech, but simply as a part of the mouth, it may be necessary to change the expression to read 'the mouth is a small member of the body' or 'speaking is only a small part of one's life.' It is obviously not the tongue as an organ which corrupts the whole person, but the capacity for speech which has such a corrupting effect.
4. LSJ Lexicon (Abridged):
9082 γλῶσσα
γλῶσσα, Att.
γλῶττα, ης, ἡ,
the tongue, Hom., etc.
2. the tongue, as the organ of speech, γλώσσης χάριν through love
of talking, Hes., Aesch.; ἀπὸ γλώσσης by
word of mouth, Hdt., Thuc.; οὐκ ἀπὸ γλώσσης not by
word of mouth, not from
mere hearsay, Aesch.; so, οὐ κατὰ γλῶσσαν Soph.; ἱέναι γλῶσσαν to let loose one's
tongue, speak without restraint, Id.; pl., κερτομίοις γλώσσαις, i.e. with blasphemies, Id.:-for βοῦς ἐπὶ γλώσσῃ, v. βοῦς.
II. a tongue, language, Hom., Hdt., etc.
III. the tongue or
mouthpiece of a pipe, Aeschin. (Deriv. unknown.)
5. BDAG Lexicon:
1652 γλῶσσα
•
γλῶσσα,
ης,
ἡ (Hom.+; ins, pap, LXX, En; TestJob 43:12; Test12Patr; JosAs 13:8; GrBar 3:6; ApcSed; AscIs 3:18; Philo, Joseph., Just., Tat.)
1.
organ of speech, tongue
a. lit. (Did., Gen. 88, 26)
Lk 16:24; as an organ of speech (Iambl., Vi. Pyth. 31, 195 χαλεπώτατόν ἐστιν τὸ γλώττης κρατεῖν; Did., Gen. 46, 26 ὄργανον λόγου ἐστὶν ἡ γ.)
Mk 7:33, 35; (Vi. Aesopi I G 7 P.: Isis heals the mute Aesop τὸ τραχὺ τῆς γλώττης ἀποτεμοῦσα, τὸ κωλῦον αὐτὸν λαλεῖν ‘cutting off the rough part of his tongue that prevented him from speaking’)
Lk 1:64; Ro 3:13 (Ps 5:10; 13:3; cp. Hes., Op. 322-26);
14:11 (Is 45:23);
Js 1:26; 3:5f, 8 (Apion in the schol. on Od. 3, 341 κράτιστον τῶν μελῶν ἡ γλῶσσα.—JGeffcken, Kynika usw. 1909, 45-53; GAvdBergh vEysinga, NThT 20, ’31, 303-20).
1J 3:18; διὰ τῆς γ.
w. the tongue, i.e., in
speaking 1 Cor 14:9 (Just., A I, 16, 8 διὰ γλώττης). παύειν τὴν γ. ἀπὸ κακοῦ
keep the tongue from (saying) evil things 1 Pt 3:10; 1 Cl 22:3 (both Ps 33:14). Synon. στόμα 35:8 (Ps 49:19);
Rv 16:10; 1 Cl 15:4f (Ps 77:36; 11:4f). τὸ ἐπιεικὲς τῆς γ.
moderation of the tongue 21:7. μάστιξ γλώσσης
words of reproof 56:10 (Job 5:21). Conceited speech 57:2 (cp. 3 Macc 2:17). Of
evil tongues Hv 2, 2, 3. ἠγαλλιάσατο ἡ γλῶσσά μου
my tongue exulted (the organ for the pers., cp. πούς 1b)
Ac 2:26; 1 Cl 18:15 (both Ps 15:9 ). τὴν γ. προβάλλειν
put out the tongue, hiss of a dragon Hv 4, 1, 9.
b. fig., of forked flames
Ac 2:3 )=לְשׁוֹן אֵשׁ Is 5:24; cp. En 14:9f(.
2.
a body of words and systems that makes up a distinctive language, language, tongue
a. of the language itself (Hom. et al.; PGiss 99, 9; Philo, Mos. 2, 40; Jos., Ant. 10, 8; 158; Just., D. 102, 4)
Ac 2:6 v.l., 11; language λαλεῖν ἑτέραις γλώσσαις
Ac 2:4. On this s. ἕτερος 2 end.; B-D-F §480, 3.
b. of language viewed in terms of pers. using it,
language, tongue: πᾶσα γ.
every language=every person, regardless of the language that pers. speaks
Ro 14:11; Phil 2:11 (Is 45:23; cp. POxy 1381, 198: Ἑλληνὶς δὲ πᾶσα γλῶσσα τὴν σὴν λαλήσει ἱστορίαν καὶ πᾶς Ἕλλην ἀνὴρ τὸν τοῦ Φθᾶ σεβήσεται Ἰμούθην; PGM 12, 188) IMg 10:3. As a distinctive feature of nations γ. can be used as a synonym of φυλή, λαός, ἔθνος (Is 66:18; Da 3:4, 7 al.; Jdth 3:8; AscIs 3:18)
Rv 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15; 2 Cl 17:4 (Is 66:18).
3.
an utterance outside the normal patterns of intelligible speech and therefore requiring special interpretation, ecstatic language, ecstatic speech, tongue, γλῶσσαι, γένη γλωσσῶν, (ἐν) γλώσσῃ/-αις λαλεῖν (λαλούντων διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος γλώσσαις Iren. 5, 6, 1 [Harv. II 334, 3])
1 Cor 14:1-27, 39; 12:10, 28, 30; 13:1, 8; Ac 10:46; 19:6. Always without the article (in
1 Cor 14:22 αἱ is anaphoric; vs. 9 belongs under mng. 1a). There is no doubt about the thing referred to, namely the strange speech of persons in religious ecstasy. The phenomenon, as found in Hellenistic religion, is described esp. by ERohde (Psyche3 1903, Eng. tr. 1925, 289-93) and Reitzenstein; cp. Celsus 7, 8; 9. The origin of the term is less clear. Two explanations are prominent today. The one (Bleek, Heinrici et al.) holds that γλῶσσα here means antiquated, foreign, unintelligible, mysterious utterances (Diod. S. 4, 66, 7 κατὰ γλῶτταν=according to an old expression). The other (Rtzst., Bousset et al.) sees in glossolalia a speaking in marvelous, celestial languages. On ἑρμηνεία γλωσσῶν
1 Cor 12:10 (cp.
14:26) s. ἑρμηνεία.—γλώσσαις καιναῖς λαλεῖν
Mk 16:17.—On ‘speaking in tongues’ s. HGunkel, Die Wirkungen d. hl. Geistes2 1899; HWeinel, D. Wirkungen d. Geistes u. d. Geister im nachap. Zeitalter 1899; ELombard, De la Glossolalie chez les premiers chrétiens 1910; EMosiman, Das Zungenreden geschichtl. u. psychol. unters. 1911. WReinhard, D. Wirken d. hl. Geistes 1918, 120ff; KLSchmidt, Die Pfingsterzählung u. d. Pfingstereignis 1919 (against him PSchmiedel, PM 24, 1920, 73-86); HGüntert, Von der Sprache der Götter u. Geister 1921, 23ff; AMackie, The Gift of Tongues 1922; HRust, D. Zungenreden 1924; FBüchsel, D. Geist Gottes im NT 1926, 242ff; 321ff; GCutten, Speaking with Tongues 1927; IMartin, 3rd, Glossolalia in the Apostolic Church: JBL 63, ’44, 123-30; JDavies, Pentecost and Glossolalia: JTS n.s. 3, ’52, 228-31; FBeare, JBL 83, ’64, 229-46; SCurrie, Int 19, ’65, 274-94; RHarrisville, CBQ 38, ’76, 35-48; RAC XI 225-46; EDNT I 251-55.—B. 230; 1260. Frisk. DELG s.v. γλῶχες. M-M. TW. Sv.
6. LEH Lexicon:
1884 γλῶσσα
γλῶσσα,-ης+ - N1F 5-6-27-83-48-
169
Gn 10,5.20.31; 11,7; Ex 11,7
tongue, language Gn 10,5
γλῶσσα χρυσῆ
golden ingot, bar of gold Jos 7,21; φαῦλοι γλώσσῃ
they who speak evil Sir 20,17; ὁ δυνατὸς ἐν γλώσσῃ
an eloquent man Sir 21,7; γλῶσσα τρίτη
slander (lit.
a third tongue) Sir 28,15
ïTWNT
7. TDNT Dictionary:
58
γλῶσσα gloÒÄssa [tongue, language, speech],
ἑτερόγλωσσος heteroÃgloÒssos [of a strange tongue]
gloÒÄssa.
A. The General Use of
gloÒÄssa.
1. The physical organ “tongue” is the first meaning.
2. We then have “speech,” or “manner of speech,” or “language.”
3. “An expression which is strange or obscure and needs explanation” is a third sense.
B. The Use of
gloÒÄssa in the NT.
1. “Tongue” occurs in the NT in Lk. 16:24; 1:64; Mk. 7:35. Sins of the tongue are given prominence in Jms. 3:1-12. A similar stress may be found in Job, Psalms, Jeremiah, and Sirach, where the bent is practical but the sins are ultimately against God. Figuratively, the tongue can also rejoice (Acts 2:26) and praise (Phil. 2:11). Tongues as of fire symbolize God's descending power at Pentecost (Acts 2:3).
— p. 124 —
2. “Language” is the meaning in Acts 2:11; “language” is also used figuratively for “nation” in Rev. 5:9; 7:9; 10:11, etc.
3.
Glossolalia.
a. Speaking in tongues (1 Cor. 12-14; ; cf. Mk. 16:17; Acts 2:4) is a gift (1 Cor. 14:2). This speaking is primarily to God (14:2, 28) in the form of prayer, praise, or thanksgiving (14:2, 14-17). Its benefit is for the individual rather than the community (14:4ff.). In it the
nouÃs is absorbed so that the words are obscure (14:2, 9, 11, 15-16). Since the sounds are not articulated, the impression of a foreign language is left (14:7-8, 10-11), and uncontrolled use might suggest that the community is composed of mad people (14:23, 27). Yet tongues are a sign of God's power (14:22). To make them useful either the speaker or someone else must interpret (14:5, 13, 27-28; 12:10, 30). If parallels may be found in other religions, Paul discerns a difference in the religious content (1 Cor. 12:2-3). He can thus accept and even claim the charisma (1 Cor. 14:18, 39) but demands that it be subject to edification, order, limitation, and testing (1 Cor. 14:26ff.). Prophecy is superior to it, and above all the gifts is love (1 Cor. 13).
b. It should be noted that, while there are Hellenistic parallels for tongues, there is also an OT basis. Thus the seers of 1 Sam. 10:5ff. seem to be robbed of their individuality, and their fervor finds expression in broken cries and unintelligible speech (cf. 2 Kgs. 9:11). Drunkards mock Isaiah's babbling speech (Is. 28:10-11). The later literature, e.g., Eth. En. 71:11, gives similar examples of ecstatic speech (not necessarily speaking in tongues).
c. The event recorded in Acts 2 belongs to this context. Like the speaking in tongues depicted by Paul, it is a gift of the Spirit (v. (Acts 2:4)4) which causes astonishment (v. 7) and raises the charge of drunkenness (v. 13). But in this case the hearers detect their own languages (vv. 8, 11). Since they are all Jews (v. 9) and an impression of confused babbling is given, it is not wholly clear what this implies. Perhaps there is a reflection of the Jewish tradition that at Sinai the law was given to the nations in seventy languages. In any case, the orderly proclamation of Peter quickly follows (vv. 14ff.).
d. Why
gloÒÄssa came to be used for this phenomenon is debatable. Speaking (only) with the physical tongue is a most unlikely explanation in view of Paul's
geÃneÒ gloÒssoÒÄn in 1 Cor. 12:10 and the plural in 14:5. Nor is it likely that the phrase “tongues as of fire” of Acts 2:3 underlies the usage. The meaning “unintelligible sound” might seem to fit the case, but Paul sharply criticizes this aspect and
gloÒÄssa is for him more than an isolated oracle (1 Cor. 14:2, 9, 11, 26). It seems, then, that “language” is the basic meaning; here is a miraculous “language of the Spirit” such as is used by angels (1 Cor. 13:1) and which we, too, may use as we are seized by the Spirit and caught up to heaven (2 Cor. 12:2ff.; cf. 1 Cor. 14:2, 13ff. as well as the stress on the heavenly origin of the phenomenon in Acts 2:2ff.).
heteroÃgloÒssos. a. “Speaking another language,” “of an alien tongue”; b. “speaking different languages.” The only NT use is in 1 Cor. 14:21, where Paul applies Is. 28:11-12 (originally spoken of the Assyrians) in his teaching about the use of tongues in the community: As God will speak to Israel by the Assyrians, so he will give the sign of tongues to unbelievers. Paul offers us here an instructive example, paralleled in the rabbis, of his use of the OT. [J. BEHM, I, 719-27]
— p. 125 —
8. EDNT Dictionary:
1127
γλῶσσα, ης, ἡ glœssa
tongue; language*
ἑτερόγλωσσος, 2 heteroglœssos
speaking a foreign language*
1. Occurrences and meaning in the NT — 2. Γλῶσσα as a part of the body — 3. Γλῶσσα as the organ of speech — 4. Γλῶσσα as an instrument or source of sin — 5. Γλῶσσα as "language" or "people" — 6. Γλῶσσα and glossolalia in 1 Corinthians 12-14 — 7. Γλῶσσα and glossolalia in Acts and Mark 16:17
Bibliography
Lit.: S. AALEN,
BHH III, 2249f. — J. BEHM,
TDNT I, 719-27. — O. BETZ, "Zungenreden und süßer Wein," FS Bardtke 20-36. — G. DAUTZENBERG,
RAC XI, 225-46. — N. I. ENGELSON, "Glossolalia and Other Forms of Inspired Speech according to 1 Corinthians 12-14,"
Dissertation Abstracts 112 (1971) 526a. — J. GEWIESS,
LTK IV, 972f. — R. A. HARRISVILLE, "Speaking in Tongues,"
CBQ 38 (1976) 35-48 (=
Speaking in Tongues: A Guide to Research on Glossolalia [ed. W. E. Mills; 1986] 35-51). — W. KEILBACH,
RGG VI, 1941f. — J. KREMER,
Pfingstbericht und Pfingstgeschehen (1973) 118-26, 261-64. — E. MOSIMAN,
Das Zungenreden geschichtlich und psychologisch untersucht (1911). — H. WEINEL,
Die Wirkungen des Geistes und der Geister im nachapostolischen Zeitalter bis auf Irenäus (1899) 72-101. — For further bibliography see Aalen; Behm; Gewiess; Keilbach;
TWNT X, 1025f.
1. Γλῶσσα is used a total of 50 times in the NT writings and means: (1) in the literal sense
tongue as a bodily organ and esp. as the organ of speech (ΰ 2-4); (2) any particular
language and fig. a
people who speak their own language (ΰ 5); (3) on that basis, as an early Christian t.t.,
the gift of glossolalia, i.e., the use of
heavenly and earthly languages, and
the charismatic expression of one who practices glossolalia (ΰ 6, ΰ 7). Ἑτερόγλωσσος,
speaking a foreign language, presupposes γλῶσσα with the meaning
language and occurs in the NT only in 1 Cor 14:21 in the citation from Isa 28:11 (ΰ 5, ΰ 6). The NT usage in ΰ 3 and ΰ 5 is closely related to the OT usage; in ΰ 4 and ΰ 6 it develops from OT and Hellenistic Jewish assumptions.
2. Rarely the tongue is viewed only as a delicate bodily organ without a connection to human language. Rev 16:10 ("men gnawed their
tongues in anguish") follows the pouring out of the fifth bowl (darkness in the domain of the beast) and probably portrays the reaction of people to the previous plagues (H. Kraft,
Offenbarung [HNT] 207). It is hardly a text that describes "the genuine experience of the divine" (C. Schneider,
TDNT IV, 515, who suggests that this action is in response to "exciting hallucinations" and that the visionary's sense of pain is dulled in comparison). In
Apoc. Pet. 9:11 the gnawing of the tongue is part of the description of hell, namely, the punishment for blasphemers (those who have sinned with the tongue), doubters, and disobedient slaves. Thirst belongs to the punishment of the ungodly in ᾅδης (4 Ezra 8:59;
Sib. Or. ii.307;
2 Enoch 10:2 [A]; y. „ag. 2:77d, in Billerbeck II, 231f.), causing the tongue to wither (cf. Ps 22:15; Isa 41:17; Lam 4:4 ). Note also Luke 16:24: "Send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my
tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame."
3. In 1 Cor 14:9 γλῶσσα is understood not in the sense of a technical term (ΰ 6) but rather, in analogy to the comparisons with flutes, zithers, and trumpets (vv. 7f.), as the organ of speech, through which one can articulate clear speech (J. Weiss,
Der Erste Korintherbrief [KEK] 336). The comparison is intended to support Paul's argument in favor of intelligible prophecy and is not applied to glossolalia (against H. Lietzmann,
An die Korinther I/II [HNT] 71).
In the story of the healing of the deaf-mute in Mark 7:32-35, the inability to speak appears to be traced back to a demonic shackling and binding (ΰ δεσμός) of the tongue (R. Pesch,
Markus [HTKNT] I, 397; see also Deissmann,
Light 304ff.; Moulton/Milligan 128): after the healing manipulation of the tongue (v. 33) and the healing word (v. 34), "the impediment of his
tongue was removed, and he began speaking plainly" (v. 35 NASB). In Luke 1:64 ("immediately his mouth was opened and his
tongue [loosed], and he spoke, blessing God"), the original omits the verb with
tongue. Because of the after-effects of the miracle, the γλῶσσα is mentioned, although the chief interest of the text concerns Zechariah's capacity to speak and his word of praise.
In parenesis directed to the contrast between speaking and doing (Matt 7:21; Jas 1:22-25; 2:15f.), the tongue can portray this tension in human behavior, as in 1 John 3:18: "Let us not love in word (λόγος) or
speech (γλῶσσα) but in deed (ἔργον) and in truth" (cf. Sir 29:1-3). In accordance with the synthetic tendency of OT anthropology (H. W. Wolff,
Anthropology of the OT [1974] 77-79), the tongue commonly stands for the whole person considered from the point of view of the capacity for speech. In Acts 2:26 it appears in the citation from Ps 16:8-11 (with ΰ καρδία) as the bearer of jubilation. In Rom 14:11 it appears in the citation from Isa 45:23b for the person who must stand before God's judgment. The same citation is used in the hymn in Phil 2:10f. for the recognition of the lordship (ΰ κύριος) of Jesus Christ by the cosmic powers. Γλῶσσα can be understood only as an anthropomorphism here if the reference to "on earth" (ΰ ἐπίγειος) does not concern humankind. In the "complaint liturgy" (O. Michel,
Römer [KEK] 98) of Rom 3:10-18 the tongue is parallel to the throat (ΰ λάρυγξ, Ps 5:9 ), lips (ΰ χείλη, Ps 140:3), and mouth (Ps 10:7) as an illustration of the human disregard for God that is demonstrated primarily in words.
4. "The striking emphasis on sins of the tongue is characteristic of practical Jewish wisdom" (Behm 721). 1 Pet 3:10 refers to the OT warning against sins of the tongue (Ps 34:14) in order to support and illustrate the exhortation to seek peace, to renounce retaliation, and to bless. In Jas 1:26 ("If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his
tongue but deceives his heart, this man's religion is vain"), the need to rule over the tongue appears to be the fundamental ethical task, although in this passage the nature of the ethical danger emanating from the tongue is not made clear.
The exhortation is understandable only against the background of widespread Jewish and Hellenistic tradition, which taught that one becomes a sinner through the tongue (Rom 3:13; 1 Pet 3:10; Ps 38:2 LXX; Prov 6:17;
Herm. Vis. ii.2.3), that one must guard against the rashness of the tongue (Prov 15:4; Sir 4:29; Philo
Det. 23: "the untamed impudent course of the tongue"), that the tongue is the destruction of mankind (Sir 5:13; 20:18; 25:8; Philo
Det. 174), and thus that one must exert oneself for the training (παιδεία) of the tongue (Prov 27:20a LXX; Hos 7:16 LXX; Isa 50:4 LXX), watch over it (Prov 21:23; Sir 22:27), and bridle it (Philo
Spec. Leg. i.53;
Det. 23, 44, 174;
Mut. 240).
The tongue appears even more threatening in the discourse in Jas 3:2-12, which is shaped by Jewish Wisdom literature and the Greek diatribe (on the form and tradition, cf. Sir 28:13-26). The introductory verse ("If any one makes no mistakes in what he says he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also") indicates the theme: the central danger of mankind proceeds from the tongue (cf. Prov 10:19; 18:21; 25:8b; Sir 19:16).
Despite its limited size, the tongue has extraordinary power (vv. 3-5a); its devastating power is not only to be compared to that of fire — it is itself a disastrous fire (vv. 5b, 6a; cf. Sir 28:22f.;
Ps. Sol. 12:2f.; in antiquity, a hot temper was commonly compared with fire; in Hellenistic Judaism, cf. Philo
Decal. 32), the demonic energy of which comes from hell (ΰ γέεννα, v. 6d; cf. Sir 28:23) and sets on fire the entire circle of earthly life (ΰ τροχός, γένεσις) and hopelessly destroys it (v. 6c; cf. Sir 28:14-18, 23;
Ps. Sol. 12:3; Philo
Det. 174). The tongue stands among the members of the human body as "an unrighteous world" (v. 6b), a singular phrase that is scarcely intelligible, despite the parallel to the concept of the "world of unrighteousness" (
1 Enoch 48:7). Perhaps it should be rendered as "the universal scope and eschatological destruction of this disastrous scourge" (W. Schrage,
Jakobus [NTD] 39), which, as long as it leads an untamed life of its own, draws the body, i.e., the whole person (ΰ σῶμα) further and further into a worldly snare as it corrupts the person (v. 6c; cf. 1:27; Sir 28:19-21).
While a person may be able to tame the whole animal world, no one can tame the tongue (vv. 7, 8a; cf. Sir 28:20), for it is "a restless evil" (
Herm. Man. ii.3 calls slander a restless demon), full of deadly poison (v. 8b; cf. Rom 3:13; Ps 140:4; 1QH 5:26f.). It is absurd and unnatural when one praises God with the tongue, while with the same instrument one curses mankind, his likeness (vv. 9f.; cf. vv. 11f.; Ps 62:5;
T. Benj. 6:5; 1QS 10:21-24;
2 Enoch 52:1f., 6).
The concluding remark, "This ought not to be so" (v. 10b), indicates that the author, despite his deeply pessimistic view, is not in despair in v. 2 over the ethical task that he formulates. He introduces the pessimistic tradition about the tongue in a parenetic context in the hope that, as the danger that proceeds from the tongue is described in drastic terms (cf. Sir 28:22, 26), the reader will be better able to resist.
5. Γλῶσσα with the meaning
language (cf. Deut 28:49; Isa 28:11; Jer 5:15; Zech 8:23; for classical usage, see, e.g., Homer
Il. ii.2.804) appears in the NT only in the context of early Christian glossolalia: 1 Cor 13:1 (ΰ 6); Acts 2:11; Mark 16:27 (ΰ 7). In a similar sense ἑτερόγλωσσος means
speaking a foreign language or
speaking various languages (Philo
Conf. 8): 1 Cor 14:21 (Isa 28:11, ΰ 6).
The transference to various
peoples distinguished by their languages (usually in the pl. or πᾶς with the sg., Dan 3:29) occurs in the late parts of the OT alongside literal designations for social alliances in order to emphasize the universality of the statement (Isa 66:18 with ἔθνη; Dan 3:4, 7, 29; 5:19; 6:25; 7:14 Theodotion with λαοί, φυλαί [LXX with ἔθνη, φυλαί]; Dan 4:21, 37b LXX with ἔθνη, χωραί; similarly Jdt 3:8).
The Book of Revelation is dependent on the usage of the Book of Daniel. It has groups of four terms (cf. Dan 3:4 LXX; 4 Ezra 3:7) that are artistically varied; never are the individual members in the same sequence (πᾶς with the sg. in Rev 5:9; 13:7; 14:6; with the pl. in 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 17:15). The focus is always on all of humanity or the ancient Mediterranean world as its representative: from it come the redeemed (5:9; 7:9); it stands under the lordship of the godless powers (11:9; 13:7; 17:15); and the prophecy of judgment is addressed to it (10:11; 14:6). However, it is probably significant that they are not named abstractly and also not, as in Paul, summed up in contradictory pairs of opposites (Greeks/Barbarians in Rom 1:14; Jews/ Greeks in Rom 1:16 and Gal 3:28). Instead they are named according to their collective grouping and differentiation in deliberate "biblical" terms.
6. In 1 Corinthians 12-14 Paul uses the term γλῶσσα in a variety of phrases to describe a charisma (λαλεῖν γλώσσῃ, 14:2 , 4, 13, 27; ἐν γλώσσῃ, 14:19; γλώσσαις, 12:30; 13:1; 14:5, 6, 18, 23, 39; προσεύχεσθαι γλώσσῃ, 14:14; γλώσσαν ἔχειν, 14:26; γλῶσσαι, 13:8; 14:22; γένη γλωσσῶν, 12:10, 28; ἑρμηνεία γλωσσῶν, 12:28; γλῶσσαι τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τῶν ἀγγέλων, 13:1; with the exception of 14:22, always without the art.). On the basis of the phrase λαλεῖν γλώσσῃ, this spiritual gift is called "glossolalia."
The oral character of this charisma (λαλεῖν), the juxtaposition of γλῶσσα and interpretation (ΰ ἑρμηνεία) in the list in 12:10, 30 and in the church order in 14:26-28 (cf. also 14:5, 13), the reference to human and angelic γλῶσσαι in 13:1, and further observations (see below) indicate that the technical usage of γλῶσσα here is derived from the meaning
language. The characterization of the gift as "speaking in tongues," which is common in older translations and studies, is thus inappropriate and misleading. The best translation is
language or the verb phrase
speak languages or
speak in a language; we may designate the charisma
"the gift of language."
The gift of language is speech that is unintelligible (14:2, 16, 23) and highly ecstatic (the ΰ νοῦς does not participate, but only the ΰ πνεῦμα, vv. 14-19; an outsider could come to the opinion "you are mad!" v. 23). This gift has various manifestations (γένη γλωσσῶν, 12:10, 28), as it varies in content (v. 2, telling heavenly mysteries, ΰ μυστήριον; v. 25, the particular case of the knowledge of the heart) and form (v. 2, etc., ΰ λαλέω; v. 14, ΰ προσεύχομαι; v. 15, ΰ ψάλλω; v. 16, ΰ εὐλογέω, εὐχαριστία). Utterances of glossolalia are, in principle, translatable and thus can have a definite function of edifying (14:4f., 26), informing (v. 19), or communicating content (v. 16). The ability to interpret is founded charismatically (12:10, 30; 14:13) and cannot be explained simply as the knowledge of divination techniques or of foreign languages; the one who speaks in glossolalia (14:13) or another member of the congregation (12:10; 14:27) can "interpret." The gift of language is learned and exercised in the assembly of the congregation (14:6, 16, 23, 26, 27) and privately (vv. 18f., 28).
Prophecy (ΰ προφήτης) and the gift of language are related to each other. Both are emphatically classified as spiritual gifts (14:1; ΰ πνευματικός), and both are associated with divine secrets (cf. 14:2 with 13:2), the "interpretation" as well as the glossolalia. Prophecy is associated with the process of "distinguishing" (διάκρισις, 12:10; 14:29); both have a similar effect of edification (14:3-5, 26; ΰ οἰκοδομή) and are, to a varied extent, ecstatic (cf. vv. 30, 32). Paul considered it possible to change from exercising the gift of language to exercising prophecy (vv. 1, 12), and he himself possessed both gifts (vv. 6, 18f.). In the Corinthian assembly, uninterpreted glossolalia, which was considered the highest gift, was predominant. Paul was eager, however, to establish a more balanced relationship of interpreted glossolalia and prophecy (vv. 27-33a, 39), corresponding to the tradition and intention of worship (vv. 26, 40), and to relegate uninterpreted glossolalia to the realm of private devotion (vv. 4, 18, 28).
The place of early Christian glossolalia in the history of religions is disputed. One may argue for a derivation from the syncretistic piety of the Hellenistic Mediterranean world (Weiss 339; W. Bauer,
Der Wortgottesdienst der ältesten Christen [1930] 33-35; H. Conzelmann,
First Corinthians [Hermeneia] 234) on the basis of a comparison with ecstatic phenomena in the ancient religions (F. Pfister,
RAC IV, 944-87). One may also argue for a derivation from the equally present ecstatic seers and interpreters and proclaimers (or prophets) in ancient divination (Plato
Ti. 71e-72b), or from the concept of the gods' own language, which became known in dreams and oracular sayings to ones who were possessed (Clement of Alexandria
Strom. i.431.1). The relationship to ancient syncretistic piety may also be suggested in the fact that the appearance of glossolalia in the church at Corinth evoked Paul's accusation that an outsider who heard them would conclude, "You are mad" (14:23). Such a response appears to place glossolalia in the category of the appearance of Dionysiac or prophetic madness. These observations are valuable not so much for tracing the derivation of glossolalia in the history of religion as for explaining its roots in the Pauline churches.
The basic presuppositions are to be sought in Judaism (W. Bousset,
GGA 163 [1906] 757f.; S. Eitrem,
Orakel und Mysterien am Ausgang der Antike [1947] 42). Here also ecstatic phenomena, including ecstatic speech, are known, from the beginnings of Israelite prophecy to the NT era (F. Baumgärtel,
TDNT VI, 362; R. Rendtorff,
ibid. 797; R. Meyer,
ibid. 825). In
T. Job 48-52 there is ecstatic speech or singing (ὕμνος, 48:3; 49:3; 51:4; cf. 1 Cor 14:15f.; also εὐχή, 50:3; cf. 1 Cor 14:15) comparable to glossolalia (48:2; 49:1; 50:2: the daughters of Job obtain a changed heart; cf. 1 Sam 10:6, 9;
Bib. Ant. 20:2f.) in various angelic languages, even if a different terminology is used (διάλεκτος instead of γλῶσσα, 48:3; 49:2; 50:1; 52:7; σημείωσις instead of ἑρμηνεία, 51:3f.; the topics of the speech are μεγαλεῖα instead of μυστήρια, 51:3). The topics of the songs are the creative work and glory of God, the great themes and mysteries of Jewish mysticism (J. Maier,
Geschichte der jüdischen Religion [1972] 196f., 200-205).
Finally, both early Christian glossolalia and
T. Job were deeply involved in various doctrines of angels and related topics that were known in Palestine and in Hellenistic Judaism: the community of the ecstatic and the one who prays with the angels (Dan 7-12;
1 Enoch; 4 Ezra 10-13; 1QH frag. 2:6; 10:6; 1QM 10:11), participation in their knowledge (1QH 3:22f.; 11:13f.; 18:23; Philo
Vit. Cont. 26), and the language of the angels (1QH 6:13; b. B. Bat. 134a, b; Billerbeck III, 449;
Apoc. Zeph. 13:2f.;
2 Enoch 17; 19).
The NT evidence allows one to assume a dissemination of glossolalia throughout the churches, both Pauline (cf. 1 Thess 5:19) and non-Pauline (e.g., Rome; cf. Rom 8:26f.; E. Käsemann,
Commentary on Romans [1980] 240), beginning in the original Palestinian church (Acts 2:1-13, ΰ 7). Thus glossolalia appears to be the early Christian form of the phenomenon of ecstatic speech, which is widely disseminated in the history of religions and was known to the Judaism of the NT era. The early Church provided its own terminology and, as will be shown, its own interpretation derived from the experience of the Spirit and an eschatological consciousness.
The oldest available interpretation in early Christianity views glossolalia as speech in human and esp. angelic languages (1 Cor 13:1; Betz 26f.), as an eschatologically provided possibility to praise God with the angels and to learn and repeat the heavenly mysteries (1 Cor 14:2).
A second and probably secondary, but nevertheless very early, interpretation appears in 1 Cor 14:21 in the citation from Isa 28:11f. This citation has been shaped in the debate with Judaism (E. E. Ellis,
Paul's Use of the OT [1957] 98-113; B. Lindars,
NT Apologetic [1961] 164, 175) and has thus taken on an association with glossolalia (1 Cor 14:21: ἐν ἑτερογλώσσοις; MT and LXX: "with stammering lips and in a foreign
language" [JB]; Betz 26; Harrisville 42-45). Glossolalia is understood as the fulfillment of the promise, as the wondrous final address of God (1 Cor 14:21: "I will speak"; MT: "he will speak"; LXX: "they will speak") to his people Israel, who will remain closed to this sign (14:22; note v. 21: "even then they will not listen to me"; MT and LXX: "they did not wish to hear me"). Paul employs this citation no longer with a meaning that is critical of Israel but rather as proof of the uselessness of glossolalia in the missionary situation (vv. 22f.). But for him and the Corinthian church the first interpretation of glossolalia is decisive.
Nevertheless they give differing evaluations of the gift. The Corinthians preferred glossolalia to prophecy because of the anticipation of the eschatological communion with God that came to expression in it (cf. 1 Cor 4:7-10), because of its pronounced pneumatic character (cf. 3:1), and because of its gift of cosmological and theological mysteries (cf. the high value of ΰ σοφία in 1:18-31; 2:6 and ΰ γνῶσις in 8:1-3; 13:8-10). Apparently they rated it as the essential gift of the Spirit (14:1).
Paul emphasized, by contrast, that it is only one among many gifts (12:4-11) and that it is useful in public worship only under very restricted conditions because worship is intended to serve the edification of the church, not that of the individual charismatic (14:5). The ecstatic character of glossolalia could make public church meetings resemble Gentile assemblies, which were dominated by μανία, "frenzy" (14:23). Finally, if the gift is the anticipation of the perfect and the eternal, it would remain, like all gifts, transitory and imperfect (1 Cor 13:8-12). Indeed, in Rom 8:26 Paul appears even more to strip away the character of eschatological anticipation when he interprets it as a provisional eschatological gift suitable for the conditions of life before the end, as identification of the Spirit with the Christians who groan amid the suffering of this age.
7. The further history of early Christian glossolalia is lost for us in obscurity (Dautzenberg [D, I]). Perhaps Col 3:16a and Eph 5:18 refer to prayer in glossolalia. Explicit references to the charism are found only in Acts and in the secondary ending of Mark.
Acts knows glossolalia only as a sign of the reception of the Spirit (2:4; 10:45f.; 19:6) in the first Christian generation and not in association with the life of the Church; it is simply a miracle of beginning. Probably the author of Acts had no personal acquaintance with glossolalia (H. Conzelmann,
Acts [Hermeneia] 15). He works with traditional material, which he composes for literary purposes (on Acts 10:46, μεγαλύνειν, cf. μεγαλεῖα, 2:11;
T. Job 51:4; on the juxtaposition of glossolalia and prophecy in 19:6, cf. the identification of both gifts in 2:17f. and their juxtaposition in 1 Corinthians 12-14).
Both later mentions of glossolalia in the Book of Acts are references to the Pentecost narrative, which understands glossolalia in the sense of a miracle of language: they "began to speak foreign (ἑτέραις)
languages" (2:4, JB). The formulation is very similar to the form of the citation from Isa 28:11f. in 1 Cor 14:21 (ΰ 6). The understanding of glossolalia is in agreement with the tradition cited here, insofar as they both see in it a sign for Israel: the multilingual audience who heard the glossolalia in the Pentecost narrative are Jews. The Pentecost narrative thus presupposes the tradition of 1 Cor 14:21 (cf. Betz 25f.) and pictures it in Acts 2:5-13 in a legendary way with the help of a table of peoples.
But in contrast to 1 Corinthians 12-14, the Pentecost account implies that the incident concerns not the language of angels but human languages. Glossolalia is thus intelligible here and requires no charismatic interpretation. If among the further assumptions behind the Pentecost narrative one is to include the tradition of the manifestations of glossolalia in the Jerusalem church — probably in connection with the first experience of the Spirit, which is developed legendarily in Acts 2:1-4 (on the
tongues as of fire in 2:3, cf. Isa 51:2-4; it is uncertain whether a conscious association between γλῶσσα in 2:3 and 2:4 is intended) — the report then becomes one that came into existence sometime after the events themselves, given its distance from the glossolalia experienced in 1 Corinthians 12-14 and its legendary character. Thus it is best explained as a Jewish Christian midrash on the traditions recorded here (for other explanations, see Behm 725-26; Betz 33-35; E. Haenchen,
The Acts of the Apostles [1971] 168-72; Kremer 118-26, 261-64).
The secondary ending in Mark 16:9-20, which originated in the 2nd cent. (Kümmel,
Introduction 98-101), describes the marvelous works of believers in the context of the missionary command. This description is dependent on the traditions of Acts (K. Aland, "Der Schluß des Markus,"
L'Évangile selon Marc [ed. M. Sabbe, 1974] 435-70, esp. 454), from which comes 16:17: "they will speak in new
tongues." Despite the difference from Acts 2:4 (γλῶσσαι καιναί instead of ἕτεραι γλῶσσαι), the passage describes speaking in foreign and — because they are unknown — new languages. Glossolalia is thus understood as a (missionary?) sign (ΰ σημεῖον; cf. 1 Cor 14:22), but the estimation of it has shifted to the miraculous through its reference to Israel and the association with the possession of the Spirit (cf. the further signs in 16:18). It has become a miraculous sign of the first Christian generation, without any binding interpretation of the experience itself.
G. Dautzenberg
[1:251]
9. VGNT Dictionary:
859 γλῶσσα [pg 128]
γλῶσσα.
Most of the occurrences of this noun, which retains both form and meaning in MGr, need no particular comment. P Oxy I. 138 (A.D. 183 or 215)
saepe, the monthly meat bill of a cook, tells us that “tongue” was a favourite article of diet; so also the numerous passages in inscrr. where in the ritual of sacrifice the victim’s tongue is mentioned as a special perquisite. The word figures prominently in magical documents. P Lond 12431 (iv/v A.D.) (= I. p. 122) βάλλε εἰς αὐτὸ γλῶσσαν βαθράκου shows the frog’s tongue playing the same part as “tongue of dog” in the witches’ spell in
Macbeth: so also
ib. 46294 (iv/A.D.) (= I. p. 74). There are many curses which “bind” the tongue of their object: thus
Syll 808 (Corcyra) Σιλανοῦ τὸν νόον καὶ τὰν γλῶσσαν τουτεῖ καταγράφω—Silanus himself and three witnesses who enabled him to win a suit are cursed with this leaden tablet in mind and tongue. So
ib. 809 (Piraeus, iv/iii B.C.) begins Μικίωνα ἐγὼ ἔλαβον καὶ καtέδησα τὰς χεῖρας καὶ τοὺς πόδας καὶ τὴν γλῶσσαν καὶ τὴν ψυχήν. καὶ εἴ τι μέλλειε (
l. μέλλει—a confusion with aor. opt.) ὑπὲρ Φίλωνος ῥῆμα μοχθηρὸν φθένγεσθαι, ἡ γλῶσσα αὐτοῦ μόλυβδος γένοιτο, καὶ κέντ@η]σον α@ὐτ]οῦ τὴν γλῶσσαν—the changes on these formulae are rung in the rest of the document. Deissmann,
LAE, p. 306 ff., refers to thirty of Wünsch’s Attic
defixiones where the tongue is “bound” or “cursed.” He shows that this was supposed to produce dumbness, and interprets Mk 735 as release from what was believed to be a daemonic “binding.”
Thumb,
Gr. Dial. p. 22, points out that grammarians used γλῶσσα not only for “language” but also for “local peculiarities of speech”: thus Δωρὶς γὰρ διάλεκτος μία ὑφ᾽ ἥν εἰσι γλῶσσαι πολλαί, “sub-dialects.” This leaves us free, if we choose, to reduce very considerably the abnormality of the “tongues,” which need not always have been foreign languages as in Ac 24 (cf. 6 ff.). We find it applied to a real foreign language in P Giss I. 999 (B.C. 80–79) ὕμνοι μὲν ἄι@δονται] γλώtτῃ ξενικῇ: the ττ goes with ταῖν στήλαιν and other
recherché archaisms to show that the piece is not tainted with vernacular!
The tongue of slander appears in P Lond 12234 (iv/A.D.) (= I. p. 117) διάσωσόν μου πάνδοτε εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἀπὸ φαρμάκων καὶ δολίων καὶ βασκοσύνην πάσης καὶ γλωττῶν πονηρῶν—Milton’s “evil tongues.”
10. Gingrich Lexicon:
1361 γλῶσσα
γλῶσσα,
ης,
ἡ tongue—
1. lit as an organ of speech Mk 7:33, 35; Lk 16:24; 1 Cor 14:9; Js 1:26; Rv 16:10.—
2. language Ac 2:11; Phil 2:11; Rv 5:9. The expressions γλῶσσαι, γένη γλωσσῶν, ἐν γ. λαλεῖν etc. refer to the ecstatic speech of those overcome by strong emotion in a cultic context. The latter expression is usually rendered
speak in tongues. Ac 19:6; 1 Cor 12:10; 13:1, 8; 14 passim, [
glosso-, as prefix in numerous words] [pg 40]
11. LSJM Lexicon (Unabridged)
13158 γλῶσσα
Entry words:
γλῶσσα, γλάσσα, γλῶττα
µ
γλῶσσα, Ion.
γλάσσα, Herod.3.84, al.,
SIG1002.7 (Milet.),
Schwyzer 692 (Chios), Att.
γλῶττα, ης, ἡ,
tongue, Od.3.332, etc.
b. γ. λάρυγγος, = γλωττίς,
larynx, Gal.
UP7.13.
2. tongue, as the organ of speech, γλώσσης χάριν through love
of talking, Hes.
Op.709, A.
Ch.266; γλώσσῃ ματαίᾳ Id.
Pr.331, cf.
Eu.830; γλώσσης ἀκρατής Id.
Pr.884 (lyr.); μεγάλης γ. κόμποι S.
Ant.128; γλώσσῃ δεινός, θρασύς, Id.
OC806,
Aj.1142; ἡ γ. ὀμώμοχ᾽ ἡ δὲ φρὴν ἀνώμοτος E.
Hipp.612: with Preps., ἀπὸ γλώσσης by
frankness of speech, Thgn.63; φθέγγεσθαι Pi.
O.6.13 (but ἀπὸ γ. ληίσσεται, opp. χερσὶ βίῃ, of fraud opp. violence, Hes.
Op.322); also, by
word of mouth, Hdt.1.123, Th.7.10, Arr.
An.2.14.1; τῷ νῷ θ᾽ ὁμοίως κἀπὸ τῆς γ. λέγω S.
OC936; τὰ γλώσσης ἄπο, i.e.
our words, E.
Ba.1049; ἀπὸ γ. φράσω by
heart, opp. γράμμασιν, Cratin.122; οὐκ ἀπὸ γλώσσης not from
mere word of mouth, but after full argument, A.
Ag.813; μὴ διὰ γλώσσης without using
the tongue, E.
Supp.112; ἐν ὄμμασιν . . δεδορκὼς κοὐ κατὰ γλῶσσαν κλύων S.
Tr.747:—phrases: πᾶσαν γλῶτταν βασάνιζε try every
art of tongue, Ar.
V.547; πᾶσαν ἱέναι γλῶσσαν let loose one's whole
tongue, speak without restraint, S.
El.596; πολλὴν γ.ἐγχέας μάτην Id.
Fr.929; κακὰ γ. slander, Pi.
P.4.283: pl., ἐν κερτομίοις γλώσσαις, i.e. with blasphemies, S.
Ant.962 (lyr.), cf.
Aj.199 (lyr.): βοῦς, κλῇς ἐπὶ γλώσσῃ, v. βοῦς, κλείς.
3. of persons,
one who is all tongue, speaker, of Pericles, μεγίστη γ. τῶν Ἑλληνίδων Cratin.293, cf. Ar.
Fr.629 (s.v.l.).
4. ἡ γ. τοῦ ταμιείου the
advocacy of the fiscus, Philostr.
VS2.29.
II. language, ἄλλη δ᾽ ἄλλων γ. μεμιγμένη Od.19.175, cf. Il.2.804; γλῶσσαν ἱέναι speak a
language or
dialect, Hdt.1.57; γ. Ἑλληνίδα, Δωρίδα ἱέναι, Id.9.16, Th.3.112, cf. A.
Pers.406,
Ch.564; γλῶσσαν νομίζειν Hdt.1.142,4.183; γλώσσῃ χρῆσθαι Id.4.109; κατὰ τὴν ἀρχαίαν γ. Arist.
Rh.1357b10;
dialect, ἡ Ἀττικὴ γ. Demetr.
Eloc.177; but also Δωρὶς διάλεκτος μία ὑφ᾽ ἥν εἰσι γ. πολλαί Tryph.ap.Sch.D.T.p.320 H.
2. obsolete or
foreign word, which needs explanation, Arist.
Rh.1410b12,
Po.1457b4, Plu.2.406f: hence Γλῶσσαι, title of works by Philemon and others.
3. people speaking a distinct language, Lxx
Ju.3.8 (pl.), interpol. in Scyl.15.
III. anything shaped like the tongue (cf. γλῶσσαι ὡσεὶ πυρός
Act.Ap.2.3).
1. in Music,
reed or
tongue of a pipe, Aeschin.3.229, Arist.
HA565a24, Thphr.
HP4.11. 4, etc.
2. tongue or
thong of leather, shoe-latchet, Pl.Com.51, Aeschin.Socr.57.
3. tongue of land, App.
Pun.121, cf. 95.
4. ingot, γ. χρυσῆ Lxx
Jo.7.21.
5. marking on the liver, in divination, Hsch. (γλῶσσα from *γλαωχ-ψα±, cf. γλώξ, γλωχίς; γλάσσα from *γλα±χ-ψα±, weak grade of same root.) [pg 353]
