No, I haven't read it, but you have. So tell us in your own words what he said. You can even write out your favorite passage.
Well, there's three authors so there isn't really a single "he said" about any of it. The three contribute a passage each, one on glossolalia in the NT, one which is a brief history of the phenomena, and one which provides a "socio-psychological" study of the topic.
The best part to me, and the one I most frequently use, is Stagg's summary of the three ways in which the phrase "speaking in tongues" is used in the NT on pages 22-23:
"
Glossa unmistakably refers to the tongue as an organ of speech in Luke 16:24, where the rich man in torment wants water for his tongue. It is used in the literal sense here and elsewhere (cf. Mark 7:33, 35; Luke 1:64; Rom. 3:13; 14:11; 1 Cor. 14:9; Jas. 3:5-6; 1 John 3:18; 1 Peter 3:10; and Rev. 16:10). In Acts 2:3 it is used in a figurative sense for forked flames of fire.
Glossa is used in a figurative sense or personified sense in Acts 2:26, 'my tongue rejoiced,' and in Phil 2:11, 'every tongue confess.'
A second usage for
glossa is found in Acts and Revelation. In Acts 2:11 the plural of
glossa is used for language, where the statement 'we hear them telling in our own tongues' parallels vs. 8, 'we hear, each of us in his own native language.' Manuscripts in Acts 2:6 differ, some having 'dialect' and some 'tongues,' whether or not with different meaning is not clear. The book of Revelation follows the Old Testament precedent in employing
glossa for language in a figurative or personified sense, using it as a synonym for 'tribe', 'people,' and 'nation' (5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; and 17:15). In this usage, tongue simply distinguishes one linguistic group of people from another.
The third usage is most difficult, where
glossa is used for strange or obscure speech or utterance, now commonly called glossolalia. This usage is found in 1 Cor. 12:10, 28, 39: 13:1, 8; 14:1-27, 39; and Acts 10:46; 19:6. It will be a major concern of this essay to question whether or not this usage is to be found in a source underlying the second chapter of Acts (particularly 2:4) and obscured by Luke, as is widely held. The implications of each conclusion will be pursued, i.e., that Luke correctly represents the 'tongues' at Pentecost as intelligible language, or that he deliberately or unknowingly obscured an older tradition that the 'speaking in tongues' at Pentecost was unintelligible, ecstatic utterance."
