@kavikv.d.hexenholtz3474

2 months ago

PART 1 -

Sort of - ‘Tongues’ (read, ‘languages’ ) – the divine gift, is the God/Holy Spirit given ability to effortlessly learn to speak and be understood through real-language barriers. It is not xenoglossy (as many people incorrectly assume), nor is it the self-created non-cognitive non-language utterance of what certain Christian denominations are producing today (modern tongues-speech).

When it’s boiled down, most arguments for tongues at Pentecost can ultimately be said to hinge on two things; first, what the Holy Spirit actually gave the 12 apostles at Pentecost, and second, the crowd’s assumed linguistic diversity. Indeed, once can easily argue that the former completely hinges on the latter.

If one carefully examines what the Greek text says the Holy Spirit gave the 12 apostles (yes, just 12; not 120, but that’s a story for another day) on Pentecost, and put the narrative into historical, cultural and linguistic perspective, one is compelled to conclude a very different view on the concept of “tongues” at Pentecost and, more so as “initial evidence” of being baptized in the Holy Spirit. One is also forced to rethink the actual languages and role they played in the event.

At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit gave the 12 apostles what in the Greek text is “apophtheggesthai” – usually translated as “to give utterance”. This is, however, not the most accurate translation of this Greek word, but it’s the one that has come to be the more or less ‘de facto’ rendering.

This word is from “apophtheggomai” which is best translated as “to give bold, authoritative, inspired speech to” (don’t go to Strong’s and look it up – “Strong’s” is a concordance , not a lexicon; there’s a huge difference).

It refers not to the content/means of the speech (i.e., the language used), but rather to the manner of speaking. In each instance where this word occurs in scripture, the person's speech is bold, authoritative, and inspired, and it is always, by the way, in the speaker’s native language.

In short, the Holy Spirit did not give the language (i.e. the means/content), it gave the manner in which it was spoken.

So why is it usually translated as “to give utterance”? That hinges completely on the next part…

The Jews present at Pentecost, as we are told, came from three areas: Judea, the Western Diaspora and the Eastern Diaspora. “All nations under heaven” is an idiomatic expression – Acts II: 9-11 tells us where those visiting were from.


We know that 1st century Judea was interesting linguistically – it illustrates a country/culture undergoing the process of Hellenization.....only Hellenization never fully happens in Judea. Greek ideas, thought and culture are prevalent, but Aramaic still wins out linguistically over Greek. Hebrew is still used as the sacerdotal language of Judaism, though, as we see in the Western Diasporan lands, Greek is actually becoming an accepted alternative to Hebrew.

People speak Aramaic, worship in Hebrew, but Greek is now becoming acceptable and, it's quite possible, some educated people in larger cities such as Jerusalem spoke it over Aramaic. Merchants would have had to have at least a working knowledge of basic Greek if they wanted to conduct business beyond 'local' markets and reach more 'global' markets (such that they were in the 1st century).

The land was also occupied by Rome, so Latin would have been heard, but likely not really understood. Educated Roman soldiers (as well as most upper-class Romans) would have spoken Greek, but the common soldier, likely not.

In short, the average Jew from Judea spoke Aramaic, but may have had a conversational knowledge of Greek.

Jews (as well as anyone else) from the Western Diaspora spoke Greek – all those lands had been Hellenized for centuries and Greek had long displaced indigenous languages. Indeed, in the Western Diaspora, and to some extent, even in larger cities in Judea, Greek was becoming an acceptable alternative to Hebrew for use in the temples and synagogues.

The Eastern Diaspora was different – no Hellenization, and countries had their own languages. Though people in Jewish communities in these lands spoke the local languages in varying degrees of fluency, it was never their ‘mother tongue’. For Jews in the Eastern Diaspora, the language of ‘hearth and home’, the language “wherein they were born” was Aramaic. This language was one of the things that set them apart as being Jewish; it gave them their cultural and religious identity. Think of the Jews during the Babylonian Captivity/Exile – they did not abandon their language in favor of Babylonian; they held onto it and preserved it as part of their Jewish identity.

To try and use a more modern analogy – think of the Jewish Diaspora in Central and Eastern Europe prior to WWII. Many countries, many languages, and Jewish people living in these places spoke the local language in varying degrees of fluency. But it was never their native language, the language of hearth and home, the language wherein they were born – that language was Yiddish. The one language that defined them as Jews no matter where they were from. Same situation in the 1st century Eastern Diaspora, the defining language (the equivalent of my analogy’s Yiddish) was Aramaic.

Many lands, many places and people, but only two languages; Aramaic and Greek; and of course, the apostles spoke both.

Something to think about - In the entire Pentecost narrative, not one language is ever referenced by name. Why do you suppose that is?

When Peter stood up and addressed the crowd, what language do you suppose he addressed them in??

The “list of nations”, as it’s called, of Acts 2: 9-11 is simply that – a list of countries, lands and nations that tell us where these people were from; not what language(s) they spoke, as most people assume. Further, the idea that the “tongues” of Acts II was xenoglossy also stems from this false assumption.

They spoke in “other tongues” – other than what? This phrase is found in numerous Jewish texts in which Hebrew, the “holy tongue,” is contrasted with the “foreign/other tongues” of the Gentile nations. For example, in the apocryphal book Sirach we read, “For the things translated into “other tongues,” have not the same force in them uttered in Hebrew.”

Judaism had something called ‘ecclesiastical diglossia’. Diglossia is a the concept of using one version of a language over another. The preferred language is called the “high” language, the non-preferred, the “low” language. Switzerland has this with High German versus Swiss German. Greece has this as well with ‘katharevousa’ – a more pure/refined form of Greek used as the literary language, language of newspapers, government docs, news broadcast, etc., while ‘demotiki’ (demotic) is the everyday colloquial language. When it happens in a religious setting, it’s called ecclesiastical diglossia. The Catholic Church had this up to Vatican II in the 1960’s. Latin was the liturgical language of the church, and the language the Mass was offered in. Only the homily was given in the local vernacular.

3 |