Science in Christian Perspective
Letter to the editor
Disagreements with MeCone
Margaret H. Blorn Robert S. Burns
Anthony A.Hoekema Response by McCone
From: JASA 24 (March 1972): 37-39.
Mr. McCone who wrote "The Phenomena of Pentecost" (Journal ASA 23,
83 (1971)) needs to read "They Speak with Other Tongues" by
John Sherrill,one
of many writings about the factsnot theories-of "Tongues". Sherrill,
a sceptic on the subject, spent about four years gathering data on
this phenomenon
and amassed a great number of case histories on the subject; some
dated back through
the centuries, many are of recent date. He made tape recordings of
people speaking
in tongues and also of imitations and had these examined by
linguists. The experts
easily distinguished the true speech from the gibberish.
Mr. McCone's assumption of four languages only is far fetched. To use a modern
analogy, call the hearers Canadians, Filipinos, and residents of Alaska. All of
these might understand English but would not necessarily call that
"our language".
The Canadian from Quebec would be delighted to hear French, from Norway House
a Cree tongue, from Tuktoyaktuk an Eskimo dialect. For the Filipino it might be
Tagalog, Spanish, Cebuanese, or other. For the Alaskan it might be Tlingit, or
any of the Athapascan or western Eskimo tongues.
Acts 2 tells that the one hundred and twenty speaking in "our
own tongues"
were telling "the mighty works of God". There is no reason to assume
that they were giving the news of Christ since Peter was impelled to quell the
sound and to give this message in, presumably, the Hebrew language. His message
brought conviction following as it did upon the miracle that these
people recognized.
If Mr. McCone is a scientist he will (1) examine all the data
available, not just
some of it; (2) hear a few hundred voices and interview the speakers;
(3) "taste
and see"; i.e., perform a valid experimenthut only if he is a born-again
Christian lest he get himself into real trouble.
To use a quote that Mr. Sherrill used, "Your faith is on ice; ours is on
fire".
Margaret H. Blorn Box 113 Palmer, Alaska
Science in Christian Perspective
Letter to the editor
Disagreements with McCone
Rev. Robert S. Burns
St. Paul's Presbyterian Church
Banff, Alberta, Canada
I read with interest the article by Dr. R. Clyde McCone. The recent events of
our day have produced a real interest in the Holy Spirit which I
believe is good
and can only benefit and help Christians living in our complex world.
However, I disagreed with some of the contents of the article and I
felt it necessary
to reply. I criticize only in the spirit that I would like to clarify a subject
which is of particular interest to myself. To the section of the article where
Dr. MeCone speaks of "Other Tongues" He mentions that "Luke does
not say that the Spirit gave them the ability to speak a language hitherto not
known to them." It seems to me that this is not entirely correct because
in Acts 2:8, Luke specifically identifies the ability they had to
speak in "languages"
(dialektas) not "tongues" (glossa). In other words, later Luke does
identify exactly what he
meant. I do not disagree that they were also given
the ability to speak a message (apophtheggosoai).
It seems to me they were given both aspects: message and language
(not just tongue
as message). I am one of those who has some difficulty accepting the
current interpretation
of "tongues" as we see it expressed in the Pentecostal movement even
though I am sympathetic to their desire to have more of the strength
of the Holy
Spirit.
In spite of my disagreement of your interpretation in Acts on this
point, I appreciated
your article.
Science in Christian Perspective
Letter to the editor
Disagreements with McCone
Anthony A. Hoekema
Professor of Systematic Theology
Calvin Theological Seminary
Grand
Rapids, Mich.
Professor R. Clyde McCone makes the point that the "other
tongues" with
which the 120 disciples began to speak on the Day of Pentecost were
the "Gentile
tongues most familiar to their hearers" rather than the Hebrew language in
which they were accustomed to hearing the law expounded. He contends that these
"other tongues" were not miraculously induced languages, but simply
languages commonly spoken in that day, in which the 120 were already
proficient.
By way of reply, I would first of all be inclined to question the assertion that
only Hebrew was used at that time in expounding the law. Was not the
law expounded
in Aramaic in the synagogues already in the first century AD.?
Further, the statement,
"This fact, plus the sacredness of the temple, demanded that
Hebrew be used
exclusively on this occasion," assumes that the outpouring of the Spirit
took place at the temple. This may have been so, but can we be sure of it? All
we read is that the 120 "were all together in one place"
(Acts 2:1).
My greater difficulties with MeCone's thesis, however, arise from the other two
references to tonguespeaking in the Book of Acts. In Acts 10:46 we
read that the
Jews who had come with Peter to Caesarea were amazed because they
heard Cornelius
and his household speak with tongues (the same expression is used as
in Acts 2:4
except that the word for "other" is missing). On the basis
of MeCone's
interpretation of tongue-speaking, what was there to he amazed about?
In the fact
that Cornelius, the Roman centurion, did not speak in Hebrew but in his native
Latin? What would he so unusual about that? I have the same difficulty with the
tongue-speaking reported in Acts 19:6, where the disciples whom Paul had found
at Ephesus are said to have spoken with tongues (the same Greek words are used
here as in 10:46). Would there be anything unusual about the fact
that these Ephesian
disciples did not speak Hebrew?
I also have difficulties with the author's understanding of tongue-speaking as
described in I Corinthians 12-14. He understands the phenomenon there described
as follows: "Later in the cosmopolitan city of Corinth, those
who had received
the Spirit felt free to pray and witness in the particular language which was
most familiar to them" (p. 88). But this view of the tongues in
Corinth does
not comport with the description found in 14:2, "For one who speaks in a
tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters
mysteries in the Spirit" (RSV). If the people at Corinth, when they spoke
with tongues, spoke "in the language which was most familiar to
them,"
surely there would have been some
who could understand! Surely no one would care to contend that each member of
the Corinthian church spoke a separate language! An even greater
difficulty with
this view is based on what Paul says in 14:14, "For if I pray in a tongue,
my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful" (RSV). This suggests that when
a person speaks or prays in a tongue, his mind is in a state of
quiescence. Surely
this does not describe a person who was praying or speaking "in
the particular
language which was most familiar" to him, does it?
Science in Christian Perspective
Letter to the editor
Replies by McCone
B. Clyde McCone Professor of Anthropology
California State College Long Beach,
California 90801
To Margaret Blom:
My article "The Phenomena of Pentecost" was not an
examination of 20th
century phenomena. Its focus was on first century events. I did not
ass-tune that
there were four languages (or less) used on the day of Pentecost. Rather, the
article briefly summarized the data that support this conclusion.
Sherrill, whose
hook I have been familiar with for some time, does not ask the
question, "What
did happen on the day of Pentecost in term,. of languages?" He assumes, as
do many others, that the Galileans upon receiving the Holy Spirit
began to speak
in many other languages that they did not know. In my article I have made this
assumption the object of investigation and have found it to he scripturally and
historically without support. What happened on the day of Pentecost
is established
by the inspired record given to us in the Bible, not by some experience that I
may or may not have, or that Mr. Sherrill or anyone else may or may not have.
Documented historical data supply the language context in which this
event occurred.
Margaret Blom's "modern analogy" indicates that she did not
understand
the point or the purpose of my analogy. It may also not have been
clear to others.
Therefore, permit me to briefly restate it. All those who "heard
them speak
in his own language" were Jews. They were devout Jews who were
in Jerusalem
for the feasts of Passover and Pentecost. The native languages of
these Jews were
the national languages of the homes of their dispersion, just as the
native language
of those Jews living for a number of generations in America is English. In some
places in Canada the Jew is bilingual, speaking both English and French, just
as on the nay of Pentecost many of the Jews were
bilingual, speaking both Aramaic and Greek. Under
certain circumstances a Jew in the United States or Canada might learn to speak
Cree or Tlingit, or any other American Indian language; however, the ethnic and
socio-economic situation is such that these languages would never
become "his
language" nor that of his family. If Tagalog in time should
become the only
nationally used language of the Philippines and Some Jews made this
the location
of their homes and business, then in a generation or two there would no doubt
he Jews who would be native speakers of Tagalug.
My analogy was not given to prove a point, but to illustrate and clarify
by giving a modern parallel situation. The fact that there were not more than
four languages used rests upon the documented data which
I presented, to which Margaret Blom makes no reference.
The extent of my investigation reaches much farther
and deeper than this brief article may indicate. I have continued to
examine all
of the data available to me that time would permit. As a result, I
have recently
written a much longer article with more extensive documentation.
Finally, regarding the temperature of my faith (I have no judgment to
make about
the faith of others), it is not on ice, it is not on fire, but it is
in the fire,
where it is being tried and proven. See I Peter 1:7.
To Rev. Burns:
My statement regarding what the Holy Spirit gave is solely a matter
of the text.
Acts 2:4 reads, " as the Spirit gave them utterance (apophtheggomai)."
It does not say, "as the Spirit gave them a tongue or a language (neither
g?ossa nor dialektos)." The Galileans did indeed speak in languages with
which both they and their readers were familiar but which were
"other"
than the sacred Hebrew. The purpose Rev. Burns has in the distinction between
glossa and dialektos is not really clear to me. It appears to me that
he is saying
that lie would translate dialeklos as language which a person has the ability
to speak, and giosaa as tongue which a person does not have the
ability to speak.
If this is the point he is intending to make, I would point out that the Greek
word glossa is used in three ways which are parallel to the English
"tongue."
It is a physical instrument in the mouth as in Mark 7:33. It is used
as an instrument
of expression as in James 1:26. It is also used as a language as in
Rev. 5:9 and
in six other places in Revelation. Acts 2:8, which is referred to by Rev. Burns
reads, "and how hear we every man in our own tongue which we
were born?"
here the Greek word translated tongue is nlialeiclos. This expression
is repeated
at the end of the list of areas in Acts 2:11, where it reads "we do hear
them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God." Here the
worn translated
tongues is from the Greek glossa. Thus dialektos and glossa are used
interchangeably
and both mean language.
To Professor Hoekema:
Professor Hoekema is quite right in observing that Aramaic may have been used
in some of the synagogues as early as the first century AD. In fact, Greek may
have been used to some extent in a few. To what extent and in how'
many synagogues
Greek or Aramaic was used would probably be difficult to establish. However, in
some well-defined manner the status of Hebrew' as a sacred language was still
maintained even in the synagogues of the Diaspora. Professor Hoekema
is also right
in saying that the exact location of the Galileaos when the Holy
Spirit was poured
out upon them, is not known. However, they were certainly among the
pilgrims gathered
at Jerusalem for the Feast of Pentecost. The center of the feast and
of the activities
was the temple. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit was certainly in
some way identified
with the feast that prefigured it. Regardless of the exact location,
the witnessing
of the Galileans was associated with the activities of the day. If the devout
Jews reserved any activities for the exclusive use of Hebrew, it was
the temple-centered
feasts of Passover and Pentecost.
Professor Huekema asks what there was to be
astonished at, if Cornelius spoke in his native Latin (or Greek). lie is still
assuming that the only thing that could bring astonishment is
speaking in a language
one had never used before. Four things must he observed in connection with the
event at Cornelius' house: 1) Cornelius was a Gentile; 2) he was devout and was
seeking to know the God of Israel, .3) there was considerable proselytizing by
the Jews of the First Century (Matt. 23:15); and 4) those who were astonished
were "of the circumcision which believed" (Acts 10:45). For a Gentile
to come to the God of Israel required a certain amount of instruction and some
minimal use of the Hebrew language. He, of course, also must he
circumcised. These
ideas died hard in the church as is indicated in Acts 15. In fact, it
took a special
vision to bring Peter to Cornelius' house and to prepare him for what happened.
The Holy Spirit was poured out upon these Gentiles without any of the
ritual requirements
of circumcision or use of the sacred Hebrew language. It is true we would not
be astonished, but we can only understand their astonishment if we
can transport
ourselves into the cultural religious context of "the circumcision which
believed."
The situation at Ephesus was associated with the synagogue and also
is an example
of abandoning a ritual use of Hebrew in favor of a spontaneous
heartfelt expression
in languages most familiar to them.
The language situation among the Gentile believers in the cosmopolitan city of
Corinth was much different than that among the devout Jews at Jerusalem. A.H.M.
Jones in The Later Roman Empire, Vol. ii points out that particularly among the
lower classes through Asia Minor and the other places in the empire,
small areas
of native languages continued along with the Greek and the Latin. In this case
a Gentile from one of these areas moved by the Holy Spirit would speak freely
in the language native or most familiar to him. However, if he did,
for a majority
of the Corinthian congregation, if not all, he would he speaking to
God, "for
no one understands him." If there were any there who did understand, they
were to interpret or translate it so that the group as a whole could
understand.
That the mind being unfruitful means that it is in a state of quiescence, does
not follow. The mind is involved as the faculty in the meaningful distinctions
made by language. This becomes unfruitful in the church when the
medium of communication
or language is not shared. In fact Paul explicitly states as much in
I Cor. 14:19,
"Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my
understanding, that
by my voice I might teach others also, then ten thousand words in a
tongue"
(Tongue here is by implication a Gentile language not understood by
the hearer).
See also I Cor. 14:10 and 11.