Relación de la empresa con la sociedad

understanding the New Testament subject on speaking ¡n tongues.

This survey on translation differences also ¡nforms the reader on the distinction between a "formal translation" approach, which rendersthe original text in a "word-for-word" correspondence, and the "dynamic translation" approach, which employs a thought-for-thought correspondence and provides much freedom to the transistor.22 In the latter case translation becomes a more extensive interpretaron or even a mini-commentary. We may do well to look at the language of 1 Cor 12-14 in the original text.

4. TONGUES-SPEAKING TERMINOLOGY

Does the language that is employed by Paul in describing the phenomenon of tongues-speaking differ from that of other New Testament descriptions of "speaking in tongues"? Is the language that Paul employs for tongues-speaking ¡dentical with religious ecstatic speech in surrounding Hellenistic pagan religions? Does Paul describe a phenomenon in 1 Cor 12-14 that has been adopted by the Christians in Corinth from their pagan surroundings? These are the kinds of questions and issues that are in the mind of the discerning reader of these chapters in 1 Corinthians. It is necessary, therefore, that we give heed to the language that Paul uses when he refers to tongues-speaking. It needs to be compared to the language in the remainder of the New Testament and in the culture surrounding the Corinthian church.

The word "tongue(s)" is used four times in 1 Cor 12,23 tw o times in 1 Cor 13,24 and seventeen times in 1 Cor 14 ,25 making a total of twenty-three times. Significantly, in each case without any exception, the word for "tongue" is the Greek word glóssa, the very word which is used in Mark for Jesús' prediction of "new tongues," and in Acts by Luke when he describes the Pentecostal experience and the manifestations of this gift of tongues at Caesarea and Ephesus.

Another observation is in order. Every time the phrase "to speak in tongues" appears (12 times)26 the verb "to

speak" ¡s a form of the same Greek term lalefn, the very verb which is used by Luke ¡n Acts for "to speak" ¡n tongues and by Mark ¡n Mark 16:17. This means that there is full and complete identity of language in every New Testament passage that treats the subject of "speaking ¡n tongues."

Some scholars interpret the Greek term glóssa, "tongues," in terms of antiquated, strange, or mysterious utterances of an ecstatic nature.27 In the Greek language the term glóssa can refer to an "obsolete or foreign w ord."28 This, however, is still different from what is meant by the supporters of this hypothesis. As a matter of fact, the use of the term glóssa as a designaron for understandable, intelligible language far exceeds its use in non-biblical Greek for strange and obsolete speech.29

What is the evidence of the Greek Bible (Septuagint and New Testament) in support of the hypothesis of glossolalia as a form of speech that is unintelligible? As was demonstrated in Chapter II above, an investigaron of the usage of the term

glóssa throughout the New Testament, shows that it is only

used for the "tongue" as an organ of speech30 and for intelligible human language.31 This is true also for the usage of this term in the Septuagint. Even in Isa 29:24 and 32:4, where the term glóssa seems to refer to stammering, there is no indication of ecstasy or the like.32 Even in these tw o cases "it refers to language."33 Thus there is little doubt that the Biblical use of the noun glóssa does not support the idea of ecstatic utterance.

It has been noticed that the Greek adjective heteros, "other" (Acts 2:4), is lacking in 1 Cor 12-14. Some scholars have, therefore, argued that the language of Paul differs from Acts. Is this lack of the adjective "other" so decisive that the tw o phenomena of speaking in tongues have to be separated? We have to keep in mind that heteros, "other," is not found in 1 and 2 Thess, Titus, in John (except in 19:37), Mark (except 16:12), 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John. It is not necessary that it be used again after Acts 2:4 in the expression "speaking in tongues" because in this text it ¡dentifies the tongues-speaking as something that is "other" in the sense that those who had received the gift at Pentecost were "speaking in various languages which were different

120 SPEAKING IN TONGUES

from the mother tongue of the speakers and which were previously unknown to them ."34 It needs to be stressed that the Greek expression g/óssa laleín, literally "to speak ¡n tongues," also appears in Acts 10:46 and 19:6 without the

adjective. This may indícate that after the Pentecostal

experience "speaking in tongues" became a technical designation35 w ith a fixed meaning where the adjective "other" is understood without having to be repeated. It is very likely that the short form "speaking in tongues" without an article in Greek and without an adjective ("new" or "other") is an abbreviated expression of the longer phrase "speaking in new/other tongues" used only in Mark 16:17 and Acts 2:4.36 Henee the usage in Acts 10 and 19 and in 1 Cor 12- 14 may be an ellipsis, that is, a shorter form of the originally longer phrase. Engelsen suggests that the original term lies in the unrecoverable past,37 but it may rather be that it rests in Mark 16:17 and Acts 2:4 where in both cases an adjective is

present. It seems unavoidable to conclude that Christian

tongues-speaking--and there is no other such phenomenon known in the ancient world--"apparently had its beginning in

the Pentecost."38 The gift experience of Pentecostal

tongues-speaking is a "new creation"39 of the Holy Spirit. We do not need to rehearse what has been stated in Chapter II above regarding the unique usage of the language for "speaking in tongues" in the New Testament. The Greek expression is totally lacking outside the New Testament. For this reason several hypotheses have been created which suggest that the tongues-speaking phenomenon in 1 Corinthians is glossolalia in the sense of unintelligible and inarticulate speech of nonsense syllables. Among the major hypotheses is one which interprets the New Testament phenomenon by means of religio-historical parallels. We will turn to this once again later, but we have already touched on this in Chapter II above.

Another hypothesis suggests that the supposed

glossolalic experience in Corinth can be explained

terminologically from the Greek term laléo. The ancient

Church father Origen already speculated about a kind of "lalling." In recent times it has been suggested again that

in this term.40 While this hypothesis inherently seeks to explain tongues-speaking as glossolalia in the sense of ¡narticulate, unintelligible speech, it admits that glossolalia cannot be derived from the term "tongue" (Greek glóssa). However, ¡t overlooks some important facts about the usage of laléo in 1 Cor 14. In 1 Cor 14:9 Paul uses laléo when speaking about that which is to be "known" in the sense of the activity of the mind. In 1 Cor 14:29 the ¡nstruction is given for tw o or three "prophets" to "speak" (laléo) and they speak ordinary languages. In 1 Cor 14:34, 35 women are not permitted to "speak" (laléo). This is once more ordinary speech in normal human language. Thus the verb laléo is employed by Paul in 1 Cor 14 in the context of tongues- speaking (vs. 9), speaking by prophets (vs. 29), and women speaking in church (vs. 34, 35). These contexts demand that

laléo refers to ordinary human language. We may agree with

the conclusión of J. M. Ford that "Paul's use of laletn [the infinite of laléo] does not militate against the argument that tongues are a human language."41

This conclusión is confirmed by the quotation of Isa 28:11 in 1 Cor 14:21 where the lips of strangers, that is, the Assyrians, will "speak" (laléo) to the people of Israel in "other tongues," which are languages42 that are not understood by those who speak only Hebrew.

We may suggest on the basis of the foregoing considerations that there is no compelling terminological reason leading to the conclusión that the terminology of "speaking in tongues" in 1 Cor 1 2-14 is in any sense different from the remainder of the New Testament. There is likewise no compelling reason for tongues-speaking in Corinth to refer to glossolalia in the sense of "the broken speech of persons in religious ecstasy"43 or the like.

We will remain with the definition of the locus c/asslcus on tongues-speaking, namely the Acts 2 passage which relates the events of the Day of Pentecost. It is the only New Testament passage which contains a definition of tongues- speaking. It is our suggestion (1) that there is but one gift of tongues provided by the Holy Spirit in the New Testament, (2) that tongues-speaking is the same in the entire New Testament, which is supported by the same terminology, the