Did the disciples speak different languages at Pentecost?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FishyPete
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
FishyPete said:
I don’t think I have it wrong, but you see the word “interpreted” - that word implies that the Apostles were speaking “ecstatic prayer” that had no understanding, and that Luke interpreted that as speaking in foreign languages.

DISTURBING!

Are we so modern and liberal today to accept this?
Click to expand...
I agree you are reading the commentary incorrectly. The apostles and those in the Upper Room were telling of “the mighty acts of God” (this is found in Chapter 2, vs. 11) and each person was hearing this in his own language. They were ecstatically proclaiming the mighty works of God. Read the entire chapter for understanding of the commentary. Nowhere does Luke imply, nor does the commentary, that they were speaking “ecstatic prayer that had no understanding”. They were proclaiming the mighty acts of God, and each person present understood what was being said–that is, the words of the Apostles were being interpreted for them by the Holy Spirit, thus enabling them to understand what was being said. The Apostles and those in the upper room were in ecstasy and praying as the Holy Spirit gave them utterance.

There is nothing “liberal” or “modern” about this, and I think that rather than the footnote being wrong, you are not reading it correctly.
 
My understanding of that passage has long been that the apostles spoke in several languages. However, this does not quite fit verse 8:
“And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language?”
That suggests that the Apostles were speaking in some language, but the Holy Spirit interpreted for each listener, that is, the Holy Spirit acted upon each listener, giving him or her the ability to understand the words.

Not everyone was able to understand, as we see in verse 13:
But others sneered and said, “They are filled with new wine.”
Some listeners were not receptive to the gift of Holy Spirit, and heard gibberish (or perhaps heard words that sounded foolish, see 1 Corinthians 1:18-27).

In my view, this understanding brings Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 into agreement.
 
FishyPete said:
The text says “OTHER Tounges”. NOT SPEAKING IN BABBLING TOUNGES like in Paul.

Do you follow? The NAB RE is wrong and misleading to the Nth degree.
Click to expand...
The speaking in tongues of the first century was never babbling.

If a native speaker of the tongue understood it, he or she required no interpreter. (Acts 2:6, 11) And in other cases the “gift of tongues” required an interpreter–meaning someone who knew the language or was given the gift of interpretation by Holy Spirit. (1 Corinthians 14:9-40.) The “babbling tongues” you are speaking of (and as I have repeatedly mentioned) is known as “glossolalia.”

Glossolalia is not the speaking of an actually language, per se, but “the fluid vocalizing of speech-like syllables that lack any readily comprehended meaning, in some cases as part of religious practice.”–"Glossolalia," Wikipedia.

The “gift of tongues” in the days of the early Church was not likely to be any type of glossolalia or “babbling” as you put, but actual language, even the “tongues of angels” as mentioned in 1 Corinthians 13:1.
 
Without getting into the interpretation of the footnote in the NAB (not my Bible translation of choice) . . .

There are two important phrases in this passage, “began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim,” and “each one heard them speaking in his own language.” I see this as the Holy Spirit working in the mouths of the disciples and in the ears and minds of the listeners to get the message across.
 
Beryllos said:
My understanding of that passage has long been that the apostles spoke in several languages. However, this does not quite fit verse 8:
“And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language?”
That suggests that the Apostles were speaking in some language, but the Holy Spirit interpreted for each listener, that is, the Holy Spirit acted upon each listener, giving him or her the ability to understand the words.

Not everyone was able to understand, as we see in verse 13:
But others sneered and said, “They are filled with new wine.”
Some listeners were not receptive to the gift of Holy Spirit, and heard gibberish (or perhaps heard words that sounded foolish, see 1 Cor 1:18-27).

In my view, this understanding brings Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 into agreement.
Click to expand...
No, the gift of tongues was a sign that someone was baptized by the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ. It could only come upon believers:

While meeting with them, he enjoined them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for “the promise of the Father* about which you have heard me speak; for John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the holy Spirit.”–Acts 1:4, 5.

The listeners did not have the gift of the Holy Spirit. Peter later preached to the listeners:

Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and* you will *receive the gift of the holy Spirit.–Acts 2:38.

The Spirit was not upon them yet because they had not repented and been baptized. The reason the listeners understood the tongues is that the day was the Jewish holy day of Shavuot (in Greek, Pentecost). (Acts 2:5) Jews, including Gentile proselytes from all over the world were there in Jerusalem to observe Shavuot and therefore could understand the different languages spoken in the gift of tongues:

How does each of us hear them in his own native language? We are Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya near Cyrene, as well as travelers from Rome, both Jews and converts to Judaism, Cretans and Arabs, yet we hear them speaking in our own tongues of the mighty acts of God.–Acts 2:8-11.

The gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 was similar because it could be interpreted. Glossolalia, on the other hand, which is the type of “tongues” that many are confusing the Biblical accounts with, are not languages but “speech-like syllables” tied together and uttered in a trans-like state. One cannot interpret such “glossolalia” like one does an actual language.
 
The text in Acts clearly states they were speaking In Tounges of different languages. What am missing here?
 
DelsonJacobs said:
You are reading the footnote incorrectly.

It states:

To speak in different tongues: ecstatic prayer in praise of God, interpreted in Acts 2:6, 11 as speaking in foreign languages.

In other words the “ecstatic prayer” of Acts 2, 6, 11, is interpreted AS speaking in foreign tongues. It does not say that it required interpretation to be understood.

The word “interpreted” in this footnote means “explained” or “described” and thus could be read equally as:

“Ecstatic prayer in praise of God, explained in Acts 2:6, 11 as speaking in foreign languages.”

or

“Ecstatic prayer in praise of God, described in Acts 2:6, 11 as speaking in foreign languages.”

or simply

“Ecstatic prayer in praise of God, IS interpreted in Acts 2:6, 11 as MEANING speaking in foreign languages.”

In other words the footnote is saying that this is definitely NOT a case of glossolalia because Acts 2:6 says that the “large crowd” from different countries could, as verse 11 states “hear them speaking in our own tongues of the mighty acts of God.”

This is why Acts 2:6 and 11 are cited in this footnote. These two verses “interpret” the expression of verse 4, “to speak in different tongues,” as speaking in languages that were foreign and could be understood by those who natively understood them.

You, on the other hand, are reading the footnote to verse 4 as saying

“Ecstatic prayer in praise of God, required interpreting in Acts 2:6, 11 as speaking in foreign languages.”

That wouldn’t make sense if that is what the footnote was claiming. Why mention Acts 2:6 and 11? In those verses it is clear the NO interpretation is needed to understand the tongues.

The footnote is merely stating that one can interpret “verse 4,” of which this is the footnote, by reading verses 6 and 11–and NOT claiming that the tongues required an interpreter to be understood.
Click to expand...
is the footnote not saying that LUKE interpreted the speaking in Tounges as different languages? that’s hoe I am reading the footnote. not that the babbling needed interpretation.

This footnote is misleading and wrong.

Did the disciples speak in different languages or not? YES or NO?
 
CB_Catholic said:
I agree you are reading the commentary incorrectly. The apostles and those in the Upper Room were telling of “the mighty acts of God” (this is found in Chapter 2, vs. 11) and each person was hearing this in his own language. They were ecstatically proclaiming the mighty works of God. Read the entire chapter for understanding of the commentary. Nowhere does Luke imply, nor does the commentary, that they were speaking “ecstatic prayer that had no understanding”. They were proclaiming the mighty acts of God, and each person present understood what was being said–that is, the words of the Apostles were being interpreted for them by the Holy Spirit, thus enabling them to understand what was being said. The Apostles and those in the upper room were in ecstasy and praying as the Holy Spirit gave them utterance.

There is nothing “liberal” or “modern” about this, and I think that rather than the footnote being wrong, you are not reading it correctly.
Click to expand...
i read the footnote saying that LUKE interpreted it as different languages. Am I wrong I that?

It is liberal and modern as many of the NAB notes take out the miracles from the bible.
 
INTERPRETED MEANS it didn’t actually happen. See why the note is wrong?

So I will repeat my original question!

Did or did not the apostles speak actual different languages?

Can anyone at all answer this?
 
FishyPete said:
So I read this:

Acts 2:

And they were all filled with the holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim.d*

5Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven staying in Jerusalem. 6At this sound, they gathered in a large crowd, but they were confused because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7They were astounded, and in amazement they asked, “Are not all these people who are speaking Galileans?e 8Then how does each of us hear them in his own native language? 9We are Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya near Cyrene, as well as travelers from Rome, 11both Jews and converts to Judaism, Cretans and Arabs, yet we hear them speaking in our own tongues of the mighty acts of God.”f 12They were all astounded and bewildered, and said to one another, “What does this mean?” 13But others said, scoffing, “They have had too much new wine.”g

This is the commentary from the The New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE):

d* [2:4] To speak in different tongues: ecstatic prayer in praise of God, **interpreted **in Acts 2:6, 11 as speaking in foreign languages, **symbolizing **the worldwide mission of the church.

Is this what the Catholic Church in the United States believes???

I always took this portion of Acts literally! i.e. the disciple spoke different languages.

What gives? This is the bible endorsed by American Bishops today??
Click to expand...
Not only is the NAB endorsed by American bishops, the translation was actually commissioned by the USCCB. Regardless, I don’t think this footnote is actually saying that the apostles didn’t speak in different languages - it’s stating what “speaking in tongues” means, as many people might not know what the phrase means (especially if they’re children - I received my first NAB on my 8th birthday). A lot of the footnotes in the NAB are simply explanations of terminology being used. Others simply note that the passage isn’t found in all early manuscripts, though it’s always been seen as inspired. The NAB is actually a very faithful translation (actually one of the better translations there is - which is why it’s the translation used in the Lectionary approved for use in the US), but the footnotes read like they’re written for a “Bible as literature” course rather than for helping Catholics understand the Church’s teachings found in the Bible.
 
powerofk said:
Not only is the NAB endorsed by American bishops, the translation was actually commissioned by the USCCB. Regardless, I don’t think this footnote is actually saying that the apostles didn’t speak in different languages - it’s stating what “speaking in tongues” means, as many people might not know what the phrase means (especially if they’re children - I received my first NAB on my 8th birthday). A lot of the footnotes in the NAB are simply explanations of terminology being used. Others simply note that the passage isn’t found in all early manuscripts, though it’s always been seen as inspired. The NAB is actually a very faithful translation (actually one of the better translations there is - which is why it’s the translation used in the Lectionary approved for use in the US), but the footnotes read like they’re written for a “Bible as literature” course rather than for helping Catholics understand the Church’s teachings found in the Bible.
Click to expand...
if you read the footnote carefully it states the word Interpreting and symbolizing. I don’t think I am reading it wrong at all.

I don’t know about the actual scripture. but the foot notes take the miracles out of the bible.
 
powerofk said:
Not only is the NAB endorsed by American bishops, the translation was actually commissioned by the USCCB. Regardless, I don’t think this footnote is actually saying that the apostles didn’t speak in different languages - it’s stating what “speaking in tongues” means, as many people might not know what the phrase means (especially if they’re children - I received my first NAB on my 8th birthday). A lot of the footnotes in the NAB are simply explanations of terminology being used. Others simply note that the passage isn’t found in all early manuscripts, though it’s always been seen as inspired. The NAB is actually a very faithful translation (actually one of the better translations there is - which is why it’s the translation used in the Lectionary approved for use in the US), but the footnotes read like they’re written for a “Bible as literature” course rather than for helping Catholics understand the Church’s teachings found in the Bible.
Click to expand...
The foot notes are dangerous if you take a careful reading of them.

An endorsement, unless it’s from the Vatican means nothing.
 
FishyPete said:
i read the footnote saying that LUKE interpreted it as different languages. Am I wrong I that?

It is liberal and modern as many of the NAB notes take out the miracles from the bible.
Click to expand...
I cannot see where you are having trouble, and apparently, most of the posters agree on this.

I can’t explain it any better than what has already been explained to you. You seem to be reading something into the footnotes most of us don’t see.

However, calling this liberal and modern astonishes me. If the actions of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost aren’t a miracle, what is???

I do have to say one thing, though–not liking the translation and footnotes of the NAB is one thing. Scholars have different opinions. But you are not a Biblical scholar, so for you to unequivocally declare the footnotes and interpretations in the NAB as WRONG, and “liberal and modern” takes a bit of “chutzpah”, doesn’t it? It would be better to qualify your statements as opinions, and do it with charity. After all, you may also be wrong.
 
CB_Catholic said:
I cannot see where you are having trouble, and apparently, most of the posters agree on this.

I can’t explain it any better than what has already been explained to you. You seem to be reading something into the footnotes most of us don’t see.

However, calling this liberal and modern astonishes me. If the actions of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost aren’t a miracle, what is???

I do have to say one thing, though–not liking the translation and footnotes of the NAB is one thing. Scholars have different opinions. But you are not a Biblical scholar, so for you to unequivocally declare the footnotes and interpretations in the NAB as WRONG, and “liberal and modern” takes a bit of “chutzpah”, doesn’t it? It would be better to qualify your statements as opinions, and do it with charity. After all, you may also be wrong.
Click to expand...
here you go:
jimmyakin.com/2005/01/the_new_america.html
 
FishyPete said:
i read the footnote saying that LUKE interpreted it as different languages. Am I wrong I that?

It is liberal and modern as many of the NAB notes take out the miracles from the bible.
Click to expand...
I cannot see where you are having trouble, and apparently, most of the posters agree on this.

I can’t explain it any better than what has already been explained to you. You seem to be reading something into the footnotes most of us don’t see.

However, calling this liberal and modern astonishes me. If the actions of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost aren’t a miracle, what is???

I do have to say one thing, though–not liking the translation and footnotes of the NAB is one thing. Scholars have different opinions. But you are not a Biblical scholar, so for you to unequivocally declare the footnotes and interpretations in the NAB as WRONG, and “liberal and modern” takes a bit of “chutzpah”, doesn’t it? It would be better to qualify your statements as opinions, and do it with charity. After all, you may also be wrong.
 
Footnotes are not the Bible. Footnotes are someone’s ideas about the Bible but they are not part of the Bible.

The Bible I read has a small section of footnotes after each testament and I totally ignore them. It’s better not to have any footnotes and stick to the inspired word of God, the Bible itself.

-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
Footnotes are not the Bible. Footnotes are someone’s ideas about the Bible but they are not part of the Bible.

The Bible I read has a small section of footnotes after each testament and I totally ignore them. It’s better not to have any footnotes and stick to the inspired word of God, the Bible itself.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
Thanks Tim. As usual you provide great (name removed by moderator)ut.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top