Interpretation of Tongues Question(s)

[Medawlinno]

Hello All,

I’m not sure this is the correct spot to post the below; if not, please feel free to move it to the appropriate area.

As a linguist, I am doing a bit of general research on glossolalia – a/k/a ‘speaking in tongues’. The research is being done here and there (i.e. it’s not any part of any ongoing study) and will not be formally published. Specifically, I’m hoping to obtain some answers and perhaps insights/thoughts about a specific question.

The question is geared more for those who believe they are able to interpret a glossic utterance. So….if any of you out there have this ability, I would like to ask the following:

Must the ‘tongue’ always be heard to be able to interpret (i.e. does someone need to be actually speaking), or are you able to offer an interpretation from the written word?

In other words, if you I were given a written sample of a legitimate pastor’s glossic utterance, would you be able to read it and offer an interpretation (provided of course, that it was written such that you could read it – i.e. basically writing it out phonetically as if one were writing English)

If not, why??

Also, if not, if someone were to read the example aloud to you (i.e. you heard it spoken by someone), or if you read it aloud to yourself, would you then be able to offer an interpretation??

Again, why or why not??

Or, are you only able to offer an interpretation if the glossolalis is spoken by someone else??

Lastly, and this one’s a bit touchy……if the same utterance were given to say five people, preferably written, but spoken if need be, and five totally unrelated interpretations were offered, how would you respond to that??

I’m basically trying to determine if written examples of glossolalia are just as “valid” (for lack of a better term) as spoken ones with respect to interpretations offered. I’ve also just been wondering about the last question (a “what were to happen if……” sort of thing).

Thanks for all responses.

 

[Mintaka]

Interesting topic. I’m not sure how you’re going to be able to carry out good research for it, but I wish you luck!

Obscure fact that is seldom pointed out: the early Church treated “glossolalia” as generally meaning speaking in known human tongues which were unknown to the speaker but known to listeners (also called “xenoglossia”), or where everybody present heard the same speaker in his own language even if they were all different (ie, it would seem that they were all given miraculous powers of understanding, really). However, the phenomenon of ecstatic speech that didn’t mean anything in particular seems to have been called “jubilation,” and identified with the passage from Paul about the Spirit praying for us in “groans too deep for words”.

Everybody seems to have forgotten this…

 

[ltwin]

The question is geared more for those who believe they are able to interpret a glossic utterance. So….if any of you out there have this ability, I would like to ask the following:

I pray in tongues, but I’ve never interpreted. I have family members who have interpreted though.

Must the ‘tongue’ always be heard to be able to interpret (i.e. does someone need to be actually speaking), or are you able to offer an interpretation from the written word?

In other words, if you I were given a written sample of a legitimate pastor’s glossic utterance, would you be able to read it and offer an interpretation (provided of course, that it was written such that you could read it – i.e. basically writing it out phonetically as if one were writing English)

If not, why??

I’ve never seen this done. There was some experimentation with this practice in the early 1900s, during the beginning of the Pentecostal Movement, but this practice was discontinued due the lack of any Scriptural precedent and also because it seemed too similar to what Spiritualists were doing.

The difference was that in these early cases, they were actually writing in an unknown language or alphabet. The figures were completely incomprehensible.There is an example from a book I own, The Azusa Street Mission & Revival: The Birth of the Global Pentecostal Movement page 113.

Also, if not, if someone were to read the example aloud to you (i.e. you heard it spoken by someone), or if you read it aloud to yourself, would you then be able to offer an interpretation??

Again, why or why not??

I would think not. Someone reading phonetic sounds of a message in tongues would just be reading strange sounds. These are spiritual gifts, empowered by the Holy Spirit. We speak “as the Spirit gives utterance.” It’s not something we can do or understand naturally.

The person who speaks in tongues and the person who interprets are displaying the unity of the Body of Christ. The person with the gift of tongues is useless unless someone interprets, and the person who interprets is useless unless someone speaks. They need each other and depend on each other; just as Christians depend on one another.

Lastly, and this one’s a bit touchy……if the same utterance were given to say five people, preferably written, but spoken if need be, and five totally unrelated interpretations were offered, how would you respond to that??

Well, we might assume two things. First, they all received different parts of the message. Second, someone was acting in the flesh.

I’m basically trying to determine if written examples of glossolalia are just as “valid” (for lack of a better term) as spoken ones with respect to interpretations offered. I’ve also just been wondering about the last question (a “what were to happen if……” sort of thing).

Thanks for all responses.

No church that I know of currently practices writing in tongues. It’s not something we see in Scripture (or tradition I’d wager, unless you consider St. Hildegard of Bingen’s Lingua Ignota). As I said, the brief experiments with this in the early Pentecostal Movement were discontinued for the lack of biblical precedent and the similarity to modern day Spiritualist practices.

 

[Cath4life]

Interesting topic. I’m not sure how you’re going to be able to carry out good research for it, but I wish you luck!

Obscure fact that is seldom pointed out: the early Church treated “glossolalia” as generally meaning speaking in known human tongues which were unknown to the speaker but known to listeners (also called “xenoglossia”), or where everybody present heard the same speaker in his own language even if they were all different (ie, it would seem that they were all given miraculous powers of understanding, really). However, the phenomenon of ecstatic speech that didn’t mean anything in particular seems to have been called “jubilation,” and identified with the passage from Paul about the Spirit praying for us in “groans too deep for words”.

Everybody seems to have forgotten this…

Can 2 people that speak in tongues understand each other ???

 

[ltwin]

Can 2 people that speak in tongues understand each other ???

If you mean glossolalia, no. Not unless one of them has the gift of interpretation, and receives an interpretation.

 

[Medawlinno]

Thanks fopr the responses thus far!

@ Mintaka - yes, I am of the belief that ‘tongues’ were living langauges (xenoglossy). And yes, Pentecost, it could be argued, was more a phonomenon of hearing, rather than speaking.

@ Itwin - I’m not suggesting tongues be written, just curious if they were transcribed, if someone could interpret them, but you offer in interesting observation in that this may not seem to be the case. By your post, you seem to suggest that there is some sort of symbiosis here; in order for it to work, the speaker must be sort of dependent on the interpreter and vise versa. What if the person reading it were to use the same intonations and emotion in their voice? i.e is it more the emotion, intonation and timbre of the voice more than the actual sounds? Or, a combination of both (or really “none of the above”)?

Yes, I’ve heard (and seen a few examples) of ‘tongue writing’ from that time period. This would be something totally different - here’s a line from one example I recenty transcribed:

Káyntay háychee, háychee kéeho hóro.

/kénte héči, héči kího hóro/

The first section is read like English (‘ay’ is as in “day”), the accents simply show the main stress in the ‘words’. The section in / / is the same string, just a loose IPA version.

 

[ltwin]

@ Itwin - I’m not suggesting tongues be written, just curious if they were transcribed, if someone could interpret them, but you offer in interesting observation in that this may not seem to be the case. By your post, you seem to suggest that there is some sort of symbiosis here; in order for it to work, the speaker must be sort of dependent on the interpreter and vise versa.

Yes. It’s no accident that Paul addresses the unity of Christ’s body in 1 Corinthians 12 before he gets into an in depth discussion of tongues in chapter 14.

What if the person reading it were to use the same intonations and emotion in their voice? i.e is it more the emotion, intonation and timbre of the voice more than the actual sounds? Or, a combination of both (or really “none of the above”)?

The problem is that interpretation is not translation. When interpreters hear a message in tongues, they don’t process it like someone who hears a foreign language and must translate that.

It’s a matter of simply responding to the burden they feel on the inside and receiving the interpretation.

Yes, I’ve heard (and seen a few examples) of ‘tongue writing’ from that time period. This would be something totally different - here’s a line from one example I recenty transcribed:

Káyntay háychee, háychee kéeho hóro. /kénte héči, héči kího hóro/

The first section is read like English (‘ay’ is as in “day”), the accents simply show the main stress in the ‘words’. The section in / / is the same string, just a loose IPA version.

It’s an interesting question. I haven’t encountered any Pentecostals who attempt this. I have come across humorous transcriptions such as “Econo Lodge” and “see me see me tie see me tie my shoe.” But nothing serious like you’re are asking.

 

[Medawlinno]

Yes - definitley interpretation and not translation - huge difference. That’s what I meant - if a person were reading it, but not just sort of from rote, rather using the same emotions, intonation, etc. as the original speaker, would the interpreter be able to offer an interpretation or must the interpreter hear (sic!) it from the oroginal speaker??

yeah, I’ve seen a few of those on, quite frankly, “how to” videos that teach a person how to speak in tongues.

This line comes from an actual legit pastor speaking a four line glossic utterance - this is just the first line. The other three are equally as short. T

his is what I mean - if this were read aloud to someone who interprets (using the same emotion, intonation, etc.), or even better yet…read by the interpreter (whenther aloud or not), would they be able to offer an interpretation, or would they need to hear it from the original speaker?

 

[ChibiViolet]

Interesting topic. I’m not sure how you’re going to be able to carry out good research for it, but I wish you luck!

Obscure fact that is seldom pointed out: the early Church treated “glossolalia” as generally meaning speaking in known human tongues which were unknown to the speaker but known to listeners (also called “xenoglossia”), or where everybody present heard the same speaker in his own language even if they were all different (ie, it would seem that they were all given miraculous powers of understanding, really). **However, the phenomenon of ecstatic speech that didn’t mean anything in particular seems to have been called “jubilation,” and identified with the passage from Paul about the Spirit praying for us in “groans too deep for words”.
**
Everybody seems to have forgotten this…

Is there a word for that if the source is demonic? I have urges to speak in tongues at times and can tell that it comes from demons (so I try to never ever follow them and if I do, I always confess it) and no one understood it when I used it in front of people. (It made some people creeped out though.) Surely that is not called “jubilation.” I was thinking of it as “xenoglossia,” but apparently that is not accurate unless people were around me as I used it and they were to understand?

 

[Medawlinno]

Xenoglossy/Xenoglosia is speaking a living real language that the speaker supposedly has never in any way, shape or form ever had contact with.

So for example if someone growing in in say rural Kansas (sorry, Kansas - no offense!) who has only ever heard English spoken ANYWHERE (people, radio, television, internet, etc., etc.) suddenly starts speaking fluent Gaelic or German, or Navajo, or French - that’s xenoglossy.

There are no known true modern documented cases of xenoglossy anywhere.

I mean this with all due respect…what makes you think they are demonic as opposed to just simply glossolalia (‘tongues’)? I’m really curious about that as a lot of people say the same thing.

Is it the sounds/‘words’ themselves or the intonation in which they are spoken (or both) that cause you to associate the term ‘demonic’ with it (or is it something else entirely)??

People who have never heard glossolalia may tend to get a bit freaked out when they first encounter it - I get that reaction from some people with a few real languages I speak; especially when people don’t expect it.

 

[ltwin]

Yes - definitley interpretation and not translation - huge difference. That’s what I meant - if a person were reading it, but not just sort of from rote, rather using the same emotions, intonation, etc. as the original speaker, would the interpreter be able to offer an interpretation or must the interpreter hear (sic!) it from the oroginal speaker??

I would think the interpreter would need to hear it from the original speaker. I’m not an authority on what can and cannot happen, but I am a lifelong Pentecostal and that would be my judgment.

yeah, I’ve seen a few of those on, quite frankly, “how to” videos that teach a person how to speak in tongues.

The “how to” videos are scams. You cannot teach people how to speak in tongues. You can try, but all you’re doing is teaching repetition of sounds. This provides no meaning or edification to the one you are supposedly trying to teach.

If you really speak in tongues, the sounds flow out of you. It’s hard to explain, but you don’t consciously form words. The sounds come independent of conscious thought.

This line comes from an actual legit pastor speaking a four line glossic utterance - this is just the first line. The other three are equally as short. T

his is what I mean - if this were read aloud to someone who interprets (using the same emotion, intonation, etc.), or even better yet…read by the interpreter (whenther aloud or not), would they be able to offer an interpretation, or would they need to hear it from the original speaker?

From what I know about the gift of interpretation, I would say no. It would be a neat experiment to see though.

 

[Usige]

Yes - definitley interpretation and not translation - huge difference. That’s what I meant - if a person were reading it, but not just sort of from rote, rather using the same emotions, intonation, etc. as the original speaker, would the interpreter be able to offer an interpretation or must the interpreter hear (sic!) it from the oroginal speaker??

yeah, I’ve seen a few of those on, quite frankly, “how to” videos that teach a person how to speak in tongues.

This line comes from an actual legit pastor speaking a four line glossic utterance - this is just the first line. The other three are equally as short. This is what I mean - if this were read aloud to someone who interprets (using the same emotion, intonation, etc.), or even better yet…read by the interpreter (whenther aloud or not), would they be able to offer an interpretation, or would they need to hear it from the original speaker?

Just a thought experiment, but I also wonder if tongues → interpretation would also be temporal. In otherwords does the gift of interpretation only work with live intonations or can they listen to a recoding of the original utterances? I wonder since it seems multiple interpreters could “receive” different messages from hearing the same utterances. Also would the same interpretation be given if heard 10 years apart by the same interpreter?

**

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Hello All,

I’m not sure this is the correct spot to post the below; if not, please feel free to move it to the appropriate area.

As a linguist, I am doing a bit of general research on glossolalia – a/k/a ‘speaking in tongues’. The research is being done here and there (i.e. it’s not any part of any ongoing study) and will not be formally published. Specifically, I’m hoping to obtain some answers and perhaps insights/thoughts about a specific question.

The question is geared more for those who believe they are able to interpret a glossic utterance. So….if any of you out there have this ability, I would like to ask the following:

Must the ‘tongue’ always be heard to be able to interpret (i.e. does someone need to be actually speaking), or are you able to offer an interpretation from the written word?

In other words, if you I were given a written sample of a legitimate pastor’s glossic utterance, would you be able to read it and offer an interpretation (provided of course, that it was written such that you could read it – i.e. basically writing it out phonetically as if one were writing English)

If not, why??

Also, if not, if someone were to read the example aloud to you (i.e. you heard it spoken by someone), or if you read it aloud to yourself, would you then be able to offer an interpretation??

Again, why or why not??

Or, are you only able to offer an interpretation if the glossolalis is spoken by someone else??

Lastly, and this one’s a bit touchy……if the same utterance were given to say five people, preferably written, but spoken if need be, and five totally unrelated interpretations were offered, how would you respond to that??

I’m basically trying to determine if written examples of glossolalia are just as “valid” (for lack of a better term) as spoken ones with respect to interpretations offered. I’ve also just been wondering about the last question (a “what were to happen if……” sort of thing).

Thanks for all responses.

I grew up Pentecostal but have never received the gift of tongues myself.

Itwin basically nailed the Pentecostal interpretation of it all, but I have heard that the case whereby the speaker speaks in a known human tongue does exist and has happened. My parents claim that in a revival they participated in in the 1980s in Italy that they heard an old woman pray in English and another one in French, even though both women claimed to have never spoken either language before in their lives.

 

[ltwin]

Just a thought experiment, but I also wonder if tongues → interpretation would also be temporal. In otherwords does the gift of interpretation only work with live intonations or can they listen to a recoding of the original utterances? I wonder since it seems multiple interpreters could “receive” different messages from hearing the same utterances. Also would the same interpretation be given if heard 10 years apart by the same interpreter?

There have been experiments along these lines. (Speaking from hazy memory) I want to say that in general it seems that the interpretations were inconsistent. Pentecostals would say, as state above, either 1) They got different parts of the message or 2) Some or all of these so-called interpreters were acting in the flesh.

**

None taken. I’m highly dubious of many religions myself.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Just a thought experiment, but I also wonder if tongues → interpretation would also be temporal. In otherwords does the gift of interpretation only work with live intonations or can they listen to a recoding of the original utterances? I wonder since it seems multiple interpreters could “receive” different messages from hearing the same utterances. Also would the same interpretation be given if heard 10 years apart by the same interpreter?

**
I think a double-blind test like that would be great. Have multiple people who speak in tongues come in one at a time to a group who claim to have the gift of interpretation. You can have them all in the same room, but make sure there is no interaction between speaker and interpreter or between interpreters before, during, or after the tests apart from the speaker speaking and the interpreters listening. Then the interpreters (who again do not interact at all with each other) write what they believe each speaker says, being as specific as possible.

 

[Medawlinno]

OK - guess my response was too long - will need to do this in two posts…

PART 1

Some great insight here - thanks for the replies!

I somewhat agree, many of the “how to” videos simply reinforce the signature repetitiveness of sounds/strings found in glossolalia, but what’s interesting is that they aso seem to recognize that glossolaia is indeed very repetitive and often even predictable. It also seems to reinforce the theory that the sounds themselves are essentially irrelevent with respect to the interpretation (more on this later).

Studies such that a few of you have suggested, have actually been done; a few better known ones as early as the late 1960’s, another one in the late 1990’s. What is a bit frustrating is that the details of the studies are difficult to ascertain; i.e. I’m not entirely sure they were ever formally published - from what I have been able to discover, the glossolalia is recorded, several people are brought in who can interpret, and presumably the recording is played to each interpreter separately (i.e. they each hear it alone, not with the other interpreters in the same room) - common sense would seem to dictate that’s the way to do this type of study (i.e. interpreters are kept separate from each other), so I have to assume that’s the way they were done.

The results of every test done that I have heard about were not all that inspiring - no two interpretations were ever remotely alike.

From what I understand, if there are several interpreters who hear a string of glossolalia and they are in the same room hearing it together, they will all offer similar interpretations -there may be a few subtle differences in the details, but the ‘core’ message is essentially the same.

I’m not sure this has much validity though, as obviously someone is going to be first to offer an interpretation. It can be argued that the others are just building off of the initial message.

In the more (presumably) blind test, results were not at all similar - in one test they ranged from praying for the health of someone’s children, to praising God for a recent successful church fund-raising event. Essentailly ask ten different people to interpret the same utterance, get ten different answers with no similar underlying ‘core message’.

I don’t think there have been any stidies done with the theory of interpretation being temporal - i.e. play the same utterance to the same interpreter a year down the road, would the interpretation be the same? I tend to doubt it personally, but would love to see a study like that done just to see what the results would be!

From what I’m gathering, it seems as far as interpretation is concerned, it must be heard,preferably from the original speaker - the two work in a sort of symbiosis. It can’t be something that’s written (though I’d love to try a test like that!)

Here’s a question - If an utterance can not be interpreted, is it automaticaaly deemed a “false tongue” or even “demonic tongue”?? Or is it more of the idea that God is not ready to give the message yet??

Getting back to the first paragraph, and not meant to offend anyone…

If interpretations of the same glossic string are contradictory and inconsistent to one another, glossolalia fails as language by any definition,

A common come-back is that God simply gave different interpretations to these different people. Fair enough, however this completely eradicates the need for glossolalia in the first place. If the interpretation is a spiritual thing that is not really based on the sounds of the actual glossolalia, what then is the purpose of the sounds at all? When thinking of it taht way, these ‘sounds’ fit nicely into the criteria of how most other cultures/faith traditions view glossolalia.

Glossolaia is of course not unique to Christianity; many other faith traditions/cultures practice it. In these cultures however, glossolaia is regarded as simply a tool by which the practitioner establishes a connection to the divine or spirit world; it is not the means by which the message is conveyed (either to or from the deity). Typically, the person practicing the glossolalia is the same one who interprests the message received or conveys the message to the deity.

Chrsistian glossolalia seems to be regarded by its practitioners as the means by which the message is conveyed, i.e. it’s not considered simply a tool to first establish the connection with the means being another mechanism entirely.

 

[Medawlinno]

PART 2…

The answers I’m getting and from what I’m seeing in various videos however, seem to not support that concept, but rather strongly suggest that glossolalia behaves and should be regarded in the same way as glossolalia from other traditions in the world – i.e. it’s not the glossolalia itself that is the message or the means; it’s simply the TOOL for connecting to the divine, the message conveyed is something else entirely and appears to be independent of the glossic utterance.

The actual sounds are more or less irrelevant, they’re simply the tool to get the message. The message or interpretation itself is revealed by a completely non-related mechanism. Adding a bit of support to this idea is that these interpretations are often strikingly longer or shorter than the actual glossic utterance.

Should Christian glossolalia be studied more in depth and possibly even redefined?

Personally, I think so - it seems to fit more into the ‘tool’ category as defined above, than it does the ‘means’ category.

As a sort of aside -

Corinthians for me describes two things - for the most part, real living langauges but also glossolalia as it was practiced in pre-Christian Corinth, perhaps specifically at the Temple of Aphrodite where, from the accounts of contemporary writers, it was clearly a tool by which the practicioners connected to the deity. It’s been suggested that the early church in Corinth, aside from being very “international” for its day (hence the many languages), brought some of these glossolaic practices into the Christian church, which of course Paul strongly objected to.

Acts was not glossolalia, if anything, it describes xenoglossia, but Acts is a whole different topic as there are several possibilities, none of which involve glossolalia as it’s practiced today.

OK - I kind of went off on a soap box there, but…the questions posed in the posts above still remain and I look forward to additional insights and answers.

If anyone wishes to see the whole four lines of the glossolalia I recently transcribed, I’ll be happy to forward them to you - even better, I’d love a crack at any interpretations. These would need to be sent via a PM though just to keep it fair. Any results would eb sharred at a later date.

 

[ltwin]

Here’s a question - If an utterance can not be interpreted, is it automaticaaly deemed a “false tongue” or even “demonic tongue”?? Or is it more of the idea that God is not ready to give the message yet??

In Pentecostal churches (and I presume the charismatic Catholic meetings), it is understood that there is the private use of tongues (prayer and praise) and then the public use of tongues (addressed to the entire congregation: could be prayer, praise, or a prophecy–in which case it is God speaking to the group).

In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul creates rules to keep order in meetings. One of these rules is that if someone speaks in tongues, but there is no one to interpret the message, the speaker should sit down and speak to himself and to God silently (implying that he should pray in tongues to himself only).

Pentecostals would not assume that someone was a demoniac unless they displayed some other symptoms.

There is actually a quite extensive “etiquette” that has developed in Pentecostal churches over when, how, and where to deliver a message in tongues and even what to do when two or more people start to give an interpretation at the same time.

I once witnessed two women who were racing to give the same interpretation until finally one of them yielded. The woman who gave the message, lets just say her “interpretation” was generally doubted by the rest of the church. One member went so far as to say “that wasn’t a message from God, that was a message from Beelzebub.” When I told my mother about that she was shocked, because that comment could be interpreted as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

 

[Medawlinno]

Thanks for the reply, Itwin.

Can you expand at all on this “etiquette” - I’m just curious…what happens when more than one person wants to give an interpretation?

So, are you saying that you’d never hear say several people offering interpretations, even one right after the other, on what was just said?

 

[Medawlinno]

Speaking of tests, here’s one that was done (presumably) back in the 1990’s by a Frenchman who is now an ex-Pentecostal - he published a book (?) in 2001 on the subject of tongues (I have not read it) - here’s what he writes:

“I asked a Scottish brother who had the typical broad accent of his country, to put ‘The Lord’s Prayer’ twice in a row onto cassette. Armed with this recording and that of two other ‘genuine’ tongues followed by their interpretations taped ‘on location,’ I went to see some very moderate Pentecostal friends, for whom exaggerations and digressions were only found amongst others. No one in the community doubted their conversions, or their sincerity, or the reality of their ‘charisma.’ After praying together, I asked them to interpret the pseudo and ‘real’ tongues. This was done without objection or reticence. Alas, and alas again, the ‘Lord’s Prayer’ in English transformed itself into a message of encouragement in French! As to the rest, it was as different from the first as the Rhone is different from the Rhine and flows in the opposite direction. …”

I think it’s safe to assume that what he calls 'English" here was actually a very broad Scots.

Sounds like kind of a mean test in a way, but I have to admit, I’ve always been curious if I were at a service and stood up and recited say a poem in a rather obscure language, put a bit of drama into it, if someone would stand up after I was done and proceed to ‘interpret’ it.

Apparenlty the “blind test” is also nothing new - here’s what the same author proposed:

“Prepare a meeting where one of you will speak in tongues and three others will make a recorded interpretation in isolation. The interpretations that ought to say more or less the same thing will then be compared. … HERE IN WRITING I STAND BY THIS YET UNANSWERED PROPOSITION AS A CHALLENGE TO ANY CHARISMATIC TONGUES-SPEAKING COMMUNITY. Why has there not yet been, and will there never be, an answer to this offer, which is, nevertheless, an honest one?”

Doesn’t seem like he was aware that such tests were already done back in the late 60’s.