if onlj- in adoration, on the occasion of the first Pentecost.
(<•) This interpretation is not so wholly excluded as might appear at first sight bj' the language of 1 Co 14. tor although the yXQaaai are, without one to interpret tlieni, unintelligible even to the speaker, the possibility of interpretation, clearly contemplated by St. Paul, suggests that he re- garded tlie utterances as having a meaning, though as a rule not ascertainable (riji' 5vt>aij.iv t^s ^ui-iit, v."). If so, the only dillerence in Ac 2 would be that the interpreter was on that occasion un- necessary.
What, then, is really described in Ac 2? The view has been held bj- both ancient (Greg. Naz. Or. 41. XV, Bode, etc.) and modern writers, that while the disciples spoke in some one language, , each group of hearers understood the words as spoken in his o\vn ; just as St. Vincent Ferrer, preaching in Spanish, was said to have been understood by English, Flemish, French, and Italian hearers, etc. But this is not what the narrative describes : we have a miracle of speech, not of hearing only, they began (before the hearers had come) to speak iripaa y\u(r<rat^. But the more difficult question is in wliat precisely does the miracle described consist? The hearers are not Gentiles, but Jews (2'). Proselytes are in- cluded among the Roman visitors (-J'", it is con- ceivable that "louS. Tc K. irpoiT. applies to all the countries enumerated, but the mention of 'lovSalmi (v.*) is rather adver.se to this) ; but clearly we have to do with the assembly of Jewish pilgrims, including perhaps some more permanent visitors (KoroiKoCires, V.'), whom a great festival would (ind gathered in the Holy City. Now the list (w.""^') is one of countries, not of languages. Of the fifteen nationalities or regions enumerated, Juda'a (even if here used by Luke as in Lk i** for Pales- tine generally) and probably Arabia (see Aretas) belong to the domain of Palestinian Judaism whose language was West Aramaic. The Jews of the Eujihrates region, Parthians, Medes, Elam- ites (i.e. of Persia, Elam had ceased to exist as a kingdom since the days of Assurbanipal), and Mes(jpotamians represent the Babylonian group of Jews, who used an East-Aramaic dialect.
This leaves us with nine countries, of which five fall within Asia Minor, where the Jews, as their inscrijjtions show, spoke Greek (Schurer, IIJP §§ 2, 31 ; this was the case as far north as the Crimea). Of the remaining four, Egypt is the mother of Hellenistic Judaism, Cyrene was Greek, Greek was the language of the Jews in Crete, and, as their inscriptions show, of the Jews of Rome. Accordingly, the narrative does not appear to carry us beyond the area of Greek and Aramaic-speaking Judaism. That the Jews of the diflerent countries enumerated spoke these langiiages with dialectical differences, is of course more than probable. It might therefore sujjgest itself that the oljstacle overcome by the inspiration of Pentecijst was diversity not of language but of dialect only. But we cannot appeal, for confirmation of this, to the use of the word 5(dXfA.T0! (in vv.'"*), for the word means lanquage {e.g. Aramaic as con- trasted with Greok,"Ac 1'" 2i'"' 20"). A stronger point is that the surprise of the hearers turned on the fact that the speakers were Galila'aiis (Ac 2', cf. Mt 20"'), i.e. not merely men of Palestinian language {'Kjipatot), hut men of a marked pro- vincial dialect. But, quite apart from the result of the above analysis of the list, there is no evidence that Jews outside Palestine used any language but Greek or Aramaic. The conclu.sion, then, as to the exact implications of the narrative is very obscure. We must jirobably be content with a timi liijuet ; possibly the language of St.
796
TOXGUES, GIFT OF
TOOLS
Peter (2"- "■ 33^ note iKxeu, ^f^x"") maj' permit the conjecture that the narrative eonihines the two elements, afterwards treated as distinct, of tongues and prophecy. Common to all the NT descriptions of the tongues is the feature of utterances not in the common language of the sjjfakers ; but whereas in 1 Cor. the hearers are, as a rule {i.e. without an interpreter), in the dark as to the meaninjj, in Ac 2 the meaning is clear to both Greek-speaking and Aramaic-speaking Jews \\ithout any such aid : they hear the praises of God each in the tongue vherein lie was born.
(/) It has been necessary, in order to test the possibility of a definite interpretation of the data, to reduce the narrative of the first Christian Pente- cost to its framework of definite prose statement, so far as the nature of the yXwaaat, our special subject of inquiry, is concerned. If our conclusion on this point is necessarily indefinite, we must re- mind ourselves that the yXuiacat are but one element in an event of momentous significance, the baptism (Ac 1°) of the Christian Society for its mission to mankind. The baptism of Pentecost takes its place, in intimate context with the Resurrection and Exaltation of Christ, as the experience which lies behind, and is needed to render conceivable, the abrupt psychological transition which trans- formed the cowed, perplexed, scattered disciples of a few weeks before into the band that in the suc- ceeding narrative sets out upon its march with joyous swing, conquering and to conquer. That the Spirit was then really given is impossible for believers in the Kesurrection of Christ to doubt. That His coming was overwhelming in its sudden- ness and intensity, and was attended by phj'sical signs not repeated in their fulness on any later occasion, is not less credible than the reality of the ' promise of the Father ' and of its fulfilment. That these signs should be not only unaccount- able by ordinary causes, but in some details in- capable of precise definition, is a small thing, and antecedently probable. Beyond this it is hardly possible to go.