47»
moved rrom the events, could hardly avoid investing even the common phenomena of the Glossolalia with marvel and mystery. Wendt however admits that this embellishment was already accom- plished by Christian tradition before Luke. But if St. Luke must have had every means of knowing from St. Paul the character of the speaking with tongues at Corinth, it does not seem un- fair to maintain that he also had means of knowing from the old Palestinian Christians, who had been in union with the Church at Jerusalem from the be- ginning, ¢.g., from a John Mark, or a Mnason (ἀρχαῖος μαθητής, xxi. 16), the exact facts connected with the great outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Schmid, Biblische Theologie, pp- 278, 279). But it is further to be noted that Wendt by no means denies that there was a miraculous element, as shown in the outpouring of the Spirit, in the events of the Pentecostal Feast, but that he also considers it quite unlikely that Luke’s introduction of a still further miraculous element was prompted by a symbolising tendency, a desire to draw a parallel between the Christian Pentecost and the miraculous delivery of the Law, according to the Jewish tradition that the one voice which proceeded from Sinai divided into seventy tongues, and was heard by the seventy nations of the world, each in their mother tongue (so Zeller, Pfleiderer, Hilgenfeld, Spitta, Jiingst and Matthias, and so apparently Clemen in his ‘‘ Speaking with Tongues,” Expository Times, p. 345, 1899). But in the first place there is no convincing evi- dence at the early date of the Christian Pentecost of any connection in Jewish tradition between the Feast of Pentecost and the giving of the Law on Sinai (cf. Schmid, Biblische Theologie, p. 286; Hamburger, Real-Encyclopadie des $ud- entums, i., 7, 1057, and Holtzmann, Apostelgeschichte, p. 330), and it is signi- ficant that neither Philo nor Josephus make any reference to any such connec- tion ; and in the next place it is. __ange, as Wendt himself points out, that if Luke had started with the idea of the impor- tance ofany suchsymbolism, no reference should be made to it in the subsequent address of Peter, whereas even in the catalogue of the nations there is no re- ference of any kind to the number seventy ; the number actually given, vv. 9, 11, might rather justify the far- fetched notice of Holtzmann (u. s., p. 331), that a reference is meant to the ‘sixteen grandsons of Noah, Gen. x, 1, 2,