Ver. 9 enforces the twofold illustration of vv. 7 f.: ‘‘So also in your case (οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς), if through the tongue you do not give a word of clear signification (εὔσημον λόγον), how will that which is spoken be discerned ? ”’—et-onpos (from ev and σῆμα, a sign) implies a meaning in the word, and a meaning good to make out ; cf. Sophocles, Antig., 1004, 1021.— πῶςγνωσθήσεται K.T.A.; is an echo from ver. 7; and ‘the tongue ”’ (διὰ τῆς γλώσ- ons: cf. iii. 5, vi. 4, vii. 17), as the means of living speech, is thrust before the éav in emphatic contrast to ‘the lifeless ”’ pipe, etc. P. does not therefore refer in this sentence (as Est., Gd., Ed. would have it) to the supernatural Tongue
7—12.
9ο
a lal 4 10. τοσαῦτα, "' εἰ ''"τύχοι, "γένη Φωνῶν ἐστιν] ἐν κόσµω καὶ οὐδὲν ™ αν. 37
αὐτῶν " "ἄφωνον: 11. ἐὰν οὖν μὴ εἰδῶ ὃ τὴν » δύναμιν τῆς Φφωνῆς, ἔσομαι τῷ λαλοῦντι * βάρβαρος, καὶ 6 λαλῶν "év* ἐμοὶ * βάρβαρος" 12. οὕτω καὶ ὑμεῖς, ἐπεὶ "ζηλωταί ἐστε
sense; cf. xii. 2. i. 14; Col. iii. 11; Acts xxviii. 2, 4. r
1εισιν: all uncc. but KL.
p N.T. 4.1, in this sense; Numb. vi. 21; Plat., Cvat., 394B, etc. Cf. vi. 2; Rom. xi. 25 (?). Tit. ii, 14; 1 Pet. iii. 13; four times in Lk. and Acts; cf. -οω, xil. 36.
only, in N.T.; cf. xvi. 6, τυχον. n See xii. 10. ο Η.Ι. in this q Rom. 5 Gal. i. 14; t Pl., see xii. το.
πνευμάτων, πρὸς τὴν See Wr., p. 481.
2 Om. avtwy all pre-Syrian uncc.
5 (δω, by itacism, AD*L, 17, 46. G, γινωσκω. 4 Om. ev DG, 67**, latt. vg. syrutr. cop.
(elsewhere, moreover, expressed by the anarthrous γλώσσα: otherwise here), for it is precisely his objection to this charism that it gives an ἄσημον instead of a εὔσημον λόγον (16, 19, 23); he means to say: “As inanimate instruments by due modulation, and by the fixed meaning
attached to their notes, become expres-.
sive, so it is ina higher degree with the human tongue; its vocables convey a meaning just inso far as they are ordered, articulate,and conformedto usage”. Now this is what the Cor. Glossolalia was not: ‘for you will be (otherwise) speaking into the air’’—the issue of uninterpreted Tongue-speaking (cf. 2, 17, etc.).—eis ἀέρα λαλεῖν, a proverbial expression (cf. ix. 26) for ineffectual speech, like our “ talk- ing to the wind’’; in Philo, ἀερομυθεῖν.
Ver. το. Speaking of vocal utterance, the Ap. is reminded of the multitude of human dialects; this suggests a further proof of his contention, that there must be a settled and well-observed connexion between sound and sense. ‘Ever so many kinds of voices, it may chance, exist in the world.”—On εἰ τύχοι (if it should hap = τυχόν, xvi. 6), which re- moves all known limit from the τοσαῦτα, see note of El. For the anarthrous ἐν κόσµῳ, cf. 2 Cor. ν. 19; “in the world” —a sphere so wide.—xai οὐδὲν (5ο. τῶν γενῶν) ἄφωνον, “and none (of them) voiceless’’: not tautologous, but assert- ing for every “kind of voice”’ the real nature of a voice, viz., that it means something to somebody; ‘‘nullum genus vocum vocis expers” (Est.); ‘aucune langue n’est une non-langue”; the Greeks love these paradoxical expres- sions—cf. βίος aBiwros, χάρις ἄχαρις (Gd., Hn.). The Vg. and Bz. miss the point in rendering, ‘‘nihil est mutum”,
Ver. 11. ‘If then I know not the meaning of the voice” (τὴν δύναμιν τῆς «φωνῆς, vim or virtutem vocis)—for every voice has a meaning (10d); on this very
possible hypothesis, ‘I shall be a bar- barian to the speaker, and the speaker a barbarian in relation to me”’ (ἐν épot, cf. Matt. xxi. 42, and perhaps ii. 6 above), or ‘in my ear”. By this illustration of the futility of the uninterpreted Tongues, Paul implicitly distinguishes them from natural foreign languages; there is a µετάβασις εἰς ἄλλο γένος in the com- parison, just as in the previous com- parison with harp and trumpet; one does not compare things identical. The second figure goes beyond the first; since the foreign speech, like the mysterious γλάσ- σαι (2), may hide a precious meaning, and is the more provoking on that account, as the repeated BapBapos intimates.