From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Fri Aug 25 2000 - 12:52:25 EDT
<x-html>
<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { margin-top: 0 ; margin-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>[b-greek] Re: Meaning of PANTWN hUMWN in 1 Cor 14:18</title></head><body>
<div>At 11:21 AM -0500 8/25/00, Lynn Trapp wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1" color="#0000FF">Carl,</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1" color="#0000FF">Thanks for your helpful response to this post. I would like to further the discussion by trying to discover the reason you believe GLWSSAI in Acts 2 is different
from that in 1 Cor. 12-14. Are there instances in other Greek literature that show GLWSSAI being used to refer to "ecstatic speech". I was under the impression that it always referred to normal human speech.</font></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>Briefly. I believe that the glossolalia being talked about in 1 Cor 12-14 is essentially the same as that described in the longer ending of Mark's gospel (16:17): SHMEIA DE TOIS PISTEUSASIN TAUTA PARAKOLOUQHSEI: EN TWi ONOMATI MOU
DAIMONIA EKBALOUSIN, GLWSSAIS LALHSOUSIN KAINAIS. The GLWSSAI KAINAI there are not "foreign" languages but "unprecedented and alien" languages. Moreover I believe that the antithesis upon which the argument of 1 Cor
12-14 hangs is that between the indulgence by individuals in private religious communion in a setting of worship where intelligibility and sharing of experience are essential to the authenticity of worship. In chap 12 he says that
manifestations of the one Spirit are given PROS TO SUMFERON, which I take to mean that they are not primarily gifts for private enjoyment. When Paul says in 1 Cor 14:18-19 EUCARISTW TWi QEWi, PANTWN hUMWN MALLON GLWSSAIS LALW (wherewith
this thread began), and then goes on to say in vs. 19: ALLA EN EKKLHSIAi QELW PENTE LOGOUS TWi NOI MOU LALHSAI, hINA KAI ALLOUS KATHCHSW,H MURIOUS LOGOUS EN GLWSSHi, I think he is contrasting five words that are rational and intelligible
with countless words that are unintelligible--the antithetical elements there are NOI and GLWSSHi. When in chap 13:1 he says EAN TAIS GLWSSAIS TWN ANQRWPWN LALW KAI TWN AGGELWN, AGAPHN DE MH ECW, GEGONA CALKOS HCWN H KUMBALON ALALAZON, I
think he is referring by GLWSSAIS TWN ANQRWPWN to the rhetorical accomplishments of which the Corinthians seemed proud though Paul was not in the opening chapters of 1 Cor, and that by KAI TWN AGGELWN he is referring to languages that are
not human--those utterances that transcend human speech and that tongue-speakers perhaps are voicing--but unless there is the loving concern of AGAPH, both the human rhetorical eloquence and the angelic glossolalia are just noise that is
neither musical nor meaningful.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I wouldn't insist that this perspective on the GLWSSAI of 1 Cor 12-14 is the only one that may be held, but I am not alone in holding it and I do think it is a reasonable and consistent way of construing the way the word(s) is/are
actually used in these chapters.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>-- <br>
<br>
Carl W. Conrad<br>
Department of Classics/Washington University<br>
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018<br>
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649<br>
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu </div>
</body>
</html>
</x-html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:34 EDT