apologist, "montre clairement qu'ils ont appris la langue grecque et qu'ils ne la possedent pas de droit divin et par inspiration, car ils l'ecrivent sans correction, en la surchargeant de locutions hebraiques."(1) In fact, as most critics point out, there never was a period at which a gift of foreign tongues was less necessary for intercourse with the civilized world, Greek being almost everywhere current. As regards the fifteen nations who are supposed to have been represented on this great occasion, Neander says: "It is certain that amongst the inhabitants of towns in Cappadocia, in Pontus, in Asia Minor, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Cyrene, and in the parts of Libya and Egypt peopled by Greek and Jewish colonies, the Greek language was in great part more current than the old national tongue. There remain, out of the whole catalogue of languages, at most the Persian, Syriac, Arabic, Greek, and Latin. The more rhetorical than historical stamp of the narrative is evident."(2)
This rhetorical character, as contradistinguished from sober history, is indeed painfully apparent throughout. The presence in Jerusalem of Jews, devout men "from every nation under heaven" is dramatically opportune, and thus representatives of the fifteen nations are prepared to appear in the house and hear their own languages in which they were born spoken in so supernatural, though useless, a manner by the brethren. They are all said to have been "confounded" at the phenomenon, and the writer adds, ii. 7f: "And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own
language wherein we were born?" &c. Did all the multitude say this? Or is not this the writer ascribing, according to his view, probable sentiments to them? How again did they know that the hundred and twenty or more brethren were Galilaean? Further on, the writer adds more of the same kind, v. 12, 13: "And they were all amazed and were in doubt, saying one to another: What may this mean? But others mocking said, They are full of sweet wine." Is it not a strange manner of accounting for such a phenomenon as (v. 11) hearing people speaking in their own tongues the great works of God to suppose that they are drunken? People speaking with tongues, in Paul's sense (1 Cor. xiv. 23, 24, 33), and creating an unintelligible tumult, might well lead strangers to say that they were either mad or drunken, but the praise of God in foreign language, understood by so many, could not convey such an impression. Peter does not, in explanation, simply state that they are speaking foreign languages which have just been supernaturally imparted to them, but argues (v. 15) that "these are not drunken, as ye suppose, for it is the third hour of the day,"—too early to be "full of sweet wine," and proceeds to assert that the phenomenon is, on the contrary, a fulfilment of a prophecy of Joel in which, although the pouring out of God's Spirit upon all flesh is promised "in the last days," and as a result that: "your sons and your daughters shall prophesy and your young men shall see visions and your old men shall dream dreams," not a single word is said of any gift of "tongues," foreign or otherwise. The miraculous phenomenon in question is not mentioned in the prophecy of which it is supposed to be the accomplishment. It does not much help matters to argue that the miracle, although not for future use, was intended as a
sign. We shall see what Paul says regarding [———] as a sign, but we may here merely point out that the effect produced in the Corinthian Church is rather an impression of madness, whilst here it leads to a mocking accusation of drunkenness. The conversion of the 3,000 is by no means referred to the speaking with tongues, but simply to the speech of Peter (ii. 37£ 41). From every point of view, there is no cohesion between the different parts of the narrative; it is devoid of verisimilitude. It is not surprising that so many critics of all shades of opinion recognize unhistorical elements in the narrative in Acts,(1) not to use a stronger term. To allow such an account to influence our interpretation of Paul's statements regarding the gift of tongues is quite out of the question; and no one who appreciates the nature of the case and who carefully examines the narrative of the unknown writer can, we think, hesitate to reject his theory of a supernatural bestowal of power to speak foreign languages, before unknown.
It is not difficult to trace the origin of the account in Acts and, although we cannot here pause to do so with any minuteness, we may at least indicate the lines upon which the narrative is based. There is no doubt that then, as now, the Jews commemorated at the feast of Pentecost the giving of the law on Sinai.(2) It seemed
good to the author of Acts that the prophet like unto Moses,(1) who was to abrogate that law and replace it by a dispensation of grace, should inaugurate the new law of love and liberty(2) with signs equally significant and miraculous. It is related in Exodus xix. 18 that the Lord descended upon Sinai "in fire," and that the whole mount quaked greatly. The voice of God pronounced the decalogue and, as the Septuagint version renders our Ex. xx. 18: "All the people saw the voice, and the lightnings and the voice of the trumpet and the mountain smoking."(3) According to Rabbinical tradition, however, when God came down to give the law to the Israelites, he appeared not to Israel alone, but to all the other nations, and the voice in which the law was given went to the ends of the earth and was heard of ail peoples.(4) It will be remembered that the number of the nations was supposed to be seventy, each speaking a different language, and the law was given in the one sacred Hebrew tongue. The Rabbins explained, however: "The voice from Sinai was divided into 70 voices and 70 languages, so that all nations of the earth heard (the law), and each heard it actually in its own language."(5) And again: "Although the ten commandments were promulgated with one single tone, yet it is said (Exod. xx. 15), 'All people heard the voices' (in the plural and not the voice in the singular); "the reason is: As the voice went forth it was divided into seven voices,