gdeering

Hi All,

I’m curious about the connection between the writer of Mark 16:9-20 and the stories in Acts, specifically Mark 16:17 and the idea of speaking in tongues.

I am not proposing that the authors are the same, I am wondering about the origin of the concept of speaking in tongues, whether Christian or pagan, and how long the concept might have had to evolve before the practice gained wide acceptance and could then be sourced to Jesus' words and placed into Acts and gMark.

I am wondering if there is any credible way to tie a late dating for the end of Mark to the (now popular) late date of Acts through an understanding of a theoretical dating or cultural acceptance of speaking in tongues.

Or conversely, if speaking in tongues was embraced by some early Christians did gMark and Acts have to rationalize the practice to give it a place in proto-orthodoxy?

Let’s for the sake of argument forget that Paul also talks about speaking in tongues. I think it would confuse the point to have to go through a hoop to show a late dating for Paul. Though there is no hoop if there is an early date for the practice and a later date for its incorporation into the literature.

Gregg

Dutch_labrat

Just asking: Is the whole charismatic interpretation of 'speaking in tongues' quite new? It certainly is not a part of orthodox or traditional churches.

What the bible really says is that the apostles gained the ability to speak different languages. Is there any indication that early christians practiced glossolalia?

mountainman

Its basis perhaps may have been derived/fabricated from various "non christian" Greek priesthoods and the Oracles and Sibyls.
To be more explicit, the same [Greek] source as the Logos and the (neoplatonic nondual) "Holy Trinity".


What did the Gnostics say about this?


From The Acts of Philip ....

mountainman

How late a date were you looking at?

gdeering

Hmmmm.... Some time after the destruction of the Temple and before there was a twinkle in Flavius Valerius Constantius' eye!

aa5874

But, why are you ignoring the EVIDENCE that the Pauline writings were late?

Now, consider this.

Only the late long-ending of gMark, Acts of the Apostles, and the Pauline writings contain information about talking in tongues.

The people who spoke in tongues can be found in Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writers. The supposed disciples of Jesus and Paul are the ones who spoke in tongues.

Outside the NT, THERE is a BLACK HOLE.

NO CHURCH WRITER has claimed to have spoken in tongues from Papias, Ignatius to Eusebius.

It is reasonably to think that the late-long ending of gMark is linked to Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

The late-long ending of gMark is another indication that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were AFTER the original short-ending of gMark.

gdeering

Hi aa5874,

I wanted to keep Paul out because I wanted first to ask if it was reasonable to think that the late dating of Acts could establish a relationship with the end of Mark through their appreciation of the connection to the divine that is manifested by an act of SiT (here after used (by me) in place of "speaking in tongues" or "glossolalia").

I am happy to consider Paul a late source, but I think that is an argument in itself, and I also - out of thin air - hypothesized that: if speaking in tongues was embraced by some early Christians (like Paul) did gMark and Acts have to rationalize the practice to give it a place in proto-orthodoxy? The question is important, but it's a second debate, and one that would cause us to look at the historical extra-christian possibilities for the origin of Sit. The late date for Acts is favored here, so there is one less hoop to go through when thinking about the date of Mark 16:9-20.

So although there does not seem to be a lot of interest in the topic I would like the braintrust here to try to put Acts and gMark 16:9-20 on the same hook. Then, if Paul fits too, all the better.


Gregg

aa5874

It is very disturbing to me to see people who just continue to place Paul early for no real reason.

It is very difficult for me to promote fallacies just to win or make an argument.

It has been already established in the NT Canon and the Church writings that Saul/Paul is the author of the Pauline writings.

Why produce an hypothesis out of thin air? You can't have an hypothesis that is out of thin air, that is called SPECULATION.

a TRUE hypothesis is based on some data.

It is extremely difficult for me to deal with out-of-thin-speculation. The authors of the NT and Church writings have presented their EVIDENCE so there is no need to speculate out of thin air.

gdeering

Exactly. Which is why I was asking a question, since it's my question I specifically stated that we keep Paul out of it. I am sorry that no one wants to offer an opinion, perhaps it's an over worn topic. But in any event, even though I agree with the possibility of a late dating for Paul, I don't wish that controversy to effect what I see as a more interesting question of fringe activity in early Christianity.

Please start Paul and tongues as a separate thread. Maybe you will get more traction, I'll go back to my position in the peanut gallery.


Gregg

Toto

I don't know how you could date any part of the NT based on the practice of speaking in tongues. There are no records of pre-Christian pagan glossolalia, and the earliest Christian references seem to indicate that it was a recognized practice, with no clues as to its evolution.

Glossolalia notes that