A quick response...
How do you arrive at “mysteries within his spirit” from “howbeit in the Spirit he utters mysteries”??
My mistake. I must have conflated 'my spirit prayeth' with 'in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.'
From the Greek - literally “the one indeed speaking with a language, not to men speaks, but to God; no one indeed hears; in spirit however, he utters mysteries.”
The interesting thing is that the word ‘hears’ is used in the sense of ‘understand’, or better yet, ‘hear with understanding’.
The KJV says, 'no man understandeth him.' How does this fit with your own intepretation of the passage?
I don’t think it changes the meaning or inference though – to add the context: if someone is speaking a (foreign) language, he’s really not speaking to men (read, “other people at the worship service”), but to God (who understands all languages); no one understands (or it could be argued – no one is paying attention to him/no one is really listening to him/no one ‘hears’ him with any degree of understanding). Though he may be praying as the spirit leads/inspires him; (as far as the audience/hearers are concerned) he’s uttering ‘mysteries’ (as no one understands his language), an idiomatic way of saying “it’s all Greek to us” (well, obviously if it was Greek in this case, there’d be no issue, but trust you get the idea).
That would seem a rather fuzzy interpretation. Why would 'in the Spirit' or 'in the spirit' designate a foreign language? Here is an example of how 'in the Spirit' is used in Revelation which is consistent with some Old Testament usage:
Revelation 4:2
Immediately I was
in the Spirit; and behold, a throne set in heaven, and
One sat on the throne.
Sometimes the word is used for a supernatural experience. Paul also writes of believers being in the Spirit and not in the flesh. I know of nowhere that it is used to refer to mundanely speaking a foreign languge. Why would naturally speaking in a foreign language be designated as 'in the spirit'. Why would the spirit pray if you spoke in a language you know as opposed to praying with the understanding? The contrast around verses 14-18 really wouldn't make any sense with your interpretation here.
I am thinking of a 'goodness of fit' approach to statistics, here, when I say this, like an SEM model. But the passage does fit well if we posit the idea of speaking supernaturally (in the Spirit/spirit) in a language the speaker does not understand (and hence he is told to pray that he may interpret and such speaking is contrasted with speaking words (with the understanding.) The idea that the passage is just about speaking a foreign language naturally does not fit the passage well. The parenthetical comments go a bit beyond 'goodness of fit' there and are actual exegetical arguments for it. If I am not mistaken,
An issue here is the Pentecostal/Charismatic redefinition of “praying in the spirit” – it does not refer to the words one is saying. Rather, it refers to how one is praying. In the three places it is used (Corinthians, Ephesians, and Jude), there is absolutely zero reference to 'languages' in connection with this phrase. “Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will. In Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the phase has come to be equated with modern “tongues”, i.e. when one “prays in the Spirit”, one is typically engaged in some form of tongues-speech.
In I Corinthians 14, it is explicit that Paul says when he prays in a tongue, his spirit prays. (v. 14) I would not say that speaking in tongues is the only means of praying in the Holy Ghost, as the book of Jude puts it, but some Pentecostals think that way. The wording is similar to I Corinthians 14, so it does make sense that this passage would come to mind, especially for a Pentecostal.
Where are you getting “the implication that tongues are something other than speaking with ‘the understanding’ ..“?? Are you referring back to 1 Cor 15 or 19? With respect to the above, the only ones who are not ‘understanding’ are those in the audience as they do not know the speaker’s language.
Look at this passage from I Corinthians 14
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
If Paul knew Aramaic, and praying in Aramaic were 'speaking with tongues' in verse 18, since he knew the language, he would be using his 'understanding' to pray in it. But in verse 19, he contrasts praying with his understanding with speaking in tongues. The implication is that when he prays in tongues, he is not using his understanding, his 'noi'-- his mind, understanding, reason. If he spoke in tongues, he would not be using his reason or mind. What language would Paul speak in that he did not know? If he were to use a Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek liturgy, it is highly unlikely that there was one of those languages that he did not know. How would he be able to speak in a language he did not know?
That is the question. When Paul spoke in tongues, how was it possible for him to do so without knowing it, without using his mind to do so?
Do you see how the idea that the speaker does not understand the tongue comes from direct exegesis.
I wonder why the interpretation you propose appeals to you, and also the diglossia interpretation of Acts. To me, this seems like grasping at straws to find a non-supernatural explanation to events in a book filled with the supernatural. It reminds me of liberal scholars trying to argue that there was a tidak wave or earthquake that caused the Red Sea to be knee deep for the Exodus, or the (joke) liberal theory that Elijah poured lighter fluid on the sacrifice at Mt. Carmel, and had a match behind his back.
To touch a bit on your other points –
I think you have misunderstood. ecclesiastical diglossia does not forbid non-priests from using Hebrew in the Temple. Not sure where you got that from. It has nothing to do with non-priests; other languages were not ‘outlawed’.
The Jewish tradition of ecclesiastical diglossia was for the teacher (typically the rabbi) to use Hebrew first as the language of ‘instruction’, then translate into the vernacular (whatever it may be – usually Greek or Aramaic). The teacher could translate it himself if he was able or have someone translate for him. As I’ve mentioned in other posts, because of the Hellenization of that area of the world (essentially the lands of the Western Diaspora), and of course in Greece itself, Greek was essentially replacing Hebrew as an acceptable alternative as a sacerdotal language for Judaism in the Western Diaspora.
What is a 'sacerdotal' language in this context. It is questionable whether Levites would have had a prominent place in the synagogues. Nowadays, a synagogue has a man they call a 'rabbi' (a title that should actually be used specifically for the Messiah), who leads like a pastor or priest does in a Protestant or Catholic church. But from what I have read, that was not the case in the first century. Synagogues had elders and an administrator-- the head of the synagogue. It is possible that one of them could have been ordained by the legal cult. The legal cult took over Judaism after the temple had been destroyed. Before that, there were many influences and groups in Judaism.
I think you should Edersheim's 'Life and Times...' I know its from the 1800's. I have a friend who's a Bible scholar and Bible college professor, and the last he mentioned it, Edersheim was still considered good. According to Edersheim, in the first century, the practice of having a Hebrew sermon and a Aramaic interpretation was something you might see in the synagogues in the Levant. But to the east, they would have used the Septuagint. It was more popular because it was cheaper, being copied without the strict scribal rules. Also, the people who used it spoke Greek. The belief was that it was an inspired translation that the 70 elders in Alexandria centuries before had all translated exactly the same way, working independently of one another. There were early Christians who believed the same thing about the LXX.
Apparently there were numerous Greek-only synagogues that did not use the Hebrew Torah. These Jews would visit Jerusalem and settle in Jerusalem. The reason I mentioned the idea of non-Hebrew being forbidden in the temple or Levant synagogues is that would be a missing piece of the puzzle to make the diglossia theory make sense. It is unlikely that the Helenistic synagogues were diglossic throughout the empire. The idea that Jews from other places would be shocked to hear preaching in Greek or Aramaic without first hearing Hebrew is extremely far-fetched, IMO, based on what we know of the period (which I say just based on what I've read without being a subject area expert.) I recall reading that archeologists did find a Hellenistic synagogue in the first century.
From what I understand, there were well-to-do Hellenistic Jews retiring in the holy city, whose wives outlived them. Many of them may not have spoken Aramaic or Hebrew. Then many widows joined the church, and there was a dispute about the distribution of food. The church appointed seven men with Greek sounding names, probably Hellenistic Jewish believers, to handle the matter and make sure the negected parties were fed. Stephen probably got into a debate with men from a Greek-speaking synagogue.
see part 2
2
