text:
Speaking in tongues

Speaking in tongues, also known as glossolalia, is an activity or practice in which people utter words or speech-like sounds, often thought by believers to be languages unknown to the speaker. One definition used by linguists is the fluid vocalizing of speech-like syllables that lack any readily comprehendible meaning. In some cases, as part of religious practice, some believe it to be a divine language unknown to the speaker. Glossolalia is practiced in Pentecostal and charismatic Christianity, as well as in other religions.

Sometimes a distinction is made between "glossolalia" and "xenolalia" or "xenoglossy", which specifically relates to the belief that the language being spoken is a natural language previously unknown to the speaker.

Etymology
Glossolalia is a borrowing of the γλωσσολαλία, which is a compound of the γλῶσσα tongue, language and λαλέω  to speak, talk, chat, prattle, make a sound. The Greek expression (in various forms) appears in the New Testament in the books of Acts and First Corinthians. In Acts 2, the followers of Christ receive the Holy Spirit and speak in the languages of at least fifteen countries or ethnic groups.

The exact phrase speaking in tongues has been used at least since the translation of the New Testament into Middle English in the Wycliffe Bible in the 14th century. Frederic Farrar first used the word glossolalia in 1879.

Linguistics
In 1972, William J. Samarin, a linguist from the University of Toronto, published a thorough assessment of Pentecostal glossolalia that became a classic work on its linguistic characteristics. His assessment was based on a large sample of glossolalia recorded in public and private Christian meetings in Italy, the Netherlands, Jamaica, Canada, and the United States over the course of five years; his wide range of subjects included the Puerto Ricans of the Bronx, the snake handlers of the Appalachians and the spiritual Christians from Russia in Los Angeles (Pryguny, Dukh-i-zhizniki).

Samarin found that glossolalic speech does resemble human language in some respects. The speaker uses accent, rhythm, intonation and pauses to break up the speech into distinct units. Each unit is itself made up of syllables, the syllables being formed from consonants and vowels found in a language known to the speaker:

"It is verbal behaviour that consists of using a certain number of consonants and vowels ... in a limited number of syllables that in turn are organized into larger units that are taken apart and rearranged pseudogrammatically ... with variations in pitch, volume, speed and intensity."

"[Glossolalia] consists of strings of syllables, made up of sounds taken from all those that the speaker knows, put together more or less haphazardly but emerging nevertheless as word-like and sentence-like units because of realistic, language-like rhythm and melody."

That the sounds are taken from the set of sounds already known to the speaker is confirmed by others. Felicitas Goodman, a psychological anthropologist and linguist, also found that the speech of glossolalists reflected the patterns of speech of the speaker's native language. These findings were confirmed by Kavan (2004).

Samarin found that the resemblance to human language was merely on the surface and so concluded that glossolalia is "only a facade of language". He reached this conclusion because the syllable string did not form words, the stream of speech was not internally organized, and – most importantly of all – there was no systematic relationship between units of speech and concepts. Humans use language to communicate but glossolalia does not. Therefore, he concluded that glossolalia is not "a specimen of human language because it is neither internally organized nor systematically related to the world man perceives". On the basis of his linguistic analysis, Samarin defined Pentecostal glossolalia as "meaningless but phonologically structured human utterance, believed by the speaker to be a real language but bearing no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead".

Felicitas Goodman studied a number of Pentecostal communities in the United States, the Caribbean, and Mexico; these included English-, Spanish- and Mayan-speaking groups. She compared what she found with recordings of non-Christian rituals from Africa, Borneo, Indonesia and Japan. She took into account both the segmental structure (such as sounds, syllables, phrases) and the supra-segmental elements (rhythm, accent, intonation) and concluded that there was no distinction between what was practised by the Pentecostal Protestants and the followers of other religions.

Classical antiquity
It was a commonplace idea within the Ancient world that divine beings spoke languages different from human languages, and historians of religion have identified references to esoteric speech in Greco-Roman literature that resemble glossolalia, sometimes explained as angelic or divine language. An example is the account in the Testament of Job, a non-canonical elaboration of the Book of Job, where the daughters of Job are described as being given sashes enabling them to speak and sing in angelic languages.

According to Dale B. Martin, glossolalia was accorded high status in the ancient world due to its association with the divine. Alexander of Abonoteichus may have exhibited glossolalia during his episodes of prophetic ecstasy. Neoplatonist philosopher Iamblichus linked glossolalia to prophecy, writing that prophecy was divine spirit possession that "emits words which are not understood by those that utter them; for they pronounce them, as it is said, with an insane mouth (mainomenό stomati) and are wholly subservient, and entirely yield themselves to the energy of the predominating God".

In his writings on early Christianity, the Greek philosopher Celsus includes an account of Christian glossolalia. Celsus describes prophecies made by several Christians in Palestine and Phoenicia of which he writes, "Having brandished these threats they then go on to add incomprehensible, incoherent, and utterly obscure utterances, the meaning of which no intelligent person could discover: for they are meaningless and nonsensical, and give a chance for any fool or sorcerer to take the words in whatever sense he likes".

References to speaking in tongues by the Church fathers are rare. Except for Irenaeus' 2nd-century reference to many in the church speaking all kinds of languages "through the Spirit", and Tertullian's reference in 207 AD to the spiritual gift of interpretation of tongues being encountered in his day, there are no other known first-hand accounts of glossolalia, and very few second-hand accounts among their writings.

1100 to 1900

 * 12th century – Bernard of Clairvaux explained that speaking tongues be no longer present because there be greater miracles – the transformed lives of believers.
 * 12th century – Hildegard of Bingen is said to have possessed the gift of visions and prophecy and to have been able to speak and write in Latin without having learned the language.
 * 1265 – Thomas Aquinas wrote about the gift of tongues in the New Testament, which he understood to be an ability to speak every language, given for the purposes of missionary work. He explained that Christ did not have this gift because his mission was to the Jews, "nor does each one of the faithful now speak save in one tongue"; for "no one speaks in the tongues of all nations, because the Church herself already speaks the languages of all nations".
 * 15th century – The Moravians are referred to by detractors as having spoken in tongues. John Roche, a contemporary critic, claimed that the Moravians "commonly broke into some disconnected Jargon, which they often passed upon the vulgar, 'as the exuberant and resistless Evacuations of the Spirit'".
 * 17th century – The French Prophets: The Camisards also spoke sometimes in languages that were unknown: "Several persons of both Sexes", James Du Bois of Montpellier recalled, "I have heard in their Extasies pronounce certain words, which seem'd to the Standers-by, to be some Foreign Language". These utterances were sometimes accompanied by the gift of interpretation exercised, in Du Bois' experience, by the same person who had spoken in tongues.
 * 17th century – Early Quakers, such as Edward Burrough, make mention of tongues-speaking in their meetings: "We spoke with new tongues, as the Lord gave us utterance, and His Spirit led us".
 * 1817 – In Germany, Gustav von Below, an aristocratic officer of the Prussian Guard, and his brothers, founded a religious movement based on their estates in Pomerania, which may have included speaking in tongues.
 * 19th century – Edward Irving and the Catholic Apostolic Church. Edward Irving, a minister in the Church of Scotland, writes of a woman who would "speak at great length, and with superhuman strength, in an unknown tongue, to the great astonishment of all who heard, and to her own great edification and enjoyment in God". Irving further stated that "tongues are a great instrument for personal edification, however mysterious it may seem to us".
 * 19th century – The history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), contains extensive references to the practice of speaking in tongues by Brigham Young, Joseph Smith and many others. Sidney Rigdon had disagreements with Alexander Campbell regarding speaking in tongues, and later joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Speaking in tongues was recorded in contemporary sources, both hostile and sympathetic to Mormonism, by at least 1830. The practice was soon widespread amongst Mormons, with many rank and file church members believing they were speaking the language of Adam; some of the hostility towards Mormons stemmed from those of other faiths regarding speaking in tongues unfavorably, especially when practiced by children. At the 1836 dedication of the Kirtland Temple the dedicatory prayer asked that God grant them the gift of tongues and at the end of the service Brigham Young spoke in tongues, another elder interpreted it and then gave his own exhortation in tongues. Many other worship experiences in the Kirtland Temple prior to and after the dedication included references to people speaking and interpreting tongues. In describing the beliefs of the church in the Wentworth letter (1842), Joseph Smith identified a belief of the "gift of tongues" and "interpretation of tongues". The practice of glossolalia by the Latter-day Saints was widespread but after an initial burst of enthusiastic growth circa 1830–34, seems to have been somewhat more restrained than in many other contemporary religious movements. Young, Smith, and numerous other early leaders frequently cautioned against the public exercise of glossolalia unless there be someone who could exercise the corresponding spiritual gift of interpretation of tongues, so that listeners could be edified by what had been said. Although the Latter-day Saints believe that speaking in tongues and the interpretation of tongues is alive and well in the Church, modern Mormons are much more likely to point to the way in which LDS missionaries are trained and learn foreign languages quickly, and are able to communicate rapidly on their missions, as evidence of the manifestation of this gift. This interpretation stems from a 1900 General Conference sermon by Joseph F. Smith which discouraged glossolalia; subsequent leaders echoed this recommendation for about a decade afterwards and subsequently the practice had largely died out amongst Mormons by the 1930s and '40s.

20th century
During the 20th century, glossolalia primarily became associated with Pentecostalism and the later charismatic movement. Preachers in the Holiness Movement preachers Charles Parham and William Seymour are credited as co-founders of the movement. Parham and Seymour taught that "baptism of the Holy Spirit was not the blessing of sanctification but rather a third work of grace that was accompanied by the experience of tongues". It was Parham who formulated the doctrine of "initial evidence". After studying the Bible, Parham came to the conclusion that speaking in tongues was the Bible evidence that one had received the baptism with the Holy Spirit.

In 1900, Parham opened Bethel Bible College in Topeka, Kansas, America, where he taught initial evidence, a Charismatic belief about how to initiate the practice. During a service on 1 January 1901, a student named Agnes Ozman asked for prayer and the laying on of hands to specifically ask God to fill her with the Holy Spirit. She became the first of many students to experience glossolalia, in the first hours of the 20th century. Parham followed within the next few days. Parham called his new movement the apostolic faith. In 1905, he moved to Houston and opened a Bible school there. One of his students was William Seymour, an African-American preacher. In 1906, Seymour traveled to Los Angeles where his preaching ignited the Azusa Street Revival. This revival is considered the birth of the global Pentecostal movement. According to the first issue of William Seymour's newsletter, The Apostolic Faith, from 1906:

"A Mohammedan, a Soudanese by birth, a man who is an interpreter and speaks sixteen languages, came into the meetings at Azusa Street and the Lord gave him messages which none but himself could understand. He identified, interpreted and wrote a number of the languages."

Parham and his early followers believed that speaking in tongues was xenoglossia, and some followers traveled to foreign countries and tried to use the gift to share the Gospel with non-English-speaking people. From the time of the Azusa Street revival and among early participants in the Pentecostal movement, there were many accounts of individuals hearing their own languages spoken 'in tongues'. The majority of Pentecostals and Charismatics consider speaking in tongues to primarily be divine, or the "language of angels", rather than human languages. In the years following the Azusa Street revival Pentecostals who went to the mission field found that they were unable to speak in the language of the local inhabitants at will when they spoke in tongues in strange lands.

The revival at Azusa Street lasted until around 1915. From it grew many new Pentecostal churches as people visited the services in Los Angeles and took their newfound beliefs to communities around the United States and abroad. During the 20th century, glossolalia became an important part of the identity of these religious groups. During the 1960s, the charismatic movement within the mainline Protestant churches and among charismatic Roman Catholics adopted some Pentecostal beliefs, and the practice of glossolalia spread to other Christian denominations. The discussion regarding tongues has permeated many branches of Protestantism, particularly since the widespread charismatic movement in the 1960s. Many books have been published either defending or attacking the practice.

Theological explanations
In Christianity, a supernatural explanation for glossolalia is advocated by some and rejected by others. Proponents of each viewpoint use the biblical writings and historical arguments to support their positions.
 * Glossolalists could, apart from those practicing glossolalia, also mean all those Christians who believe that the Pentecostal/charismatic glossolalia practiced today is the "speaking in tongues" described in the New Testament. They believe that it is a miraculous charism or spiritual gift. Glossolalists claim that these tongues can be both real, unlearned languages (i.e., xenoglossia) as well as a "language of the spirit", a "heavenly language", or perhaps the language of angels.
 * Cessationists believe that all the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased to occur early in Christian history, and therefore that the speaking in tongues as practiced by Charismatic Christians is the learned utterance of non-linguistic syllables. According to this belief, it is neither xenoglossia nor miraculous, but rather taught behavior, possibly self-induced. These believe that what the New Testament described as "speaking in tongues" was xenoglossia, a miraculous spiritual gift through which the speaker could communicate in natural languages not previously studied.
 * A third position claims that glossolalia does exist, but it is a form of prelest, not the "speaking in tongues" described in the New Testament. It believes glossolalia is part of a mediumistic technique where practitioners are manifesting genuine spiritual power, but this power is not necessarily of the Holy Spirit.
 * A fourth position conceivably exists, which believes the practice of "glossolalia" to be a folk practice and different from the legitimate New Testament spiritual gift of speaking/interpreting real languages. It is therefore not out of a belief that "miracles have ceased" (i.e., cessationism) that causes this group to discredit the supernatural origins of particular modern expressions of "glossolalia", but it is rather out of a belief that glossolalists have misunderstood Scripture and wrongly attributed to the Holy Spirit something that may be explained naturalistically.

Biblical practice
There are five places in the New Testament where speaking in tongues is referred to explicitly:
 * Mark 16:17 (though this is a disputed text), which records the instructions of Christ to the apostles, including his description that "they will speak with new tongues" as a sign that would follow "them that believe" in him.
 * Acts 2, which describes an occurrence of speaking in tongues in Jerusalem at Pentecost, though with various interpretations. Specifically, "every man heard them speak in his own language" and wondered "how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?"
 * Acts 10:46, when the household of Cornelius in Caesarea spoke in tongues, and those present compared it to the speaking in tongues that occurred at Pentecost.
 * Acts 19:6, when a group of approximately a dozen men spoke in tongues in Ephesus as they received the Holy Spirit while the apostle Paul laid his hands upon them.
 * 1 Cor 12, 13, 14, where Paul discusses speaking in "various kinds of tongues" as part of his wider discussion of the gifts of the Spirit; his remarks shed some light on his own speaking in tongues as well as how the gift of speaking in tongues was to be used in the church.

Other verses by inference may be considered to refer to "speaking in tongues", such as Isaiah 28:11, Romans 8:26 and Jude 20.

The biblical account of Pentecost in the second chapter of the book of Acts describes the sound of a mighty rushing wind and "divided tongues like fire" coming to rest on the apostles. The text further describes that "they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak in other languages". It goes on to say in verses 5–11 that when the Apostles spoke, each person in attendance "heard their own language being spoken". Therefore, the gift of speaking in tongues refers to the Apostles' speaking languages that the people listening heard as "them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God". Glossolalists and cessationists both recognize this as xenoglossia, a miraculous ability that marked their baptism in the Holy Spirit. Something similar (although perhaps not xenoglossia) took place on at least two subsequent occasions, in Caesarea and Ephesus.

Glossolalists and cessationists generally agree that the primary purpose of the gift of speaking in tongues was to mark the Holy Spirit being poured out. At Pentecost the Apostle Peter declared that this gift, which was making some in the audience ridicule the disciples as drunks, be the fulfilment of the prophecy of Joel, which described that God would pour out his Spirit on all flesh (Acts 2:17).

Despite these commonalities, there are significant variations in interpretation.
 * Universal. The traditional Pentecostal view is that every Christian should expect to be baptized in the Holy Spirit, the distinctive mark of which is glossolalia. While most Protestants agree that baptism in the Holy Spirit is integral to being a Christian, others believe that it is not separable from conversion and no longer marked by glossolalia. Pentecostals appeal to the declaration of the Apostle Peter at Pentecost, that "the gift of the Holy Spirit" was "for you and for your children and for all who are far off" (Acts 2:38–39). Cessationists reply that the gift of speaking in tongues was never for all (1 Cor 12:30). In response to those who say that the baptism in the Holy Spirit be not a separate experience from conversion, Pentecostals appeal to the question asked by the Apostle Paul to the Ephesian believers "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" (Acts 19:2).
 * One gift. Different aspects of speaking in tongues appear in Acts and 1 Corinthians, such that the Assemblies of God declare that the gift in Acts "is the same in essence as the gift of tongues" in 1 Corinthians "but different in purpose and use". They distinguish between (private) speech in tongues when receiving the gift of the Spirit, and (public) speech in tongues for the benefit of the church. Others assert that the gift in Acts was "not a different phenomenon" but the same gift being displayed under varying circumstances. The same description – "speaking in tongues" – is used in both Acts and 1 Corinthians, and in both cases the speech is in an unlearned language.
 * Direction. The New Testament describes tongues largely as speech addressed to God, but also as something that can potentially be interpreted into human language, thereby "edifying the hearers" (1 Cor 14:5, 13). At Pentecost and Caesarea the speakers were praising God (Acts 2:11; 10:46). Paul referred to praying, singing praise, and giving thanks in tongues (1 Cor 14:14–17), as well as to the interpretation of tongues (1 Cor 14:5), and instructed those speaking in tongues to pray for the ability to interpret their tongues so that others could understand them (1 Cor 14:13). While some people limit speaking in tongues to speech addressed to God – "prayer or praise", others claim that speaking in tongues be the revelation from God to the church, and when interpreted into human language by those embued with the gift of interpretation of tongues for the benefit of others present, may be considered equivalent to prophecy.
 * Music. Musical interludes of glossolalia are sometimes described as singing in the Spirit. Some hold that singing in the Spirit is identified with singing in tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:13–19, which they hold to be "spiritual or spirited singing", as opposed to "communicative or impactive singing" which Paul refers to as "singing with the understanding".
 * Sign for unbelievers (1 Cor 14:22). Some assume that tongues are "a sign for unbelievers that they might believe", and so advocate it as a means of evangelism. Others point out that Paul quotes Isaiah to show that "when God speaks to people in language they cannot understand, it is quite evidently a sign of God's judgment"; so if unbelievers are baffled by a church service they cannot understand because tongues are spoken without being interpreted, that is a "sign of God's attitude", "a sign of judgment". Some identify the tongues in Acts 2 as the primary example of tongues as signs for unbelievers.
 * Comprehension. Some say that speaking in tongues was "not understood by the speaker". Others assert that "the tongues-speaker normally understood his own foreign-language message". This last comment seems to have been made by someone confusing the "gift of tongues" with the "gift of the interpretation of tongues", which is specified as a different gift in the New Testament, but one that can be given to a person who also has the gift of tongues. In that case, a person understands a message in tongues that he has previously spoken in an unknown language.

Pentecostal and charismatic practices
Baptism with the Holy Spirit is regarded by the Holiness Pentecostals as being the third work of grace, following the new birth (first work of grace) and entire sanctification (second work of grace). Holiness Pentecostals teach that this third work of grace is accompanied with glossolalia.

Because Pentecostal and charismatic beliefs are not monolithic, there is not complete theological agreement on speaking in tongues. Generally, followers believe that speaking in tongues is a spiritual gift that can be manifested as either a human language or a heavenly supernatural language in three ways: Many Pentecostals and charismatics quote Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 14 which established guidelines on the public use of glossolalia in the church at Corinth although the exegesis of this passage and the extent to which these instructions are followed is a matter of academic debate.
 * The "sign of tongues" refers to xenoglossia, wherein followers believe someone is speaking a language they have never learned.
 * The "gift of tongues" refers to a glossolalic utterance spoken by an individual and addressed to a congregation of, typically, other believers.
 * "Praying in the spirit" is typically used to refer to glossolalia as part of personal prayer.

The gift of tongues is often referred to as a "message in tongues". Practitioners believe that this use of glossolalia requires an interpretation so that the gathered congregation can understand the message, which is accomplished by the interpretation of tongues. There are two schools of thought concerning the nature of a message in tongues:
 * One school of thought believes it is always directed to God as prayer, praise, or thanksgiving but is spoken in for the hearing and edification of the congregation.
 * The other school of thought believes that a message in tongues can be a prophetic utterance inspired by the Holy Spirit. In this case, the speaker delivers a message to the congregation on behalf of God.

In addition to praying in the Spirit, many Pentecostal and charismatic churches practice what is known as singing in the Spirit.

Interpretation of tongues
In Christian theology, the interpretation of tongues is one of the spiritual gifts listed in 1 Corinthians 12. This gift is used in conjunction with that of the gift of tongues – the supernatural ability to speak in a language (tongue) unknown to the speaker. The gift of interpretation is the supernatural enablement to express in an intelligible language an utterance spoken in an unknown tongue. This is not learned but imparted by the Holy Spirit; therefore, it should not be confused with the acquired skill of language interpretation. While cessationist Christians believe that this miraculous charism has ceased, Charismatic and Pentecostal Christians believe that this gift continues to operate within the church. Much of what is known about this gift was recorded by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 14. In this passage, guidelines for the proper use of the gift of tongues were given. In order for the gift of tongues to be beneficial to the edification of the church, such supernatural utterances were to be interpreted into the language of the gathered Christians. If no one among the gathered Christians possessed the gift of interpretation, then the gift of tongues was not to be publicly exercised. Those possessing the gift of tongues were encouraged to pray for the ability to interpret.

Non-Christian practice
Other religious groups have been observed to practice some form of theopneustic glossolalia. It is perhaps most commonly in Paganism, Shamanism, and other mediumistic religious practices. In Japan, the God Light Association believed that glossolalia could cause adherents to recall past lives.

Glossolalia has been postulated as an explanation for the Voynich manuscript.

In the 19th century, Spiritism was developed by the work of Allan Kardec, and the practice was seen as one of the self-evident manifestations of spirits. Spiritists argued that some cases were actually cases of xenoglossia.

Medical research
Glossolalia is classified as a non-neurogenic language disorder. Most people exhibiting glossolalia do not have a neuropsychiatric disorder.

Neuroimaging of brain activity during glossolalia does not show activity in the language areas of the brain. In other words, it may be characterized by a specific brain activity and it can be a learned behaviour.

A 1973 experimental study highlighted the existence of two basic types of glossolalia: a static form which tends to a somewhat coaction to repetitiveness and a more dynamic one which tends to free association of speech-like elements.

A study done by the American Journal of Human Biology found that speaking in tongues is associated with both a reduction in circulatory cortisol, and enhancements in alpha-amylase enzyme activity – two common biomarkers of stress reduction that can be measured in saliva. Several sociological studies report various social benefits of engaging in Pentecostal glossolalia, such as an increase in self-confidence.

As of April 2021, further studies are needed to corroborate the 1980s view of glossolaly with more sensitive measures of outcome, by using the more recent techniques of neuroimaging.

Criticism
Analysis of glossolalics reveals a pseudo-language that lacks consistent syntax, semantic meaning, usually rhythmic or poetic in nature and is similar to the speaker's native tongue. Samples of glossolalia show a lack of consistency needed for meaningful comparison or translation. It also is not used to communicate between fellow glossolalia speakers, although the meaning might be translated by the leader involved, in line with and supportive of whatever message or teaching had been given that day, in some way giving divine legitimacy to what is said. However it's more common that others than the leader translate.

Various Christian groups have criticized the Pentecostal and charismatic movement for paying too much attention to mystical manifestations, such as glossolalia.

In certain evangelical and other Protestant Churches, this experience was understood as a gift to speak foreign languages without having learned them (xenoglossy) for evangelization, the end of which was prophesied in the First Epistle to the Corinthians in chapter 13, an end which would correspond to the end of the writing of the Bible.

Theologians have recalled that on the day of Pentecost, the disciples who received a baptism of the Holy Spirit, did not speak in unknown tongues, but praised God in other tongues that non-believers in various parts of the world could understand, making it a useful gift for evangelism.

title: Speaking in tongues


text:
Talk:Speaking in tongues

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved – no consensus —  æk Talk 06:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Glossolalia → Speaking in tongues — per WP:NC, article title should be the most commonly used and recognized, for which readers are most likely to look, and to which editors will most naturally link. Ἀλήθεια 19:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC) (1) I think it appropriate in choosing a title to use what is chosen more often in titles of reliable sources. I think it not unduly pedantic for an encyclopedia addressing the topic to follow the lead of others who set out to address the topic. Note also that the subject index for GoogleBooks lists 560 titles under "glossolalia" but has no entry for "speaking in tongues", which more or less reflects their findings on library cataloguing data. Other nomenclatures are indeed also common, so it is felicitous to provide accessibility via redirects, which is even better than library catalogue cross-references. (2) Bear in mind that Google's initial estimates of hits are quite rough, and tend to grossly overcount. Looking at mentions, not just titles, GoogleBooks reports quite comparable actual hits, but these tend to undercount due to idiosyncrasies described in the above linked article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I oppose reversing the current redirect. There doubtlessly are some populations (denominations?) where "speaking in tongues" is the more common usage, but it does not appear to be predominant in reliable sources overall. Of (distinct) titles in the article's current References section, 12 use "glossolalia", 3 use "speaking in tongues", and 4 use the word "tongues" alone or in other phrases. (One is counted twice because it uses both, and one is ommitted because it is just a wiki.) GoogleBooks lists 248 titles using "glosolalia" vs. 200 using "speaking in tongues"; and GoogleScholar lists 310 titles using "glossolalia" vs. 283 using "speaking in tongues". ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Take out your "allintitle" qualifier, and you'll find exactly the opposite. Note, also, that these searches don't account for variations such as "speak in tongues" and simply "tongues".  2,046 tongues vs. 1,660 glossolalia in books and 10,700 tongues vs. 5,350 glossolalia in scholar. While the titles qualifier gives a slight edge to the more erudite and pedantic term, regular usage shows a huge margin in favor of the common and more understandable term.  Accessibility should prevail in this argument. Ἀλήθεια 21:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that, having solicited opinions with a movereq tag, you consider it argumentative for someone to offer one. At the risk of seeming even more argumentative, I would like to offer a clarification of my thinking about titles, and a point of information about Google searches. This is all I have to say – opinion solicited, opinion offered. Hopefully some other editors will share their insights on the question as well.
 * Counter-point (not to sound argumentative) - on the first page of hits in the aforementioned subject search, here's the usage count: tongue/tongues = 6, glossolalia = 2. The second page is similar 5 vs. 2, and the third is 6 vs. 3.  So even here, the predominant usage remains tongues or speaking in tongues, not glossolalia.
 * Oppose: Ningauble's research is persuasive; glossolalia seems to be at least as common use in reliable sources. Knepflerle (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Glossolalia is the standard way to refer to this, and Speaking in tongues already redirects properly. The latter is also dialectical; it's in "regular" usage only in some communities. Whereas "glossolalia" is an international scientific term. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 18:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Terence McKenna
Anyone has any reference to McKenna talking about Glossolalia in one of his books? Twipley (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

small edit
I removed a portion that stated "shunda" and its equivalents "shindar", "shinda", etc. were universal in the tongue-speaking world. A closer inspection of the source says the contrary (find it by searching 'tikitiki'). Whoever originally posted it misread the second half of the sentence, I suppose. There's also no mentions of conjugations of the word, so I have no idea where they made that up =/. Here's the original source they...'used': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#cite_note-kavan-17. --a guest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.196.188.66 (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Definition
This article is rather disturbing to me, in the fact that the definition of "speaking in tongues" it gives, although maybe accepted by a large community, is completely different from the definition used in the bible. A tongue, in the bible, has meant "language," and as it describes in 1 Cor. 14 (Annotated KJV), as men from different countries spoke with one another and understood one another; it isn't unintelligible babble, but that the men were speaking in more language than once, so people could speak a language they did not know, while simultaneously speaking their own. This leads me to believe that much of this "modern interpretation" is completely wrong, except for maybe the psychoanalysis part. --64.136.202.74 (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC) (not logged in, actual wiki id: inthend9)

 * (Response to the above) Speaking in tongues also refers to prayer to God with words inspired by the Holy Spirit, not understood by the one praying, or by others, unless interpreted by the inspiration of the Spirit. (1 Cor 12:10, 14:1-5 (& the rest of the chapter))  The language may be human or angelic. (1 Cor 13:1)

 * On the day of Pentecost, the disciples were Spirit-inspired to praise God in known human languages which they had not learned. (Acts 2:4 "as the Spirit enabled them." NIV)

 * As for "modern interpretation", the Gospel of Christ has never changed. (I can give you a whole long list of scriptures to back that up if you want.)

 * The only way you can guarantee to get a true understanding of scripture is to read it in prayer, crying out to the Lord for wisdom, knowledge and understanding (Proverbs 2:1-6), listening to the Lord and letting Him teach you (Exodus 15:26 &c &c). And of course, putting the gospel into practice.  Then you will understand the Bible a million times better than any theologian ever has, or ever will.  (Matthew 11:25,26, 1 John 2:26,27, &c &c)

 * (Note to Wikipedia moderators: Please forgive me if this is beyond what is appropriate for even a discussion page, but the person I'm responding to seemed to need reassurance, and I can't see how to send them a personal message.) Darkman101 (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

 * You are correct. Tongues are languages. This wiki article is a huge, generally accepted misconception on something blatantly obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.77.203.202 (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the OP. The only place "speaking in tongues" is described is in Acts. It's quite clear in this passage that the disciples are speaking in human languages because the congregation remarks on hearing them speak their own native tongues. It's true that "speaking in tongues" is mentioned in Corinthians but you have to read-in the idea that Paul meant glossolalia rather than speaking in a foreign tongue the speaker himself did not know. Both meanings are perfectly viable but only the latter makes sense in the context of Acts. Korona (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree that in Corinthians both meanings are viable. verse 2 (ch 14) is the key evidence: "For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him". As for Acts....it was likely written several decades after Paul's death, supposedly written by someone who was one of Paul's enterage during some of his later quests, though more likely it was a recipient of second or third hand account of that person (Luke, perhaps). In other words, the author was writing some 50 or more years after the Pentecost event in Acts, and likely did not have even third or fourth hand knowledge of the events. Therefore they can be treated as only legendary, at best. Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree that 1 Cor 14 settles the matter. Some tongues in the Bible were understood but what Paul describes in 1 Cor 14 were unknown tongues. The page is fine. However a properly sourced section discussing this very debate would also be appropriate. 1 Corinthians is one of the letters that is most commonly assumed to be genuinely Pauline by the majority of Pauline scholars and also is considered to be early. No need to make disputed claims about the dating of the letter to make your point here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a historical and biblical fact that Luke wrote the book of Acts. There is no question about it. 73.91.210.143 (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Rome was like New York City of today. It was the place that had everything, including people from different countries, speaking their native tongues. When the “gift of tongues” was given at Pentecost, it wasn’t glossolalia', a practice in which people utter words or speech-like sounds, often thought by believers to be languages unknown to the speaker. Of what use would that be? What would uttering sounds and words no one could understand contribute to the spreading of the good news? Speaking in tongues, bestowed upon the 120 in the upper rooms meant that miraculously, they could speak in a tongue, or language, they had never learned. The purpose? To follow Jesus’s command to spread the good news to the furthest corners of the world. After the establishment of the Christian congregation and after the death of the last apostle, the gift ceased and so did prophesying. There was no need for it as people went back to their native countries and spread the word. Anyone today speaking nonsensical gibberish and describes it as “speaking in tongues”, or go into trances doing it, should understand that they may be doing that. But the gift is not from God and if it is not from God, then there is only one other source it could come from. Those practicing this need to make a through examination of what they are doing. Are they teaching as God would want them to? Or are they misleading people with gibberish which only serves to obscure the word of God, and that could only come from Satan? Biblically,only account of persons speaking gibberish no one could understand is that if demon possessed people. Foxsingstheblues (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Concerning the Requested Move: I want to vote in favour
(I may be late, but I have only just come across this page.)

The term: "Speaking in Tongues" is the term generally used by:

(1) Those who do it, (2) Those who argue against it, (3) The vast majority of the population who have any reason to want to know anything about it.

The term: "Glossolalia" is generally only used by theologians and (allegedly) scientific researchers. Most ordinary people would have absolutely no idea what "Glossolalia" means.

I propose we go with the people on this one. That's who Wikipedia is for.

(Just in case anyone wants to know: Yes, I'm a plain ordinary bog-standard Christian who does it.) Darkman101 (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Glossolalia exists in non-Christian contexts too, though. I believe "glossolalia" is used because it's more culturally neutral whereas the term "(speaking in) tongues" is mostly used by Christians.   —  Soap  —  22:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Try looking at the other language wiki's. 84.106.101.44 (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Audio
This article needs audio samples to illustrate the practice of glossolia. Else, it is too windy.Sindhbadh (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

 * An audio sample with singing in tongues: https://message-for-you.net/heavenly-sounds-english/ 77.3.173.163 (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

In Anime
Has this shown up in anime? I think wikipedia should discuss Glossolalia in Anime. --86.148.74.171 (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

 * If you're serious, then you could do that: find reliable sources, create a new section above "See Also" called "In the media", and describe and cite your reliable source in that section. You don't have to do it perfectly - but good enough that people take it seriously and improve it, rather than delete it. "In the media" sections do tend to survive pretty well though.- Tesseract2 (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

What is Igmo? I tried to find a lyrics translation for the song Dance of Curse, from Esxaflowne, and it doesn`t seem to be a language. I can find the words, but not what they mean.

Non-religious study and interpretation
All of the information I have been able to find about this topic focuses on religion or spiritual aspects of the event. What about when it occurs in people without any religious context?

-Is there a seperate term for that?

-Many definitions mention a "trance-like state" - what about when a person doesn't "trance", just suddenly shifts into an alternative verbal pattern without any accompanying physical/emotional/situational change?

-Have there been any studies done of the behavior without it being in a faith-invoked/involved setting?

- Are there currently any studies being done that do not involve a religious element?144.124.243.172 (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC) ←

 * I'm not aware of any. But just to clarify, within Pentecostal and charismatic Christianity, speaking in tongues is not dependent on any "trance-like state". It can be done at will and is understood as the person yielding his or her vocal chords to speak whatever the spirit desires to be spoken. The content of the utterance is spontaneous, one doesn't determine what one says, but the timing is not necessarily spontaneous and no ecstatic emotional state is required. Ltwin (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There are indeed people who can do this voluntarily with no religious connotation to it whatsoever (I know at least one personally). If anyone can find some studies or source material covering non-religious glossolalia, please add it; it would be much appreciated. 192.54.250.11 (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Citation removal
I removed the following footnote cited in several places in the article: "Personal Interview with Deborah Cox. Professor of Writing about the Bible as Literature. 4 May 2009. Lonestar College Library. Conroe, Texas, 77384[verification needed]". Wikipedia's guidelines on No original research is clear. Since "personal interviews" are not published, they are not verifiable. Ltwin (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Speaking in tongues or with tongues ?
The OED seems to show the latter preposition is the standard. Why then the most frequent preposition in the phrase in the article is "in" ?

''c.II.8.c The knowledge or use of a language. Esp. in phrases gift of tongues, to speak with a tongue (tongues), in reference to the Pentecostal miracle and the miraculous gift in the early Church; also simply tongues (pl. in collect. sense).

''1526 Tindale [see 2 a]. ― 1 Cor. xii. 30 Do all speake with tonges? Ibid. xiii. 8 Though that prophesyinge fayle, other tonges shall cease, or knowledge vanysshe awaye. 1533 Gau Richt Vay 48 The halie spreit‥gaif to thayme ye gift to speik with al twngis. 1538 Cromwell in Merriman Life & Lett. (1902) II. 144 Ioynyng wyth you Maister Mason‥to declare your purpose for that having the tongue he may doo‥it more fully thenne you could percace easly vtter the same. 1593 R. Harvey Philad. 3 Neither can you proue that hee had not wealth enough to serue his vses, or tongue enough in euery place of his trauell. a 1637 B. Jonson Underwoods, Execration upon Vulcan 75 Their‥bright stone that brings Invisibility, and strength, and tongues. 1879 Farrar St. Paul I. 96 The glossolalia or ‘speaking with a tongue’, is connected with ‘prophesying’, that is, exalted preaching.   1965 Sunday Mail (Brisbane) 5 Dec. 31/5 Some parishioners have complained to the Diocesan authorities‥about Mr. Schofield's interest in speaking with tongues. 1972 S. Tugwell Did you receive Spirit? v. 40 Some manifestation, usually tongues, is generally expected; indeed, strict Pentecostals demand it. 1976 Church Times 5 Mar. 14/2 Tongues is a personal and devotional gift as opposed to the others, which are intended to help people.''

''9.II.9 transf. in biblical use: A people or nation having a language of their own. Usually in plural: all tongues, people of every tongue.'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.121.155.250 (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Introduction neutrality
The introduction gives one definition as the most correct, when later in the article there are many given. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Can you be more specific please? Ltwin (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In the lead, it is stated that glossolalia is incomprehensible babble (paraphrasing), while later in the article it is indicated that there are various definitions, by various religious groups. The lead is favouring one group's view over the various others. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Well, part of the problem is that the article is about Glossolalia, which is the preferred scholarly term for speaking gibberish, sometimes in ritual contexts. However, Speaking in tongues also redirects here. Depending on what kind of Christian you are, "speaking in tongues" can be either glossolalia or xenoglossia which is miraculously speaking foreign languages. So, the definition in the lead is correct. Glossolalia is gibberish to observers (though it holds religious importance to the speaker). However, if you talk about glossolalia in Christianity you can't avoid getting into the discussion about what exactly is the spiritual gift known as speaking in tongues.

 * The lead should not create multiple definitions for glossolalia, there is no scientific proof that it is actual language. However, what we do need to do is expand the lead to better summarize the entire article as it exists currently, which means we would have to explain that there is disagreement among Christians whether the "gift" of speaking in tongues was glossolalia or xenoglossy. Ltwin (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to present the tradition on the phenomena of glossolalia in the Eastern Christian perspective?
I was raised in Russian Orthodoxy, & when I stumbled to this page, I was surprised that the term glossolalia is in the Greek, as opposed to the more frequently used form „speaking in tongues.“ The occurrence could be read in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 2. Which made me wondered, „Why is not the Greek Christian or any other Eastern Church have a section on this page?“ So I accompanied the matter with some research, & I did find some interesting perspectives about the speaking in tongues from Orthodox sources. Here are a few that I found reliable to start a section:
 * http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7112/
 * http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/misc/nicozisin_tongues.htm
 * http://www.sfaturiortodoxe.ro/orthodox/orthodox_advices_cleopa_speaking_in_tongues.htm
 * http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/on-the-gift-of-speaking-in-tongues.aspx
 * http://oca.org/questions/teaching/speaking-in-tongues-miracles
 * http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/answer/11/

Here are some blogs that cover the subject:
 * http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=14851.0

Here is an extensive sermon [video on the website YouTube,] which I am not sure is reliable but dœs cover the perspective:
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHrFHVQTvCA

A podcast:
 * http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/the_gift_the_gifts_and_glossolalia

Thank you for your time reading my question, I hope & am seeing into the construction of an Orthodox perspective section. 序名三「Jyonasan」 Talk Stalk  04:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Catholicism?
It seems that on April 10, 2012, someone added the section on Catholicism. Why does Catholicism get its own section when it seems that the way the article is outlined is by time period, not by Christian denomination. Furthermore, the section asserts that "Glossolalia is the miraculous ability to speak in a foreign language so that foreigners can hear the Gospel." If this is indeed the "Catholic" definition of speaking in tongues, then it belongs at the article xenoglossia. One more thing, it contradicts the very real and vibrant charismatic movement within the Catholic Church, which has official papal approval. These blanket statements that glossolalia is always understood as speaking a foreign language and never as speaking a heavenly or sacred language cannot be supported. The current teaching of the Catholic Church on this charism is much more nuanced than this section leads one to believe. For this reason, I am removing this section. Ltwin (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Missing: Science / Article completely biased
Totally church biased, the whole article is. There is a point "science" missing as psychology and medical sciences have a very different opinion which is absolutely neglected and practically not mentioned in the article. The majority - by far - of the Western world population does not see glossolalia as anything religious but as something not working right in the human brain. Also, the majority of "Protestants" rejects glossolalia as something not being part of the religion and not belonging in a church. Only pentecostals and a few other fringe sects see glossolalia as part of religion and church service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:45:4958:D783:24E7:F51E:26FD:9ACC (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

 * Not quite accurate. Scientists have much to say on the issue of glossolalia, but the notion that it is seen as "something not working right in the human brain" is outdated and not supported by science. Rather they use their brains in different ways when utilizing glossolalia-which aligns with what glossolalists have described about their own behavior. Science has shown that people who speak in tongues are not emotionally or physically disturbed as was once assumed. In addition, there are many Protestants who believe in glossolalia, not just Pentecostals and not simply "fringe sects." The current Archbishop of Canterbury has a background in the charismatic movement after all. Ltwin (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Glossolalia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081217141421/http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4185_spirit-filled_life.pdf to http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4185_spirit-filled_life.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Complaining in gibberish when nervous, and or Ned Flanders speak
Is this what the article is trying to explain? I don`t diddly, but I do ramble on in gibberish when nervous or angry. Kaskada Zglovos zjidaku hlanak mlavad.

Secular Interpretations
I suggest adding a section on secular interpretations of the phenomenon. An example reliable reference is: The measurement of regional cerebral blood flow during glossolalia: A preliminary SPECT study See: http://www.amebrasil.org.br/html/Newberg2006.pdf

Also, chapter 6 of book "How Enlightenment Changes your Brain" by Andrew Newburg discusses this in some depth. Glossolalia is likely one of many forms of "enlightenment" that can be induced by various secular practices of meditation and other secular rituals.

Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Glossolalia lead sentence
There seems to be some disagreement over the first sentence of the article. Since at least 2013, the article has opened with essentially the following sentence, "Glossolalia or (speaking in tongues) is the fluid vocalizing of speech-like syllables that lack any readily comprehended meaning, in some cases as part of religious practice.[1]." As of this edit, the article begins with "Glossolalia or (speaking in tongues) is the religious phenomenon of persons speaking languages not known to them." I have two problems with this sentence. First, it is vague and doesn't actually describe what the article is about. It could be referring either glossolalia or xenoglossy. Second, we discuss what xenoglossy is before we even define glossolalia. It is only at the end of the paragraph that we actually find out what glossolalia is as opposed to xenoglossy. Whatever the etymology of the word, as it is used today it is not simply "speaking languages not known to them" but speaking what are believed to be non-human languages. The reader shouldn't have to read the entire lead section before they understand the difference. Ltwin (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Glossolalia is first a religious phenomenon. That has been its meaning since the term was coined.  The psychological interpretation of this is important but to state this as the lead sentence is to disregard the historical significance and derivation of the term.  Taxee (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How are we disregarding it simply because the first word after "speaking in tongues" doesn't mention religion? The entire paragraph is about its religious associations. We even cite Scripture in the lead. Ltwin (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Then why can't you live with the obvious solution of providing the predominant meaning of the term first. If it was a psychological term (which it is not) then I could understand your point.  It is, in fact, a religious term  which derives directly from the Bible, and therefore, that should figure first in its introduction.  Providing a psychological explanation for something that is not a psychological term is inappropriate.  According to WP:LEAD, the lead section should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.  That's not what the lead section currently does.  Taxee (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see the lead as favoring a "psychological" definition over a "religious" definition. You are the one splitting hairs. The first sentence currently starts out by describing what glossolalia is first, what it "sounds" and "looks" like and what it means to the people who speak it. As a Pentecostal Christian who speaks in tongues, and probably does so "more than you all" lol, I'm not understanding why you see the current lead sentence as privileging a psychological definition over a religious one. It's not vague and simplistic like "speaking in an unknown language" is, but I think that's actually a good thing. Ltwin (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The Oracle of Delphi
The history section should probably include a proper reference to the Pythia. This is a contemporary reference that was popular to those in the Greco-Roman world and actually sets the stage for why this behavior would be accepted and found to be intriguing to them in the first place. This citation references what is likely the origin of this practice.69.40.38.162 (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Glossolalia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.frontiernet.net/~bcmmin/tongue1.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mormonwiki.com/Speaking_in_Tongues
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050429071428/http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/31-35/31-1-05.htm to http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/31-35/31-1-05.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100708052546/http://www.wlsessays.net/files/GerlachGlossolalia.pdf to http://www.wlsessays.net/files/GerlachGlossolalia.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010619205618/http://www.bible411.com/glossolalia/ to http://www.bible411.com/glossolalia/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

An article with an alternative (both religious and scientific) interpretation of glossolalia in Acts
http://www.davidcrystal.com/?fileid=-4204

(The original article is apparently http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/014610799502500304).

In short, the author relates the proposition that the Apostles spoke in non-prestigious languages (Aramaic & Greek) in a situation where others expected them to speak in the prestigious language of the place (Hebrew). This would explain why detractors ridiculed them as drunkards, and not (as was the case with Jesus in the Gospels) denounced as possessed by demons. 37.190.146.24 (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Science
So after all that religion, all we have is two sentences of actual medical science??? 2600:1700:4CA1:3C80:AD1B:7F60:7F8F:70B6 (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

"Tongues" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tongues. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 20 September 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Glossolalia → Speaking in tongues – per WP:COMMONNAME. "Speaking in tongues" is a far more common term for this than "glossolalia" as demonstrated by the Google Ngrams Rreagan007 (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, obvious WP:COMMONNAME. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Box at the bottom of the Classical antiquity subsection
In the History section, what's the strange box at the bottom of the Classical antiquity subsection doing there? It's unsourced and I'm not sure how it fits with the preceding text. JezGrove (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

 * I see the box has been deleted now...! JezGrove (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Hoo Ba Ba Kanda should be in external links
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k0JeEKR3Do 98.4.118.65 (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Why? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Because nothing I've ever seen so clearly (and positively) depicts the subject . It will satisfy both those who disapprove and approve (of glossolalia), as I've seen comments on yt attest although the latter are ofc conflicted in their appreciation. Usually it's depicted as a freak show but POGO's treatment conveys the feeling of getting caught up in a thing. 98.4.118.65 (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Medical research section
I have reverted a significant addition to the above section. The addition can be found in the history here:. I have a number of concerns, although I note it is a good faith edit that included citations to papers. Nevertheless the reasons for reverting are: To help us evaluate what can be said here, I include the additional sources found. I note that as the fourth is not in a citation template, these may have been obtained from elsewhere on Wikipedia perhaps? To move this forward, it would be good if this were guided by a suitable secondary source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) The addition makes claims like Those who engage in glossolalia often describe it in first person as a surrender of their will and other generic statements, but the information is being sourced to a single primary source. Secondary sourcing is required for such statements
 * 2) The same applies to the Three maim[sic] hypotheses. We are given primary sourcing for each but no secondary sourcing showing why these are the main hypotheses, nor why they are notable for this addition.
 * 3) There were a large number of significant grammar issues in the insertion. These could be copy edited though.
 * , altered states of consciousness [cited twice in the edit]
 * Hempel, A. G., Meloy, J. R., Stern, R., Ozone, S. J., and Gray, B. T. (2002). Fiery tongues and mystical motivations: glossolalia in a forensic population is associated with mania and sexual/religious delusions. J. Forensic Sci. 47, 305–312. Francis, R. J., and Robbins, M. (2003). Personality and glossolalia: a study among male Evangelical clergy. Pastoral Psychol. 51, 391–396.
 * Hempel, A. G., Meloy, J. R., Stern, R., Ozone, S. J., and Gray, B. T. (2002). Fiery tongues and mystical motivations: glossolalia in a forensic population is associated with mania and sexual/religious delusions. J. Forensic Sci. 47, 305–312. Francis, R. J., and Robbins, M. (2003). Personality and glossolalia: a study among male Evangelical clergy. Pastoral Psychol. 51, 391–396.
 * Hempel, A. G., Meloy, J. R., Stern, R., Ozone, S. J., and Gray, B. T. (2002). Fiery tongues and mystical motivations: glossolalia in a forensic population is associated with mania and sexual/religious delusions. J. Forensic Sci. 47, 305–312. Francis, R. J., and Robbins, M. (2003). Personality and glossolalia: a study among male Evangelical clergy. Pastoral Psychol. 51, 391–396.

 * Hello, @Sirfurboy and other fellow wikipedian,
 * I am sorry for the large number of significant grammar issues in my attempt to improve the above mentionned section, related (for me) to the scientific point of view on «speaking in tongues» amongst believers. My native langage is french and I arrived in this page from the french page related more or less to the same topic. I am somehow frustrated by this reversion, for me it is important to sum up what research has to say about this phenomenom. The argument of secondary versus primary source is of course important, but I had a look at the begining of the article, and we all know that many readers of this page will stop at the first elements presented. We can see that three authors are cited - very old authors in this case - and that reference is made to primary sources, i.e. paper written by those three authors. I'm aware that this argument is flimsy, and just because one section is bad doesn't mean that another is legitimate to be no better.. Would I be right to delete the whole passage with its lengthy references to Savarin, Felicitas and Kavan? Or would a better strategy be to look for people who quote them? All the more so as the sources I have used as primary sources themselves refer to authors for each of the three hypotheses, as is usual in the introductory part of a scientific paper accepted by a serious modern journal.
 * sincerelly. SarmentFurtif (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks SarmentFurtif. Personally I think the second approach is best. If there is a secondary source we could use, then improvement of the whole section is possible. My concern with primary sources alone is that it is a kind of original research if we allow the editor to select just primary sources and present those in an article. It is original research because the article then says what the editor wanted to say, with curated primary sources, but not necessarily what academics would say. It looks authoritative but could be shallow or fringe. I agree the article could use improvement, and I hope it is clear that I wasn't saying that nothing you provided can be used. The reason I pasted the sources into talk and linked a diff of your edit is because I do think we can use the material - just as long as we do it within the framework of what secondary sources are saying.
 * So, in summary, yes, if we can find some secondary source that summarises the medical research, we can then rewrite this section based on that and including the information you have provided. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Speaking in tongues


text:
Gustav Kirchhoff

Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (12 March 1824 – 17 October 1887) was a German physicist and mathematician who contributed to the fundamental understanding of electrical circuits, spectroscopy, and the emission of black-body radiation by heated objects.

He coined the term black-body radiation in 1860.

Several different sets of concepts are named "Kirchhoff's laws" after him, which include Kirchhoff's circuit laws, Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation, and Kirchhoff's law of thermochemistry.

The Bunsen–Kirchhoff Award for spectroscopy is named after Kirchhoff and his colleague, Robert Bunsen.

Life and work
Gustav Kirchhoff was born on 12 March 1824 in Königsberg, Prussia, the son of Friedrich Kirchhoff, a lawyer, and Johanna Henriette Wittke. His family were Lutherans in the Evangelical Church of Prussia. He graduated from the Albertus University of Königsberg in 1847 where he attended the mathematico-physical seminar directed by Carl Gustav Jacob Jacobi, Franz Ernst Neumann and Friedrich Julius Richelot. In the same year, he moved to Berlin, where he stayed until he received a professorship at Breslau. Later, in 1857, he married Clara Richelot, the daughter of his mathematics professor Richelot. The couple had five children. Clara died in 1869. He married Luise Brömmel in 1872.

Kirchhoff formulated his circuit laws, which are now ubiquitous in electrical engineering, in 1845, while he was still a student. He completed this study as a seminar exercise; it later became his doctoral dissertation. He was called to the University of Heidelberg in 1854, where he collaborated in spectroscopic work with Robert Bunsen. In 1857, he calculated that an electric signal in a resistanceless wire travels along the wire at the speed of light. He proposed his law of thermal radiation in 1859, and gave a proof in 1861. Together Kirchhoff and Bunsen invented the spectroscope, which Kirchhoff used to pioneer the identification of the elements in the Sun, showing in 1859 that the Sun contains sodium. He and Bunsen discovered caesium and rubidium in 1861. At Heidelberg he ran a mathematico-physical seminar, modelled on Franz Ernst Neumann's, with the mathematician Leo Koenigsberger. Among those who attended this seminar were Arthur Schuster and Sofia Kovalevskaya.

He contributed greatly to the field of spectroscopy by formalizing three laws that describe the spectral composition of light emitted by incandescent objects, building substantially on the discoveries of David Alter and Anders Jonas Ångström. In 1862, he was awarded the Rumford Medal for his researches on the fixed lines of the solar spectrum, and on the inversion of the bright lines in the spectra of artificial light. In 1875 Kirchhoff accepted the first chair dedicated specifically to theoretical physics at Berlin.

He also contributed to optics, carefully solving the wave equation to provide a solid foundation for Huygens' principle (and correct it in the process).

In 1864, he was elected as a member of the American Philosophical Society.

In 1884, he became foreign member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Kirchhoff died in 1887, and was buried in the St Matthäus Kirchhof Cemetery in Schöneberg, Berlin (just a few meters from the graves of the Brothers Grimm). Leopold Kronecker is buried in the same cemetery.

Kirchhoff's circuit laws
Kirchhoff's first law is that the algebraic sum of currents in a network of conductors meeting at a point (or node) is zero. The second law is that in a closed circuit, the directed sums of the voltages in the system is zero.

Kirchhoff's three laws of spectroscopy

 * 1) A solid, liquid, or dense gas excited to emit light will radiate at all wavelengths and thus produce a continuous spectrum.
 * 2) A low-density gas excited to emit light will do so at specific wavelengths, and this produces an emission spectrum.
 * 3) If light composing a continuous spectrum passes through a cool, low-density gas, the result will be an absorption spectrum.

Kirchhoff did not know about the existence of energy levels in atoms. The existence of discrete spectral lines was known since Fraunhofer discovered them in 1814. And that the lines formed a discrete mathematical pattern was described by Johann Balmer in 1885. Joseph Larmor explained the splitting of the spectral lines in a magnetic field known as the Zeeman Effect by the oscillation of electrons. But these discrete spectral lines were not explained as electron transitions until the Bohr model of the atom in 1913, which helped lead to quantum mechanics.

Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation
It was Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation in which he proposed an unknown universal law for radiation that led Max Planck to the discovery of the quantum of action leading to quantum mechanics.

Kirchhoff's law of thermochemistry
Kirchhoff showed in 1858 that, in thermochemistry, the variation of the heat of a chemical reaction is given by the difference in heat capacity between products and reactants:

 * $$\left(\frac{\partial \Delta H}{\partial T}\right)_p = \Delta C_p$$.

Integration of this equation permits the evaluation of the heat of reaction at one temperature from measurements at another temperature.

Kirchhoff's theorem in graph theory
Kirchhoff also worked in the mathematical field of graph theory, in which he proved Kirchhoff's matrix tree theorem.

Works

 * Vorlesungen über mathematische Physik. 4 vols., B. G. Teubner, Leipzig 1876–1894.
 * Vol. 1: Mechanik. 1. Auflage, B. G. Teubner, Leipzig 1876 (online).
 * Vol. 2: Mathematische Optik. B. G. Teubner, Leipzig 1891 (Herausgegeben von Kurt Hensel, online).
 * Vol. 3: Electricität und Magnetismus. B. G. Teubner, Leipzig 1891 (Herausgegeben von Max Planck, online).
 * Vol. 4: Theorie der Wärme. B. G. Teubner, Leipzig 1894, Herausgegeben von Max Planck
 * Vol. 3: Electricität und Magnetismus. B. G. Teubner, Leipzig 1891 (Herausgegeben von Max Planck, online).
 * Vol. 4: Theorie der Wärme. B. G. Teubner, Leipzig 1894, Herausgegeben von Max Planck

title: Gustav Kirchhoff