[779:1] Dean Stanley says: "It may easily be conceived that this new life was liable to much confusion and excitement, especially in a society where the principle of moral stability was not developed commensurably with it. Such was, we know, the state of Corinth. They had, on the one hand, been 'in everything enriched by Christ, in all utterance, and in all knowledge,' 'coming behind in no gift' (1:5, 6, 7); but, on the other hand, the same contentious spirit which had turned the most sacred names into party watchwords, and profaned the celebration of the Supper of the Lord, was ready to avail itself of the openings for vanity and ambition afforded by the distinctions of the different gifts. Accordingly, various disorders arose; every one thought of himself, and no one of his neighbour's good; and, as a natural consequence, those gifts were most highly honoured, not which were most useful, but which were most astonishing. Amongst these the gift of tongues rose pre-eminent, as being in itself the most expressive of the new spiritual life; the very words, 'spiritual gifts,' 'spiritual man' (pneumatika, 14:1 f.; pneumatikos, 14:37), seem, in common parlance, to have been exclusively appropriated to it; and the other gifts, especially that of prophecy, were despised, as hardly proceeding from the same Divine source" (The Eps. of St. P. to the Corinthians, 1876, p. 210 f.). Imagine this state of things in a community endowed with so many supernatural gifts!

[780:1] Cf. 1 Cor. 14:5, 6, 18, 23, 39; Acts 10:46, 19:6.

[780:2] The rendering of the Authorised Version, "an unknown tongue," is wholly imaginary. The "with" which we adopt is more frequently rendered "in"; it is a mere matter of opinion, of course, but we maintain "with."

[780:3] Cf. 1 Cor. 14:4, 13, 14, 19, 27.

[781:1] Mark 7:33, 35; Luke 1:64, 16:24; Acts 2:3, 26; Rom. 3:13, 14:11; Philip. 2:11; James, 1:26, 3:5, 6 (twice), 8; 1 Pet. 3:10; 1 John 3:18; cf. 1 Cor. 13:1; Apoc., 16:10.

[781:2] Apoc., 5:9, 7:9, 10:11, 11:9, 13:7, 14:6, 17:15.

[781:3] Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., 5:6, § 1: Eusebius, H. E., 5:7.

[781:4] De Verb. Apost., 175:3; Serm. 9: "Loquebatur enim tunc unus homo omnibus linguis, quia locutura erat unitas ecclesiae in omnibus linguis."

[783:1] We need not here say anything of the reference in Mark 16:17, which is undoubtedly a later and spurious addition to the Gospel.

[784:1] Zeller, Die Apostelgesch., p. 85 f.

[784:2] Pflanzung, u.s.w., p. 16.

[784:3] Meyer, Kr. ex. H'buch üb. die Apostelgesch., 4te aufl., 1870, p. 54 f.

[785:3] Schneckenburger, Beiträge, p. 84; Svensen, Zeitschr. luth. Th. u. Kirche, 1859, p. 1 f. This view was anciently held by Gregory Naz. (Orat. 44), and some of the Fathers, and, in more recent times, it was adopted by Erasmus and others.

[786:1] Cf. Eusebius, H. E., 3:39, 5:8; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., 3:1, § 1; Tertullian, Adv. Marc., 4:5.

[786:2] De Pressensé, Hist. des Trois prem. Siècles, i., p. 356. Neander (Pflanzung, u.s.w., p. 14 f.), Reuss (Rev. d. Théol., 1851, iii., p. 84 f.), and many other able writers, still more strongly enforce these arguments.

[786:3] Neander, Pflanzung, u.s.w. p. 18.

[788:3] Bab. Sevachim, 116 a.; Gfrörer, Das Jahrh. des Heils, ii. 392 f.

[788:4] Schemoth Rabba, 70 d.; Gfrörer, ib., ii. 393.

[788:5] Midrash Tanchumah, 26, c.; Gfrörer, ib., ii. 393.

[788:6] Midrash Tillin; Bab. Schabbath, 85 b.; Gfrörer, ib., ii. 393 f.

[789:1] De decem Oraculis, § 9, ed. Mangey, ii. 185 f.

[789:2] Ib., § 11, ed. Mangey, ii. 188; cf. De Septenario et festis, 22, ed. Mangey, ii. 295 f.

[790:1] Neander, Planzung, u.s.w., p. 19.

[790:2] Thiersch, Die Kirche im apost. Zeitalter, 2te aufl., 1858, p. 68 f.

[790:3] The literal meaning, of course, is "no one heareth"; but the sense is "heareth with the understanding." Cf. Mark 4:33 and the Septuagint version of Gen. 11:7, Isaiah 36:11, etc., where akouein has this meaning. The word is rightly rendered in the Authorised Version.

[791:2] It is unnecessary to show that phônê is used to express language.

[792:1] This is the reading of A, D, E, F, G, א, and other ancient codices, and is adopted by most critics in preference to glossais, the reading of B, K, and L.

[792:3] So Bardili, Baur, Bleek, Davidson, Eichhorn, Ewald, Fritzsche, Gfrörer, Hausrath, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Keim, Meyer, Neander, Noack, Olshausen, Overbeck, Paulus, Pfleiderer, de Pressensé, Renan, Reuss, Schaff, Schrader, Schulz, Schwegler, Stap, Steudel, De Wette, Wieseler, Weisse, Zeller, and others.

[793:1] Ewald maintains that "interpretation" was always separate from "tongues" (Die Sendschr. des Ap. Paul, p. 205, anm.). Wieseler at one time (St. u. Krit., 1838, p. 720 f.) asserted that the speaker with tongues was always his own interpreter. He subsequently (St. u. Krit., 1860, p. 117 f. withdrew this extraordinary theory.

[795:1] Cf. Schrader, Der Ap. Paulus, ii., p. 72 f.

[795:3] The same gift, it is generally understood, is referred to in Ephes. 5:18 f.

[797:2] It is impossible to refer to every writer by whom the arguments adopted throughout this section may have been used or suggested, but we very gladly express obligation, especially to the writings of Baur, Zeller, Meyer, Reuss, Overbeck, Holtzmann, and Neander.

[797:3] Hom. in Is., 6:2.

[798:1] Bleek, Olshausen, and others.

[799:2] Ib., 12:7. We need not discuss the connection of kai tê huperbolê. We have adopted that which is also the reading of the Authorised Version.

[800:1] Ewald, Sendschr. des Ap. Paulus, p. 307 f.; Hausrath, Der Ap. Paulus, p. 52 f.; Hofmann, Die heil. Schr. N. T., 1866, ii. 3, p. 309; Holsten, Zum Ev. des Paulus, u.s.w., p. 85 f.; Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 186 f.; Strauss, Das Leb. Jesu, p. 302; Weber u. Holtzmann, Gesch. V. Isr., ii., p. 542 f.

[800:2] Holsten, Zum Ev. des Paulus u. des Petrus, 1868. p. 85 f.