Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal for the Study of the New Testament
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chester, S. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Divine Madness? Speaking in Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14.23

Stephen J. Chester

International Christian College, Glasgow G4 0PS, UKstephen.chester{at}icc.ac.uk

The response of the hypothetical outsider in 1 Cor. 14.23 to hearing uninterpreted tongues is usually understood as one of alienation. This fits an exegetical consensus that takes tongues as a sign of divine judgment on unbelievers. Yet the exclamationmai/nesqe may, in fact, be positive. If it is a social categorization by the outsider of tongues as parallel to the phenomenon of divinely gifted madness within Graeco-Roman religion, the response is very likely not one of alienation. Uninterpreted tongues are a positive sign to the outsider of divine activity among the Corinthian believers, but are inadequate from Paul’s perspective as they fail to communicate the gospel. This article defends the plausibility both of the outsider drawing such a parallel and of its positive sense. Its argument counters a tendency among recent commentators to note the parallel but to uphold the exegetical consensus that the response is one of alienation.

Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Vol. 27, No. 4, 417-446 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0142064X05055747


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?