Looking at "Praying in Tongues" as a Linguist

 I was thinking today about "praying in tongues" or "speaking in tongues" while I was on my way home from taking the trash to the dump. (Wednesdays are trash run days here in Ohio County, Kentucky if you don't want to pay for trash service. ) I've been to a number of tongues churches in my life, though it has never been a home for me in any way, and I've known a number of folks who use the practice in their worship. Rather than thinking about it as a theologian, today I was thinking about it in terms of my other major interest, languages and linguistics, and I realized something.
      Something is very off linguistically with the majority of "tongues" speakers and prayers. What do I mean by this? Every language has its own set of both vowel and consonant sounds that tend to be unique to that language. Even among related languages like the Romance languages, the phonemics of the languages differ from one another in some way. The same is true among the Germanic languages. While Dutch and German may sound similar to the English speaking ear, their sound schemes are actually quite different. The difference is far more pronounced the farther away from English that you get. Many languages have consonants or vowels which simply do not occur in English and take quite a bit of practice for the English speaker's tongue to master. The "hard 'h'" sound which occurs in Semitic languages, comes to mind, but also the glottal stop with which many tribal Papua New Guinea languages are rife. Gimi and Bisorio both have multiple types. And then there are the plosive consonants which occur in various tribal languages, as well as clicks, and the tongue twisting plosive clicks of Xhosa. Where vowels are concerned, Irish Gaelic comes to mind as their vowels only slightly resemble the vowels sounds English speakers know lending themselves to the Irish accent. The human mouth is capable of making far more sounds than we realize and nearly all of them are used in the 7-8000 recognized languages around the world, not including dialects.
     In addition to the phonemics, languages have grammar which dictates how they are used, and that grammar can vary wildly between them. But unless someone is deliberately repeating something, the sentence structure will rarely repeat the same cluster of phonemes twice. Even particles and discrete units indicating grammatical function are rarely repeated one right after another.
     Why do I bring all of this up? Because every time I have heard someone "speaking in tongues" or "praying in tongues" the phonemics they use are almost always, 99% of the time, native to English or the native language of the speaker in some way or another. The "sh" sound makes a frequent appearance, as does the "l" sound. There's a lot of the "a" as in "father" usually. "b", "j", "f", and a few others are used over and over again. There are many repetitions of the same strings of sounds. In short, nothing of what I have ever heard from a tongues speaker has ever sounded like real spoken language. The one exception I can think of is one lady I knew who, when she prayed in tongues, it bore a remarkable resemblance to the phonemic structure of the somewhat deciphered Linear A, that is, ancient Minoan, that I went over once upon a time.
     "But they're speaking heavenly languages or the languages of angels!" Someone might protest. Again, this doesn't track. Why would non-corporeal spirits, who do not have mouths, tongues, or vocal chords need human pronouncible language to communicate with one another? And if they were to use language to communicate with a human being, every single record of this has them speaking a language that human being already knows. And even then, wouldn't such languages still follow the patterns of language itself?
     Finally, speaking as someone who knows the Scriptures, the only recorded instance in the Bible itself describes the "tongues" being spoken as known, intelligible languages that were unknown to the person speaking them, and they were being spoken to people who could understand and interpret them.
     I understand that many people find comfort and a spirituality in praying this way. I am not saying it is wrong. But from a linguist's standpoint, and from a Scriptural standpoint, most of the time, it is still nonsensical gibberish all things considered. As Paul wrote, it's better to speak five words that make sense than ten thousand in a "tongue" no one understands, even the speaker.

Only Through the Logos Can You Come to the God

 It is the Logos of the God who said, "I am the path, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father if not through Me." This statement makes all the more sense when you understand what the Logos was in 1st century thought. The Logos was the "firstborn of the God" through which the God created everything. More to the point, every human being was created with a piece or "shred" of the Logos. Long before Paul wrote about the members of the Body of Christ with Christ as their Head, it was understood in 1st century Roman thought that all human beings shared a part of the Logos. No one could approach or come to the Father apart from the Logos, Itself or Himself firstborn from the very same substance as the God, of which they were already a part. It wasn't and isn't possible because it is that Logos which connects every human being to the God and Father. 
     It is not unreasonable to say that what the ancient world called Logos we now call "consciousness." It was that first and seminal source of Consciousness that incarnated as a human being over two thousand years ago. It is not unreasonable to read John 1:1 as "At the start was Consciousness. And Consciousness was right next to the God, and the Consciousness was [qualitatively] God." Our consciousness is born of His Consciousness and is a part of His Consciousness like the parts of a body with His Consciousness as the Head. 
     We cannot come to or approach the God and Father through anything having to do with our "flesh" or our physical bodies or brains. As Jesus told Nicodemus, "If someone wasn't born from above, he isn't capable of seeing the kingdom of the God. ... That which is born of Spirit is Spirit, and that which is born of flesh is flesh." As Jesus also told the woman at the well, "The God is Spirit, and those who prostrate themselves before Him need to prostrate themselves by means of the Spirit and by means of the Truth." To prostrate oneself is to worship, yes, but it is also an act of submission to a greater or higher person. One not only gets on their knees, but also presses their face to the floor baring their neck to that person in an extremely vulnerable position. Just doing so with one's body and flesh helps nothing. Those wishing to submit to the God must do so with the Spirit and with the Truth. As Paul also wrote, "we are debtors not to the flesh for living in line with the flesh, because if you live in line with the flesh you intend to die; but if you make the practices of the body die by means of the Spirit, you will live. Because as many as are guided by the Divine Spirit, these are divine sons."
     When Jesus said these words, He wasn't talking about needing to follow a certain religion to go to heaven. At the time, Christianity or any of its denominations didn't exist. He was talking about submitting to and cooperating with that piece of God which each one of us holds and being guided, not by our flesh and its fears and desires, but by that Source from which we all came who is also Love. No one comes to the Eternal God except through His Eternal Logos. It just isn't possible because there is no other mechanism than the Logos which we all share. 

Thoughts On Attempting to Legitimize Yahweh as a Part of the Ancient Canaanite Pantheon

 I was watched a video on the supposed origins of Yahweh as an ancient near eastern Canaanite god, and I'm pretty sure it ended up confirming the Biblical narrative without meaning to. The principle question being asked was essentially "How did an unknown tribal god just appear out of nowhere and depose and merge with El as the high god of the Canaanites eventually becoming the primary deity for almost everyone on Earth?" 
     In the process of answering that question, several pieces of archaeological evidence from Israel's and Judah's kingdom period are produced while discussing Yahweh's place in the Canaanite pantheon. It is said that Israel's real religion was one where Yahweh sat atop a pantheon with Asherah his wife, Ba'al his son, and several other Canaanite gods.
     What struck me about all of this is that it all ironically confirms the Biblical narrative that the name Yahweh was unknown prior to the Exodus (Ex. 3). The exodus occurred between roughly 1500 and 1400 BCE. The earliest known text to mention Yahweh ("YWH of the Shasu"), an Egyptian one, dates to the 14th century BCE and the reign of Amenhotep III. In the Book of Exodus, the Israelites make a "golden calf" and proclaim that this was the god who delivered them from Egypt. The symbol of the Canaanite high god, El, was a bull. The word used in Exodus for "calf" specifically means a "young bull" or "bull calf". It's made clear by His reaction in the text that Yahweh does not self-identify with El. 
     In the book of Judges, as well as in the books of the Kings and Chronicles, it states in no uncertain terms that the Israelites did not obey the Torah which was given to them. They began worshiping the gods of the people of the land and intermarrying with them. This is probably the origin of the Hebrew language as we know it by 1000 BCE because it was an offshoot of Canaanite. There are several points in those books where the worship of Yahweh was nearly subsumed in both Israel and Judah by the worship of the Canaanite pantheon and an Asherah pole was set up in the first temple.
    What the author of the video and others like it call the real Israelite religion (and except for a few periods during the reigns of a few Judahite kings, it was probably the most practiced), the Biblical texts called disobedience and apostasy and recorded intensely. Whatever else might be legitimately questioned in the Biblical narrative, clearly the running after other gods constantly talked about and complained about checks out in the time periods under discussion. Straight Yahweh monotheism didn't actually appear to be the majorityt practice ironically until after the return from Babylonian exile, just as the Biblical texts record.

Raameses II Could Not Have Been the Pharoah of the Exodus

 Raameses II could not have been the Pharoah of the Exodus. He ruled from 1279 to 1213 BCE. This Pharoah is often named as the one from which Moses led Israel out of Egypt because the two cities he built are named in Exodus 1. The problem is that he's in the wrong time frame completely.
The seventeenth and eighteenth dynasties of Ancient Egypt are the only period in which the events of the Exodus can realistically be placed. The history of the arrival and rule of the "heqau khasut" or "Hyksos" ("foreign rulers" or "shepherd kings" West Asiatic peoples originating in Canaan and the Levant) to Egypt begins in roughly 1900 BCE, just about the right historical time period for the story of Joseph and his brothers to take place if we're assuming Abram left the Sumerian city of Ur in its sunset between 2100-2000 BCE.
      Eventually, Egypt broke into at least two distinct kingdoms, a more "pure" ethnically Egyptian Upper (southern) Kingdom ruled from Thebes, and Lower (northern) Kingdom ruled by the Hyksos from Avaris. Between roughly 1560 to 1510 BCE, the Upper Kingdom waged war against the Lower Kingdom ruled by the Hyksos and ultimately defeated it, driving the Hyksos out of power in Avaris and uniting the two kingdoms. The Pharoah who accomplished this was Ahmose I, the son of Seqenenre and brother of Kamose. 
     This parallels the biblical account of a Pharoah arising that didn't know Joseph which is what started the Hebrew enslavement period. It stands to reason that those West Semitic peoples associated with the Hyksos and possibly benefiting from their rule who could not have left would have been deposed and made slaves. After the conquest, Ahmose undertook major building projects in several cities, especially Thebes. It's not unreasonable that the backbone of those building projects were Hebrew (Hyksos) slaves. 
     Ahmose reigned for 25 years and was succeeded by Amenhotep I. Amenhotep I reigned for 21 years and was succeeded by Thutmose I. Thutmose I reigned for 10-12 years and was succeeded by Thutmose II. Thutmose II reigned for about 13-14 years and was succeeded by his sister/wife Hatshepsut who became Queen Regnant after he died and his son (her stepson), Thutmose III, was only two. Hatshepsut, the daughter of Thutmose I, reigned for 22 years before she died in 1459 BCE and Thutmose III became the sole ruler. He reigned a total of 54 years, 22 of which were coregent with Hatshepsut. Towards the end of his reign, his son and co-regent Amenhotep II tried to erase Hatshepsut from all inscriptions, iconography, and official records even though her reign was prosperous. So, from the time Ahmose I conquered the Hyksos to the time Hatshepsut's iconography was defaced was approximately 111 years give or take. There is one theory which suggests that Hatshepsut was the Pharoah's daughter who pulled Moses (Moshe/Mose) out of the river, and this is one of the reasons why they tried to erase her. It is also potentially one reason why, after Moses committed a murder and ran no one went hunting for him. His adopted mother was on the throne. Within that 111 years, it's possible for Hatshepsut to have found Moses and for him to grow up, flee, and then return at eighty years old to face Amenhotep II on the throne in the last years of his father's coregency.
     This is also the time period in which the Island of Santorini, Thera, volcanically exploded with a VEI 7. The effects were felt as far south as Egypt while the entire Minoan civilization next to it was completely destroyed. This was no small eruption and would have produced a year without summer. The next higher place on the VEI scale, 8, is described as nearly world ending. As Simcha Jacobi described, the cataclysmic effects of this eruption could have produced the same conditions in Egypt described by the Ten Plagues in the book of Exodus.
     The Amarna Letters from the 1300s BCE are a series of letters from Canaanite vassel lords to the Pharoah in Egypt begging for him to send help against the "Habiru" who were attacking their settlements. This demonstrates that by the time these letters were written, between 100-200 years after Amenhotep II, the "Habiru" were already in Canaan and at war against the Canaanite inhabitants in the land.
     Finally, this is also the only period (1600-1500 BCE) which matches the time frames involved up to the rise of David circa 1000 BCE. It was four hundred years between Joshua and David according to the Scriptures. Raameses II is simply too recent.
     Why are his cities then mentioned in Exodus 1? Chances are it's the same reason why Exodus was written in later, post-Davidic Hebrew. It was written down from an oral history that remembered these events but did not remember the names of the Pharoahs in question. (Really, the Biblical histories are fastidious about remembering the names of rulers nearly everywhere else; why wouldn't Moses have recorded the names of the Pharoahs in question if he actually wrote it since he knew them?) The  human author, not knowing who that Pharoah was or the exact chronology, was using cities, and possibly a Pharoah, that were known to make his point.

The Original "Christian Witch"

 Today I learned that "Christian Witches" are a thing. My discovery started with a YouTube video which showed up in my feed, and I ended up going to their website to learn more about this contradiction in terms. Even after perusing their FAQ, I still wasn't sure how these two things didn't contradict each other. But then I got to thinking about another possible "Christian Witch," though I'm not sure she would have ever described herself as such.
     Mariam of Migdol. You know her as Mary the Magdalene. What's really interesting about the word "Magdalene" is that while Magdala was a fishing village near Migdol, this word is never used to apply to anyone else from the region. There is another possible meaning for this appellation with just a couple of sound changes. It highly resembles two Greek words smashed together, "Magos" and "deleomai" or one of its cognates. The first one means "sorcerer," the second as a compound cognate can be construed as meaning "one who causes mischief or hurts by magic potions." In other words, Mariam from Migdol was what we might call a "witch." In my humble opinion, the Gospel writers changed certain sounds of her "surname" so that it wasn't quite so offensive to her memory.
      Consider it fiction or not, here is how I think of her.
     Mariam of Migdol was born to a priestess of Cybele at a smaller shrine to that goddess in Migdol. She was one of two fraternal twins, the other being her brother Thomas. Because Thomas was born male, their mother made him eunuch at a very early age because no intact male could serve at the altar of Cybele. Ritual prostitution, spellcraft, and the brewing of potions to either harm or heal were how she and her brother were raised and taught by her mother. To this end, she was taught to read Latin so that she could read the spell texts that were brought there from the temple in Rome. She and her brother were raped, sexually abused, and she in particular was subjected to horrific rites from early on by their mother. This upbringing from a very young age eventually split her mind and she developed what we would now call Dissociative Identity Disorder with seven personalities inside of her. When she was a young teenager, she escaped. It was only later that her brother was able to follow her and be reunited with her. From then on, she fiercely protected him, and he to the extent he could, to protect her.
     Mariam took what she knew and survived in a world that would just as easily stone her for what she was. She used her knowledge of spellcraft and potion making to develop a powerful and terrifying reputation. Her DID only added to the fear that surrounded and even protected her and her brother. She made potions to both heal and to harm. She made poisons for those who paid her with no questions asked. She made potions that could induce abortions; something that both common woman and wealthy elites came to her for, and not just the women, but their husbands too. People would come to her to put a spell on someone they wanted to suffer. There was a power of presence that radiated from her by the time she was introduced to Jesus by her brother.
      Her DID was becoming worse than Thomas had ever seen it. The "demons" were so out of control she could no longer truly function with any normalcy and he was afraid of what she might do, or what might be done to her. He had heard of Jesus and listened to the things He said, as well as having seen the things he could do. He was the only one who could approach his sister without fear, and he brought her to Jesus. Suddenly, the "demons" were gone and she was in a right mind she hadn't been in a long time. She was whole and perfectly sane. No one had every shown her the kindness Jesus had without demanding something in return. But He wanted nothing, only that she be able to live in peace.
      Not long after, maybe a day, maybe two, she knew Jesus had been invited to a dinner by a wealthy Pharisee. She knew the man. He'd been one of her "customers" along with several others among his peers. She knew where he lived. She wanted to do something for Jesus and she knew at least then where He would be. She didn't know exactly what she would do, only that she would think of something.
      She entered the house. No one dared stop her or tell her "no." That was like attempting to stop the "Baba Yaga" in their minds. She might put a curse on them. She might poison them just by looking at them. She found Jesus reclining at the table and quickly assessed what had happened. She looked at His feet which had not been washed as should have happened for an invited guest. She briefly stared daggers at Simon before settled on what she would do for Jesus, but as she knelt down at his feet, the flood of emotion consumed her. She started sobbing. Twenty years of abuse and hardship flooded out from her eyes and it all fell on His feet. She then used the water from her eyes to wash them properly, and removed her veil, humbling herself before Jesus in a way she had never allowed herself to be humbled by any man since leaving Migdol, to use her hair to dry them.
     Simon stammered a protest quietly as though she might not be able to hear him. But Jesus wasn't having any of it. He stood up and defended her in front of everyone. The only man in her life to stand up for her when He didn't have to, and someone who clearly had to be a real prophet no less! So much more, He shamed them and praised her!
     After that day, she was never far from Him. She took it upon herself to look after His needs from her own considerable stores. Whatever He needed she made sure He had it. She was the kind of person that once she was certain you were really her friend, that was it. Her loyalty and concern knew no bounds. And with Jesus, she was more devoted than any real wife could have been with a husband, even though they were neither. There was no "romance". But she made sure He ate. When she was concerned about His health, she acquired a horse and rode for two days to find and bring a Greek physician she knew back to Jesus to look after Him when her own skills failed. Everything came from her own pockets. She would eventually learned other healing skills from that same physician as he also traveled with Jesus, and gradually abandon the spellcraft that once was her and her brother's shield. It was she who broke open the flask of Nard spiked with Myrrh over Jesus' feet at the last supper in preparation for His burial. The Nard came from her own dwindling stores of ingredients which she had not fully sold off or disposed of by that point. It was some of her last.
     And on that day when He was taken for trial, she stood with His mother and His cousin John (His mother's nephew) through the entire travesty of justice as a member of His family, and neither His mother or cousin, His best friend, denied her that position. It is no accident that she was there that morning with His mother and His mother's sister to try and properly embalm the body. It is no accident that she lingered sobbing when she thought His body had been taken. Her whole world for the last three years had been placed in that tomb, and now He was just "gone." This is why it was no accident that she was the first one He appeared to, and why He tenderly called her by name when she couldn't see who He was through her tears. It's also why she grabbed Him and refused to let go, and why He gently told her not to cling to Him.
     Mariam of Migdol was an extraordinary woman. She was confident, powerful, and a survivor in a world that didn't want her. But she was also a fierce friend, a deeply sensitive and caring person, and loyal beyond a fault. She was courageous, compassionate, intelligent, and beautiful in every way.
      This is how I choose to imagine her. She deserves to never be forgotten for who she was, not who "tradition" bastardized her to be.

There Is No Point In Judging The Flesh

 It is pointless to try and tame the flesh and bend it to your will. That is, your brain will always see everything in terms of threats and needs, fear and desire. Nothing will really change this because that is what it does. It assesses the threat or need and reacts with fear that either it's going to happen or fear that the need isn't going to be met. It then becomes aggressive (or runs as the case may be). I was reflecting on this thought this morning after watching myself get frustrated with the animals and the extreme heat and reacting badly. I then started feeling really badly and getting upset that I wasn't a better person. Animals are going to be animals. They're not going to act in any other way than they are. I know this. Getting frustrated or angry isn't going to change that, but I still did. It went against my own self perception of a kind person, also generated by the brain. As a result, I then became the threat, and then the cognitive dissonance, the "fatal error," really went into overdrive with guilt, shame, and wondering whether I had really learned or practiced anything at all.
     And then I remembered, that's the point. Like the animals, the flesh, the dysfunctional survival system in the brain and the thoughts which it generates and reacts to, is going to do what it's going to do. That's not going to change until the flesh dies. Being upset that "I'm not a better person" is pointless. I'm not my brain, my thoughts, or even my body. It's my choice whether or not to confuse myself with the flesh. It's my choice whether or not to be aware of this and to let go of obeying its responses and taking the bait it drops. It's my choice to operate according to the Spirit, the Logos, or not.
      This "real me" is quiet. It's patient. It loves, taking no thought for itself because it doesn't need to. It's at peace. This "real me" doesn't react to anything as either a threat or a need because nothing can threaten it and it has no needs. Those things belong to the flesh, the brain, the body. The "real me" functions connected to the Head, the "seminal Logos," who is Jesus Christ. 
      There is no point in judging the flesh. It's going to react how it's going to react. It's going to do what it's going to do. It is neither good nor evil. It just is. It is the flesh judging the flesh in a downward spiral whether it agrees with its own reactions or not. Just be aware of it and do not engage with it. Just be aware of your thoughts, but do not let them dictate to you. Engage with the Spirit. Ask Him to act and speak through you with intention and He will. But getting upset because your flesh does not change is pointless. 

Guilt Is Not From God

      Guilt is not from God. We do not feel guilty because God is making us feel guilty. Guilt is a product of our common human malfunction. It is the result of something we’ve done or said conflicting with our own self-image as a morally good person. In psychology, this is called “cognitive dissonance.” The same can be said for shame, which is linked to guilt. This is why guilt and shame can linger over mistakes made far in the past even after we learn that we are forgiven by God. It is not God who needs to forgive because He was never holding those things which caused guilt and shame against us to begin with. It is not God who needs to forgive, it is we ourselves who need to accept that these things happened, drop them, and let them go. He does not hold our mistakes against us, and He is not the one who incites guilt within ourselves. That is caused by our own brains, our own amygdalae specifically, the cognitive dissonance when we have done something contrary to what we believe to be the "good" or "right" thing and it conflicts with our self-image as a "good" person.
     This is why there were sacrifices for unintentional wrongdoing in the Mosaic Law, but no sacrifices for intentional wrongdoing. There were sacrifices meant to assuage or propitiate the internal guilt felt for mistakes and wrongs committed unintentionally. By performing a symbolic action to “atone” for that unintentional wrong, that mistake, the internal guilt and shame can be appeased. These were for our psychological health, not for any need of “justice” on His part. But when someone did something wrong intentionally, they were meant to suffer the consequences of their actions as a means of correction. This is also why the Sanctuary cities existed for people who committed unintentional homicide. It was a mistake, and so He meant to shield them from avengers. This is why David was made to suffer for Uriah’s death and for adultery with his wife. It was a corrective action because David’s wrongdoing was intentional. God’s purpose was not to destroy David, but to correct and teach him. This is His purpose with every soul that He would bring that soul to completion. 
     God's justice is not our justice. God doesn't punish us for our mistakes, especially those we never intended to make. He corrects us for when we intentionally do wrong, but the intention of the correction is to set us on the right path like any good Father would do. It is not retribution for retribution’s sake. God does not hold our wrongs against us, and especially not to torture us forever for them. His goal is reconciliation and restoration, maturity, and union with Himself for all of us, not losing any of us to be tortured forever. He is the one who will leave the ninety nine to seek and save the one. He is the Father who takes no thought for the past wrongs of his son but runs to embrace him when he comes to his senses and comes home.