It is around this time of year that Christians celebrate the festival of Pentecost, which for many is seen solely as a commemoration of the event where the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles and allowed them to communicate with speakers of numerous languages. Whether this was a case of xenolalia, wherein someone speaks in a foreign language, an example of a perfectly intelligible language, or some sort of an interpretive gift given to those who heard the words of the apostles is debatable. Though it might produce interesting musings, it seems that these distinctions are not consequential in many regards. On the other hand, it seems that this event is pertinent to the transcultural relevancy of God’s communications with humankind. However, it seems that a strong deemphasis of the Old Testament in the practice of many contemporary Christian groups in the United States (and I suspect elsewhere) as well as the distancing of Christianity from its Jewish roots have led to a reduced understanding of the event in general.
I have heard the events described in Acts 2 being described as the first Pentecost by members of several different Christian groups. But it wasn’t really the first Pentecost. In fact, it was one of the key festivals of the Israelite calendar set forth at the founding of the Israelite nation when YHWH gave the Israelites the Torah (the Law) at Mt. Sinai. According to the Jewish oral tradition, which likely accompanied study of the written Tanakh (the Old Testament, or at least the Old Testament originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic) during the period when the New Testament was written, YHWH gave the Israelites the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) on the first Shavuot (the Hebrew name for Pentecost). Though not strictly canonical from a Christian perspective, this seems plausible given the timeline of the events of Exodus. But there is an additional story associated with the event in the oral tradition. A story which bears importance in an understanding of the events of Acts 2; in the oral tradition, all the Israelites saw the God’s words spread around the camp as fire and heard the words in the “seventy mother tongues,” which seems to represent the complete set of languages in the world (see Shemot Midrash Rabbah 5:9). This is said to hold the Israelites as liable to heed the commandments, and suggests that the giving of the torah was part of the blessings for all nations as per the Abrahamic covenant (See Genesis 12 and 22).
In the Tanakh, Shavuot is also known as the Feast of Weeks and is a major feast involving pilgrimage and the dedication of the “first fruits” of the wheat harvest (see Exodus 23, 34, Numbers 28, and Deuteronomy 16). This puts it in company with the festival associated with the barley harvest, Pesach (Passover, and by extension Holy Week), and the festival associated with the grape harvest, Sukkot (the Festival of Booths). These three festivals demonstrate to the Israelites God’s sovereignty over all things, and reminds the Israelites of God’s claim on the first born, harkening back to the last plague on Egypt. The day of first fruits associated with the Pesach is the day after the Sabbath, this means that Jesus rose on the feast of first fruits. Additionally, Israel is declared as God’s first fruits in Jeremiah 2 and this is mirrored by Jesus’s use of the Jewish people as the initial foundation for the church in the New Testament. This illuminates and expands the idea behind the use of the term “first fruits” in James 1 and Romans 8; in these passages, the authors are building upon, not replacing, the themes of these festivals when referring both to early Christians and Jesus as being the “first fruits” or the “first born.” Jesus, who died as the first born, arises as the first fruit of the resurrection. Furthermore, the Christians who were present for the events of Acts 2 are among the first fruits of the Holy Spirit in the post-messianic age (note that this is not the first time the Holy Spirit has been at work with humankind; most Christian interpreters will be inclined to see the Holy Spirit is present at numerous key moments throughout events in the Old Testament).
It seems then that there is a strong resemblance between the giving of the Decalogue at Mt. Sinai and the events of Acts 2, especially in light of the Jewish oral tradition. It seems probable that this is not coincidental; since many of the Jews on their pilgrimage would take this as a sign of confirmation that this was in fact the work of YHWH. Even though this tradition is not part of the Christian canon, it seems likely that early Jewish Christians would have immediately recognized the parallel here. Just like the giving of the torah could be considered the founding event of the Israelite nation following the events of the miraculous deliverance from evil in Egypt, the special presentation of the Holy Spirit’s presence with the early church could be see the founding of the Christian Church following the death and resurrection of Jesus. Both exhibit fire and the presentation of God’s words in a multitude of languages. In regards to the goal of the Abrahamic for the blessing of all nations, the redemptive work of Jesus comes potentially as a form of fulfilment, just as the rescue from Egypt acted as its fulfilment. Jesus, in his commissions to the Church, promises aid in the form of the Holy Spirit, leaving the light work to the humans in terms of spreading news to all nations.
At this point, it is easy to see the relevance of these events in regards to the matter of Bible Translation. It is not the case that a certain language is favored over another in Christian theology, as is the case in other world religions. The Bible is canonical in Ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek, as well as in American Sign Language or Kankanaey, unlike religions like Islam where the holy texts are only canonical in Arabic. Language also strongly delineates society and illustrates differences within society. In English, for example, dialects associated with either the rural or urban poor are viewed as less sophisticated by wealthier speakers of English. For the most part, cultural, racial, occupational, and economic divisions correlate strongly with language in the United States, and I would imagine this is true in most of the world too. However, God does not appear to be communicating with people of a single tongue, but people of all tongues. This is not to say God did not specifically choose the nation of Israel to be an anointed people, but that there was an open invitation for a person of any society to join in worship of YHWH through the people of Israel, who were supposed to function as model of this worship. This relationship seems to be additionally supported by the material in the Bible regarding the respectful treatment of foreigners.
It does not seem that the speaking in tongues was not done directly to glorify the apostles, but to glorify God and to provide the Church with additional resources. Really, it is God who is responsible for the miracle, not the apostles, and the results of the miracle are a benefit not only to those who directly received the word, but to the entire Church. It seems that it is tempting to put emphasis on the missionaries themselves, and their efforts to help those who they interact with. But it is really God that is the primary agent, not the missionary. The missionary shares a mutual status with those they are interacting with. There is danger of viewing the targets of missions as being helpless, but that is not the case; as the Church expands, it should be locked in a cycle of constant redefinition. People who have been part of the Church for a long period of time must learn to be humble and be open to viewing Christianity from the perspective of new members of the Church, which sometimes uproots some pre-held assumptions about God. If the Church fails to constantly renew itself, it begins to stagnate in its own confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias has long been a force threatening to tear apart God’s Earthly Kingdom. In the early Church, confirmation bias likely had a role in the development of sects which would require Christians to follow all Jewish customs. Perhaps ironically, confirmation bias seems to have been exacerbated overtime as the unity of the Church has increasingly been fragmented; when the church was more committed to the concept of unity, Christians were forced to empathetically listen to their fellow Christians, despite significant differences in doctrine. This is not to say the Church in days past was devoid of other problems or other sources of confirmation bias. But this confirmation bias has recently contributed to the polarization of Christian groups in the United States, and has unintentionally led to the homogenous formation of churches along social distinctions, particularly in regards to wealth, race, and political ideology.
In the process of Bible translation, Christians are forced to reconsider their assumptions about the world. Therefore, humility is essential. I would assert that ideally, a team of translators should be built out of native speakers of that language, as well as linguistic advisors who do not speak the language natively, and that all the work produced by this team field should be field tested extensively amongst those who would utilize the scriptures. Of course, an effective Bible translation involves a lot more resources than this, and involves numerous other related projects to increase the efficacy of the translation. Nonetheless, this setup provides a system where the biases of one group are kept in check by the biases of another group, which means that there is a constant self-referential hermeneutical spiral, guided by prayer and empathetic listening. Deeper understanding of the scriptures, thanks to the process of Bible translation, ultimately increases the impact a people can have on the Church on a wider scale, which in turn affects that same people again. When the scriptures are freely available in their entirety in a language, it gives that language group increased legitimacy as people in terms of human eyes, and promotes an equal and contributive relationship with the wider Church.
In a sense, Christians are an extension of the Israelite nation; our spiritual ancestry is not only through the Apostles, but also the Israelite nation. This requires us to have a respect for all of our scriptures, not just the New Testament. 2 Timothy 3 is typically quoted in support of this claim, but in regards to the importance of the Epistles, which is a bit odd, since at the time of the writing of the letter the scriptures were comprised primarily of the Tanakh and the shape of the New Testament was not formed yet. Nonetheless, Christian today typically believe that scripture helps to interpret itself and this statement becomes recursive, which would be dangerously close to being a form of circular logic if it were not for the intervention of the Holy Spirit. The passage from 2 Timothy emphasizes that the Old Testament is important in its own right, not solely in its relevance to providing context for the New Testament.
While many may affirm the importance of both testaments in word, oftentimes the New Testament is treated like a higher level of canon in practice. A quick litmus test can be used to gauge if this is a problem amongst a specific group. In noting the quantity of scriptural references from the New Testament as compared to the Old Testament within a formal service, it might be determined there is an uneven distribution of emphasis. This quantity may vary week to week, so approximately a month’s worth of services may provide more accurate results. Also size and quality (in terms of focus directed towards it) are important factors in gauging this bias. For many, it is likely that there were significantly more references to the New Testament, and that the majority, if not all, of the references to the Old Testament are quoted in the New Testament or are from the Psalms or Major Prophets. Of course, there is a lot of variation in this distribution, with some groups being nearly equal in emphasis, and others with only a slight bias in favor of the New Testament.
This bias is seen in the numerous languages that have had completed New Testaments for numerous years, but have had little progress made towards translation of the books of the Old Testament. This seems like a travesty. There is much wasted potential, and it is unfair to leave an integral part of the canon untouched. It is understandable that a different translation team may be necessary because of the unique challenges the Old Testament presents as opposed to the New Testament, and this might take a long time to organize. However, the abandonment of certain language groups indefinitely leads to a power imbalance, giving languages with complete translations power over those which do not. Over time, the peoples with complete translations tend to spread their own perceptions on those who do not have completed translations. They, in effect, threaten to mold others in their own image, thus leading again to the confirmation bias, rather than leading to a subversion of this bias.
This all may seem daunting, but as Christians, we believe that the triune God YHWH, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, has been guiding us throughout time. We have erred, but God has worked it all out according to the divine plan. God’s actions and decrees have revealed certain patterns and types, which affect our ideal actions as Christians. These parallels can be seen in Shavuot/Pentecost and its layers of historical and literary significance, and speak to issues pertinent to the Church today, including the importance of Bible translation in the renewal of the Church. The Holy Spirit is present, and is essential in these proceedings, ensuring that the process is done properly. Luckily for us, God does the most difficult work, but allows us to participate in the process.
I have heard the events described in Acts 2 being described as the first Pentecost by members of several different Christian groups. But it wasn’t really the first Pentecost. In fact, it was one of the key festivals of the Israelite calendar set forth at the founding of the Israelite nation when YHWH gave the Israelites the Torah (the Law) at Mt. Sinai. According to the Jewish oral tradition, which likely accompanied study of the written Tanakh (the Old Testament, or at least the Old Testament originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic) during the period when the New Testament was written, YHWH gave the Israelites the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) on the first Shavuot (the Hebrew name for Pentecost). Though not strictly canonical from a Christian perspective, this seems plausible given the timeline of the events of Exodus. But there is an additional story associated with the event in the oral tradition. A story which bears importance in an understanding of the events of Acts 2; in the oral tradition, all the Israelites saw the God’s words spread around the camp as fire and heard the words in the “seventy mother tongues,” which seems to represent the complete set of languages in the world (see Shemot Midrash Rabbah 5:9). This is said to hold the Israelites as liable to heed the commandments, and suggests that the giving of the torah was part of the blessings for all nations as per the Abrahamic covenant (See Genesis 12 and 22).
In the Tanakh, Shavuot is also known as the Feast of Weeks and is a major feast involving pilgrimage and the dedication of the “first fruits” of the wheat harvest (see Exodus 23, 34, Numbers 28, and Deuteronomy 16). This puts it in company with the festival associated with the barley harvest, Pesach (Passover, and by extension Holy Week), and the festival associated with the grape harvest, Sukkot (the Festival of Booths). These three festivals demonstrate to the Israelites God’s sovereignty over all things, and reminds the Israelites of God’s claim on the first born, harkening back to the last plague on Egypt. The day of first fruits associated with the Pesach is the day after the Sabbath, this means that Jesus rose on the feast of first fruits. Additionally, Israel is declared as God’s first fruits in Jeremiah 2 and this is mirrored by Jesus’s use of the Jewish people as the initial foundation for the church in the New Testament. This illuminates and expands the idea behind the use of the term “first fruits” in James 1 and Romans 8; in these passages, the authors are building upon, not replacing, the themes of these festivals when referring both to early Christians and Jesus as being the “first fruits” or the “first born.” Jesus, who died as the first born, arises as the first fruit of the resurrection. Furthermore, the Christians who were present for the events of Acts 2 are among the first fruits of the Holy Spirit in the post-messianic age (note that this is not the first time the Holy Spirit has been at work with humankind; most Christian interpreters will be inclined to see the Holy Spirit is present at numerous key moments throughout events in the Old Testament).
It seems then that there is a strong resemblance between the giving of the Decalogue at Mt. Sinai and the events of Acts 2, especially in light of the Jewish oral tradition. It seems probable that this is not coincidental; since many of the Jews on their pilgrimage would take this as a sign of confirmation that this was in fact the work of YHWH. Even though this tradition is not part of the Christian canon, it seems likely that early Jewish Christians would have immediately recognized the parallel here. Just like the giving of the torah could be considered the founding event of the Israelite nation following the events of the miraculous deliverance from evil in Egypt, the special presentation of the Holy Spirit’s presence with the early church could be see the founding of the Christian Church following the death and resurrection of Jesus. Both exhibit fire and the presentation of God’s words in a multitude of languages. In regards to the goal of the Abrahamic for the blessing of all nations, the redemptive work of Jesus comes potentially as a form of fulfilment, just as the rescue from Egypt acted as its fulfilment. Jesus, in his commissions to the Church, promises aid in the form of the Holy Spirit, leaving the light work to the humans in terms of spreading news to all nations.
At this point, it is easy to see the relevance of these events in regards to the matter of Bible Translation. It is not the case that a certain language is favored over another in Christian theology, as is the case in other world religions. The Bible is canonical in Ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek, as well as in American Sign Language or Kankanaey, unlike religions like Islam where the holy texts are only canonical in Arabic. Language also strongly delineates society and illustrates differences within society. In English, for example, dialects associated with either the rural or urban poor are viewed as less sophisticated by wealthier speakers of English. For the most part, cultural, racial, occupational, and economic divisions correlate strongly with language in the United States, and I would imagine this is true in most of the world too. However, God does not appear to be communicating with people of a single tongue, but people of all tongues. This is not to say God did not specifically choose the nation of Israel to be an anointed people, but that there was an open invitation for a person of any society to join in worship of YHWH through the people of Israel, who were supposed to function as model of this worship. This relationship seems to be additionally supported by the material in the Bible regarding the respectful treatment of foreigners.
It does not seem that the speaking in tongues was not done directly to glorify the apostles, but to glorify God and to provide the Church with additional resources. Really, it is God who is responsible for the miracle, not the apostles, and the results of the miracle are a benefit not only to those who directly received the word, but to the entire Church. It seems that it is tempting to put emphasis on the missionaries themselves, and their efforts to help those who they interact with. But it is really God that is the primary agent, not the missionary. The missionary shares a mutual status with those they are interacting with. There is danger of viewing the targets of missions as being helpless, but that is not the case; as the Church expands, it should be locked in a cycle of constant redefinition. People who have been part of the Church for a long period of time must learn to be humble and be open to viewing Christianity from the perspective of new members of the Church, which sometimes uproots some pre-held assumptions about God. If the Church fails to constantly renew itself, it begins to stagnate in its own confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias has long been a force threatening to tear apart God’s Earthly Kingdom. In the early Church, confirmation bias likely had a role in the development of sects which would require Christians to follow all Jewish customs. Perhaps ironically, confirmation bias seems to have been exacerbated overtime as the unity of the Church has increasingly been fragmented; when the church was more committed to the concept of unity, Christians were forced to empathetically listen to their fellow Christians, despite significant differences in doctrine. This is not to say the Church in days past was devoid of other problems or other sources of confirmation bias. But this confirmation bias has recently contributed to the polarization of Christian groups in the United States, and has unintentionally led to the homogenous formation of churches along social distinctions, particularly in regards to wealth, race, and political ideology.
In the process of Bible translation, Christians are forced to reconsider their assumptions about the world. Therefore, humility is essential. I would assert that ideally, a team of translators should be built out of native speakers of that language, as well as linguistic advisors who do not speak the language natively, and that all the work produced by this team field should be field tested extensively amongst those who would utilize the scriptures. Of course, an effective Bible translation involves a lot more resources than this, and involves numerous other related projects to increase the efficacy of the translation. Nonetheless, this setup provides a system where the biases of one group are kept in check by the biases of another group, which means that there is a constant self-referential hermeneutical spiral, guided by prayer and empathetic listening. Deeper understanding of the scriptures, thanks to the process of Bible translation, ultimately increases the impact a people can have on the Church on a wider scale, which in turn affects that same people again. When the scriptures are freely available in their entirety in a language, it gives that language group increased legitimacy as people in terms of human eyes, and promotes an equal and contributive relationship with the wider Church.
In a sense, Christians are an extension of the Israelite nation; our spiritual ancestry is not only through the Apostles, but also the Israelite nation. This requires us to have a respect for all of our scriptures, not just the New Testament. 2 Timothy 3 is typically quoted in support of this claim, but in regards to the importance of the Epistles, which is a bit odd, since at the time of the writing of the letter the scriptures were comprised primarily of the Tanakh and the shape of the New Testament was not formed yet. Nonetheless, Christian today typically believe that scripture helps to interpret itself and this statement becomes recursive, which would be dangerously close to being a form of circular logic if it were not for the intervention of the Holy Spirit. The passage from 2 Timothy emphasizes that the Old Testament is important in its own right, not solely in its relevance to providing context for the New Testament.
While many may affirm the importance of both testaments in word, oftentimes the New Testament is treated like a higher level of canon in practice. A quick litmus test can be used to gauge if this is a problem amongst a specific group. In noting the quantity of scriptural references from the New Testament as compared to the Old Testament within a formal service, it might be determined there is an uneven distribution of emphasis. This quantity may vary week to week, so approximately a month’s worth of services may provide more accurate results. Also size and quality (in terms of focus directed towards it) are important factors in gauging this bias. For many, it is likely that there were significantly more references to the New Testament, and that the majority, if not all, of the references to the Old Testament are quoted in the New Testament or are from the Psalms or Major Prophets. Of course, there is a lot of variation in this distribution, with some groups being nearly equal in emphasis, and others with only a slight bias in favor of the New Testament.
This bias is seen in the numerous languages that have had completed New Testaments for numerous years, but have had little progress made towards translation of the books of the Old Testament. This seems like a travesty. There is much wasted potential, and it is unfair to leave an integral part of the canon untouched. It is understandable that a different translation team may be necessary because of the unique challenges the Old Testament presents as opposed to the New Testament, and this might take a long time to organize. However, the abandonment of certain language groups indefinitely leads to a power imbalance, giving languages with complete translations power over those which do not. Over time, the peoples with complete translations tend to spread their own perceptions on those who do not have completed translations. They, in effect, threaten to mold others in their own image, thus leading again to the confirmation bias, rather than leading to a subversion of this bias.
This all may seem daunting, but as Christians, we believe that the triune God YHWH, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, has been guiding us throughout time. We have erred, but God has worked it all out according to the divine plan. God’s actions and decrees have revealed certain patterns and types, which affect our ideal actions as Christians. These parallels can be seen in Shavuot/Pentecost and its layers of historical and literary significance, and speak to issues pertinent to the Church today, including the importance of Bible translation in the renewal of the Church. The Holy Spirit is present, and is essential in these proceedings, ensuring that the process is done properly. Luckily for us, God does the most difficult work, but allows us to participate in the process.