document_title: Win–loss record (pitching)

question_text: who gets the win if a pitcher doesn't go 5 innings

question_tokens: who gets the win if a pitcher does n 't go 5 innings

root

text: Win–loss record (pitching)

text: Winning pitcher[edit]

text: In Major League Baseball, the winning pitcher is defined as the pitcher who last pitched prior to the half-inning when the winning team took the lead for the last time.

tag: p

text: There are two exceptions to this rule. The first is that a starting pitcher must complete five innings to earn a win (four innings for a game that lasts five innings on defense). If he fails to do so, he is ineligible to be the winning pitcher even if he last pitched prior to the half-inning when his team took the lead for the last time, and the official scorer awards the win to the relief pitcher who, in the official scorer's judgment, was the most effective.

text: The second exception applies if the relief pitcher who last pitched prior to the half-inning when the winning team took the lead for the last time was "ineffective in a brief appearance" in the official scorer's judgment, in which case the win is awarded to the succeeding relief pitcher who, in the official scorer's judgment, was the most effective.[1]

text: In the Major League Baseball All-Star Game, every pitcher is considered as a relief pitcher for the purpose of this rule. For example, a starting pitcher, Matt Cain, was awarded the win in the 2012 All-Star Game despite throwing only two innings.[2]

text: Losing pitcher[edit]

text: The losing pitcher is the pitcher who allows the go-ahead run to reach base for a lead that the winning team never relinquishes. If a pitcher allows a run which gives the opposing team the lead, his team comes back to lead or tie the game, and then the opposing team regains the lead against a subsequent pitcher, the earlier pitcher does not get the loss.

text: If a pitcher leaves the game with his team in the lead or with the score tied, but with the go-ahead run on base, and this runner subsequently scores the go-ahead run, the pitcher who allowed this runner to reach base is responsible for the loss. This is true regardless of the manner in which this batter originally reached base, and how he subsequently scored. If the relief pitching successfully completes the half-inning without surrendering the go-ahead run, the departed pitcher cannot receive a loss.

text: For example, on April 13, 2007, Carlos Zambrano of the Chicago Cubs was facing the Cincinnati Reds in the top of the 5th inning. He was taken out of the game with the Cubs leading 5–4 and the bases loaded. The pitcher who replaced him, Will Ohman, proceeded to allow two of the runners on base to score, giving the Reds a 6–5 lead. Although Zambrano was not pitching at the time the runs were scored, he was charged with the loss, as the base runners who scored were his responsibility.[3]

text: Background[edit]

text: The pitchers who receive the win and the loss are known, collectively, as the pitchers of record. A pitcher who starts a game but leaves without earning either a win or a loss (that is, before either team gains or surrenders the ultimate lead) is said to have received a no decision, regardless of his individual performance. A pitcher's total wins and losses are commonly noted together; for instance, a pitching record of 12–10 indicates 12 wins and 10 losses.

text: In the early years of Major League Baseball before 1900 it was common for an exceptional pitcher to win 30 or more games in one season with Old Hoss Radbourn of the defunct Providence Grays holding the record with 59 wins in 1884. Since 1900, however, pitchers have made fewer and fewer starts and the standard has changed. Gradually, as hitting improved, better pitching was needed. This meant, among other things, throwing the ball much harder, and it became unrealistic to ask a pitcher to throw nearly as hard as he could for over 100 pitches a game without giving him several days to recover.

text: In the first third of the 20th century (especially after the live-ball era), winning 30 games became the rare mark of excellent achievement; this standard diminished to 25 games during the 1940s through 1980s (the only pitcher to win 30 or more games during that time was Denny McLain in 1968, in what was an anomalous pitching-dominated season).

text: Since 1990, this has changed even further, as winning 20 or more games in a single season is now achieved by only a handful of pitchers each season. For example, in 2004 only three of the more than five hundred major league pitchers did so. In 2006 and again in 2009, no pitcher in either league won 20 games.[4] The last pitcher to win 25 games was Bob Welch in 1990.

text: The New York Times wrote in 2011 that as advanced statistics have expanded, a pitcher's win-loss record has decreased in importance. For example, Félix Hernández won the Cy Young Award in 2010 in spite of a 13–12 record.[5] Many times a win is substantially out of the pitcher's control; even a dominant pitcher cannot record a win if his team does not score any runs for him. For instance, in 2004, Milwaukee Brewers starting pitcher Ben Sheets had a losing record of 12–14, despite displaying a league-best 8:1 strikeout-to-walk ratio and was among the top 5 pitchers in ERA (2.70) and WHIP (0.98).[6]  In addition to their dependence on run support, wins for a starting pitcher are also dependent on bullpen support.  A starting pitcher can pitch brilliantly, leaving the game with the lead, and then watch helplessly from the dugout as the bullpen blows the save and gives up the lead.  That would entitle the starting pitcher to a no-decision instead of a win despite the strong performances, regardless of whether or not the team ends up winning. Starting pitchers on teams with a weak bullpen tend to have fewer wins because of this. Likewise, a pitcher can give a poor performance and give up many runs and leave the game earlier than desired, but still win because his team scored even more runs.  Some prefer the quality start statistic as an indication of how many times a starting pitcher gave his team a realistic chance to win.[7]


document_title: U.S. history of alcohol minimum purchase age by state

question_text: when did they change the drinking age to 21 in california

text: The alcohol laws of the United States regarding minimum age for purchase have changed over time. The history is given in the table below. Unless otherwise noted, if different alcohol categories have different minimum purchase ages, the age listed below is set at the lowest age given (e.g. if the purchase age is 18 for beer and 21 for wine or spirits, as was the case in several states, the age in the table will read as "18", not "21"). In addition, the purchase age is not necessarily the same as the minimum age for consumption of alcoholic beverages, although they have often been the same.

text: As one can see in the table below, there has been much volatility in the states' drinking ages since the repeal of Prohibition in 1933. Shortly after the ratification of the 21st amendment in December, most states set their purchase ages at 21 since that was the Voting age at the time. Most of these limits remained constant until the early 1970s. From 1969 to 1976, some 30 states lowered their purchase ages, generally to 18. This was primarily because the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 in 1971 with the 26th amendment. A lot of states started to lower their minimum drinking age in response, most of this occurring in 1972 or 1973.[1][2][3] Twelve states kept their purchase ages at 21 since repeal of Prohibition and never changed them.

text: From 1976 to 1983, several states voluntarily raised their purchase ages to 19 (or, less commonly, 20 or 21), in part to combat drunk driving fatalities.[citation needed] In 1984, Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which required states to raise their ages for purchase and public possession to 21 by October 1986 or lose 10% of their federal highway funds. By mid-1988, all 50 states and the District of Columbia had raised their purchase ages to 21 (but not Puerto Rico, Guam, or the Virgin Islands, see Additional Notes below). South Dakota and Wyoming were the final two states to comply with the age 21 mandate. The current drinking age of 21 remains a point of contention among many Americans, because of it being higher than the age of majority (18 in most states) and higher than the drinking ages of most other countries. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act is also seen as a congressional sidestep of the tenth amendment. Although debates have not been highly publicized, a few states have proposed legislation to lower their drinking age,[4] while Guam has raised its drinking age to 21 in July 2010.[5]

text:
State
Pre-Prohibition
(prior to 1919)
Post-Prohibition
(after 1933)
1970s / 26th Amendment
(adopted in 1971)
1980s /
Drinking Age Act of 1984
21st century

Alabama
Pre 1881:
None
1881:
21 (none with consent of parent)[6]
21
1975:
Lowered to 19[7]
1986:
Raised to 21[8]
21 (no one underage is allowed consumption Section 28-1)

Alaska
 ?
21[7]
1970:
Lowered to 19[9]
1984:
Raised to 21 with grandfather clause (if born before January 1, 1965)[10][11]
21

Arizona
 ?
21[11]
1972:
Lowered to 19[12][13]
1985:
Raised to 21[8]
21

Arkansas
Pre 1925:
None[7]
1925:
21[7]
21
21[14]
21 [8]
21

California
Pre 1891:
Regulated by municipality/county (common age was 16)[15][16][17]
1891:
18 (statewide)[18]
1933:
21[7]
21
21 [8]
21 (except small amounts for religious ceremonies)

Colorado
None[11]
1945:
18: for beer
21: for wine and liquor[7]
18 [19]
Raised to 21 in 1987 [8]
21

Connecticut
 ?
21 [11]
1972:
Lowered to 18[20]
1982:
Raised to 19
1983:
Raised to 20
1985:
Raised to 21[21]
21 (exemptions: (1) a person over age eighteen who is an employee or permit holder under section 30-90a and who possesses alcoholic liquor in the course of such person’s employment or business, (2) a minor who possesses alcoholic liquor on the order of a practicing physician, or (3) a minor who possesses alcoholic liquor while accompanied by a parent, guardian or spouse of the minor, who has attained the age of twenty-one. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to burden a person’s exercise of religion under section 3 of article first of the Constitution of the state in violation of subsection (a) of section 52-571b.[22]

Delaware
 ?
21 [11]
1972:
Lowered to 20[13]
1984:
Raised to 21[8]
21

District of Columbia
 ?
18: for beer and wine[11]
21: for liquor[23][24]
18: for beer and wine[13][24]
21: for liquor
1986:
Raised to 21 with grandfather clause.[25][26]
21

Florida
 ?
18[7]
1980:
19 [27]
1985:
Raised to 21 with grandfather clause [27]
21 [28]

Georgia
 ?
21 [11]
1972:
Lowered to 18[12]
1984:
Raised to 19[14]
1985:
Raised to 20[14]
1986:
Raised to 21[14]
21

Hawaii
 ?
21[7]
1972:
Lowered to 18[13]
1986:
Raised to 21[8]
21

Idaho
 ?
20: for beer[29][30]
21: for wine and liquor[11][31]
1972:
Lowered to 19 (all)[13][32]
1987:
Raised to 21 in 1987 (Apr 11) with grandfather clause[8][33]
21

Illinois
1872:
Age of majority
(none with written consent of parent)[34]
pre 1961: Age of majority 1961: Raised to 21 [35]
1973:
Lowered to 19: for beer and wine
21: for liquor[36]
1980:
Raised to 21[37]
21

Indiana
 ?
Post-1934:
21[7]
21[14]
21[8]
21

Iowa
 ?
21[7]
1972:
Lowered to 19 in 1972 (Jul 1)
1973:
Lowered to 18 in 1973 (Jul 1)
1978:
Raised to 19 in 1978 (Jul 1)[38]
1986:
Raised to 21 in 1986 (Jul 1) with grandfather clause.[14][38]
21

Kansas
 ?
1949:
18: for beer and wine with less than 4% ABV
21: for liquor[7]
18: for beer and wine with less than 4% ABV[14]
21: for beer and wine with 4% ABV or more[14]
21: for liquor[14][19]
1985:
Raised to 21[8]
21 (However, anyone under 21 may consume cereal malt beverages with parental supervision on their own property)

Kentucky
 ?
1938:
21[7]
21[14]
21[8]
21

Louisiana
 ?
As of 1948:
18[13]
18[19]
1987:
Raised to 21 de jure in 1987,[8]
but de facto age was still 18 until 1995 due to a sale loophole.
1995:
De facto age raised to 21 in 1995 when loophole was closed.[39]
1996:
In 1996, briefly lowered by Louisiana Supreme Court to 18 until it reversed its decision, raising to 21 three months later.[40]
Other exceptions still remain.[41]
21 (Exceptions to state law include:[42]

For an established religious purpose;
When a person under twenty-one years of age is accompanied by a parent, spouse, or legal guardian twenty-one years of age or older;
For medical purposes when purchased as an over the counter medication, or when prescribed or administered by a licensed physician, pharmacist, dentist, nurse, hospital, or medical institution;
In a private residence, which shall include a residential dwelling and up to twenty contiguous acres, on which the dwelling is located, owned by the same person who owns the dwelling;
The sale, handling, transport, or service in dispensing of any alcoholic beverage pursuant to lawful ownership of an establishment or to lawful employment of a person under twenty-one years of age by a duly licensed manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer of beverage alcohol.)

Maine
 ?
21[7]
1969:
Lowered to 20
1972:
Lowered to 18[12]
1977:
Raised to 20[8][43]
1985:
Raised to 21[8]
21

Maryland
 ?
21[7]
1974:
Lowered to 18: for beer and wine
21: for liquor[44][45]
1982:
Raised to 21 with grandfather clause [8][46]
21 (however anyone can drink when parents, spouses, teachers are present)

Massachusetts
 ?
21 [11]
1973:
Lowered to 18
1979:
Raised to 20 in 1979 (Apr 16)[47][48][49]
Raised to 21 in 1985 [8]
21

Michigan
 ?
21[7]
1972:
Lowered to 18 in 1972 (Jan 1)[50]
1978:
Raised to 19 in 1978 (Dec 3)[51][52]
1978:
Raised to 21 in 1978 (Dec 21), 18 days later.[8]
First state to raise age to 21 since it was lowered
21

Minnesota
 ?
21 [11]
1973:
Lowered to 18 (June 1)
1976:
Raised to 19 (Sept 1)[53]
First state to raise age after lowering.
1986:
Raised to 21[54]
21

Mississippi
 ?
1966:
18: for beer and wine
21: for liquor[7]
(alcohol not legalized until 1966)
18[19]
Raised to 21 in 1986 [8]
21

Missouri
 ?
1945:
21[7]
21
21 [8]
21

Montana
 ?
21 [11]
1971:
Lowered to 19[55]
1973:
Lowered to 18[56][57]
1979:
Raised to 19
1987:
Raised to 21[8][58]
21

Nebraska
 ?
21[59]
1969:
Lowered to 20
1972:
Lowered to 19[59]
1980:
Raised to 20[14]
1985:
Raised to 21[14]
21

Nevada
 ?
1933:
21[7]
21
21[8]
21

New Hampshire
 ?
21[11]
1973:
Lowered to 18[60]
1979:
Raised to 20
1985:
Raised to 21[8][21]
21

New Jersey
Before 1880:
None
Post-1880:
18 (penalties only against businesses)[61][62][63]
21[citation needed]
1973:
Lowered to 18 [12]
1980:
Raised to 19
1983:
Raised to 21[8][64]
21

New Mexico
 ?
1934:
21[7]
21[14]
21[8]
21

New York
21
18[65]
18
1982:
Raised to 19 in 1982 (Dec)
1985:
Raised to 21 in 1985 (Dec)[21][66][67]
21

North Carolina
 ?
18[11]
18: for beer and wine[19]
21: for liquor
1983:
19: for beer and wine
21: for liquor
1986:
Raised to 21 in 1986 (Sep 1)[8][26]
21

North Dakota
 ?
1936:
21[7]
21[14]
21 [68]
21

Ohio
 ?
1935:
18: for 3.2% ABW beer
21: for beer stronger than 3.2% ABW, wine and liquor[69]
18: for 3.2% ABW beer
21: for beer stronger than 3.2% ABW, wine and liquor
1982 (Aug. 19 to Oct. 1):
19: for 3.2% ABW beer[14]
21: for beer stronger than 3.2% ABW, wine and liquor[14]
1982 (From Oct. 1):
19: beer
21: wine and liquor[70]
1988:
21[14]
21 (However, anyone can drink with parents or legal-age spouse)

Oklahoma
 ?
Men:
21
Women:
18: 3.2% ABW beer
21: for beer stronger than 3.2% ABW, wine and liquor[71]
1976:
Lowered to 18 (for 3.2% ABW beer) for both sexes in 1976 (Dec) [72]
Last state to lower the drinking age.
1983:
Raised to 21[11][73]
21

Oregon
 ?
1933:
21[7]
21
21 [8]
21

Pennsylvania
 ?
1935:
21[7]
21
21 [8][52]
21

Rhode Island
 ?
21[11]
1970:
Lowered to 18[12][74]
1980:
Raised to 19
1981:
Raised to 20
1984:
Raised to 21[21]
21

South Carolina
21[75]
1935:
18: for beer and wine
21: for liquor[7]
18: for beer and wine[19]
21: for liquor
1984:
19: for beer and wine[7]
21: for liquor
1986:
Raised to 21[8]
21

South Dakota
 ?
1934:
21 (all)
1939:
Lowered to 18: for 3.2% beer
Raised to 19: for 3.2% beer[76]
1972:
18: for beer and wine
21: for liquor[13]
1984:
19: for beer and wine
21: for liquor[8]
1988:
Raised to 21[58]
21

Tennessee
Pre 1881:
None
1881:
21[77]
21[7]
1964:
Lowered to 18[7]
1979:
Raised to 19
1984:
Raised to 21[8]
21

Texas
Pre 1909:
21
None (with written permission of parent or guardian)
Post 1909:
21[78][79]
21[7]
1973:
Lowered to 18[80]
1981:
Raised to 19[81]
1986:
Raised to 21 in 1986 (Sep 1)[8][26]
21

Utah
 ?
1935:
21[7]
21[14]
21 [8]
21

Vermont
 ?
21[7]
1971:
Lowered to 18[82][83]
1986:
Raised to 21[21][83]
21

Virginia
 ?
21[84]
1974:
Lowered to 18: for beer and wine
(21: for liquor remained)[84]
1981:
Raised to 19 for off-premises consumption
1983:
Raised to 19 (all beer)
1985:
Raised to 21[84]
21

Washington
"Age of majority"
since 1877 [85]
21[citation needed]
21
21 [8]
21

West Virginia
 ?
18: for beer and wine
21: for liquor[11]
1972:
Lowered to 18 (all)[86]
1983:
Raised to 19
(& 21 for non-residents)[8][43]
1986:
Raised to 21[8]
21

Wisconsin
1839–1866:
18: for wine and liquor
None: for beer
Post-1866:
21 (all)[87]
18: for beer
21: for wine and spirits
1957:
21: for residents of bordering states with age limit 21.[88]
1963:
Raised to 21 (off-premises beer sales, remained 18 for on-premises).[88]
1972:
Lowered to 18 (all) in 1972 (Mar)[88]
1977:
Border state restriction lifted.[88]
1984:
Raised to 19
1986:
Raised to 21 (September 1, 1986)[88]
21 (however anyone can drink when parents, spouses, teachers are present)[citation needed]

Wyoming
 ?
21[7]
1973:
Lowered to 19[13]
1988:
Raised to 21 in 1988 (Jul 1)[89][90]
Last state to raise de jure drinking age to 21
21

American Samoa
 ?
 ?
 ?
21?
21 [91]

Northern Mariana Islands
–
–
 ?
21?
21 [92]

Puerto Rico
 ?
18
18
Kept at 18
despite 10% highway funding
penalty under Drinking Age Act.
18 [93]

Virgin Islands
 ?
 ?
 ?
18
18 [94]

Guam
 ?
21?
18
18
Raised to 21 in 2010 [5]

tag: table

text: Additional notes[edit]

text:
Contrary to popular belief, since the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, not all states specifically prohibit minors' and young adults' consumption of alcohol in private settings. That is because the federal law is concerned only with purchase and public possession, not private consumption, and contains several exceptions. As of January 1, 2007, 14 states and the District of Columbia ban underage consumption outright, 19 states do not specifically ban underage consumption outright, and 17 states have family member or location exceptions to their underage consumption laws. Federal law explicitly provides for religious, medical, employment and private club possession exceptions; as of 2005, 31 states have family member or location exceptions to their underage possession laws.[41]
In the 1960s the age for buying or drinking beer and wine in the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.) was 18; the age for hard liquor was 21.[23][24] Residents from Virginia and Maryland would often drive to D.C. to obtain alcohol. In Louisiana, the 1987 law raising the age from 18 to 21 was deliberately written solely to comply with the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 to avoid losing highway funding, while still allowing 18- to 20-year-olds to drink as before. Not only did it still allow 18- to 20-year-olds to consume in private, it contained a major loophole allowing bars and stores to sell alcohol to 18- to 20-year-olds without penalty (despite purchase being technically illegal) which meant that the de facto age was still 18.[39] In other words, the drinking age was 21 only on paper. This loophole was closed in 1995, but in 1996 the Louisiana Supreme Court declared a drinking age of 21 unconstitutional.[39] That briefly lowered the de jure purchase age to 18, causing an uproar which prompted the Louisiana Supreme Court to reverse its decision, raising the age to 21 three months later.[40] Other exceptions still remain to this day, including drinking in a private residence,[41] and Louisiana still has some of the most liberal general alcohol laws of any state.
Some states were "dry" well before national Prohibition was enacted in 1919, in some cases since achieving statehood. Also, some states did not become fully "wet" until several years after the repeal of Prohibition in 1933 (e.g. Mississippi in 1966). Since 1966, all states and territories of the USA have been "wet", but dry counties and towns still exist in some states.

tag: ul


document_title: Glossolalia

question_text: what is the greek word for speaking in tongues

text: Glossolalia

text: Etymology[edit]

text: "Glossolalia" is from the Greek word γλωσσολαλία, itself a compound of the words γλῶσσα (glossa), meaning "tongue" or "language"[3] and λαλέω (laleō), "to speak, talk, chat, prattle, or to make a sound".[4] 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.

text: 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.[5] Frederic Farrar first used the word "glossolalia" in 1879.[6]

text: Linguistics[edit]

text: 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.[7] 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 US over the course of five years; his wide range included the Puerto Ricans of the Bronx, the Snake Handlers of the Appalachians and the Spiritual Christians from Russia in Los Angeles (Pryguny, Dukhizhizniki).

text: 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 taken from a language known to the speaker:

text: 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.[8]

text: [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.[9]

text: 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.[10]

text: Samarin found that the resemblance to human language was merely on the surface and so concluded that glossolalia is "only a facade of language".[11] 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".[11] 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".[12]

text: Practitioners of glossolalia may disagree with linguistic researchers and claim that they are speaking human languages (xenoglossia). 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.[13]

text: History[edit]

text: Classical antiquity[edit]

text: It was a commonplace idea within the Greco-Roman 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 where the daughters of Job were given sashes enabling them to speak and sing in angelic languages.[14]

text: According to Dale B. Martin, glossolalia 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.[15] 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."[16]

text: As part of his attack on early Christianity, the Greek philosopher Celsus may include 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."[15]

text: 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.[17]

text: 400 to 1900[edit]

text: 5th century St. Patrick of Ireland (c. 387–493), in The Confession of St. Patrick, records hearing a strange language being prayed by the Holy Spirit in a dream. St. Patrick says in his book:

text: And another night – God knows, I do not, whether within me or beside me – most words which I heard and could not understand, except at the end of the speech it was represented thus: 'He who gave his life for you, he it is who speaks within you.' And thus I awoke, joyful.[18]

text: And on a second occasion I saw Him praying within me, and I was as it were, inside my own body, and I heard Him above me – that is, above my inner self. He was praying powerfully with sighs. And in the course of this I was astonished and wondering, and I pondered who it could be who was praying within me. But at the end of the prayer it was revealed to me that it was the Spirit. And so I awoke and remembered the Apostle's words: "Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we know not how to pray as we ought. But the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with sighs too deep for utterance [Romans 8:26]." And again: "The Lord our advocate intercedes for us [Romans 8:27].[18]

text:
12th century – Bernard of Clairvaux, commenting on Mark 16:17 ("they will speak in new tongues"), asked: "For who is there that seems to have these signs of the faith, without which no one, according to this Scripture, shall be saved?"[19] He explained that these signs were no longer present because there were greater miracles – the transformed lives of believers.[20]
12th century – Hildegard of Bingen is reputed to have spoken and sung in tongues. Her spiritual songs were referred to by contemporaries as "concerts in the Spirit."[citation needed]
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".[21]
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'".[22]
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.[23][24]
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".[25]
1817 – In Germany, Gustav von Below, an aristocratic officer of the Prussian Guard, and his brothers, founded a charismatic movement based on their estates in Pomerania, which may have included speaking in tongues.[citation needed]
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".[26] Irving further stated that "tongues are a great instrument for personal edification, however mysterious it may seem to us."[27]
19th century – The history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), contains extensive references to the phenomenon of speaking in tongues by Brigham Young, Joseph Smith and many others.[28][29] 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.[30] 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.[30] 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.[30] Young, Smith, and numerous other early leaders frequently cautioned against the public exercise of glossolalia unless there was 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 are 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.[30] The visitor to 21st Century LDS church services will never hear spontaneous, incomprehensible glossolalia as one might overhear at a Pentecostal service.

text: 20th century[edit]

text: During the 20th century, glossolalia primarily became associated with Pentecostalism and the later charismatic movement. The holiness preachers Charles Parham and William Seymour are credited as co-founders of the movement. 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.

text: In 1900, Parham opened Bethel Bible College in Topeka, Kansas, America, where he taught initial evidence. 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, coincidentally 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. Witnesses at the Azusa Street Revival wrote of seeing fire resting on the heads of participants, miraculous healings in the meetings, and incidents of speaking in tongues being understood by native speakers of the language.[citation needed] According to the first issue of William Seymour's newsletter, "The Apostolic Faith", from 1906:

text: A Mohammedan, a Soudanese by birth, a [m]an who is an interpreter and speaks six[t]een 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.[31]

text: 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'. It is likely that the majority of Pentecostals and Charismatics still consider speaking in tongues to primarily be human languages. [32] 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. [33] But Pentecostals and Charismatics have reported many cases of 'speaking in tongues' that were identified as human languages since [34].

text: 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 the Protestantism, particularly since the widespread Charismatic Movement in the 1960s. Many books have been published either defending[35] or attacking[36] the practice.

text: Christianity[edit]

text: Theological explanations[edit]

text: In Christianity, a supernatural explanation for glossolalia is advocated by some and rejected by others.

text:
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)[37][38] as well as a "language of the spirit", a "heavenly language", or perhaps the language of angels.[39]
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 practised today is simply the utterance of meaningless syllables. It is neither xenoglossia nor miraculous, but rather learned 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.

text: Proponents of each viewpoint use the biblical writings and historical arguments to support their positions.

text: Biblical practice[edit]

text: There are five places in the New Testament where speaking in tongues is referred to explicitly:

text:
Mark 16:17, 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.

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

text: 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.

text: 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, was the fulfilment of the prophecy of Joel which described that God would pour out his Spirit on all flesh (Acts 2:17).[38]

text: Despite these commonalities, there are significant variations in interpretation.

text:
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.[40] While most Protestants agree that baptism in the Holy Spirit is integral to being a Christian, others[41] 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 is 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".[40] 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.[42] 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 others could understand them (1 Cor 14:13). While some limit speaking in tongues to speech addressed to God – "prayer or praise",[37] others claim that speech in tongues is 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.[43]
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,[44] 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".[45]
Sign for unbelievers (1 Cor 14:22). Some assume that tongues are "a sign for unbelievers that they might believe",[46] 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".[47] Some identify the tongues in Acts 2 as the primary example of tongues as signs for unbelievers
Comprehension. Some say that speech in tongues was "not understood by the speaker".[37] Others assert that "the tongues-speaker normally understood his own foreign-language message".[48] 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."[this quote needs a citation]

text: Pentecostal and charismatic practice[edit]

text:
Part of a series on

Pentecostalism

Background

Christianity
Protestantism
The Reformation
Methodist revivals
Restorationism
Holiness movement

Early history

Bethel Bible College
1904–1905 Welsh Revival
Azusa Street Revival
Charles Fox Parham
William J. Seymour

Key beliefs

Baptism with the Holy Spirit
Finished Work
Latter rain
Spiritual gifts

Speaking in tongues
Prophecy
Divine healing

Visions

Key people

Asa A. Allen
Yiye Ávila
Joseph Ayo Babalola
William M. Branham
David Yonggi Cho
Jack Coe
Margaret Court
Lucy F. Farrow
Benny Hinn
Rex Humbard
George Jeffreys
Kathryn Kuhlman
Gerald Archie Mangun
Charles Harrison Mason
Aimee Semple McPherson
Charles Fox Parham
David du Plessis
Oral Roberts
William J. Seymour
Smith Wigglesworth
Maria Woodworth-Etter
Pat Robertson
Bishop Ida Robinson
Category:Pentecostals

Major denominations

Apostolic Church
Assemblies of God
Church of God in Christ
Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee)
International Church of the Foursquare Gospel
International Pentecostal Holiness Church
United Pentecostal Church International

Related movements

Charismatic Movement
Evangelicalism
Oneness Pentecostalism

v
t
e

text: Because Pentecostal and charismatic beliefs are not monolithic, there is not complete theological agreement on speaking in tongues. Generally, however, it is agreed 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[citation needed]:

text:
The "sign of tongues" refers to xenoglossia, wherein one speaks an actual language he has never learnt.
The "gift of tongues" refers to a glossolalic utterance spoken by an individual and addressed to a congregation of, typically, other believers.
Lastly, "praying in the spirit" is typically used to refer to glossolalia as part of personal prayer.[citation needed]

tag: ol

text: Many Pentecostals and charismatics adhere to Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 14 which established guidelines on the public use of glossolalia in the church at Corinth.[citation needed]

text: The gift of tongues is often referred to as a "message in tongues".[citation needed] This use of glossolalia requires an interpretation so that the gathered congregation can understand the message. This is accomplished by the interpretation of tongues, another spiritual gift. There are two schools of thought concerning the nature of a message in tongues:

text:
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.[citation needed] In this case, the speaker delivers a message to the congregation on behalf of God.

text: In addition to praying in the Spirit, many Pentecostal and charismatic churches practice what is known as singing in the Spirit. The Apostle "Paul’s definition of spiritual songs – is singing in the Spirit which is singing in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:15). Paul made it clear that praying in the Spirit was praying in tongues because it was in direct contrast to praying with the understanding or the language that could not be understood in the context of human languages (1 Corinthians 14:14, 16–18)"[49]

text: Non-Christian practice[edit]

text: 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.[50] In Japan, the God Light Association believed that glossolalia could cause adherents to recall past lives.[51]

text: Glossolalia has even been postulated as an explanation for the Voynich manuscript.[52]

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

text: Glossolalia has also been observed in the Voodoo religion of Haiti,[53][unreliable source?] as well as in the Hindu Gurus and Muslim Fakirs of India.[citation needed]