1 Corinthians 13 Greek Logic

Is there a Greek or Hebrew lemma that says the "tongues of angels" are the unknown tongues, or those that people cannot understand?

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. (1 Corinthians 13:1 KJV)

Ἐὰν ταῖς γλώσσαις τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαλῶ καὶ τῶν ἀγγέλων, ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω, γέγονα χαλκὸς ἠχῶν ἢ κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

MJ. Smith

Your question makes no sense. "tongues of angels" is most likely figurative, a multi-word lexical unit as you suggest. I'm not sure where you intend the Greek logic to fit in. This is where lexicons and commentaries are your friend ... that's probably where you'll find the answer to your question that I do not understand

Sam Shelton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1268498#Comment_1268498

In New Testament times, the word γλῶσσα could be used to mean the physical tongue, speech, and types of speech or language. While it was also used in phrases describing unusual speech styles, as well as speaking in tongues, I am not aware of any etymological connection of it, or any other lemma, that points specifically to “tongues of angels” or “unknown tongues.” As you are probably aware, it is one word (γλώσσαις) that is described both by the word men (ἀνθρώπων) and the word angels (ἀγγέλων) in 1 Corinthians 13:1.

That being said, I would suggest some deep study in your lexicons and commentaries as MJ has suggested. I am certainly not to be considered a Greek scholar; you may find information that adds to what I have said, or you may find information that refutes what I have said. Either way, you will have grown in your knowledge.

John

There is no word in the Greek that implies “unknown”. Translations such as the KJV have the Word unknown in italics, meaning it was added by the translators.

14:10 explicitly states that none of the tongues being discussed had no meaning.

The tongues of angels to a 1st century Jewish audience would have been Hebrew.

Im not sure what resources might tell you this, lots of commentaries.

John

There is no word in the Greek that implies “unknown”. Translations such as the KJV have the Word unknown in italics, meaning it was added by the translators.

14:10 explicitly states that none of the tongues being discussed had no meaning.

The tongues of angels to a 1st century Jewish audience would have been Hebrew.

Im not sure what resources might tell you this, lots of commentaries.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1268517#Comment_1268517

There is no word in the Greek that implies “unknown”. Translations such as the KJV have the Word unknown in italics, meaning it was added by the translators.

14:10 explicitly states that none of the tongues being discussed had no meaning.

The tongues of angels to a 1st century Jewish audience would have been Hebrew.

Im not sure what resources might tell you this, lots of commentaries.

Well said.