It's interesing writing to you.
I would say this theologian has been influenced by the modern day charismatic movement. Absolutely no one ever believed in the possibility of ecstatic utterance before 1910 or so. The original charismatics /pentecostals Of Topeka and then Azuza street truly thought they were speaking rational authentic languages.
In fact they believed this so much, they claimed not only to have the gift to speak chinese (among other foreign languages) but to write the chinese language as well !. They truly believed they spoke authentic languages for about a decade and even went on foreign missionary trips to only find out their tongue speaking is not the native's language as they thought. After it was exposed these are unintelligible languages, these charismatics invented the whole thing of the supposed tongues of angels.
That is a good story about the Azusa Pentecostals trying to write Chinese. This is a good example of why I don't trust Pentecostalism. I suppose if they hadn't tried writing Chinese and announced instead that their speech was just an unknown language (eg. an African tribal one), they could have kept it up for a long time, maybe indefinitely.
Firstly, Lopukhin, who you said died in 1904 wouldn't have been influenced by the 1910 wave of Pentecostalism.
Secondly, before 1910 people believed in the possibility of ecstatic utterance, since you noted: "The Montanists spoke in ecstatic utterances in 160 AD. The area they originated had heavy influence from greek religions, so its not surprising."
Furthermore, the Philokalia cites ecstatic non-human languages with approval:
In the Spiritual writings of the Christian East, specifically the Philokalia [written in the 4th to 15th centuries AD], many types of prayer are described. One type of prayer that is often mentioned but not explained is "formless prayer" that, according to St. Peter of Damaskos, exchanges human words for "the divine words of the Spirit". (http://mistercorduro...-in-spirit.html)
The language of angels are the same languages we know. Whether in Isaiah 6.3 or Revelation 5 there is no evidence that angels have their own special language.
The reason the angelic languages for Paul are different than the human ones is because he says:in 1 Cor. 13:
"If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass”.
What is the point of adding in the "language of angels" here, other than to distinguish it from the "language of humans"? And how is it that the "language" of angels would be the same exact languages that we know? Humans developed the Hebrew, Koine Greek and Slavonic that we use in our liturgies on earth in the course of centuries. In the Bible you can see how Hebrew changed between the Torah and the minor prophets' eras. Did the angels' language undergo natural evolution and change as the years on earth passed too? This seems strange.
Lopukin by the way proposes that the angels' "languages" here are not the same as human languages, but we should understand their "language" as spiritual praise "because angels are spirits and don't have tongues/languages (citing: Blessed Theodorit and Theophilact)"
Paul is just saying the Corinthians are speaking in a tongue no one knows so they should speak in the tongue they do know, hence speak five words that is understandable.
I can't remember where I found an essay saying that Paul used the term for Barbarians' glossolalia. One Orthodox commentary I read today said that there is a division of opinions on whether Paul was talking about real languages in 1 Corinthians or if he meant the common Greek practice of tongues as spoken by pagans at that time.
However, Lopukhin's idea makes sense to me. Paul repeatedly says in the chapter that no one understands this kind of glossolalia. If these were real languages, then in fact some people would be able to understand it. Furthermore, if these were the same real languages that God on Pentecost used to spread the gospel to other nations, then it wouldn't make sense that Paul said (eg. in verse 2) that "he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him". If the tongues Paul were talking about were real languages meant to speak to other nations, then he who speaks in the tongues would in fact be speaking to other men, the foreigner, who would understand him.
Besides, why would the Holy Spirit choose to have Paul speak in a foreign tongue meant to convert foreigners if it was not aimed at foreigners? If it was an angelic, nonhuman tongue, I suppose it could at least make more sense why a person "in the spirit" would speak a heavenly tongue in "talking to God", which verse 2 mentions.
Gibberish is not 'spoken' at all they are sound effects and cant relay to the hearer a prophecy or some doctrine or some knowledge (14.6-7)
"formless prayer" that, according to St. Peter of Damaskos, exchanges human words for "the divine words of the Spirit".
This formless prayer is noetic prayer. Contemplative prayer is considered one of the gifts of the Spirit. John Chrysostom says that combining the gift of prayer with a tongue was common at one time:
"For there were of old many who had also a gift of prayer, together with a tongue; and they prayed and the tongue spoke, praying either in the Persian or Latin language but their understanding knew not what was spoken. Wherefore also, [Paul] said, If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, the gift which is given me and which moves my tongue, but my understanding is unfruitful'. (on corinth ch35)
It is confusing for me how this would be "contemplative prayer."
Firstly, I think that when it says that human words are exchanged for the words of the spirit, that it means that it is no longer talking about human languages like Latin, since those would at least be human words.
But second, whether this was in real foreign languages or not, how is this really "Contemplative prayer", Kosta? It seems to me that there is nothing contemplatable in the speech itself for the meditator, since Paul writes that his "understanding is unfruitful". Do you see what I mean?
Lopukhin must be reading a different bible than mine. I only see authentic languages being mentioned.
Lopukhin was referring to verse 2: "For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries."
Lopukhin's comment is that if this was an authentic language like Latin, then at least some people in the Roman cities where it was performed would understand it.
No Father has ever taught that Corinthians maybe in reference to two types of 'tongues'.. Paul said, There are, it maybe so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore If i know not the meaning of the voice. I shall be unto him that speaks a barbarian and he that speaks shall be a barbarian unto me. (1 Cor 14.11-12). The is the whole reason for an interpreter. That the language can be authenticated and replicated.
St Hilary explains:
For the gift of the Spirit is manifest, where wisdom makes utterance and the words of life are heard, and where there is the knowledge that comes of God-given insight, lest after the fashion of beasts through ignorance of God we should fail to know the Author of our life; or by faith inGod , lest by not believing the gospel, we should be outside His gospel; or by the gift of healings, that by the cure of diseases we should bear witness to His grace Who bestows these things; or by the working of miracles, that what we do may be understood to be the power of God, or by prophesy, that through our understanding of doctrine we might be known to be taught of God; or by discerning of spirits, that we should not be unable to tell whether any one speaks with a holy or a perverted spirit; or by kinds of tongues, that the speaking in tongues may be bestowed as a sign of the gift of the holy Spirit; or by the interpretation of tongues, that the faith of those that hear may not be imperilled through ignorance, since the interpreter of a tongue explains the tongue to those who are ignorant of it (On the Trinity bk8 ch30)
Lopukhin cited two Church fathers to the effect that this was a different, angelic language when Paul wrote "tongues of men and angels".
When Paul says "There are, it maybe so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification", this is a mistranslation. As Lopukhin notes, the word is not "signification", but "aphōnon", meaning "soundless" ("a-phonous").
See eg. Acts 8:32: "like a lamb dumb (aphonos) before his shearers".
These verses do not show that the languages spoken by the Corinthians were real, although they had sounds. If you talk glossolalia to someone, it is like you are a "barbarian" to them, as Paul says in verses 11-12.
Sure, I understand the need for interpreters as Paul required and St. Hillary recommended. However, according to Paul, one should pray for the ability to interpret the tongues of the Corinthians. Personally, I am inclined to think that if you tape-recorded the glossolalia and played it back separately to two different people with the "gift" of interpretation, the "interpreters" would give very different "interpretations" of the utterings.
Its speaking of a layman who composed a psalm over the week and wanted to read it in church, such psalms instead of revealing some knowledge most of the time did not possibly the opposite..
Yes, I understand for practical reasons why it was a good idea to impose the restriction. The issue is that some people want to try to recreate early Christian worship, and this search for early worship forms is a reason they join Orthodoxy. And if in Corinthians Paul says each person brought their own Psalm whenever they assembled, then it suggests that this was a common practice of early Church worship.