I'm pretty sure everyone here knows what is meant by "speaking in tongues", but, just for the sake of clarity, I will say what I understand it to be. It's the ability to speak in languages other than those you learned as a child, or as a student. It's not just speaking gibberish or utter uninteligible sounds. Whoever speaks in tongues is understood by native speakers of the language the spirit moves that person to speak. So, if no one understands a word I say while speaking in tongues, it wouldn't be too much to doubt I am actually moved by the spirit.
In the Catholic tradition I learned in primary school, Saint Francis Xavier is said to have been "understood" by everyone during his missionary work in India. This is to say, the claim is not that Saint Francis Xavier spoke "in tongues"; he is said to have spoken in his own language, whatever it was. Since he was a nobleman from Navarre, the language could have been Basque, or Spanish, or maybe Greek and Latin. But that is not relevant: he is said to have spoken in a language that was not spoken in India (Goa), and to have been understood by everyone. Since Goa was a Portuguese settlement at the time, you could suspect that those who understood him were able to speak Portuguese; and you could also claim that he couldn't have been a missionary in India and Japan without eventually learning the languages, but that is not my point. My point is that even in this case, no one has claimed to be able to speak in tongues for long. At least, no one that I know of.
I say this because I think no one has ever claimed to be able to WRITE in tongues. This would be the ability to write an inteligible piece of text in a language other than your native tongue, and other than any language you may have learned as a student. The text would not only be inteligible, but would also convey a relevant message. It would't be enough if it said, say "Armageddon 21 May", because someone could take random words and write them in inappropriate syntax, in the hope people would fill the blanks. It would need to be a good piece of text.
Has anyone ever heard of such a thing as "writing in tongues"?
This would be relevant. In his very recent book "Forged: Writing in the Name of God. Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are" (http://www.amazon.com/Forged-Writing-God--Why-Bibles-Authors/dp/0062012614/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302671106&sr=8-1), Bart Ehrman says 1 Peter and 2 Peter couldn't have been written by Peter, among other things because Peter was illiterate and did not speak Greek. Ehrman says that it could be said that Peter took the trouble of learning how to write in Aramaic first, and then Greek, and then became a very proficient writer in that language, and so it would be possible to say that it was he, indeed, who wrote the text, but that such a scenario is unbelievable.
Saying that Peter dictated the text would be no escape, because he spoke no Greek, and, to my knowledge, no one has ever claimed to be able to speak in tongues for a period long enough to dictate two epistles. Would this be the same case as with Saint Francis Xavier? I don't think so.
Using a translator wouldn't help, either, because then the letters would have been written by the translator.
Comments?