Apollinaris on Matthew – Question About πνεύμα Without the Article
Posted: October 29th, 2025, 10:56 pm
I’ve come across an interesting usage of πνεύμα without the article in Apollinaris’s Commentary on Matthew, specifically in the fragment on chapter 11, concerning John’s role and the Kingdom of Heaven. I’m finding it difficult to interpret his syntax in verse 12, where he writes:
Βια δὲ τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν παραγίνεσθαι φησίν ὡς παραγίνεται, διότι βίας δεῖ πρὸς τὸ κρατῆσαι φύσεως σωματικῆς καὶ πνεύματι συγκραθῆναι,
κόσμῳ μὲν ἀποθανόντας, ζῶντας δὲ τῷ θεῷ, ὅπερ οὔπω νόμος ἔχει καὶ προφῆται.
My tentative understanding is as follows:
“The Kingdom of Heaven advances through force, he says, to those to whom it comes. Hence, force is required to restrain the body’s nature and unite it with spirit—having died to the world and living to God—since the Law and the Prophets do not yet possess this.”
What puzzles me is the absence of the article before πνεύματι. Would this construction suggest the Holy Spirit, or simply spirit in a more general sense?
Brill’s note suggesting a possible meaning of οὔπω as “not at all” doesn’t seem to fit the passage’s context, at least to me.
I’d appreciate any thoughts or insights into whether the lack of the article might alter the interpretation here.
Βια δὲ τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν παραγίνεσθαι φησίν ὡς παραγίνεται, διότι βίας δεῖ πρὸς τὸ κρατῆσαι φύσεως σωματικῆς καὶ πνεύματι συγκραθῆναι,
κόσμῳ μὲν ἀποθανόντας, ζῶντας δὲ τῷ θεῷ, ὅπερ οὔπω νόμος ἔχει καὶ προφῆται.
My tentative understanding is as follows:
“The Kingdom of Heaven advances through force, he says, to those to whom it comes. Hence, force is required to restrain the body’s nature and unite it with spirit—having died to the world and living to God—since the Law and the Prophets do not yet possess this.”
What puzzles me is the absence of the article before πνεύματι. Would this construction suggest the Holy Spirit, or simply spirit in a more general sense?
Brill’s note suggesting a possible meaning of οὔπω as “not at all” doesn’t seem to fit the passage’s context, at least to me.
I’d appreciate any thoughts or insights into whether the lack of the article might alter the interpretation here.