[B-Greek] PNEUMA hAGION as a proper name
Blue Meeksbay
bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com
Tue May 11 17:32:15 EDT 2010
ACTS 8:15 hOITINES KATABANTES PROSHUXANTO PERI AUTWN hOPWS LABWSIN PNEUMA hAGION•
ACTS 8:17 TOTE EPETIQESAN TAS CEIRAS EP᾽ AUTOUS KAI ELAMBANON PNEUMA hAGION.
ACTS 8:19 LEGWN• DOTE KA)MOI THN EXOUSIAN TAUTHN hINA hWi EAN EPIQW TAS CEIRAS LAMBANHi PNEUMA hAGION.
I think I already know the answer to this question, since proper names are sufficiently definite even without an article, but why would the same author use an anarthrous construction as is seen above for PNEUMA hAGION, and then switch in the same writing to an articular construction as is seen below in Acts 10:47 and then switch back to an anarthrous construction in Acts 19:2? These are the only five instances that I can find of PNEUMA hAGION being used in Acts when it is used in conjunction with the verb LAMBANW. In all cases they are anarthrous except this one below.
ACTS 10:47 MHTI TO hUDWR DUNATAI KWLUSAI TIS TOU MH BAPTISQHNAI TOUTOUS, hOITINES TO PNEUMA TO hAGION ELABON hWS KAI hHMEIS;
ACTS 19:2 EIPEN TE PROS AUTOUS• EI PNEUMA hAGION ELABETE PISTEUSANTES; hOI DE PROS AUTON• ALL᾽ OUD᾽ EI PNEUMA hAGION ESTIN HKOUSAMEN.
Could it possibly be Luke wants to emphasize that the Holy Spirit that just fell on the Gentiles was one and the same Spirit that fell on the Jews at Pentecost, (possibly because of some prejudice), and that is why he uses an articular construction, or does everyone think there is absolutely no significance at all? Or, on the other hand, can it have any bearing on the partitive idea shown in the previous thread on Joel 3:1-2? In other words, in Luke’s mind can he be thinking we receive that which is substantially Spirit (i.e. some of the Spirit, as Carl Conrad suggested), and not that we receive *the* Spirit in his entirety?
Blue Harris
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list