[B-Greek] PNEUMA hAGION as a proper name

Rolf Furuli furuli at online.no
Thu May 13 03:49:31 EDT 2010


Dear Blue,

The article can be used for semantic or for 
pragmatic reasons. When the article is semantic, 
it is used in order to convey some nuance of 
meaning; when it is  pragmatic , it is required 
by the context (syntax, grammar, theme, or rheme).

In 1833 the book, "The Doctrine of the Greek 
Article applied to the Criticism and Illustration 
of the New Testament" by T.F. Middleton was 
published. The book is old, but still it is 
useful. On p. 276 Middleton wrote: "there being 
but one Holy Spirit, he could not be spoken of 
indefinitely." Therefore, Middleton concluded (p. 
126) that when the reference was to the 
influences and operations of the Holy Spirit, 
PNEUMA hAGION was "always anarthrous." However, 
Middleton was aware of the pragmatic use of the 
article. So he wrote that even when the article 
was present, the reference could be to the 
influences and operations of the Holy Spirit-the 
article would then be present for anaphoric 
("renewed mention") or for other reasons.

On this basis I would like to turn the issue 
upside down. It is true that proper names tend to 
lack the article, and the lack of article with 
PNEUMA hAGION may indicate a proper name. But the 
lack of article may also indicate that the entity 
in question is an "it" and not a "he" or "she," 
as Middleton implied. If we follow this line of 
reasoning-and I speak on the basis of linguistics 
and not on the basis of theology- I ask: If 
Middleton is correct and the lack of article 
indicates that PNEUMA hAGION in these instances 
is an "it" (influence or function), could not the 
same be true in the other instances where the 
article is found, to the point where PNEUMA 
hAGION always is an "it" and not a "he"? Are 
there any instances where the article could not 
be there because PNEUMA hAGION is mentioned 
previously or was a known entity 
(anaphoric/pragmatic reasons)?

I am not arguing in favor of a particular 
theological understanding of PNEUMA hAGION. But I 
am asking the linguistic question whether the use 
the article would forbid that PNAUMA hAGION in 
all 82 instances is impersonal. So, please 
consider my questions from a strictly linguistic 
point of view, that is, on the basis of the rules 
for the use of the Greek article.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo




>Hi Mark -
>
>If my math is correct the proper name Holy 
>Spirit is used 82 times in the GNT. 40 times it 
>is anarthrous and 42 times it is articular. I 
>did not count the times spirit was used by 
>itself, since the use of the article seems, in 
>most cases, to be the means of distinguishing 
>the Holy Spirit from the human spirit or from 
>the essential quality of spirit.
>
>Recalling that a name is definite without the 
>article, (as Smyth says, (1136) *Names of 
>persons and places are individual and therefore 
>omit the article unless previously mentioned or 
>specially marked as well know* and (1137) * 
>Names of deities omit the article, except when 
>emphaticŠor when definite cults are referred 
>toŠ*),  it seems in most cases there was no 
>significance to the term being anarthrous.
>
>However, the following did seem significant. 
>These are some examples where it seems the 
>article was used for emphasis:
>
>MARK 12:36 AUTOS DAUID EIPEN EN TWi PNEUMATI TWi 
>hAGIWi* EIPEN KURIOS TWi KURIWi MOU* KAQOU EK 
>DEXIWN MOU, hEWS AN QW TOUS ECQROUS SOU hUPOKATW 
>TWN PODWN SOU.
>
>
>snip
>
>
>What is also interesting is that where the idea 
>is being full or filled with the Holy Spirit it 
>is always anarthrous, without fail, (unless I 
>missed something).
>
>
>LUKE 1:15 ESTAI GAR MEGAS ENWPION [TOU] KURIOU, 
>KAI OINON KAI SIKERA OU MH PIHi, KAI PNEUMATOS 
>hAGIOU PLHSQHSETAI ETI EK KOILIAS MHTROS AUTOU,
>
>snip
>
>In every case when the concept of being baptized 
>with the Holy Spirit was mentioned it was also 
>anarthrous, without fail.
>
>MATTHEW 3:11 EGW MEN hUMAS BAPTIZW EN hUDATI EIS 
>METANOIAN, hO DE OPISW MOU ERCOMENOS ISCUROTEROS 
>MOU ESTIN, hOU OUK EIMI hIKANOS TA hUPODHMATA 
>BASTASAI* AUTOS hUMAS BAPTISEI EN PNEUMATI 
>hAGIWi KAI PURI*
>snip
>
>I do not mean to deny that the New Testament 
>writers also believed that the Holy Spirit as a 
>person also indwelt the Christian for that is 
>exactly what John states Jesus declares in Jn. 
>14:17, but, perhaps, the idea is that a person 
>cannot be fully filled with the Holy Spirit 
>(articular construction), for how can the finite 
>contain the infinite?
>
>I do not know. Perhaps, this explains the going 
>back and forth between the anarthrous and 
>articular, at least in those places where the 
>name is not anarthrous simply because it is 
>definte without the article.
>  None of this is set in concrete.  I am still 
>trying to figure out if there is any 
>significance to all this or not.
>
>Blue Harris
>Sincerely,
>
>
>________________________________
>




More information about the B-Greek mailing list