[B-Greek] PNEUMA hAGION as a proper name
Blue Meeksbay
bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com
Thu May 13 12:00:47 EDT 2010
Dear Rolf:
Thanks so much for your thoughts. This seems like an excellent book. I have begun reading it, having found it at http://books.google.com/books?id=zCctAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=doctrine+of+the+greek+article+inauthor:middleton&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false
His section is really interesting on how the article came to be associated with proper names, as seen in Homer, especially when he says, *Nothing can be more certain than that the Article, so far as ever being intended to define the name, as most writers take for granted, is rather defined by the name.* (pg. 77)
Getting back to the question at hand, you wrote: <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"?>
I am not sure if I agree. It seems that one of the problems with the GNT is that sometimes it is difficult to ascertain just what was in the mind of the writer. He is not here for us to ask, *Just what did you mean by that phrase?* so we are sometimes thrown upon the wider body of writing – to others who supposedly held similar opinions. Sometimes this seems to be the only way to obtain a reasonable conclusion. Obviously, the ones closer to the time of the writer are a better source for comparison.
When we do this I think it is reasonable to see what the writer of the Gospel of John believed regarding the Holy Spirit. I think one will see he believed the Spirit was more than just an influence or function, but understood him as a Person..
JOHN 16:13 hOTAN DE ELQHi EKEINOS, TO PNEUMA THS ALHQEIAS, hODHGHSEI hUMAS EN THi ALHQEIAi PASHi• OU GAR LALHSEI AF᾽ hEAUTOU, ALL᾽ hOSA AKOUSEI LALHSEI KAI TA ERCOMENA ANAGGELEI hUMIN.
*But when He comes, the Spirit of Truth…*
Here we have the masculine pronoun EKEINOSjoined with the neuter PNEUMA in apposition, thereby showing the Spirit is more than just a function, at least in the mind of John. He repeatedly uses EKEINOSas is seen below.
JOHN 14:26 hO DE PARAKLHTOS, TO PNEUMA TO hAGION, hO PEMYEI hO PATHR EN TWi ONOMATI MOU, EKEINOS hUMAS DIDAXEI PANTA KAI hUPOMNHSEI hUMAS PANTA hA EIPON hUMIN [EGW].
JOHN 15:26 hOTAN ELQHi hO PARAKLHTOS hON EGW PEMYW hUMIN PARA TOU PATROS, TO PNEUMA THS ALHQEIAS hO PARA TOU PATROS EKPOREUETAI, EKEINOS MARTURHSEI PERI EMOU•
JOHN 16:8 KAI ELQWN EKEINOS ELEGXEI TON KOSMON PERI hAMARTIAS KAI PERI DIKAIOSUNHS KAI PERI KRISEWS•
JOHN 16:13 hOTAN DE ELQHi EKEINOS, TO PNEUMA THS ALHQEIAS, hODHGHSEI hUMAS EN THi ALHQEIAi PASHi• OU GAR LALHSEI AF᾽ hEAUTOU, ALL᾽ hOSA AKOUSEI LALHSEI KAI TA ERCOMENA ANAGGELEI hUMIN.
JOHN 16:14 EKEINOS EME DOXASEI, hOTI EK TOU EMOU LHMYETAI KAI ANAGGELEI hUMIN.
In addition, I think it is interesting to consider the writer of the epistle to Ephesians. He mentions that we should not grieve the Holy Spirit. This seems to indicate a Person and not just a function, for how could a *function* be grieved?
EPHESIANS 4:30 KAI MH LUPEITE TO PNEUMA TO hAGION TOU QEOU, EN hWi ESFRAGISQHTE EIS hHMERAN APOLUTRWSEWS.
Therefore, I do not think I would conclude that PNEUMA hAGIONorTO PNEUMA TO hAGION is just an *influence or function,* but rather was considered a Person by the writers of the GNT, although, I would agree with you that the Person of the Holy Spirit has specific *influences and functions.*
I guess we just have different opinions on this point, which is not an unusual phenomenon on B-Greek. I guess everyone will just have to decide for themselves.
I copied that portion from Middleton’s book below. Thanks again for bringing this book to light.
Sincerely,
Blue Harris
P.S. I left some words out of the quote by using empty brackets in order to keep theology out of the discussion, but anyone can go to the book online to see the full quote.
IV. But the word PNEUMAis used in a sense not differing from the former, except that it is here employed KAT᾽ EXOCHN to denote [ ] and in this acceptation, it is worth of remark, that PNEUMA or PNEUMA hAGIONis never anarthrous: except, indeed, in cases where other terms, confessedly the most definite, lose the Article, from some cause alleged in the Preliminary Inquiry. It will be shown in the following pages, as the passages occur, that such is the practice of the Sacred Writers. – The addition of TO hAGIONserves only to ascertain to what class of spirits, whether good or evil, this pre-eminent Spirit is affirmed to belong. – It may here be briefly noticed , that in the passages which, from their ascribing personal acts to the PNEUMA hAGION, are usually adduced to prove the Personality of the Blessed Spirit, the words PNEUMA and hAGIONinvariably have the Article. See particularly Mark 1:10. Luke 3:22. John 1:32.
Acts 1:16. And 20:28. Ephes. 4:30. Mark 13:11. Acts 10:19 and 28:25. I Tim. 4:1. Heb. 3:7 etc. – The reason of this is obvious; for there being but one Holy Spirit, he could not be spoken of indefinitely. In Matt. also 28:19 where the Holy Spirit is associated with the Father and the Son, the reading is TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS.
V. The fifth sense of PN is easily deducible from the fourth; being here not the Person of the Holy Spirit, but his influence or operation: the addition of hAGIONis explicable as before. And in this meaning a remarkable difference may be observed with respect to the Article. Though the Holy Spirit himself be but one, his influences and operations may be many: hence PNEUMA and PNEUMA hAGIONare, in this sense, always anarthrous, the case of renewed mention or other reference being of course excepted. The expressions of being filled with the Holy Ghost, receiving the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost being upon one, etc. justify this observation. (pg. 126)
________________________________
From: Rolf Furuli <furuli at online.no>
To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Thu, May 13, 2010 12:49:31 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] PNEUMA hAGION as a proper name
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,
>
>
>________________________________
>
---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list