[B-Greek] PNEUMA hAGION as a proper name
Rolf Furuli
furuli at online.no
Fri May 14 04:11:16 EDT 2010
Dear Iver,
Your comments regarding the Greek article below are of course
correct. However, this thread is not about the Greek article but
about PNEUMA hAGION as a possible proper name. As you say, the lack
of article in a noun phrase does not make it into a proper name. We
would not dream of considering a noun phrase without article a
proper name if the context dId not clearly indicate this.
However, the noun phrase PNEUMA hAGION is an exceptional noun phrase,
because it is used in an exceptional way. In Matthew 28:19 we read
that disciples shall be baptized "in the name of the Father, the Son,
and the Holy spirit," something which puts PNEUMA hAGION in a very
special position. We note that ONOMA is singular, and therefore in
this verse does not refer to proper names, but rather to authority
(e.g., "in the name of the law"). The Father has a proper name
(YHWH), the Son has a proper name (Jesus), but PNEUMA hAGION does not
have a proper name; it is only referred to by a noun phrase.
On this basis it was legitimate to ask whether the lack of article
with PNEUMA HAGION suggested that this noun phrase in itself was a
proper name. At the outset this is possible, but because there is
nothing in any context suggesting that, we have no reason to draw
such a conclusion.
On the other hand, as Middleton wrote, PNEUMA hAGION is used in
contexts that points in a diametrically opposite direction compared
with viewing the noun phrase as a proper name. For example, in Acts
2:18 PMEUMA hAGION is treated like a liquid; parts of it being
poured out ( EKCEW) upon individuals. I agree with Middleton that
this and similar uses are problematic when we consider the
traditional view of PNEUMA hAGION. His solution was to distinguish
between the anarthrous use and anaphoric use that referred to
influences and operations of PNEUMA hAGION, and to PNEUMA hAGION with
the article-The Holy Spirit. His reason for this was of course
doctrinal rather than linguistic.
The question I have asked is whether there are some linguistic
reasons to treat PNEUMA hAGION without the article different from
examples with the article. I have carefully studied all the
occurrences of PNEUMA hAGION in the NT, and I have found no
differences between anarthrous and articular examples. The most
promising examples of a non-anaphoric use of the article with PNEUMA
hAGION could have been the first occurrence of the noun phrase in a
NT book. But even here the article may be required. An example is
Ephesians 1:13. Here we find the article, but it is required, because
it is not any spirit that is mentioned, but "the promised" PNEUMA
hAGION.
Therefore, my conclusion is that there are no linguistic reasons to
treat PNEUMA hAGION in any of it occurrences differently from its
treatment in Acts 2:18, where it is treated as if it were a liquid.
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
> > So let us return to the linguistic issue: The original question was
>> whether PNEUMA hAGION is a proper name because it lacks the article.
>> My answer was that this is possible. Then I turned the issue upside
>> down by pointing out that the lack of article linguistically speaking
>> could also indicate something impersonal. Then I asked if the use of
>> the article could be pragmatic. In other words: Could all the
>> examples of the article with PNEUMA hAGION be anaphoric, which means
>> that PNEUMA hAGION semantically speaking is anarthrous, and the
>> article is added because of contextual requirements?
>>
>> Your task, therefore, is to point to one or more examples where the
>> article cannot be pragmatic. This is the linguistic issue!
>
>I don't think any of these questions will lead to a clear understanding of the
>use of the article in Greek. A noun phrase does not become a proper
>name because
>it lacks the article. The lack of the article does not make a referent
>impersonal. The presence of the article does not necessarily
>indicate anaphoric
>usage (Discourse-old), although that is one of its usages.
>
>Probably the best linguistic treatment of the article is chapter 6 in Hoyle's
>paper that Elizabeth referred to. It covers 30 pages, and I cannot
>summarize it
>properly here, partly because I have not completed reading the chapter yet,
>partly because it is a rather complex issue.
>
>Hoyle gives the following summary, but you would need to read his paper to
>properly understand it:
>
>"The Greek article with a noun marks that the referent is
>Hearer-old, which may
>be
>either Discourse-old, or Discourse-new and part of an open scenario.
>Lack of the
>article
>with a noun marks that the referent is salient, which may be either
>Discourse-new and
>Hearer-new (so naturally salient), or Hearer-old but marked as salient due to
>some higher
>discourse function, such as marking clause-level focus, marking
>theme at higher
>levels of
>discourse, or highlighting interpersonal relations."
>
>Iver Larsen
>
>---
>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