[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