Also, in John 16:14, the apostle uses a masculine pronoun (EKEINOS) when referring to a neuter antecedent (PNEUMA). An interlocutor once disagreed with me on this point by arguing that EKEINOS actually should be construed with PARAKLHTOS in 16:7:
"Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you."
My interlocutor provided the translation. My response was:
You may be right about John 16:14. Since John employed EKEINOS (the "far away demonstrative"), the antecedent of EKEINOS may well be PARAKLHTOS in John 16:7. What you say may also be true of John 14:26, where EKEINOS could point back to PARAKLHTOS. However, EKEINOS could just as easily refer to PNEUMA in both passages as Young points out in his grammar (page 78). Its really hard to tell.
Interestingly, Daniel B. Wallace disagrees with Young and thus sides with you on this issue. Personally, I think either construal of EKEINOS does not prove the masculinity of the Holy Spirit. Wallace points out that not only is PNEUMA appositional to PARAKLHTOS, but the relative pronoun that follows PNEUMA is also neuter; on the other hand, he rightly concludes that such a construction does not prove the personality of the Holy Spirit. But you too present a strong line of reasoning.
Also note the pronoun-antecedent usage in Rom. 2:14; 1 Cor. 6:9-11.
12 comments:
MUSTHRION is neuter
You are correct. Not sure why I typed feminine. I wrote this piece a long time ago and should have reviewed it more closely before posting. Thanks.
any explanation for Rev 12:5? a neuter squashed inbetween 2 masculines?
Laurentiu Florentin has a helpful discussion about Revelation 12:5. See Morphological and Syntactical Irregularities in the Book of Revelation, page 179. Many scholars regard the usage in 12:5 to be solecistic.
sorry Edgar I do not have access to that book - tried before
I will try to post some about it today. The book says it's a rare construction: not even many examples appear in Revelation.
Thank you Edgar!
off-topic question (ignore): even if someone is opposed to the topic you are quoting them for, would it still be ok quote them?
Anonymous, the main thing is that we quote people fairly. We should not take quotes out of context and I might quote a Trinitarian to show a concession that he or she makes but I would not quote them to prove the Trinity is false.
Here is Florintin's view from page 180-181. This is only part of the discussion but is how Florintin explains Revelation 12:5:
To consider that in Rev 12:5 John used ἄρσεν as a masculine, since he
appended it to the masculine υἱὸς, would be possible in light of the use of this word by other authors, but it is difficult to explain why John did not choose the masculine ἄρσενα as he did in 12:13. The most probable explanation is the one given by Mussies who asserts that υἱὸν ἄρσεν is not an incongruity, but an apposition.403 Thus, the phrase ἔτεκεν υἱὸν, ἄρσεν, ὃς μέλλει ποιμαίνειν should be translated as “she gave birth to a son (masc), a male child (neut), who (masc) is about to rule.” The neuter ἄρσεν was inserted between the masculine υἱὸν and ὃς as an explanatory phrase, and was not needed grammatically, but was introduced for rhetorical purposes.
Others view the passage as solecistic or view it as an example of "Semitic interference."
isn't there one that gets used often against the society because the guy is anti-christian or something? that quote isn't the only one Iv found tho - seems to be a more common opinion among "experts"
I've seen more than one author/writer used against the society because they quoted him. This kind of thing happens with some frequency.
Post a Comment