This entry is designed to post the outlines of what Henry Barclay Swete writes (The Holy Spirit in the New Testament) concerning the anarthrous πνεῦμα ἅγιον. You might find his comments worthwhile, although I believe there are some examples that do not bear out his general thesis. His comments can be found on pp. 396-97 of The Holy Spirit.
I will summarize his argument, then provide scriptural references for each claim:
(1) The anarthrous πνεῦμα ἅγιον may be accounted for by the "strong tendency" of NT writers to "drop the article after a preposition." See Matthew 1:18; 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 2:25-26; Ephesians 5:18.
(2) An anarthrous construction may also occur when a writer uses the instrumental dative without a preposition. See Romans 8:14; Galatians 5:16, 18. (Wallace, GGBB, 165-166).
(3) Swete believes that when the spirit is described as "a gift or manifestation of the Spirit in its relation to the life of man," the NT employs πνεῦμα ἅγιον. Cf. Acts 2:38. However, compare Acts 10:38.
(4) Ellicott (on Galatians 5:5) wants to treat πνεῦμα ἅγιον as a proper name along the lines of "Lord" and "God." Yet Swete disagrees with this view and examples in Scripture likewise counter Ellicott's suggestion.
I hope this summary is helpful.
16 comments:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QDuOAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=anarthrous+%CF%80%CE%BD%CE%B5%E1%BF%A6%CE%BC%CE%B1+%E1%BC%85%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD&source=bl&ots=UF7YSSFwaO&sig=Hd38viSg7V8_T4HKPWgYuEWmD0A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjK5ufW9YjNAhUiD8AKHebdA2cQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=%20anarthrous%20%CF%80%CE%BD%CE%B5%E1%BF%A6%CE%BC%CE%B1%20%E1%BC%85%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD&f=false
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QDuOAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=anarthrous+%CF%80%CE%BD%CE%B5%E1%BF%A6%CE%BC%CE%B1+%E1%BC%85%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD&source=bl&ots=UF7YSSFwaO&sig=Hd38viSg7V8_T4HKPWgYuEWmD0A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjK5ufW9YjNAhUiD8AKHebdA2cQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=the%20question%20of%20how%20the%20article%20functions%20as%20a%20modifier&f=false
Edgar hello, I would like you to help me with this trinitarian reasoning......
●the case of the creation of man is very easy to explain and does not represent any difficulty the language of Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 1:27 .
The plural language of verse 26 " Let " the " our " is a reference to the plurality of persons in the Godhead : the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
The singular language of verse 27 " and created " and " believe " is a reference to the Unit in the Godhead.
There are many examples of this kind of language in reference to God . I 'll give you two examples from the New Testament :
And our Lord Himself , Jesus the Messiah , and God our Father , who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace
COMFORT your hearts , and entrenched in every good work and word (2
Thessalonians 2 : 16-17 )
Notice how Paul is clearly referring to both the Son and the Father and comfort when using the verb referring to them It does not say " comfort your hearts " but " comfort your hearts " ... that is, to a plurality of people is credited singular action .
the other example:
and the same God and our father, and our Lord Jesus ° direct ° our way to you (1 Thessalonians 3:11)
in the same way, is used the word unique "direct" in reference to a plurality of people: father and son.
Why the tj put verbs in plural (TNM)? Is there any base textual to do it for the Greek text such verbs are singular?
this type of language biblical makes the unicitarios and unit is den of stops in the head looking for a justification. Jehovah's witnesses for example solve this "problem" putting verbs in plural (TNM), but they have no basis textual to do it for the Greek text such verbs are unique.
Hello Omar,
On the subject of elohim, see http://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2013/05/repost-of-genesis-126-and-how-many.html
http://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2010/08/maurice-casey-on-term-god-in-second.html
I'll post separately on 2 Thess. 2:16-17. But elohim can mean "gods," not divine persons. Do trinitarians really want to insist that the old testament teaches that we have three gods?
Edgar thanks, I'll be slope
It might be worth adding that Swete says that the article is used when the Holy Spirit is 'considered as a Divine Person'.
Your Acts 10:35 in 3) seems to be in error - did you perhaps mean 10:44-5?
Thanks, Andrew. It's been too long to tell what I meant in typing Acts 10:35, but most likely I meant Acts 10:38.
I did not omit Swete's remark about the spirit for theological reasons: I was attempting to focus on grammar as opposed to theology proper, but either way, I disagree with Swete's remark. How can one determine the personhood of the holy spirit by the mere inclusion of an article? Firstly, see D. Wallace's famed journal article about the holy spirit. Secondly, I think there are uses of pneuma that would call Swete's statement into question. Best regards.
See Romans 8:16.
Thanks Edgar. But in Acts 10:38 it is πνεύματι ἁγίῳ without the article, so is in conformity with the pattern Swete finds, no? (Your 'however' suggested deviation from the pattern.)
I think Swete was just observing a pattern. Where the Holy Spirit has personal characteristics - speaking, being spoken against, being grieved - then the article appears. I see him as engaged in linguistics here, not theology.
In Romans 8:16, the Spirit is again doing something personal by bearing witness, and has the article, so this seems to be the same pattern - but possibly you were making a different point about this verse.
Andrew
Andrew, the point I was making from Acts 10:38 is that although it does not have πνεῦμα ἅγιον, it could still be describing the spirit qua gift in relation to man. Secondly, in my view, bearing witness doesn't have to be done by a person and although Romans 8:16 is articular, the neuter pronoun is used there. Yes, I understand that neuter is a grammatical category, but so are masculine and feminine. My point is that Romans 8:16 does not cry personhood to me.
See Romans 2:15; 9:1 for the point I'm making about bearing witness.
Actually, I should have pointed out that πνεύματι ἅγιῳ in Acts 10:38 is merely an example of your 2) ie an instrumental dative taking the anarthrous form. It's cited by Swete in his 3b.
I appreciate your feedback, Andrew, but I do not think that Swete's distinctions will fully hold. For the difficulties with how to treat anarthrous and articular uses of pneuma in the NT, see the article here by Steve Swartz: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/026009359304400103?journalCode=tbtd
I guess another point I was trying to make is that while Acts 10:38 refers to "a gift or manifestation of the Spirit in its relation to the life of man," it does not use πνεῦμα ἅγιον to communicate that idea.
I don't have an opinion about Swete's theory, I have been merely commenting on one or two cases, and whether they should be taken in support of it, or against it. That article looks really interesting (if you have a copy you could send me for personal use only, that would be much appreciated, as it would save me a little journey). Am a bit surprised by your saying that Acts 10:38 does not use πνεῦμα ἅγιον. In my experience of reading commentaries of that learned generation, they put Greek words into the case that applies in their English sentence. In his discussion on p. 396-7, πνεῦμα ἅγιον is either the subject or the direct object in the sentence and is thus nominative or accusative. I don't think he is specifying these two cases rather than the genitive or dative.
Andrew, I was dwelling on the difference between articular versus anarthrous as well as the exact morphological formation. But maybe I might think differently about his approach if I read it again.
I can send you the article, but would need an email address. If you want to message me privately, you can email diak11@aol.com
Thank you sir, much appreciated. (I was imagining that you had it as the blog owner, have sent email).
Post a Comment