mls@dasys1.UUCP (Michael Siemon) (09/15/89)
A while back, in talk.religion.misc, Jack King wrote a bit about Greek gender in uses of the word "spirit." Since I see that he has posted to this group, and since there are some in t.r.m. who don't like reading niggling detail about scriptural verses, I thought I'd reply here. Jack wrote: > When referencing the holy spirit it is true that we always see it > rendered in the neuter. My contention is that if the holy spirit > were in fact a living entity, that it would be rendered in the masculine > tense. To support my thesis look at the renderings of the same greek > word at Eph 2:2 & Mark 6:7 with reference to demonic spirits. IT IS > RENDERED IN THE MASCULINE. This lobs a huge bomb in the midst of those > who would claim the HS is a being. Aside from its "facts" being wrong, I don't think the argument will bear the weight Jack is trying to put on it -- a determination of (what he seems to take as) a major theological point by way of indirect argument from a few, weak (purely syntactic) examples. The syntactic matter is easy to dispose of, but I really want to get at the larger point. However, let's consider first the verses cited. Mark 6:7 reads: edidou autois exousian to:n pneumato:n to:n akatharto:n (He gave them authority over unclean spirits ['o:' -> omega]) The noun _pneumato:n_, article _to:n_ and adjective _akatharto:n_ are all in agreement, as neuter, plural genitives. At BEST for Jack's case, one can say that the gender of the adjective is indeterminate, since masculine plurals are the same as neuter plurals in the genitive. But a Greek speaker would say that the gender *is* neuter *just because* it *has* to agree with the neuter noun. Pneuma does NOT change gender when it declines from nominative to genitive! Ephesians 2:2 is longer, and I won't quote it -- but again there is a neuter genitive (singular this time), so the situation is the same as in Mark. Jack's "contention" about gender is also preposterous; only a native English speaker is likely to think that way, because our own gender syntax *does* sort of work the way Jack suggests. Pneuma IS neuter in gender, THEREFORE any form in which it appears is neuter! There are masculine nouns with forms that you would "usually" guess to be "feminine," but an American's guess is irrelevant. -- the fact is they are just what they are, and used everywhere with all the appropriate masculine pronouns and adjectives. The gender of a word is only what it is, whether or not that is immediately obvious from the form of any one use. Syntax is trivial -- and inescapable. And in the contrary direction, a quick scan for instances of _pneuma_ in John (the "most spiritual" gospel :-)) turns up 16:13, where the pronoun _ekeinos_ is explicitly masculine (the neuter is _ekeino_). hotan de elthe:i ekeinos to pneuma te:s ale:theias hode:ge:sei humas en te:i ale:theiai pase:i But when he comes, the spirit of truth will guide you into all truth Here, the syntactic relation of _ekeinos_ and _to pneuma_ is apposition, and agreement of gender is NOT forced by the rules of syntax. Accordingly, HERE the gender may be taken as significant (if you like :-)). But for the most part, syntax DOES force agreement, so the neuters agreeing with "spirit" are devoid of any information content; they have no more implications for what English-speakers think of as gender than the German use of _das Kind_ has for the (social, as opposed to linguistic) gender of German children. Use of neuter pronouns and adjectives for spirit also has no bearing on the status of the subject as personal or impersonal. Native English speakers should avoid making arguments from pronominal gender; our language is very unusual in this regard and tends to mislead us. But the syntactic argument, even if Jack had been correct, is of no great importance. Jesus, in fact, consistently personifies the Spirit in his discourses; even in "abstract" usages like "the wind/spirit blows where it wills" in John 3:8; note that verb and noun are from the same root in Greek: _to pneuma hopou thelei pnei_) where he emphasizes will. I don't care if Jack wants to theorize that the Spirit is "really" an "impersonal force" and not "a person." Both of these are rather abstract notions; a Christian shouldn't be faulted for simply following the example of Jesus and speaking in personal terms, in defiance of ANY merely theological construct by later exegetes. I don't much care for Trinitarian dogmas, especially when they are buttressed with anathemas, but the intent of those dogmas and creeds is just to defend the gospel against people with bizarre ideas. Think about the Spirit however you like, but to tell me that I *mustn't* take the Spirit as personal, when Jesus does so all over the place, is to deny scripture. Argue all you want to about what he *means* by this usage, but don't pretend it isn't there. It is all very well to note that Jesus' language is metaphorical or figurative. That is certainly true at many levels. But what Jesus *says* is that our dealings with the Spirit, or better the Spirit's dealings with us, can be described in personal terms. As to the ultimate reality behind these terms, Jesus also says: "God is spirit (_pneuma ho theos_), and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth." [John 4:24] Given Jesus' words on the matter, you have to have a higher authority than Jesus to dismiss his personification of the Spirit as a mistake! It's likely enough that Jesus' words on this matter are not simple, literal, total truth; he often complains of being misunderstood even by his disciples. But his words have to be the foundation for the way Christians discern the truth. And if he made do with parable and metaphor and personification, then I must be permitted to do the same. I belabor this point in an attempt to explain to Jack why I count myself a Trinitarian, despite my agreeing with the JW's that many of the traditional passages are "overread" by zealous Trinitarians. The over- reading often seems to me the "natural" reaction when confronted with an apparent unwillingness to read the passages at all. Arian theology, in general, INSISTS on drawing a sharp boundary between God and Christ that I simply cannot find in the text -- where NO boundaries are drawn that I can see. Yes, there are texts making a strong distinction between Father and Son, and Trinitarians skirt these (or explain them away) at their own peril. There ARE "local" distinctions in any number of contexts -- the trouble is that other contexts have other distinctions or none at all. So if you expect a "consistent" "definition" of the relation of Father and Son, you wind up with contradictory nonsense. The text simply doesn't provide this, and it is wrong to pretend that it does. What we can HOPE to do is to take EACH of the contexts seriously. In making _a priori_ distinctions of "being" a litmus test, Arians force a sharp line where in scripture there is no line at all, merely shading. The difficulty -- again to be explicit and labored -- is that theory sets up as a judge over what the evangelists and apostles SAY. Now, we can't read at all without SOME "theory", some framework in which to construe what we read. But we CAN remain permanently suspicious of the adequacy of our theories. If at any time theory tells us "this passage cannot mean what it's author pretty clearly intended to mean" then theory has run away with us, and closed us off to the testimony of God's word. -- Michael L. Siemon This has been a century of semantic ...!cucard!dasys1!mls and semiotic nostrums; the century of hermeneutical last-ditch stands. -- Wayne C. Booth, _Rhetoric of Irony_