Re: Addendum: a holy spirit

On Saturday, December 4, 2004, at 08:00 , H. S. Teoh wrote:
[snip]
> Keep in mind that Greek does not have an indefinite article, so the
> absence of the definite article does not necessarily mean that the NP
> is indefinite.
AMEN.

It is linguistically quite ridiculous and just plainly anglocentic to
assume that:
(a) the Greek definite article is used the same way as in English, and
(b) the lack of definite article means the NP should have the indefinite
article.
This would lead to some very silly translations of the ancient Classics.

>  E.g. the initial portion of the gospel of John reads:
>
> 	en arxe: e:n ho logos. kai ho logos e:n pros ton theon. kai theos e:n
> 	ho logos.
>
> In the last clause, _theos_ (God) appears without a definite article.
Indeed it does. _theos_ is the *complement* of _e:n_ "was". It would be
incorrect Greek to have the definite article before the complement. The
presence of the article before _logos_ and not before _theos_ makes it
clear which noun is subject and which is the complement - the word order
certainly does not.

> Although most orthodox Christians understand that it refers to (the)
> God,
If it is _a god_ then we have polytheism.

It is just plain silly to say that if the noun does not have the definite
article we must translate it with the indefinite. It would mean in the
same chapter we must translate:
verse 6: "There was a man, sent from a god....."
verse 12: "He [the Word] gave them a power to become children of a god..."
verse 13: "..who are born not from bloods nor from a will of a flesh nor
from a will of a man but from a god."
verse 14: "And the word became a flesh..."
etc., etc., etc.

[snip]

> Also keep in mind that the Greek definite article does not always
> behave like the English definite article;
Exactly! As I said, it is being uncritically anglocentric to assume that.
In fact the Greek use of the article reminds me far more of French usage.

Good grief! Aren't we to suppose to be linguistically aware on this list!

> Classical Greek tends to use
> the article with all proper names (hence, _ho sokrate:s_ rather than
> merely _sokrate:s_). I don't know if this is still true in Koine Greek
> (==NT Greek), but it should warn one not to quickly jump to
> conclusions based on how the article behaves in other languages.
Well said!
===============================================

On Saturday, December 4, 2004, at 01:55 , caeruleancentaur wrote:
[snip]
> BTW (not to you, Ph.D.), neither the Matthean annunciation story
> (1:24) nor the Lucan (1:35) mention The Holy Spirit/Ghost.  In those
> verses the definite article is not used, so the translation would
> be "a holy spirit."
That IMNSHO is a dogmatic statement and contrary to linguistic evidence -
see above.

> To insert "the" is to paraphrase, to add a
> theological nuance not found in the text.
Likewise to insert "a" is to paraphrase, and it most certainly adds a
theological nuance not found in the text.

I am quite capable also of recognizing the theological nuance. I have over
the past five decades had occasion to argue this one on the doorstep
several times. I am saddened that Charlie has chosen to use the list to
make a not very subtle snipe at traditional trinitarian belief. I can make
a reasonable guess which religious group he adheres to - but I have no
wish to go down that path.

I have been on this list for many years and during that time have got to
know the religious persuasion or otherwise of several members. Even tho I
do not agree with all their views, I respect them and would never use this
list to offend them.

In any case, if we are going to insist on a 100% literal translation we
might as well add that neither the Matthean not the Lucan story even
mention 'Spirit' or 'Ghost'.

The phrase is _pneuma hagion_ [sic} in an unusual word order for Greek.
The literal translation is "holy breath" (or even more literally: "breath
holy"). The reason we have Spirit in English is because the Latin for
"breath" is _spiritus_. To translate the phrase as anything other than
"holy breath" is to add theological nuance, whether we like it or not.

====================================================

On Saturday, December 4, 2004, at 07:15 , Philip Newton wrote:

> On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 01:14:36 -0500, Sally Caves <scaves@...>
> wrote:
>> (of course there is no definite article in the Latin, but the
>> capitalization
>> may help show an intention, at least on the part of my editor.  Is there
>> a
>> definite article in the Greek?)
>
> Greek does have a definite article, if that's what you are asking.
Yes, indeed - from the earliest times. It was well established by the time
of Homeric works (8th cent BCE). But, as H.S. Teoh has so rightly pointed
out, its use does not correspond exactly with the definite article in
English and also ancient Greek did not have an indefinite article. (Modern
Greek does but, not unsurprisingly, it is not used entirely in the same
way as the indefinite article in English).

[snip]

> I never studied NT Greek, though, so can't speak to the significance
> or not of the absence or presence of the definite article.
An honest statement.

And a proper discussion of _pneuma hagion_, which seems consistently to
preserve the Semitic order of noun+adjective, cannot be done without
considering its Hebrew antecedent. We need to consider how the concept of
God's "holy breath" is used in the Jewish scriptures, beginning with the
the second verse of the very opening chapter of Genesis where we read of
God's breath (_pneuma Theou_ in the Septuagint version - notice lack of
articles before either noun!) hovered over the waters.

I'll just take another quote from H.S. Teoh's thoughtful email:
"Now, this debate is way out of my depth, but it shows you that it takes a
lot more than a mere superficial knowledge
of Greek to be able to properly translate it."

Very true.

This discussion, if it is to be done properly, requires a serious
*non-partisan* consideration both of the use of "(God's) holy breath"
thoughout the Jewish scriptures and of the patristic writings on the
Trinity. These are both certainly interesting (and deep) topics but I feel
there are more appropriate fora on the Internet for such discussions than
the 'Constructed Languages List'. Superficial and/or partisan discussion
is bound to cause to offense.

As Andreas so recently said of another thread: "But I think this thread
would better die; it's OT, and potentially inflammable."

Ray

PS - Whatever has happened to our "no cross, no crown" convention in the
past couple of weeks?

===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com
===============================================
Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
which is not so much a twilight of the gods
as of the reason."      [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]

Replies