apposition

[GTM]

I have a question concerning nouns in apposition

specifically John 16:13

"εκεινος" seems to be in apposition to "το πνευμα της αληθειας"

It is my understanding that when this occurs one defines or modifies the other. Would it be safe to say that ekinos modifies to pneuma tes aletheias and if so how does it affect the intended meaning?

GTM

[NateD26]

Hi. It seems to me that ἐκεῖνος refers back to ὁ παράκλητος, and this apposition is just another name for this advocate.
rarely does ἐκεῖνος refer forward (Smyth 1257). I think though that there should be an agreement in gender.

See a similar apposition in 14:26
ὁ δὲ παράκλητος, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ὃ πέμψει ὁ
πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα
καὶ ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα ἃ εἶπον ὑμῖν [ἐγώ].

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send
in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to
your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. [King James Bible]


Notice that the apposition τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον is neuter and the relative clause begins with a neuter relative pronoun,
but the following ἐκεῖνος does not refer to τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον but to ὁ παράκλητος. I'm pretty sure that if it were,
it would have been ἐκεῖνο.

[LSorenson]

ἐκεῖνος agrees with ὁ δὲ παράκλητος. Consider the noun πνεῦμα and it's relative clause in apposition to παρακλητος. The gender of two nouns πνευμα and παρακλητος are set - they can not be changed. So when one noun stands in apposition, is does not have to agree in gender. Τhe same holds true for predicate adjectives and predicate nominatives. e.g. ὁ παῖς ἦν τέκνον. 'the boy/servant' was a child."

[GTM]

LSorenson

Thank you for your response.

So when one noun stands in apposition, is does not have to agree in gender.

What has precedence in establishing gender? If they are appositional and one is neuter and the other is masculine how do you establish which one is the determiner?

GTM

[GTM]

NateD26

Greetings

I was reading an article By Wallace and he speaks of two ways of viewing a grammatical construct.

First he mentions gender shift due to constructio ad sensum or according to natural grammar

Second he mentions normal grammar.

He also suggests that John 16:13 falls into the category of the first idea and goes on to say that gender isn't necessarily an issue.

I read your post and that was how I would have understood it but now I am taking a second look.

Thank you for your response

GTM