Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit

So you plagiarized Smyth (to make an invalid point, to boot) until called out. In any case I checked Smyth 1058b ( and a) and he does not cite it as an example of constructio ad sensum. In 105b he is discussing predicate adjectives. He says that when the substantives (plural) denote both persons and things, a predicate adjective is neuter plural if the person is treated like a thing. .. I didn’t waste my time with the other example.


But please, don’t let me sidetrack you. You had something that > you wanted to teach us about the use of construction according to sense in Koine Greek> ?

Where did you get that notion from ?

Completely my fault, Isaac. Here is Smyth 926 a.:

Construction according to the sense> , where the agreement is with the real gender or number (e.g. …, 1055a, 1058b)


Joel: > But please, don’t let me sidetrack you. You had something that you wanted to teach us about the use of construction according to sense in Koine Greek?

Isaac: > Where did you get that notion from ?

I’ve offended you, and now you have threatened to stop your wonderful wise thread. Please say that you forgive me! There is no need for you to stop teaching us all because I’ve made just a little fun?

That’s better. It would bode well for you in future to be more intellectually honest – to credit your source expeditiously and fully. Perhaps a lesson in integrity (rather than constructio ad sensum ) is in order here . In any case here’s Smyth in full context :

Apparent violation of the concords is to be explained either by
a. Construction according to sense, where the agreement is with the real gender or number (e.g. 949 a, 950–953, 958, 996, 997, 1013, 1044, 1050, 1055 a, 1058 or by
b. Attraction, when a word does not have its natural construction because of the influence of some other word or words in its clause (e.g. 1060 ff., 1239, 1978, 2465, 2502, 2522 ff.). This principle extends to moods and tenses (2183 ff.).

The two examples which you lifted from Smyth, while they’re technically instances of constructio ad sensum, are hardly the clearest instances nor the most relevant to this thread . They are almost like examples pertaining to mixed groups —which may include men, women, where it is standard to utilize the default masculine referent.

Anyhow, how do the two examples you furnished (actually taken from Smyth) contribute in anyway to the discussion at hand ?

It’s rather embarrassing to explain. To be honest, I thought that I would make fun of you by quoting some simple examples from Smyth to show that you couldn’t actually recognize construction according to the sense when you saw it. I thought that you would complain “that’s not really construction according to the sense!” and then I would show that it was all from Smyth, and you would look the fool. Everyone would realize that you don’t actually read Greek, and simply quote scraps of grammar books that you don’t fully understand.

I suppose that it all happened exactly that way, and you did look the fool, but it was a very juvenile prank on my part.

It’s all behind us now, and I’m happy to be so “well-boded”!

I see, so you deceptively plagiarized half sentences from Smyth in order to prove that I didn’t actually read Greek , even though I correctly translated those half sentences.


suppose that it all happened exactly that way, and you did look the fool, > but it was a very juvenile prank on my part> .

It was indeed. Did the “holy” spirit “person” (i.e. third “person” of the Trinity) living inside of you lead you to do such a thing ?



It’s all behind us now, and I’m happy to be so “well-boded”!

O.K., you may go in peace… By the way, an honest person doesn’t have to use phrases like “to be honest.”

A very good example of constructio ad sensum in the GNT is from 2 John 1:1,

Ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ καὶ τοῖς > τέκνοις > αὐτῆς, > οὓς > ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, καὶ οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντες οἱ ἐγνωκότες τὴν ἀλήθειαν,

Notice that even though the grammatical gender of τέκνον ( τέκνοις pl) is neuter, here the blessed apostle uses constructio ad sensum to refer to them with the masculine form of the pronoun οὓς, because he considers them to be persons rather than things. Often this is done sub-consciously by the biblical author, and it betrays the mind of the inspired writer, as it were, revealing to us how he views the natural gender of the substantive in question.

So the question is : If indeed holy spirit is a “personality,” why never the inspired writers similarly jettison holy spirit’s grammatical gender for it’s natural gender ( presumably masculine ) ? The answer is very simple – because they never even thought of it as such, that is, as a personality.

I’m glad that’s all behind us. Now Isaac, here is certainly construction according to the sense. Why don’t you explain to us what is going on with the following?

ὁ δὲ Θρασύμαχυς φεύγει ἐς Ἀκράγαντα, ὢν αὐτῶν εὐεργέτης.

Frankly I’m only concerned with examples from the GNT, having no time for your antics. You’re more than welcome to discuss verses from the bible, however . :smiley:

But Isaac, I’m trying to make up for having made you look somewhat ignorant with the other two examples. Here’s a third chance to prove that you know your stuff. You can answer it, and everyone will know that you actually know Greek grammar, rather than being a lexicon abuser! Please, I’m feeling so bad about before.

You have to realize that I have nothing to prove. Also, it isn’t very intelligent to suggest that if I would just answer your question, then everyone will know that I know Greek grammar.

I counsel you to do some soul searching . Ask yourself who or what is causing you to behave in this rather darkly irrational fashion.

Peace, In the power of the holy spirit of God, which fills the elect.

Are you suggesting that it might be some spirit driving me, one that takes delight in having me poke fun at you?

Do you think that spirit has a personality? Is there something in Smyth’s Greek Grammar that will tell us?

I wish someone would grab the proverbial bull by the horns and address the following very simple question:

If the NT authors indeed conceived of the Holy Spirit as a person, we may well expect to see natural gender taking precedent over grammatical gender in various passages that speak of the Spirit. So why don’t we ?

Peace to all, in the power of the holy spirit of God, the wind which blows where it pleases.

I was reading through the gospel of John once more ( I do so quite fluently in Modern Greek, I don’t recommend Erasmian for it retards one’s comprehension ability in koine for good IMHO), and at 6:9 observed this:


Ἔστιν > παιδάριον > ὧδε > ὃς > ἔχει πέντε ἄρτους κριθίνους καὶ δύο ὀψάρια· ἀλλὰ ταῦτα τί ἐστιν εἰς τοσούτους;

Notice that apostle John refers to παιδάριον with the masculine form of the pronoun ὃς even though παιδάριον is a grammatically neuter noun. The inconcinnity between the grammatical gender of παιδάριον and the pronoun which refers to it is a perfect example of the type of constructio ad sensum we’re interested in this thread.

Anyone who has spent any time reading the gospel and epistles of the beloved apostle John cannot fail to appreciate that he had a higher than average tendency (statistically speaking, in comparison to the other writers of the bible) to invoke construction according to sense. That was just his peculiar writing style.

In the “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics” by D. Wallace, but I haven’t managed to find it in English, my book is traslated into Russian.

John 16:13:

ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὅδηγήσει ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ

Do you think here the masculine ἐκεῖνος refers to παράκλητος and not to πνεῦμα?

Yes.

I have this book(in English) on my shelf. Could you cite the pg. , section and sub section ? I could check the English.

An anthropologically interesting concept, a ἁγιον πνευμα.

Wasn’t the paraclete Mani? I understand he had quite a personality.

The Wiki Paraclete article “relies too much on references to primary sources”!

Another fun fact: A paraclete escorts the candidate in the Dutch doctoral defence ceremony. I have a nice personal story about that, but it would be off topic.

Just a quick life lesson. Scripture tells us that the pure at heart (καθαροὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ) shall see God. So those who wish to behold the only true God should strive to be honest with others (and also with themselves) as often as possible. And if we should fall short in this regard (and we sometimes surely shall), we should not despair but rather repent and confess our sins before God, who is faithful and forgives us our inequities .

μακάριοι οἱ καθαροὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ, ὅτι αὐτοὶ τὸν θεὸν ὄψονται.

Matthew 5:8

We know that there are many charlatans who have gone out into the world to deceive. Don’t just believe them, but test them with scripture and with truth. In this regard then, here’s some food for thought, from an article by Daniel R. Streett entitled Greek Professors: Do They Know Greek?

http://danielstreett.com/2011/09/12/greek-professors-do-they-know-greek-basics-of-greek-pedagogy-pt-3/

A Test for Greek Professors
In November, 2008, I presented a paper at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society on teaching Greek communicatively. As an experiment, I began my presentation by passing out a quiz for attendees to take. I’m guessing it was the first time that had ever happened! Attendance was pretty good–around 30 audience members. Here’s the quiz. See how you can do:…

The Results
What? Not so hot? Don’t feel too bad; you’re not alone. Now, keep in mind that most of those who attend ETS are faculty at colleges or seminaries. There are also a large number of doctoral students, and a smattering of other graduate students. And, only people who currently teach Greek or hope to teach Greek would want to attend a paper on Greek pedagogy. So, my audience was made up of mostly Greek professors and doctoral-level students who had probably taken, on average, 4-7 years of Greek by now and some of whom had been teaching Greek for 20-30 years by now.

After the audience had finished, I collected their quizzes. The average “grade” was 0.4 out 10 correct. Most testees could not answer any of the questions correctly, although they tried. The highest grade was 2 out of 10. Now, this audience included many scholars who had written best selling Greek textbooks and grammars. Of course, I won’t name names!..

What would you think of a German professor who couldn’t count to ten in his language? A French professor who did not know “bonjour” or “au revoir?” A Spanish professor who didn’t know rojo or el gato?

Greek Professors Admit: They Don’t Know Greek!
I can hear the howls of protest: “Some of these words on your quiz don’t even appear in the Bible!” Ah, so you only care to know the tiny slice of the Greek language that appears in the Bible? Every 4-year old Greek child would score 10/10+the bonus on this quiz. Is it too much to ask those who teach Greek for a living to strive for the vocabulary of a 4-year old? BTW, of the 10 items, only 1 does not appear in the Bible (ball), though 2 items only appear once (monkey in 2 Chron 9:21, cat only in Ep.Jer. 1:21). The rest are not rare at all. And in terms of wider Greek literature, ball, monkey and cat are not rare. Here are the word counts from the TLG: σφαῖρα – 6157x, πίθηκος – 766x, αἴλουρος – 356x. That’s not counting all the compound words where they would make up a part of the word.

But, if you are still skeptical, let me relate to you the nearly universal response that I receive from Greek professors when I advocate for a communicative method. Many are very receptive to, even enthusiastic about, the possibilities in such a method. But, without exception, I hear from them: “I simply don’t know Greek well enough to teach it this way!” “I could never carry on a whole class in Greek!” And so on.

Give these profs credit. At least they’re being honest and open about the problem. We Greek profs can parse ‘till the cows come home. We’re experts at filling out paradigm charts. We love to explain the historical role of the digamma in irregular verbs. We can nerd on an on about proclitics and enclitics (ok, maybe not, but you get my point Smile). What we lack is simple proficiency in Greek…

Perhaps you still think the emperor has clothes. Perhaps you think knowledge of basic vocabulary, or the bare minimum of communicative competency is too much to ask. “We are trained to read Greek, not speak it or compose in it!” you say. Very well: How many Greek professors can read Josephus, Plutarch, or Λόγγος for pleasure (οὔπω ἐγώ)? How many can read Aesop’s fables without constant resort to the lexicon (see, for example this one, which uses one of our quiz items!)? The sad answer: οὐ πολλοί. Could the reason be that they, too, were trained in the “chop, analyze and translate” school of Greek? I think so.

And, admitting the problem is the first step to finding a solution . . .

So be alert, for many deceivers have gone out into the world. Also, always keep in mind always that the bible is a dangerous fire. If we handle it inappropriately, we shall be burnt

Isaac, I think you’re being too hard on yourself with that last post. You weren’t really being a deceiver in my opinion, and I reject you calling yourself one. That is far too harsh to say about anyone here, even yourself. We’re all just learners here, and I (and others) agree with a fair amount of what you have to say, if not the presentation or the choice of forum. I personally agree with you that there is a case to be made that Christian writings between 50 A.D. - 100 A.D. show little if any consciousness of a high pneumatology. The Paraclete too is a great big and interesting discussion. But for another forum.

Keep in mind always that the bible is a dangerous fire. If we handle it inappropriately, we shall be burnt

ναί. πῦρ γὰρ ἦλθε βαλεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ὁ χριστός . (Luke 12:49)