Hi Jeidseth,
It is rather unwise to declare / dictate that a thread about whether or not the personality of holy spirit can be shown through ad sensum construction has nothing to do with Greek grammar.
I object to you or anyone calling you unwise, Isaac! Frankly I don’t know where these posts of yours come from.
Meanwhile, let’s get this discussion back to the grammar. Can you comment on Plato’s Laches 180e? The part about τὰ μειράκια πρὸς ἀλλήλους διαλεγόμενοι?
This is a good example of constructio ad sensum τὰ μειράκια πρὸς ἀλλήλους διαλεγόμενοι (the lads discussing with one another ) and relevant to this thread. Notice τὰ μειράκια is neuter plural but the participle is masculine plural διαλεγόμενοι, because persons are in view. Also ἀλλήλους instead of ἄλληλᾰ.
See the footnote 73 in the chapter on the dative of agent, in my book, it is on the page 189. There Wallace speaks about Gal. 5:16, πνεύματι περιπατεῖτε; he says it is not an example of the dative of agent, so the fact htat the Holy Spirit is a person wasn’t completely realized in the apostolic period. In the footnote, he claims that all the New Testament cases of using the phrase ὑπὸ πνεύματος, which evidently expresses the personality of the spirit, are al in later books (Mt. 4:1; Lk. 2:26; Ac. 13:4; 16:6; 2Pt. 1:21).
Hi Vladimir,
Thanks for the citations.
These are to be found in pages 165 and 166 in the English version of the book. The point regarding the grammatical basis for holy spirit’s supposed personality on account of ὑπὸ + genitive doesn’t seem to me to be Wallace’s personal conviction, but he seems to be speaking on behalf of those who argue for this perspective when he makes the footnote assertion in 74, hence his use of a caveat like “apparently”. – “It is interesting that all of the NT examples of ὑπὸ + πνεύματος, indicating as they apparently do the personality of the Spirit, occur in later books (cf. Matt. 4:1; Luke 2:26;Acts 13:4;16:6;2 Peter 1:21).”
More importantly he does not repeat this in his “Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit” where he unconditionally concedes that there is no evidence for holy spirit’s personality through the route of Greek grammar.
FWIW, I agree with you that this is a weak (even foolish) argument. In Greek, ὑπὸ + genitive does not invariably spell “ultimate personal agency” for there is no such magic “rule” ; else we would be in the unenviable position of having to defend the notion that θάνατος in Acts 2:24 is a “person,” for instance. These sorts of “arguments” (which amount to an abuse of Greek grammar) are born out of sheer desperation, if anything IMHO.
Mark 9:24-25 affords us another good example:
εὐθὺς κράξας ὁ πατὴρ > τοῦ παιδίου > ἔλεγεν Πιστεύω· βοήθει μου τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ.ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι ἐπισυντρέχει ὄχλος, ἐπετίμησεν τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἀκαθάρτῳ λέγων αὐτῷ Τὸ ἄλαλον καὶ κωφὸν πνεῦμα, ἐγὼ ἐπιτάσσω σοι, ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ μηκέτι εἰσέλθῃς εἰς > αὐτόν> .
Notice instead of αὐτό we have αὐτόν.
And in the very next verse, in 9:26 we have ad sensum construction with reference to the evil spirit;
…ἐπετίμησεν > τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἀκαθάρτῳ > λέγων αὐτῷ Τὸ ἄλαλον καὶ κωφὸν > πνεῦμα> , ἐγὼ ἐπιτάσσω σοι, ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ μηκέτι εἰσέλθῃς εἰς αὐτόν. 26 καὶ > κράξας > καὶ πολλὰ > σπαράξας > > ἐξῆλθεν> · καὶ ἐγένετο ὡσεὶ > νεκρὸς> , ὥστε τοὺς πολλοὺς λέγειν ὅτι ἀπέθανεν.
Notice the masculine form of the participle κράξας instead of the neuter κράξαν is used, and also the masculine σπαράξας instead of the neuter σπαράξαν because the author viewed this evil spirit as a personality.
And finally, we see the masculine νεκρὸς instead of the neuter νεκρὸν because the child is a personality, an individual, a “person.”.
I think that the next step that you’ll have to take to make a convincing argument on this Isaac, is to demonstrate how the grammar of Christians changed over the next few hundred years as a higher pneumatology developed. How did people refer to τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον in the 2nd-3rd centuries? Had it changed, or was it the same?
Also, you’re getting most of your current information from here, correct?
Yes.
Good point.
It would be a fine idea to inspect the writings of the so-called “church fathers” (both the “early” and post Nicene ) to see if there was either a conscious or subconscious move by them to refer to τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον with masculine pronouns and modifiers. On the other hand there might have been a conscious effort by them to not do so, in order to keep consistent with the NT which doesn’t do so. But these issues must be carefully investigated..
In this regard, I observed yesterday the following peculiarity concerning Mark 9:24-26 and the TR. Here the participles κράξας and σπαράξας have actually been tampered with and given neuter endings. Was this done to veil the fact that holy spirit was not similarly referred to with masculine participles in the NT, or to keep grammatical consistency with the gender of the evil spirit ?
I think Wallace was wrong to ignore the examples of constructio ad sensum from the book of Revelation in his article (“Greek Grammar and the Personaity of the Holy Spirit.”) . Following is a very pertinent one to the present discussion. I found it while reading through chapter 13 of this delightful book of prophesy:
καὶ τὴν ἐξουσίαν τοῦ πρώτου θηρίου πᾶσαν ποιεῖ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ. καὶ ποιεῖ τὴν γῆν καὶ τοὺς ἐν αὐτῇ κατοικοῦντας ἵνα προσκυνήσουσιν > τὸ θηρίον > > τὸ πρῶτον> , > οὗ > ἐθεραπεύθη ἡ πληγὴ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ.
Rev. 13:12
Notice τὸ θηρίον (or the Beast) has neuter grammatical gender, yet the relative pronoun οὗ referring to it is masculine because it is a personality, an individual, even if not “human” by any objective criteria.
And what would τὸ πρῶτον and οὗ have been if they were neuter?
We know he’s intending the genitive relative pronoun as masculine even though οὗ can be either (masculine or neuter) because of what comes two verses down the road within the same context:
καὶ πλανᾷ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς διὰ τὰ σημεῖα ἃ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ποιῆσαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θηρίου, λέγων τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ποιῆσαι εἰκόνα > τῷ θηρίῳ> , > ὃς > ἔχει τὴν πληγὴν τῆς μαχαίρης καὶ ἔζησεν.
Rev. 13:14
τῷ θηρίῳ is neuter, yet the nominative relative pronoun ὃς is masculine. We expect ὅ here.
And “τὸ θηρίον ὃ εἶδον” a few verses up?
Which verse exactly. And what about it ?
Look carefully, Ike! I have every confidence in you.
Could you -
(a) List the verse which is apparently only “a few verses up” , (b) explain exactly what you’re trying to argue with it ?
I hate to say this, but you seem to be trolling
Ah, but in Greek, the Trolls were:
οἱ μὲν δαίμονες ἁγνοὶ ἐπιχθόνιοι τελέθουσιν,
ἐσθλοί, ἀλεξίκακοι, φύλακες μερόπων ἀνθρώπων;
I saw another instance of ad sensum construction at Rev. 13:14. Does anyone else perceive it ?
καὶ πλανᾷ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς διὰ τὰ σημεῖα ἃ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ποιῆσαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θηρίου, > λέγων > τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ποιῆσαι εἰκόνα τῷ θηρίῳ, ὃς ἔχει τὴν πληγὴν τῆς μαχαίρης καὶ ἔζησεν.
Notice the masculine form of the participle (λέγων) associated with the second beast (ἄλλο θηρίον ). We expect λέγον here don’t we ? Now notice Acts 20:23 where the same is not done with reference to the holy spirit:
πλὴν ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον κατὰ πόλιν διαμαρτύρεταί μοι > λέγον > ὅτι δεσμὰ καὶ θλίψεις με μένουσιν·
Acts 20:23
I was reading through the holy scriptures just now, and I found instances of constructio ad sensum associated with a spirit [evil] (spirits actually) which Wallace had overlooked in his “Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit”:
ἔλεγεν γὰρ αὐτῷ Ἔξελθε τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἀκάθαρτον ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.καὶ ἐπηρώτα αὐτόν Τί ὄνομά σοι; καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ Λεγιὼν ὄνομά μοι, ὅτι > πολλοί > ἐσμεν.καὶ παρεκάλει αὐτὸν πολλὰ ἵνα μὴ αὐτὰ ἀποστείλῃ ἔξω τῆς χώρας.ἦν δὲ ἐκεῖ πρὸς τῷ ὄρει ἀγέλη χοίρων μεγάλη βοσκομένη·καὶ παρεκάλεσαν αὐτὸν > λέγοντες > Πέμψον ἡμᾶς εἰς τοὺς χοίρους, ἵνα εἰς αὐτοὺς εἰσέλθωμεν.
Mark 5:8 -12
We expect πολλά and λέγοντα respectively don’t we ? Incidentally at Luke 4:41 we do have λέγοντα instead of λέγοντες:
ἐξήρχετο δὲ καὶ δαιμόνια ἀπὸ πολλῶν, κραυγάζοντα καὶ > λέγοντα > ὅτι Σὺ εἶ ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ. καὶ ἐπιτιμῶν οὐκ εἴα αὐτὰ λαλεῖν, ὅτι ᾔδεισαν τὸν Χριστὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι.
–
So we see that in the GNT evil spirits are sometimes referred to with masculine participles, adjectives and pronouns, because these are spirit beings. Yet this is never done with reference to holy spirit .IMHO this serves as insurmountable evidence that the NT did not consider holy spirit to be a “person” but rather the “force” or “power” of a living Being instead, namely that of the Father. We get a powerful inkling of this in the following Hebraic parallelism :
καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ἄγγελος εἶπεν αὐτῇ > Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον > ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ, > καὶ > > δύναμις Ὑψίστου > ἐπισκιάσει σοι· διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον κληθήσεται Υἱὸς Θεοῦ.
Luke 1:35