Luke II.25-27

Greek Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek
1

I recently went through Thomas Lambdin’s book Introduction to Sahidic Coptic. At the end, he has some reading selections for practice, including the Gospel According to Luke. In reading Luke II.25-27, something surprising caught my eye that led me to check the Coptic with the Greek. This led to more questions, both about the Coptic and the Greek.

This being a Greek forum, I will focus on the Greek, but would appreciate also comments from anyone familiar with Coptic or Semitic idioms that might be relevant. Here is the passage, and here are my questions.

Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος ἦν ἐν Ἰερουσαλὴμ ᾧ ὄνομα Συμεών, καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος δίκαιος καὶ εὐλαβής, προσδεχόμενος παράκλησιν τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, καὶ πνεῦμα ἦν ἅγιον ἐπ’ αὐτόν: καὶ ἦν αὐτῷ κεχρηματισμένον ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον πρὶν [ἢ] ἂν ἴδῃ τὸν Χριστὸν κυρίου. καὶ ἦλθεν ἐν τῷ πνεύματι εἰς τὸ ἱερόν: καὶ ἐν τῷ εἰσαγαγεῖν τοὺς γονεῖς τὸ παιδίον Ἰησοῦν τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτοὺς κατὰ τὸ εἰθισμένον τοῦ νόμου περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐδέξατο αὐτὸ εἰς τὰς ἀγκάλας καὶ εὐλόγησεν τὸν θεὸν καὶ εἶπεν,

  1. As a preliminary matter, is there a widely recognized “killer app” or eBook of the Greek Bible that is clearly superior to others for casual general reading for someone at an intermediate level? I use the eBook The New Testament in the Original Greek: Enhanced Version with Parsing, using the “Byzantine textform.” I like it a lot, although some of the definitions include options that seem more based on traditional religious dogma, than on textual considerations.

  2. I copied the text above, not from my app, but from a random website and noticed that the punctuation is different from my eBook, including some colons whose use I don’t understand. Does that have to do with the “textform,” or something else? I presume that the oldest copies of the bible had little to no punctuation to speak of. If so, can I assume the “Byzantine textform” has the weight of a significant amount of tradition behind it?

  3. What does the following mean: καὶ πνεῦμα ἦν ἅγιον ἐπ’ αὐτόν? Is it normal to refer to “(a) holy spirit” without an article, especially mere phrases before two mentions of “The Holy Spirit” with a definite article? Both Greek and Coptic have uses of the indefinite article or omit any article in circumstances I don’t fully understand, but this usage caught my attention. The theology it suggests strikes me as troublesome. FYI, the Coptic in Lambdin uses the indefinite article to translate this.

  4. I find the prepositional construction and the use of the accusative plus infinitives of the following phrase quite strange, perhaps because I am more used to Homeric or Attic Greek: καὶ ἐν τῷ εἰσαγαγεῖν τοὺς γονεῖς τὸ παιδίον Ἰησοῦν τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτοὺς κατὰ τὸ εἰθισμένον τοῦ νόμου περὶ αὐτοῦ… Is this kind of style normal or frequent in Koine, or is it because there is a special temporal or causal meaning that requires this construction in this case? I am not any good at Greek composition, but had trouble coming up with an alternative that didn’t seem to change the meaning or suggest a different relationship between the two actions. The Coptic seems to slavishly follow the Greek syntax and style and gives me no help.

2

  1. I mostly use biblehub.com to grab different electronic texts. They have the big Greek versions mostly.

  2. Here is a discussion of Byzantine Priority: http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/ByzPrior.html

The originals had no punctuation at all, so it’s entirely editorial. Any manuscript punctuation is generally ignored, as far as I know.

  1. Even if πνεῦμα ἅγιον is a “a spirit of holiness,” or that sort of thing, then the article for it in the rest of the paragraph still makes sense. As in English, it’s just “the holy spirit that was previously mentioned.” Ie., John picked an apple. The apple was red. The apple was good., etc.

  2. It’s a very long “substantival phrase” – I think that’s the term. If it were Xenophon, I would expect him to use participles instead, but I don’t really know.

3

The article is one of most widely misunderstood aspects of Greek syntax among english speaking people. Forget the english article. It will lead you down blind alleys. Since I don’t want to reinvent the wheel I will once again recommend reading Chapter 6, R. Hoyle 2008.

Richard A. Hoyle, Scenarios, discourse and translation. SIL 2008
http://www.sil.org/silepubs/Pubs/50670/50670_Hoyle_ScenariosDiscourseTranslation.pdf

STEP bible at Tyndale House, is a good tool and getting better all the time. It has the Coptic NT. There are Syriac and Coptic scholars associated in one form or another with the Tyndale study center. For example Peter Williams (Syriac Gosples) and his pal Simon Gathercole who is a guru on Gnostic Gospels.

There is tagged Coptic NT at the Coptic Scriptorium.

http://data.copticscriptorium.org/filter/corpus=Sahidica.Nt

Bentley Layton’s 20 lessons is also available in pdf form.
https://www.scribd.com/document/293983828/Coptic-in-20-Lessons-Bentley-Layton

4

Thanks for the detailed reply.

I did not know about Bible Hub. It looks like a great resource.

Your link about Byzantine Priority was also helpful. Every time I dip into biblical text criticism I get overwhelmed with the detail, but do end up with interesting discoveries. One surprising thing the link taught me about was some of the weakness in the source texts used to create the King James version.

As for “a spirit of holiness,” you seem to be suggesting something along the following:

“Simeon had a spirit of holiness. That spirit gave him a prophesy about what he would see before his death, and he walked in that spirit into the temple.”

In such a view, none of this seems to have anything to with the Holy Spirit at all. But doesn’t that present just a whiff of, hmhh, heresy? Is this suggesting that any old spirit can give a κεχρηματισμένον?

If, on the other hand, all three references to spirit are about the Holy Spirit, than why omit the article in the first instance? Is it surreptitiously suggesting that the spirit of holiness reflected in Simeon turns out actually to be the Holy Spirit?

If, as a third possibility, the first reference is simply generic, and the last two refer to the unique Holy Spirit, then the failure to disambiguate them seems unacceptable from a discourse perspective, unless this is some kind of word play, where in English, for example, I would heavily stress the article in “the Holy Spirit” during the second occurrence.

It’s a very long “substantival phrase” – I think that’s the term. If it were Xenophon, I would expect him to use participles instead, but I don’t really know.

My Greek knowledge is extremely uneven, but this phrase just seemed unnecessarily clumsy to me. I would have thought it would be easier to process if it where something like: καὶ ἐπεί εἰσήγαγον ὁι γονεῖς τὸ παιδίον… I am rather interested in discourse issues and was struck by this long noun phrase. I only readily understood it because the Coptic equivalent, though similar in surface structure, seems much clearer by breaking each of the noun phrases and verb phrases into clearly different syntactic and discourse units. My Greek, though only averaging out to an intermediate level, is far beyond my level of Coptic. I probably just need to read more Greek.

By the way, another thing that strikes me is that the Coptic in Luke use the particle δέ ubiquitously. As you may or may not know, Coptic has a large amount of Greek loan words, including many connective words. To me this usage feels quintessentially Greek; however, even though the Coptic uses δέ, the Greek version of Luke usually does not. Instead, it uses καί in what feels like a Semitic, paratactic way.

Although καί seems to exist in combination particles in Coptic, I can’t find it standing alone. Also, Coptic has another conjunction, αuω, which seems to mean more or less the same thing as καί, and yet it seems to be used only sparingly in Luke. It almost feels like the Coptic uses δέ in a more Greek way than the Greek does, and I wonder what the cause of that might be.

To my inexpert feeling, δέ does not have any counterpart at all to the way particles are used in the Egyptian that preceded Coptic and has no reason to be in Coptic apart from the prolonged bilingualism in Greek and Coptic. The Coptic translation also seems to try to mirror the Greek style and syntax as much as possible, and so I find it quite curious that this use of connectives does not seem to correspond at all between the languages.

5

I don’t see how it could mean anything else but “there was a holy spirit upon him”. Generally speaking, aren’t all sorts of minor spirits and supernatural beings all over both the Old and the New Testament? Angels, the 300 evil spirits in the madman, which Jesus cast into the pigs etc. Wasn’t this official doctrine of Father + Son + the Holy Spirit agreed upon only later? This said, I really don’t know about the theological implications of all this, nor do I wish to get entangled in such a debate.

Out of curiosity, I checked Zerwick & Grosvenor’s Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament (a book more or less officially sanctioned by the Vatican, I believe, but useful nevertheless). It takes this to mean “divine inspiration”. Sounds like a case of special pleading perhaps, but even they agree that it can’t mean the Holy Spirit here.

The Finnish translation I checked takes it as if it had the definite article, which I think is plainly wrong. I didn’t check any other translations.

6

Lk 2:25b: καὶ Πνεῦμα ἦν Ἅγιον ἐπ’ αὐτόν:




Vambas: καὶ Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον ἦτο ἐπ’ αὐτόν.



ABS: καὶ Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον ἦτο ἐπάνω του.



TGV: και τον καθοδηγούσε το Πνεύμα το Άγιο.

7

Luke 2:25 Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος ἦν ἐν Ἰερουσαλὴμ ᾧ ὄνομα Συμεὼν καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος δίκαιος καὶ εὐλαβὴς προσδεχόμενος παράκλησιν τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, καὶ πνεῦμα ἦν ἅγιον ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν·

The absence of the article does not make the expression πνεῦμα … ἅγιον indefinite.

“the Holy Spirit …” NLT, ESV, ASV, NRSV, RSV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NAB, NJB, … ktl.

Other places where πνεῦμα … ἅγιον is without the article in Luke-Acts

Luke 1:35 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ἄγγελος εἶπεν αὐτῇ· πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σὲ καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι· διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον κληθήσεται υἱὸς θεοῦ.

Luke 11:13 εἰ οὖν ὑμεῖς πονηροὶ ὑπάρχοντες οἴδατε δόματα ἀγαθὰ διδόναι τοῖς τέκνοις ὑμῶν, πόσῳ μᾶλλον ὁ πατὴρ [ὁ] ἐξ οὐρανοῦ δώσει πνεῦμα ἅγιον τοῖς αἰτοῦσιν αὐτόν.

Acts 8:15 οἵτινες καταβάντες προσηύξαντο περὶ αὐτῶν ὅπως λάβωσιν πνεῦμα ἅγιον·

Acts 8:17 τότε ἐπετίθεσαν τὰς χεῖρας ἐπ᾿ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἐλάμβανον πνεῦμα ἅγιον.

First off, nomina sacra are always definite with or without the article. Absence of the article after the first introduction is a form salience marking, see Richard Hoyle 2008, ch6. In Luke-Acts τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα or τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον or πνεῦμα ἅγιον are always coreferential. In Luke-Acts τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον is a global perpetually accessible (cognitively present) divine participant. Always potentially a participant in the narrative. This is something similar to a global VIP in discourse (Levinsohn, Discourse Features NT) with significant difference due to the nature of the agency which is not generally represented phonologically as perceptible to human sight or hearing.

8

By the time that you get to this story, Luke has already mentioned several people being filled with holy spirit etc., and other usages that makes you think that he might be using this phrase to mean something different from what we mean by “The Holy Spirit” as an entity.

In another chapter we get to:

αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί

He surely isn’t talking about a particular fire entity.

In the Legion story that Paul referenced above, Luke uses τὰ δαιμόνια instead of the τὰ πνεύματα of Mark. Perhaps he has a different understanding of the word πνεῦμα. Luke may see it as something closer to a substance like water or fire, while Mark primarily thinks of spirit creatures.

9

Your right. My search was too narrow. There are a bunch of genitives. I see some patterns here e.g., ἐπλήσθη πνεύματος ἁγίου. Will not speculate on them at this point. S. Levinsohn and Iver Larsen have done a lot of work on Luke-Acts. The archives on b-greek would be worth looking at.

Luke 1:15 ἔσται γὰρ μέγας ἐνώπιον [τοῦ] κυρίου, καὶ οἶνον καὶ σίκερα οὐ μὴ πίῃ, καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου πλησθήσεται ἔτι ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς αὐτοῦ,

Luke 1:41 καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς ἤκουσεν τὸν ἀσπασμὸν τῆς Μαρίας ἡ Ἐλισάβετ, ἐσκίρτησεν τὸ βρέφος ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ αὐτῆς, καὶ ἐπλήσθη πνεύματος ἁγίου ἡ Ἐλισάβετ,

Luke 1:67 Καὶ Ζαχαρίας ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ἐπλήσθη πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ ἐπροφήτευσεν λέγων·

Luke 4:1 Ἰησοῦς δὲ πλήρης πνεύματος ἁγίου ὑπέστρεψεν ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰορδάνου καὶ ἤγετο ἐν τῷ πνεύματι ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ

Acts 1:2 ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας ἐντειλάμενος τοῖς ἀποστόλοις διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου οὓς ἐξελέξατο ἀνελήμφθη.

Acts 2:4 καὶ ἐπλήσθησαν πάντες πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ ἤρξαντο λαλεῖν ἑτέραις γλώσσαις καθὼς τὸ πνεῦμα ἐδίδου ἀποφθέγγεσθαι αὐτοῖς.

Acts 4:8 Τότε Πέτρος πλησθεὶς πνεύματος ἁγίου εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς· ἄρχοντες τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ πρεσβύτεροι,

Acts 4:25 ὁ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου στόματος Δαυὶδ παιδός σου εἰπών· ἱνατί ἐφρύαξαν ἔθνη καὶ λαοὶ ἐμελέτησαν κενά;

Acts 6:5 καὶ ἤρεσεν ὁ λόγος ἐνώπιον παντὸς τοῦ πλήθους καὶ ἐξελέξαντο Στέφανον, ἄνδρα πλήρης πίστεως καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου, καὶ Φίλιππον καὶ Πρόχορον καὶ Νικάνορα καὶ Τίμωνα καὶ Παρμενᾶν καὶ Νικόλαον προσήλυτον Ἀντιοχέα,

Acts 7:55 ὑπάρχων δὲ πλήρης πνεύματος ἁγίου ἀτενίσας εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἶδεν δόξαν θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦν ἑστῶτα ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ

Acts 9:17 Ἀπῆλθεν δὲ Ἁνανίας καὶ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν καὶ ἐπιθεὶς ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν τὰς χεῖρας εἶπεν· Σαοὺλ ἀδελφέ, ὁ κύριος ἀπέσταλκέν με, Ἰησοῦς ὁ ὀφθείς σοι ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ ᾗ ἤρχου, ὅπως ἀναβλέψῃς καὶ πλησθῇς πνεύματος ἁγίου.

Acts 11:24 ὅτι ἦν ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς καὶ πλήρης πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ πίστεως. καὶ προσετέθη ὄχλος ἱκανὸς τῷ κυρίῳ.

Acts 13:9 Σαῦλος δέ, ὁ καὶ Παῦλος, πλησθεὶς πνεύματος ἁγίου ἀτενίσας εἰς αὐτὸν

Acts 13:52 οἵ τε μαθηταὶ ἐπληροῦντο χαρᾶς καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου.

Luke 1:41 καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς ἤκουσεν τὸν ἀσπασμὸν τῆς Μαρίας ἡ Ἐλισάβετ, ἐσκίρτησεν τὸ βρέφος ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ αὐτῆς, καὶ ἐπλήσθη πνεύματος ἁγίου ἡ Ἐλισάβετ,

Luke 1:67 Καὶ Ζαχαρίας ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ἐπλήσθη πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ ἐπροφήτευσεν λέγων·

10

Just a few observations:

  1. As to Greek text, I always use the Nestle Aland 28 (which is the identical text to the UBS 5). It’s the critical edition, and is freely accessible online:

http://www.nestle-aland.com/en/read-na28-online/

  1. More to the content, I agree with Stirling that the use of the definite article in Greek is perhaps the most abused point in biblical interpretation, and the several references he supplied are must reading on the subject for anyone who is really interested. Generally:

A) In proper names and titles, the article may be omitted, since the noun is considered definite without it.

Smyth: 1126. The article is often omitted… (2) when a word is sufficiently definite by itself…


B) It is not at all unusual of Greek in any period to omit the article when the noun is the object of a preposition. That certainly does not mean that the noun is not definite.

Smyth: 1128. The article is very often omitted in phrases containing a preposition ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ λόγου in the beginning of the speech D. 37. 23, ἔξω βελῶν out of reach of the missiles X. A. 3. 4. 15, Ἠιόνα τὴν ἐπὶ Στρῡμόνι Eion on the Strymon T. 1.98.

Regardless of one’s theology, it should be clear to anyone who actually reads Luke that the writer considers ἅγιον πνεῦμα to be a definite concept. That’s more than just a single point. Different authors express themselves differently with regard to the use of the article. My favorite example is that in the NT ὁ θεός nearly always refers to the one true God. In Ignatius’ epistles, he frequently omits the article to mean exactly the same thing. One has to take into account the individual author’s style and idiolect. In Attic authors we see this most often in the use of particles… Homer uses the article quite differently from Attic authors, but no one seems much bothered by this.

In terms of Luke’s style, one thing we see in mid-register Koine with writers who are not attempting to Atticize is a much more frequent use of articular infinitives where we might expect participles or various types of relative clauses in Attic authors. Luke, however, seems especially fond of them.

Oh, and thanks for the references to Coptic resources online. I started a self study on Sahidic Coptic a while ago, and got all the way through chapter 4 of Lambdin. This encourages me to get back to it… :slight_smile:

11

I think this is misguided. I venture to say the assertion that “The absence of the article does not make the expression πνεῦμα … ἅγιον indefinite” (Stirling, adducing NT translations) is groundless.
I’ve looked up occurrences in the TLG, and it’s clear there’s a semantic difference between presence and absence of the article. There’s no justification for taking πνευμα αγιον without article to mean “the Holy Spirit” rather than simply “holy spirit” (or “holy breath”) or “a holy spirit.” Among Stirling’s quotes is Acts 2:4 καὶ ἐπλήσθησαν πάντες πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ ἤρξαντο λαλεῖν ἑτέραις γλώσσαις καθὼς τὸ πνεῦμα ἐδίδου ἀποφθέγγεσθαι αὐτοῖς, where only the second has the article. “They were filled with holy spirit and spoke as the spirit gave them utterance.” As in e.g. They were filled with joy (Acts 13.52, also in Stirling’s list) and the joy showed on their faces. It’s perfectly normal usage, in Greek as in English. Cf. e.g. Lk.2.25, πνευμα ην αγιον επ’αυτον, followed by … υπο του πνευματος του αγιου.

το πνευμα το αγιον is envisioned as an entity in its own right: so Mark (3.29, 13.11), Jn.14.26 (identified with the paraclete), Lk.3.22 (in bodily form as a pigeon) and several times in Acts (e.g. 5.3, lied to). Also Eph.4.30 (το πν. το αγ. του θεου) and in Hebrews.
Similarly το αγιον πνευμα, Lk.12.10 (blasphemed against) & 12.
This may reasonably be translated “the holy spirit” or even “the Holy Spirit.”

πνευμα αγιον without article, on the other hand, is used differently, and always, I would say, indefinitely, and not as a nomen sacrum. Mk.1. baptism εν πνευματι αγιῳ instead of water. The article would be out of place here. Frequent in Luke-Acts, also occurring in John (20.22, Jesus blew/breathed on them and said λαβετε πν.αγ., cf. Acts 8.15-19; the breath that he breathes on them is holy). It’s sometimes contrasted with πνευμα ακαθαρτον, an impure as opposed to holy πνευμα, and it’s variously conjoined with fire (Lk.3.16, of baptism), power (δυναμις, Acts 10.38), joy, faith (πιστις). It’s just a particular characterization of a certain kind of πνευμα—not ακαθαρτον but αγιον (an interesting word, btw).
It’s anachronistic as well as false to the Greek to take it as meaning “the Holy Spirit.”

This holds good for Luke as for all other NT writers. Of course the various gospel writers’ styles are far from identical (and Luke’s own is far from uniform), and it may well be that Luke’s conception of πνευμα was not identical with other gospel writers’ (δαιμονιον also comes into play, as Joel points out), but his use of the article is in conformity with ordinary Greek usage.

Note. These data largely exclude genitive and dative, so obviously need refining, but I think they’re adequate for the purpose. The expected distinction between article and no-article will be consistent across the board.

12

In the manuscripts (at least codices Bezae and Sinaiticus) πνεῦμα is treated as a nomen sacrum.

Contextus rex, right? That the first usage of πνεῦμα ἅγιον in Luke 2:25 is still understood personally, as an entity, seems to me pretty clear from the context.

25 Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος ἦν ἐν Ἰερουσαλὴμ ᾧ ὄνομα Συμεὼν καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος δίκαιος καὶ εὐλαβὴς προσδεχόμενος παράκλησιν τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, καὶ πνεῦμα ἦν ἅγιον ἐπʼ αὐτόν 26 καὶ ἦν αὐτῷ κεχρηματισμένον ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον πρὶν [ἢ] ἂν ἴδῃ τὸν χριστὸν κυρίου.

Leaving aside for the moment the use of the article, I don’t think any reader/hearer would see the πνεῦμα ἅγιον of vs. 25 and 26 as different. In verse 26, the information is given to Simeon ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου, using ὑπό to express agency, used normally of personal agents. That then invites the question as to why the usage in 25 is anarthrous. To use the meta-language that Stirling and other discourse analysis gurus like to use, I think it should be understood in terms saliency, and particularly as discourse-new, being introduced as a major player in the context of this particular discourse unit, even though with regard to the overall discourse τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα is certainly hearer-old. In terms of traditional syntactic categories, authors are observed as using the article optionally with proper names and titles. I think discourse analysis helps to show why they do so.

13

I’m sorry Barry, this doesn’t get off the ground. That later manuscripts treat πνευμα αγιον as a nomen sacrum is entirely beside the point (Luke didn’t treat it as such), and your comment on Lk.2.25 adds nothing.

14

Dismissal and denial, always excellent tactics in discussion and debate. Since you don’t want to engage the arguments, that’s fine. With regard to the nomina sacra, how sure are you, since we don’t have the autographa? I will point out that it provides valuable evidence for how the text was read in ancient times, and that’s nothing to dismiss lightly.

15

I would think that it’s unlikely that Luke originally wrote nomina sacra, but he was a compiler, as he says, and perhaps he was late enough. Regardless, Sinaiticus uses the same nomen sacrum in Luke 1:17, so this argument goes nowhere.

The central claim in this paragraph can be more succinctly stated: ὑπό expresses agency in this block, therefore we know that this is “The Holy Spirit.”

Maybe we can discuss that – I think that it’s a tenuous claim – but it’s problematic that you’ve ignored the bulk of the argument here, and the much more interesting claim from mwh, that “there’s a semantic difference between presence and absence of the article” across a variety of instances, which he cites. If anybody is going to be convinced, I think, then this argument would need to be engaged with in detail rather than passed by.

EDIT:

Mark: ὡς περιστερὰν καταβαῖνον
Matthew: καταβαῖνον ὡσεὶ περιστερὰν
Luke: σωματικῷ εἴδει ὡς περιστερὰν

As has been pointed out by others, Mark and Luke are saying different things here. As if there has some progression in thought about what “the spirit” is between the times of the two writers.

16

It does not contribute anything to the idea of the personhood of the Spirit (and the precise meaning of the NS is a matter of longstanding debate), but πνεύματι in 1:17 is anarthrous but clearly definite.



The central claim in this paragraph can be more succinctly stated: ὑπό expresses agency in this block, therefore we know that this is “The Holy Spirit.”

I stated that directly in the part that you didn’t quote. It’s also important to see the unlikelihood of seeing the two as different.

Maybe we can discuss that – I think that it’s a tenuous claim – but it’s problematic that you’ve ignored the bulk of the argument here, and the much more interesting claim from mwh, that “there’s a semantic difference between presence and absence of the article” across a variety of instances, which he cites. If anybody is going to be convinced, I think, then this argument would need to be engaged with in detail rather than passed by.

MWH made an assertion that is certainly very interesting, but it needs to be proven. I chose to focus on one datum to see if it in fact coheres with MWH’s claim, and it simply doesn’t.

17

Barry, I regret my first post. It was silly to hope it might prompt a rethink of fables convenues, and I should have anticipated what sort of response it would get. I regret my second too, which could reasonably be taken as insulting. Just forget it. I’m out.
Michael

EDIT. No, in fairness to jeidsath and Paul, and indeed to you, I should not let it go at that.

jeidsath gave a perfectly good explanation of the shift from anarthrous to arthrous in Lk.2.25f. in his first post, an explanation that requires no special pleading. I adduced another instance (Acts 2.4) in mine. No-one is suggesting the πνευμα αγιον of 25 is “different” from that of 26, except in regard to the article, and/or in terms of discourse analysis. Perhaps you misunderstood.

υπο in 26 need not imply personal agency. Consider e.g. Lk.7.24 (υπο ανεμου) or 8.14 (υπο μεριμνων etc.).

So much for the points you made in your initial response, which you somehow seemed to think compromised my admittedly unpolished analysis. But over and above that, can’t you see that everything you say is pervaded by petitio principii? πνευμα or πνευμα αγιον is “clearly definite,” it’s a “proper name or title,” etc. You say you chose to focus on one datum and that it doesn’t cohere with my claim. I’m not sure what datum you mean, but I contest the allegation. You fail to confront the data in any meaningful way.

More could be said, but I won’t say it.

18

Dont’ worry about it. It’s part of human nature to get snarky at times.

EDIT. No, in fairness to jeidsath and Paul, and indeed to you, I should not let it go at that.

jeidsath gave a perfectly good explanation of the shift from anarthrous to arthrous in Lk.2.25f. in his first post. I adduced another instance (Acts 2.4) in mine. No-one is suggesting the πνευμα αγιον of 25 is “different” from that of 26, except in regard to the article, and/or in terms of discourse analysis.

υπο in 26 need not imply personal agency. Consider e.g. Lk.7.24 (υπο ανεμου) or 8.14 (υπο μεριμνων etc.).

See, I knew you could interact with the actual arguments. Excellent point about the use of ὑπό. It is indeed used occasionally of non-personal agency, and thanks for helping me rethink that. However, what do you think of this? Looking at both Luke 2:25-27 and Acts 2:4:

Luke 2:25 Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος ἦν ἐν Ἰερουσαλὴμ ᾧ ὄνομα Συμεὼν καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος δίκαιος καὶ εὐλαβὴς προσδεχόμενος παράκλησιν τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, καὶ πνεῦμα ἦν ἅγιον ἐπʼ αὐτόν 26 καὶ ἦν αὐτῷ κεχρηματισμένον ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον πρὶν [ἢ] ἂν ἴδῃ τὸν χριστὸν κυρίου


2:4 καὶ ἐπλήσθησαν πάντες πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ ἤρξαντο λαλεῖν ἑτέραις γλώσσαις καθὼς τὸ πνεῦμα ἐδίδου ἀποφθέγγεσθαι αὐτοῖς.

What strikes me on reflection is the verbs used in the second clauses, χρηματίζω and δίδωμι. These both strike me as actions which are normally taken by personal subjects. The effective subject in verse 26 is τὸ πνεῦμα. If we turn the passive construction to an active, we would get καὶ αὐτῷ κεχρημάτικε τὸ πνεῦμα. This suggest to me that yes, indeed, Luke views the Spirit as a personal entity. Although the original argument did specify not so much personality as that the anarthrous usage could still be definite.

One theory to explain some of the anarthrous usages is that Luke at times emphasizes the Spirit in terms of power, the active force of God, and at other times emphasizes the personal nature of the Spirit. Not sure I buy it – I would rather look to local context and syntax to explain it.

So much for the points you made in your initial rejoinder, which you seemed to think refuted me. But can’t you see that everything you say is pervaded by > petitio principii> ? E.g. πνευμα or πνευμα αγιον are “clearly definite,” it’s a “proper name or title,” etc. You say one datum you chose to focus on “simply doesn’t” cohere with my claim. I’m not sure what datum you mean, but I contest your conclusion. You fail to engage with the data in any meaningful way.

How is this different from the dogmatic statements made to the contrary? You made a huge unproven assertion regarding the use of the article, which you presented as fact. But I hardly think that having a firm idea of what the text is saying counts as a petitio principi.

More could be said, but I won’t say it.

As long as it sticks to talking about the Greek, don’t hold back. You are the sort of person from whom much can be learned even when you are dead wrong.

19

Well, let us look at the data. I have made my own list, which is hopefully complete for Luke. (See the bottom of this post.) For usages of πνεῦμα related to the holy spirit (ie., “spirit of the Lord”), I’ve made a tabulation of the context, whether it is personified or non-personified.

Now, all of the usages may be “personified” or “non-personified” once we interpret them correctly, but for this exercise, I’ve tried to ask myself the question “would the same verbs and context be most naturally be used of a substance, a feeling, or a person?”

When there is a complicated secondary effect (prophecy, etc.), I’ve tried to go by the idea of the primary clause. By this standard, I follow Barry by marking 2:26 as clearly “P” on the strength of κεχρηματισμένον. On the other hand 1:41 and 1:167 are “NP” due to ἐπλήσθη.

Verses in a section where the introductory usage contains the article:
(3:21, 10:21, 12:10, 12:12)
3 Personified, 1 Unknown

Verses in a section were the introductory usage does not contain the article:
(1:15, 1:35, 1:41, 1:67, 2:25, 2:26, 2:27, 3:16, 4:1, 4:18, 11:13)
10 Non-personified, 1 Personified

As I see it, this buttresses mwh’s claim that there is a semantic difference in the usage. I’m going to step in before anyone else does and name it “MWH’s pneumatic law” for future generations.

NP Luke 1:15 πνεύματος ἁγίου πλησθήσεται
Luke 1:17 προελεύσεται ἐν πνεύματι καὶ δυνάμει Ἠλίου
NP Luke 1:35 πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ (parallel δύναμις ὑψίστου)
NP Luke 1:41 ἐπλήσθη πνεύματος ἁγίου ἡ ἐλισάβετ (causes her to speak)
Luke 1:46 ἠγαλλίασεν τὸ πνεῦμά μου
NP Luke 1:67 ἐπλήσθη πνεύματος ἁγίου (and prophesies)
Luke 1:80 τὸ δὲ παιδίον ηὔξανε καὶ ἐκραταιοῦτο πνεύματι
NP Luke 2:25 πνεῦμα ἦν ἅγιον ἐπ’ ἀυτόν
P Luke 2:26 ἦν αὐτῷ κεχρηματισμένον ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου (specific message)
NP Luke 2:27 ἦλθεν ἐν τῷ πνεύματι
NP Luke 3:16 ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί
P Luke 3:21 καταβῆναι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον σωματικῷ εἴδει ὡς περιστερὰν ἐπ’ αὐτόν
NP Luke 4:1 πλήρης πνεύματος ἁγίου…ἤγετο ἐν τῷ πνεύματι
Luke 4:14 ὑπέστρεψεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ πνεύματος
NP Luke 4:18 πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ’ ἐμέ
Luke 4:33 ἔχων πνεῦμα δαιμονίου ἀκαθάρτου
Luke 4:36 ἐπιτάσσει τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις πνεύμασιν καὶ ἐξέρχονται
Luke 6:18 ἐνοχλούμενοι ἀπὸ πνευμάτων ἀκαθάρτων
Luke 7:21 ἐθεράπευσεν πολλοὺς ἀπὸ νόσων καὶ μαστίγων καὶ πνευμάτων πνηρῶν
Luke 8:2 τεθεραπευμάναι ἀπὸ πνευμάτων πονηρῶν καὶ ἀσθενειῶν
Luke 8:29 παρήγγελλεν γὰρ τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἀκαθάρτῳ (to come out)
Luke 8:55 ἐπέστρεψεν τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτῆς
Luke 9:39 πνεῦμα λαμβάνει αὐτόν
Luke 9:42 ἐπετίμησεν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἀκαθάρτῳ
Luke 10:20 τὰ πνεύματα ὑμῖν ὑποτάσσεται
P Luke 10:21 ἠγαλλιάσατο τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ
NP Luke 11:13 ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ δώσει πνεῦμα ἅγιον τοῖς αἰτοῦσιν αὐτόν
Luke 11:24 τὸ ἀκάθαρτον πνεῦμα ἐξέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
Luke 11: 26 πορεύεται καὶ παραλαμβάνει ἕτερα πνεύματα πονηρότερα ἑαυτοῦ ἑπτά, καὶ εἰσελθόντα κατοικεῖ ἐκεῖ
UNK Luke 12:10 τῷ δὲ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα βλασφημήσαντι οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται
P Luke 12:12 τὸ γὰρ ἅγιον πνεῦμα διδάξει ὑμᾶς ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ ἃ δεῖ εἰπεῖν
Luke 13:10 γυνὴ πνεῦμα ἔχουσα (making her sick)
Luke 23:46 Πάτερ, εἰς χεῖράς σου παρατίθεμαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου. τοῦτο δὲ εἰπὼν ἐξέπνευσεν.
Luke 24:37 ἐδόκουν πνεῦμα θεωρεῖν
Luke 24:39 πνεῦμα σάρκα καὶ ὀστέα οὐκ ἔχει

20

Jesdaith, I love it. That’s a lot of work, and I look forward to interacting further. For MWH’s pneumatic law" why not just MWHPL for short? :laughing: