Proof that the Holy Spirit is personal

[Paidion]

[MT] Joh 14:17 τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὃ ὁ κόσμος οὐ δύναται λαβεῖν, ὅτι οὐ θεωρεῖ αὐτὸ οὐδὲ γινώσκει αὐτὸ· ὑμεῖς γινώσκετε αὐτό, ὅτι παρ᾿ ὑμῖν μένει καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν ἔσται.

Notice ὃ ὁ κόσμος οὐ δύναται λαβεῖν, ὅτι οὐ θεωρεῖ αὐτὸ οὐδὲ γινώσκει αὐτὸ. Now if a masculine pronoun was inserted here, then I would agree with you.

It's very interesting that you should bring up this particular verse. I just did some interesting research on it this very day!

Here is the way John 14:17, appears in Papyrus 66 (although this is not the original upper case characters of course). This manuscript was produced about 150 A.D.

το πνα της αληθειας ο ο κοσμος ου δυναται λαβειν οτι ου θεωρει αυτον ουδε γεινωσκεται υμεις γεινωσκεται αυτον οτι παρ υμειν και ενυμιν εσται


The “πνα” should be overlined rather than underlined (I don’t know how to overline). This was an abbreviation for “πνευμα”. The verse tells us that the world system (ο κοσμος) is not able to receive or perceive him (“αυτον” is a masculine pronoun), or understand. You understand him (“αυτον” again) because he remains beside you and will be in you.

However, somebody, made some changes in the manuscript, probably somebody in the 4th or 5th century.

το πνα της αληθειας ο ο κοσμος ου δυναται λαβειν οτι ου θεωρει αυτο[1] ουδε γεινωσκεται αυτο[2] υμεις γεινωσκεται αυτο[3] οτι παρ υμειν και ενυμιν εσται

[1],[3] “αυτον” was changed to “αυτο” by deleting “ν” with a dot above and a slash through the letter.
[2] “αυτο” was added super linearly.

By changing “αυτον”(masculine) to “αυτο” (neuter), the tamperer may have thought he was simply correcting the grammar, by making the pronoun agree in gender with the neuter noun “πνευμα”, Or he may have had a theological reason for doing so --- namely, to avoid giving personality to the Holy Spirit.

The copyist who originally wrote Papyrus 66 may have simply been sloppy in copying. He may have written the masculine “αυτον” by mistake, or John the apostle himself may have actually written “αυτον” in order to indicate that the Holy Spirit was personal, and not a mere force.

[dean198]

Here is the way John 14:17, appears in Papyrus 66 (although this is not the original upper case characters of course). This manuscript was produced about 150 A.D.

το πνα της αληθειας ο ο κοσμος ου δυναται λαβειν οτι ου θεωρει αυτον ουδε γεινωσκεται υμεις γεινωσκεται αυτον οτι παρ υμειν και ενυμιν εσται

... The verse tells us that the world system (ο κοσμος) is not able to receive or perceive him (“αυτον” is a masculine pronoun), or understand. You understand him (“αυτον” again) because he remains beside you and will be in you.

Yes, but what is very interesting, is that the relative pronoun is neuter "ο πνα της αληθειας ο ο κοσμος ου δυναται λαβειν" - that doesn't inspire confidence in me that the reading αυτον is original - if it was, it would mean John couldn't make up his mind whether to use natural or grammatical gender. Wallace suggests that the reading could be original, but that the masc. refers back to v. 16. He notes that the scribe of p66 is very sloppy, and refers to an article by Colwell in support (which I haven't read).

If there was an early MS which read:

το πνα της αληθειας ον ο κοσμος ου δυναται λαβειν οτι ου θεωρει αυτον ουδε γεινωσκεται υμεις γεινωσκεται αυτον οτι παρ υμειν και ενυμιν εσται

Then I would concede that you had a point - but an early manuscript that mixes both masc. and neut. pronouns I don't think can prove that the original writer deliberately used natural gender - because if he did, he would have been consistent with it.

[Homer]

So what's up with posting in Greek? Are you folks trying to impress us non-Greek readers, have a private conversation on a public forum, or what? If the latter, you can PM each other and save the rest of us the bother.

[dean198]

So what's up with posting in Greek? Are you folks trying to impress us non-Greek readers, have a private conversation on a public forum, or what? If the latter, you can PM each other and save the rest of us the bother.

I'm not quite sure how I could make it more accessible than I have ... but I'm open to suggestions. How does one talk about the personality of the Spirit without talking about grammatical vs natural gender in the Greek language?

[SteveF]

το πνα της αληθειας ον ο κοσμος ου δυναται λαβειν οτι ου θεωρει αυτον ουδε γεινωσκεται υμεις γεινωσκεται αυτον οτι παρ υμειν και ενυμιν εσται

It's all Greek to me!

[Homer]

Hi Dean,

You wrote:

I'm not quite sure how I could make it more accessible than I have ... but I'm open to suggestions.

Perhaps it will take too much of your time, but using anglicized Greek would be a big help. Then those interested in the discussion can look the words up.

And:

How does one talk about the personality of the Spirit without talking about grammatical vs natural gender in the Greek language?

No problem for me. I just do not read Greek.

Thanks for your consideration.

God bless, Homer

[Paidion]

Thanks, Dean. I now concede that there is no iron clad case for inferring the personality of the Spirit from the gender of the pronouns for the reasons you gave. It doesn't seem reasonable that John would have been inconsistent. Or, as Wallace pointed out, if he did write the masculine "αυτος" instead of "αυτο" as per Papyrus 66, then he may have been referring back to the masculine "παρακλητος" of the previous verse. Thank you for making these points clear.

[Paidion]

So what's up with posting in Greek? Are you folks trying to impress us non-Greek readers, have a private conversation on a public forum, or what? If the latter, you can PM each other and save the rest of us the bother.

The only way to respond to this assessment of our motives is as follows:

toutou carin kamptw ta gonata mou prov ton patera ex ou pasa patria en ouranoiv kai epi ghv onomazetai ina dw umin kata to ploutov thv doxhv autou dunamei krataiwyhnai dia tou pneumatov autou eiv ton esw anyrwpon katoikhsai ton criston dia thv pistewv en taiv kardiaiv umwn en agaph errizwmenoi kai teyemeliwmenoi ina exiscushte katalabesyai sun pasin toiv agioiv ti to platov kai mhkov kai uqov kai bayov gnwnai te thn uperballousan thv gnwsewv agaphn tou cristou ina plhrwyhte eiv pan to plhrwma tou yeou


I hope the English characters make my message clear!

[Paidion]

Dean, I still have a bit of reservation concerning my concession. I still have found no masculine referent for the masculine pronoun "ους" in Galatians 4:19. Could this be a case where its antecedent is the neuter noun "τεκνια", and agrees in gender not grammatically but rather "naturally" in that the "τεκνια" are persons?

[dean198]

Dean, I still have a bit of reservation concerning my concession. I still have found no masculine referent for the masculine pronoun "ους" in Galatians 4:19. Could this be a case where its antecedent is the neuter noun "τεκνια", and agrees in gender not grammatically but rather "naturally" in that the "τεκνια" are persons?

I think this is an unrelated phenomenon, where he calls the Galatians his children, but then reverts back to the pronoun he has been using for them - in the masculine gender (which is what they were).

I can't see how this would help you, because we would be back to the fact that the masculine is not used with the Holy Spirit in John, other than in a few passages where there is an argument for grammatical gender - but it would be consistent, if John wanted to show natural gender instead, consistently use the natural gender, rather than using it only sometimes. Remember the neuter relative pronoun used of the Spirit in John 14:17? Here in Galatians we have Paul using a pronoun with their natural gender.