Timeline for Can anyone provide any sources where earlier English Theologians distinguished between Holy Ghost and holy Spirit?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 25, 2020 at 19:50 | history | edited | Nigel J | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Aug 25, 2020 at 18:57 | comment | added | KorvinStarmast | I enjoy this answer, glad to be of help. | |
| Aug 25, 2020 at 16:34 | comment | added | Nigel J | @KorvinStarmast Thank you. Yes, agreed. It is an improvement. Appreciated. | |
| Aug 25, 2020 at 13:13 | history | edited | KorvinStarmast | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 258 characters in body
|
| Aug 25, 2020 at 4:45 | comment | added | Pieter Rousseau | I really appreciate how you acknowledge intent with the Translators, trying to understand their motivation. Your conjecture can certainly be tested against the places where "Holy Ghost" is used. I do think what I do agree with based on what I have seen, is that "Holy Ghost" is used " when the Holy Spirit is in view independently"... My words would be: the distinct Person of the Trinity... but this might not just be based on the Greek but also the context. | |
| Aug 24, 2020 at 17:23 | history | edited | Nigel J | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 613 characters in body
|
| Aug 24, 2020 at 8:22 | comment | added | Nigel J | @PieterRousseau In each of those four places, there is interpolation in the text (between penuma and agion) separated by article or insertion (promise) and the activity is on the part of the Father, not the initiation and sole aqency of the Spirit. Pehaps it is only when the Holy Spirit is in view independently that the word 'Ghost' is used. | |
| Aug 24, 2020 at 3:30 | comment | added | Pieter Rousseau | thank you for the effort NigelJ! Still, I am looking for evidence that earlier English Theologians made a distinction (please see hebrew-streams.org/works/spirit/spirit-to-ghost.html). It is suggestive not in the places where they translated πνευματος αγιου to "Holy Ghost", but in those places where they don't: Luke 11:13; Eph 1:13; 4:30; 1 Thess 4:8 (consistently in early English Translations). Maybe your point is they did not, hence no further evidence will exist, but to me, it seems to be the best conjecture for the translation evidence. | |
| Aug 24, 2020 at 2:10 | history | edited | Nigel J | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 881 characters in body
|
| Aug 21, 2020 at 14:38 | history | edited | Nigel J | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Aug 21, 2020 at 11:42 | comment | added | Pieter Rousseau | Footnote 20 might lead to some trail though: I found the page and it's simply commenting on why they used Holy Spirit instead of the original English translation of Barth's work that used "Holy Ghost" that did it to come close to translate accurately the German "Geist". Might not lead somewhere... | |
| Aug 21, 2020 at 11:19 | comment | added | Pieter Rousseau | Thanks for the effort Nigel... not exactly what I'm asking for... The claim is that in the Middle Ages theologians made a distinction between the Third Person of the Trinity and the indwelling Spirit. I am looking for evidence of this, and the quote from that footnote and the very deliberate use of the name "Holy Ghost" in all early translations and "holy Spirit" elsewhere consistent with this distinction seems to suggest that they did make such a distinction. They clearly did use the word "ghost" instead of "spirit" for an unembodied spirit: "gave up the ghost". | |
| Aug 21, 2020 at 10:12 | history | answered | Nigel J | CC BY-SA 4.0 |