Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [gthomas] Psyche, Pneuma, Soma, Sarx

Expand Messages
  • Rick Hubbard
    ... I m not presuming to be the one who knows more about this but it may be helpful to note that PNEUMA underwent a radical shift in meaning in many of the
    Message 1 of 13 , Dec 31, 1969
    • 0 Attachment
      Michael Grondin wrote:
      >
      > At 12:03 PM 06/09/00 EDT, you wrote:
      > >... maybe ... the Spirit came to be viewed as something altogether separate
      > >from the body ...
      >
      > It was already so viewed in GThomas. In fact, spirit and body is the
      > fundamental dichotomy. Furthermore, everybody believed in ghosts, angels,
      > good and bad spirits, what have you. But I think that the dual meaning of
      > 'air' and 'spirit' for 'pneuma' may have gotten lost in the transition from
      > Greek to Latin, which had words for both. Hopefully, others who know more
      > about this than I do will tell me whether my guess is right.

      I'm not presuming to be the one who "knows more about this" but it may
      be helpful to note that PNEUMA underwent a radical shift in "meaning" in
      many of the NT writings. Kleinknecht observes that, "Here biblical Greek
      has coined a new and distinctive expression for the very different,
      suprasensual, supraterrestrial and in part personal character in which
      PNEUMA has in Judaism and Christianity. An expression of this kind was
      bound to remain alien to the immanest thinking of the Greek world."
      (TDNT VI, p338f). He goes on to point out that in Latin the PNEUMA
      hAGION was not translated by sacer spiritus or divinus spiritus,(which
      were the equivalants of QEION PNEUMA or hIERON PNEUMA) but instead by
      spititus sanctus, a quite original expression, according to
      Kleinknecht.

      Whether or not that transition contributed to subsequent confluence of
      air/spirit with PNEUMA, I must leave for others to comment upon.

      Rick Hubbard
    • Rick Hubbard
      ... One should also not overlook the fact that both cultures, in antiquity, embraced a pre-scientific anthropology. In other words, PNEUMA, PSYCHE, SARX and
      Message 2 of 13 , Dec 31, 1969
      • 0 Attachment
        joseph baxter wrote:
        >
        > At 01:07 AM 6/6/2000 , Patti wrote:
        >
        > > Meanwhile, for English translation, yet another culture interprets &
        > >filters & imposes upon the original way of thought. Because, "breath" to us
        > >hardly has the precious connotations of the Jewish "ruach," nor does our
        > >"breath" connote nature, gods & art as did the Greek "pneuma."
        > >
        > > I wonder what caused our breath to become so secular?

        joseph baxter wrote:

        > Am I wrong in thinking the answer is obvious. To begin with we have a
        > secular culture. But the modern psyche is also different than the ancient
        > psyche. From all I have read, in ancient times, it seems, the average Jew,
        > or the average Greek was somewhat closer to the nature/spirit world.

        One should also not overlook the fact that both cultures, in antiquity,
        embraced a pre-scientific anthropology. In other words, PNEUMA, PSYCHE,
        SARX and other elements of language that are problematic to our modern
        way of understanding were often the functional equivalants of our
        contemporary "Anatomy and Physiology."
      • Kanefer@aol.com
        ... It might also mean something like servitude to mammon - the false dynamic that is created when (adult) mortal s existence depends upon others. There is
        Message 3 of 13 , Jun 5, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          >(87) Wretched is the SOMA which depends on a SOMA,
          > and wretched is the PSYCHE that depends on these two.>>

          It might also mean something like servitude to mammon - the false dynamic
          that is created when (adult) mortal's existence depends upon others. There
          is illusion created, where such appears to be "reality" because one is
          operating within such a dynamic, but ideal dynamic would be one of the
          individual with God.

          For example, when one's whole existence would seem to hinge upon
          accomplishing a task for one's boss - when one's condition of mind is
          dictated by that, instead of trust in and serving God.

          p.s. What is the literal word (in English) that is translated as "depends"?

          Sincerely, Patti
        • Kanefer@aol.com
          Rick wrote:
          Message 4 of 13 , Jun 6, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            Rick wrote: <<It is far better, it seems to me, to first examine the possible
            range of meaning for each of them in late antiquity before reaching any
            conclusions about how to properly interpret them now.>>

            You have done a lot of work, and this was very excellent to read!

            Going at it this way takes us toward how Greek culture & experience
            interpreted Jewish culture & experience. This is interesting, considering
            that elite Jewish spoke also Greek, and what is implied?

            For example, what Jewish person would call either "ruach" OR "neshamah"
            with whatever subtleties of meaning between them, the two distinctions were
            apparently merged in Greek as word "pneuma." One could consider what this
            indicates. And, the rather holy Jewish word "ruach" with all its vital
            connotations as one was apparently split in Greek way of concept to "pneuma,"
            "anemos" or "thumos."
            Meanwhile, for English translation, yet another culture interprets &
            filters & imposes upon the original way of thought. Because, "breath" to us
            hardly has the precious connotations of the Jewish "ruach," nor does our
            "breath" connote nature, gods & art as did the Greek "pneuma."

            I wonder what caused our breath to become so secular?

            Sincerely, Patti
          • joseph baxter
            ... Am I wrong in thinking the answer is obvious. To begin with we have a secular culture. But the modern psyche is also different than the ancient psyche.
            Message 5 of 13 , Jun 8, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              At 01:07 AM 6/6/2000 , Patti wrote:

              > Meanwhile, for English translation, yet another culture interprets &
              >filters & imposes upon the original way of thought. Because, "breath" to us
              >hardly has the precious connotations of the Jewish "ruach," nor does our
              >"breath" connote nature, gods & art as did the Greek "pneuma."
              >
              > I wonder what caused our breath to become so secular?
              Am I wrong in thinking the answer is obvious. To begin with we have a
              secular culture. But the modern psyche is also different than the ancient
              psyche. From all I have read, in ancient times, it seems, the average Jew,
              or the average Greek was somewhat closer to the nature/spirit world.

              Joe Baxter
              joe
            • Kanefer@aol.com
              Message 6 of 13 , Jun 9, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                <<One should also not overlook the fact that both cultures, in antiquity,
                embraced a pre-scientific anthropology. In other words, PNEUMA, PSYCHE,
                SARX and other elements of language that are problematic to our modern
                way of understanding were often the functional equivalants of our
                contemporary "Anatomy and Physiology.">>

                Hi Rick,
                I think you're one of the most briliant and thoughtful persons. Some
                thoughts I sent to the list that rather go along with what you said above,
                don't know if they'll post:

                >> You'd think our respiration would be all the more sacred for the
                influence of Jesus, and the "gift of the Holy Spirit." But maybe that's what
                it is - that the Spirit came to be viewed as something altogether separate
                from the body, it became something that was "imparted" rather than being
                something that was innate. (So then, no wonder the spiritless word "breath"
                stems from Middle English word for "odor.">>>

                Sincerely, Patti
              • Michael Grondin
                ... It was already so viewed in GThomas. In fact, spirit and body is the fundamental dichotomy. Furthermore, everybody believed in ghosts, angels, good and bad
                Message 7 of 13 , Jun 9, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 12:03 PM 06/09/00 EDT, you wrote:
                  >... maybe ... the Spirit came to be viewed as something altogether separate
                  >from the body ...

                  It was already so viewed in GThomas. In fact, spirit and body is the
                  fundamental dichotomy. Furthermore, everybody believed in ghosts, angels,
                  good and bad spirits, what have you. But I think that the dual meaning of
                  'air' and 'spirit' for 'pneuma' may have gotten lost in the transition from
                  Greek to Latin, which had words for both. Hopefully, others who know more
                  about this than I do will tell me whether my guess is right.

                  Mike
                • Kanefer@aol.com
                  ... maybe ... the Spirit came to be viewed as something altogether separate ... Mike wrote: It was already so viewed in GThomas. In fact, spirit and body
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jun 12, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    <<>... maybe ... the Spirit came to be viewed as something altogether
                    separate
                    >from the body ...

                    Mike wrote:>>It was already so viewed in GThomas. In fact, spirit and body is
                    the
                    fundamental dichotomy. Furthermore, everybody believed in ghosts, angels,
                    good and bad spirits, what have you.>>

                    The spirit was viewed separately, yet there was that connection to body in
                    "breath." And, I don't see that it was viewed as something that was
                    'imparted' to one - let alone to one mortal by another through some kind of
                    ritual, but that it was innate.

                    I guess this goes off into soul, spirit, Holy Spirit - what is meant by
                    Holy Spirit... and how one is considered to be spiritually "dead" unless one
                    'receives' the "Holy Spirit."

                    Sincerely, Patti
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.