[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Holy Spirit

At 06:52 PM 6/26/96 -0700, Alexander R. Pruss wrote:
>
>I wonder if the point here might not be something like the distinction
>between haRuakh haQedesha (The Holy Spirit) and Ruakh haQodesh (The Spirit
>of Holiness, at least as literally translated).  The latter does occur in
>the OT (and always I think with a possessive suffix referring to God), but
>the former I think does not.  Idiomatically, Ruakh haQodesh can be translated
>as "Holy Spirit", but there is some question even among Christians as to
>whether "Ruakh haQodesh" is really the same as the NT's "Holy Spirit".
>
>Alexander Pruss
>Department of Mathematics
>U. of British Columbia
>
>

Alexander,
Thanks for the information about the underlying text! Now my next question,
which you have already touched on, is the extent to which haRuakh haQedesha
(The Holy Spirit) and Ruakh haQodesh (The Spirit of Holiness, at least as
literally translated) are interchangeable in the DSS? What is the relative
frequency of these terms in the DSS?

To what extent are we dealing here with the gradual evolution from an OT
attribute of a person (the spirit of holiness) to the NT personification of
a spirit (the Holy Spirit)-- i.e., something which has an existence
separately from individual persons? I guess what I'd like to see is a
listing of the usages of these terms in the DSS in context. Aren't the DSS
indexed? (Wasn't that how someone reconstructed some of the unpublished DSS
a few years ago?)

And if I can add one more pestering question, what might the relationship be
between haRuakh haQedesha (The Holy Spirit) and (the) Sh'khiynah (of God) in
the DSS?

Again, thanks for your response.
Bob
****************************************
Robert Schacht
"This success of my endeavors was due, I believe, to a rule of 'method': 
that we should always try to clarify and to strengthen our opponent's
position as much as possible before criticizing him, if we wish our
criticism to be worth while."

Sir Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1968), p. 260 n.*5