The proper translation of the Greek word pneuma in this much mooted verse has been, the subject of much criticism,--and the recent induction made by Bro. H. T. Anderson (Harbinger for June) of some passages in which the Septuagint uses pneuma, where the common version translates, by wind, has led to a call for a renewal of the investigation in our pages. We cheerfully contribute what light we can on the subject. If we fail to reach a right conclusion it will not be for the want of a thorough, careful and unprejudiced investigation. The passage has been pressed upon my consideration in many ways, for years,--and I have sought in the first place, to translate it according to the laws of language; and then to reach its meaning according to sound principles of interpretation. I shall pursue, this method in this article.

      I. As to the translation. The difficulty which embarrasses most persons is about the Greek word pneuma. It occurs five times in the course of four verses (John iii. 5-8) and two of these are in v. 8. In four places it is translated spirit--and in one, wind. Why is this? What reason can be given to justify a translator in changing the word in English, when the Savior did not change it in his discourse to Nicodemus? Is a translator ever warranted in taking such a liberty? This question must be settled at the threshold,--for if there be any invariable rule forbidding us to translate by different English words, the same Greek word repeated as this is, in several sentences and clauses in close connection, then the investigation would be foolish;--for critical discrimination is precluded, where an invariable rule is directly applicable. But no one will say that this is the case. But few words in any language can be uniformly rendered by one equivalent word in, another language. Where the same word in one language has several different meanings--and these different meanings are expressed in another language by different words, the translator is bound to exercise his judgment and use the word that best gives the sense in each place. The sense of the place, and not uniformity of rendering, is the rule by which the translator must be governed. Nor is it necessary that the sense should absolutely "forbid" uniformity. There are many cases in which uniformity of translation may be preserved without making nonsense [522] of the passage, in which, nevertheless, a clearer and often a truer sense would be given by a departure from the rule of uniformity; so that no translator, who understands his business and is not servilely chained to the letter of rules, will hesitate for a moment to violate the often empirically quoted canon concerning "uniformity," if he can thereby render more clearly or truly the sense, or improve even the elegance or energy of his translation.

      To critics, who are fond of the arithmetical method of getting at the meaning of words, it is a puzzling fact that the word pneuma occurs 386 times in the New Testament, and is nowhere translated wind except in this place, but is everywhere else, with but one exception (Rev. xiii. 15), uniformly rendered spirit or ghost. Unfortunately for this most unphilosophic method of getting at the meaning of words, it cannot be used until the words have first been translated by some one, and their meaning determined by some other method. No one capable of original investigation cares a groat for such a process. When a scholar comes to a word that has several meanings, he does not say, "Let us count and see which meaning has the majority," and then take that, but he sees how the word stands related to other words,--what is said of it, what is its regimen in syntax and in thought; applies to it, in short, the principles, not of arithmetic, but of language--and so, makes his selection of the meaning proper to the place. Even in numbers, the same symbol changes its meaning by its relation to other symbols. In the old Roman symbols, an X before an L signifies subtraction, but after an L, addition: XL means 40--but LX means 60. A similar law holds with respect to the Arabian symbols. True, "Use is the sovereign arbiter of language." Since the days of Horace., this has been a recognized maxim of criticism. But what is "use" is often the very difficulty which scholars find it so hard to determine.

      In the case before us, it should be remembered that our Savior, in speaking to a "teacher in Israel," did not, in all probability, use the Greek language, but the vernacular common to them both. In this language, there was no other word for "wind" but ruach, the one which the Savior had already used for Spirit, so that, if in the 8th verse, he really intended to speak of the wind, and to institute a comparison between it and the Spirit, he had no alternative but to repeat the same word (ruach) which he had already used in its sense of spirit, and then indicate the change of sense, [523] by other words, which be would associate with it. Nicodemus must have been perfectly familiar with this style. Ruach is one of the most frequent words in the Hebrew language. It occurs nearly 400 times in the Old Testament. The authors of the Septuagint translate it frequently (43 times) by the Greek anemos (wind), and more frequently, of course, by pneuma, according to their conception of its sense in the several places. They evidently thought very little about the law of uniformity. King James's translators of the "common version" render ruach by wind, blast, breath, or some word indicative of air in motion, 116 times. In 73 places where the Septuagint has pneuma, they use wind, and they appear to have had no kind of scruple about so rendering this Greek word whenever the words in construction with it seemed to require it. If wind would better harmonize with the other words employed in the sentence, they used wind;--if spirit gave the better sense, they used spirit.

      These facts are important to show, first, that our Savior, in conversing with Nicodemus, could not have changed the word "ruach," even though he intended to convey the sense of wind, and that Nicodemus was at perfect liberty to understand it either in the sense of wind or spirit, according to the connection in which it stood to other words in the sentence. In the Hebrew translation of the Greek New Testament, ruach is uniformly used to render both pneuma and anemos. The language afforded but one word for both meanings;--but it does not follow, that the Hebrew reader could not determine in which of the two senses it was intended to be taken in the several passages. This he could do by the connection--by the other words predicated of it. And this he was constrained to do, or else the word would mean either uniformly spirit, and then the sense of wind would be ruled not only out of the Bible, but out of the Hebrew language,--or uniformly wind, and then the sense of spirit would be lost. But such an absurdity shows the falsity of the rule.

      In the second place, the facts stated in the preceding paragraph show, that while the Greek language afforded the two words pneuma, and anemos to distinguish different conceptions of ruach, yet this distinction was not such as to make pneuma mean uniformly "spirit," as distinguished from anemos, "wind,"--but that pneuma still retained, along with its sense of spirit, the original meaning also of air in motion or wind--else how could it be [524] properly translated by these words or their equivalents, 73 times in the common version of the Old Testament.

      That pneuma did retain this double meaning, no scholar will deny. It were puerile to resort to an array of Lexicons to prove it. Air, or wind, in the general sense of the atmosphere in motion, is the primary sense of the word. There is no division of authority on the fact. In classic Greek, it is the universal literal meaning. When used to indicate the spiritus or anima of man it was a metaphor drawn from the act of breathing--which is a motion of the air. Its application to the Spirit of God or to demons--disembodied entities--is a usage derived from the Scriptures,--and is always indicated by the words associated with it. It is not a primary meaning of the word and cannot be assumed, but must always be determined by signs or predicates out of itself. The primary meaning is air, breath, wind. Anemos is not generically different from pneuma They are both derived from the action of breathing or blowing. Anemos is only a more definite form of atmospheric motion,--a specific state of the air, a wind, as distinguished from the gentler or more generic motion of the air.

      If any one ask why the word pneuma is no where else in the New Testament used in the sense of wind, we answer that in one other place it is evidently so used. I refer to the passage in Heb. i. 7--where the common version gives us,--"And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire." This is a quotation from Ps. 104. 4, and the sense clearly requires that the pneumata of the Septuagint should be translated winds. This is so generally conceded now by competent scholars that we need not pause to argue it. But if there be any who still press the question, then we reply,--Simply because the writers of the New Testament had no occasion so to use it. In every other case but these two, where they speak of the wind, the word anemos was more specifically appropriate, because they were cases in which there was a violent or determinate form of atmospheric motion meant. They might have used pneuma in a general sense, but anemos was evidently a more precise and definite word for their purpose, and they properly used it. This word occurs only 30 times in all the New Testament and its meaning is clearly specific in every case. If the writers of the New Testament had no other occasion to use the word pneuma in its [525] generic sense of air or atmospheric motion or agency, save he two already given, of course we ought not to expect to find it so used in their writings. Making no further use of the idea, they had no further use for the word. The further omission of pneuma in this sense is not because of any unsuitableness in the word, or that some other word is employed instead, but it is simply because there is no other place in which the conception is referred to. There are thousands of Greek words never used at all in the New Testament, and some senses to some that are used, which are no where employed in their scriptural use.

      We conclude, then, that Nicodemus was perfectly familiar with the use of the word ruach both in the sense of spirit and wind, and that he could readily determine in which sense it was used in the several places in this conversation, by the words that were used in connection with it; that our Savior could have used no other word for wind; and that John, in rendering the Savior's language in Greek, was bound, according to Greek usage, to employ the word pneuma, even where the Savior meant wind, because the generic conception of air or atmospheric motion or agency, which is intended in the passage, could not have been correctly expressed by the more specific word anemos;--moreover that, though he used the same word pneuma in two senses in the 8th verse of this passage, there was no more difficulty in determining the respective senses than if they had been so used in widely separate positions, since, in either case, the sense of each would have to be determined by the same method; that is, by the adjuncts or predicates employed in connection with it.

      Let it be conceded; then, as it must be, for it is beyond all controversy in the field of scholarship, that pneuma may be used, even in the same sentence, in the two distinct senses of wind and spirit, and that the question whether it is so used or not in a given passage, is not to be determined by the fact whether it is so used elsewhere in the same book or not, but by the adjuncts and predicates used in connection with it in the particular case examined; and we proceed to our next inquiry--which is, to determine by this method what is the sense of pneuma in its first occurrence in the 8th verse of John iii. Is it wind or is it spirit?

      In some criticisms which we have seen on this passage, the critics have, in their zeal for a special interpretation, reversed the logical method of determining the meaning of the leading [526] noun in the sentence. They have first assumed the meaning of the noun, or limited it to one of its meanings, and then attempted, by force of ingenious but most arbitrary criticism, to force the verbs and every other word and thought connected with it, into agreement with the forgone assumption. The true method is the very reverse of this. It is to consider the sense of the leading noun as indeterminate, till its predicate and other adjuncts have been considered. What are these words in this passage, and what sense do they constrain us to put upon pneuma? They are pnei (bloweth), thelei (listeth), akoueis (heareth), phone (sound), and generally, our ignorance of its whence and whither. These are the words or conceptions predicated of pneuma, and out of its several meanings we are bound to select that with which they naturally agree. To one not familiar with Greek, this is of course not so easy, but to the ear of one accustomed to speak and write the language, nothing is easier.

      Let us first consider the several parts of this predicate. 1. Pnei. This word is used but 7 times in the New Testament and is never predicated of anything but the wind. In classic Greek it is limited to express either the natural motion of the air, or physical breathing. Used in connection with pneuma, it would at once suggest to the ear of a Greek the motion of the wind.--Pronounce the word pneuma to a Greek and he is in doubt whether you mean wind or spirit, for he knows it is used for both,--but add pnei (blows), and he at once understands that you mean by pneuma, wind--because the Greek never says the Spirit blows.--Let us illustrate by a similar example to an English ear. I pronounce the word guilt, and I ask you, what do I mean? You say, "I cannot tell--for this word hag two meanings. True, they are spelt differently (guilt and gilt), but in spoken language, they are one. You must give me a predicate." Well, I say, gilt glitters. Instantly you know I mean, Gold applied to the surface of any thing. But if I say, "Guilt criminates," instantly you understand me to mean, moral turpitude--criminality. All languages abound in examples like these, and no one familiar with the particular tongue in which they occur feels any difficulty in at once catching the meaning.

      We need say but little about the word thelei (listeth). Having impersonated the pneuma by predicating "bloweth" of it, it would be entirely proper to express its unrestrained and [527] mysterious motion as voluntary. Schleusner thinks the sense of thelei here is, (qua fors fert) whithersoever chance carries it. This of course would greatly strengthen the argument, since such a predicate could not be used of the Spirit; but we will claim nothing doubtful.

      Akoueis means simply and literally, "thou hearest." It expresses a physical sensation through the ear--this, and nothing more,--readily understood of the wind, but in no sense known to Nicodemus, applicable to the Spirit. So, also, with the next word, phone. Its primary and common sense is an audible sound, corresponding sensibly to akoueis. Specifically, it indicates the sound of the voice, whether of man or animals--and here falls in most naturally with the other words predicated of pneuma to signify a sensible impression made by it upon the ear. But Nicodemus knew of no such fact as true of the Spirit. Considered as spoken of the Holy Spirit, it was not true that Nicodemus ever heard the "sound or voice thereof."

      The clause, "but canst not tell whence it comes nor whither it goes," is further indicative of the meaning of pneuma. Nicodemus, as a "teacher of Israel," was doubtless familiar with the teachings of the Old Testament as to the Spirit, and so far as its source and agency were concerned, could not be said to be ignorant. It is so frequently said, in the Scriptures, "The Spirit of God came on" his ministers, that every Jew must have been familiar with the generally acknowledged doctrine that the Spirit comes from God. Our Savior could not have meant that Nicodemus did not know this. But applied to the mystery of the wind's motion, it was perfectly true that Nicodemus did not know, either the "whence or the whither."

      Two things, then, are affirmed of the pneuma,--first, its free and unrestrained motion--its sensible effects, which Nicodemus did know;--second, the mystery of its whence and whither, which he did not know:--and these are placed in contrast with each other by the conjunction alla (but), a fact of the first importance in determining the Savior's design, in making the statement.

      Here then we have a series of words predicated of pneuma every one of which agrees well with its sense of wind, and no one of them naturally agreeing with its sense of spirit--so that it would be next to impossible for Nicodemus to misunderstand the sense in which it was spoken. Having then determined the translation, we proceed to enquire,-- [528]

      II. What is the meaning? Why has the Savior said all this about the wind? We find the answer in the force of houtos (so), which introduces a comparison. The wind is appealed to by our Savior as an illustration to soften the astonishment of Nicodemus. He introduces it by saying, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again!" And then he proceeds to illustrate the difficulty by a natural agent, more like the spirit than any other, designated indeed by the same name, and, in this double sense, perfectly familiar to Nicodemus. It is as though he had said, You should not marvel at this that I say to you concerning the birth of the Spirit: here is the wind, whose effects indeed are perfectly evident to you. It blows with free and unrestrained motion, and you can hear it,--but still there is an impenetrable mystery about it. You cannot tell whence it comes nor whither it goes. Yet, you do not stumble at this. Yon hear and can acknowledge this motion--know it by its effects, though yon cannot see the agent, go back to its secret starting place, or follow it to its hidden rest! Hear it sighing in the forest, or whispering through the feathery palm trees. See it in shaded waves, chasing over the ripening harvest, or freshening the surface of the sleeping sea! It stirs with restless and pervasive motion of life the else dead and silent earth. All this you know. But where is the couch of its rising, the chamber of its rest? Whence comes it, whither goes it?--This you do not know. "So is every one that is born of the spirit." So is this process and product of the new birth. You hear it and see it in its effects, its free expansion of spiritual life, its purifying and ennobling influences on the soul, its outburst of praise and devotion, its godlike movements over the waste fields of suffering and sin. The fisherman throws down his nets and follows me, the rich sells all he has and gives it to the poor, the mad and ragged demon rises up in his right mind and is clothed; the deaf bear, the blind see, the lame walk, the dead are raised, and the poor have the gospel preached unto them. All this you know. This is on the surface. But there is something about it you do not know. The secret springs of its spiritual beginning, the ultimate and heavenly tendency of it all--these are hidden. These you do not comprehend. But do not marvel. Even in nature, all things come in and go out in mystery--as the wind. You see the beginning of nothing--can trace nothing to its end. As it is in nature, so it is in grace. Marvel not, but believe.

W. K. P. [529]      

[The Millennial Harbinger, Series, v (September 1869): 522-529.]

      W. K. Pendleton's "John III. 8--Wind or Spirit--Which?" was first published in The Millennial Harbinger, Vol. 40, No. 9, September 1869. The electronic version of the essay has been produced from the College Press reprint (1976) of The Millennial Harbinger, ed. W. K. Pendleton (Bethany, WV: W. K. Pendleton, 1869), pp. 522-529.

      Pagination in the electronic version has been represented by placing the page number in brackets following the last complete word on the printed page. Inconsistencies in spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and typography have been retained; however, corrections have been offered for misspellings and other accidental corruptions. Emendations are as follows:

            Printed Text [ Electronic Text
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 p. 522:    threshhold,-- [ threshold,--
 p. 525:    ask way [ ask why
 p. 526:    the the critics [ the critics
 p. 528:    here here is, [ here is,
 

      Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Ernie Stefanik
373 Wilson Street
Derry, PA 15627-9770
stefanik@westol.com

Created 6 February 1999.