An Exegetical Analysis of Matthew 1:20: The Discontinuous Construction of ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου
This exegetical study of the Greek construction at Matthew 1:20 is based on a b-greek discussion from Sun May 28 08:57:32 2006.
The initial inquiry focused on the distinctive syntax of the phrase “Holy Spirit” in the latter part of Matthew 1:20, specifically: τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου. The common translation renders this as “That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” However, the unconventional placement of the verb ἐστιν (is) between πνεύματος (spirit) and ἁγίου (holy) raises questions about its standard interpretation, as similar constructions are purportedly rare in the New Testament.
The central exegetical issue revolves around the precise grammatical function and semantic implication of the phrase ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου. Specifically, it questions whether ἁγίου (genitive) modifies πνεύματος (genitive), forming a unit referring to the Holy Spirit, or if an alternative reading, such as “That which is conceived of her by the Spirit is holy,” wherein ἁγίου would predicate holiness of the child (τὸ γεννηθέν), could be grammatically sustained. This necessitates an examination of case agreement, the function of the copulative verb, and the rhetorical effect of discontinuous phrases in Koine Greek.
ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐνθυμηθέντος ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος κυρίου κατ’ ὄναρ ἐφάνη αὐτῷ λέγων, Ἰωσὴφ υἱὸς Δαυίδ, μὴ φοβηθῇς παραλαβεῖν Μαρίαν τὴν γυναῖκά σου, τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου: (Nestle 1904)
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- Κυρίου (SBLGNT) vs. κυρίου (Nestle 1904) – difference in capitalization of the divine name.
- Μαριὰμ (SBLGNT) vs. Μαρίαν (Nestle 1904) – minor orthographical variant for the name Mary.
- Πνεύματός (SBLGNT) vs. πνεύματός (Nestle 1904) – difference in capitalization, reflecting modern editorial choices for divine attributes.
- Ἁγίου (SBLGNT) vs. ἁγίου (Nestle 1904) – similar capitalization difference for the adjective ‘Holy’.
Regarding textual criticism (NA28), there are no significant variants noted for Matthew 1:20, particularly concerning the form ἁγίου. The consensus text consistently presents ἁγίου (genitive singular neuter), precluding a reading of ἅγιον (nominative singular neuter) that would be required for the proposed alternative translation of the child being “holy” as a predicate nominative. This lack of textual variation firmly establishes the genitive case of the adjective.
Lexically, the term πνεῦμα (pneuma, “spirit”) refers to various spiritual entities, but in this context, coupled with ἁγίου (hagiou, “holy”), it denotes the Holy Spirit. According to BDAG, the combination of πνεῦμα and ἅγιος appears both with and without the article. While older grammars (e.g., BDF §257.2, Robertson pp. 761, 795-796) sometimes suggest that the presence of the article (τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον) indicates a more personal referent, whereas its absence (πνεῦμα ἅγιον) refers to a divine influence or quality, contemporary scholarship (cf. Levinsohn’s discussion mentioned in the forum) often interprets the anarthrous use in focus or as an inherent characteristic, rather than a definitive statement on personhood. Here, the anarthrous πνεύματός ἁγίου, despite the verb’s interposition, functions as a genitive of source/origin. KITTEL (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament) highlights ἅγιος as pertaining to that which is separated from the profane and consecrated to God, denoting divine purity and character, inherently aligning with the divine nature of the Spirit.
Translation Variants
The core of the exegetical challenge lies in the grammatical construction τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου. Grammatically, τὸ γεννηθὲν serves as a substantival participle in the nominative case, functioning as the subject of the clause (“that which was begotten in her”). The prepositional phrase ἐκ πνεύματός ἁγίου functions as an adverbial modifier indicating source or origin. The crucial point is the case of πνεύματος and ἁγίου, both being genitive singular neuter. This genitive agreement dictates that ἁγίου must modify πνεύματος, forming the genitival phrase “of the Holy Spirit.”
The proposed alternative interpretation, “That which is conceived of her by the Spirit is holy,” which would make “holy” a predicate adjective referring to the child, is grammatically untenable. For ἁγίου to modify τὸ γεννηθὲν as a predicate adjective, it would need to be in the nominative case (ἅγιον), not the genitive (ἁγίου). The absence of textual variants for ἁγίου in the nominative further confirms the established reading.
The most distinctive feature of this construction is the interposition of the copulative verb ἐστιν between πνεύματος and its modifying adjective ἁγίου. This phenomenon, known as a discontinuous or split phrase, while perhaps appearing unusual to English speakers, is a recognized feature of Koine Greek syntax. Examples of similar constructions exist, such as Luke 2:25 (καὶ πνεῦμα ἦν ἅγιον ἐπ’ αὐτόν). Such discontinuity often serves a rhetorical purpose, usually to emphasize the separated element. In Matthew 1:20, the placement of ἐστιν before ἁγίου may emphasize either the divine origin itself, or the inherent holiness of the Spirit as the source. It underscores that the conception is not merely “from a spirit” but specifically “from a holy spirit,” a divinely unique origin. Matthew’s style sometimes employs such splitting of referents and modifiers with ἐστιν (e.g., Matt 5:34, 35; 10:26), which some scholars attribute to hypotaxis, highlighting specific elements within the clause.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
Based on the consistent textual evidence and grammatical analysis, the adjective ἁγίου in Matthew 1:20 must be understood as modifying πνεύματος, thereby referring to the Holy Spirit as the source of the conception. The genitive case of both words precludes any interpretation where ἁγίου would predicate holiness of the conceived child (τὸ γεννηθέν). The interposition of ἐστιν is a stylistic device for emphasis, drawing attention to the divine and sacred nature of the Spirit involved in the miraculous conception.
- “For that which has been conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.” This translation is a direct and standard rendering, accurately reflecting the grammatical relationship and common theological understanding.
- “For what has been conceived in her is truly of the Holy Spirit.” This version attempts to capture the subtle emphasis conveyed by the discontinuous phrase, suggesting a definitive assertion of the divine origin.
- “For that which is begotten in her is from Spirit, even Holy Spirit.” This translation emphasizes the attribute of “Holy” as a clarifying or emphatic addition to “Spirit,” reflecting the potential rhetorical force of the word order.
No, if you keep the word order and don’t add it the information in the case to the English pony translation, it does not illustrate your point. hHAGIOU is not a simple predicate adjective, rather, it is part of the adverbial construction EK PNEUMATOS … hAGIOU. It is an “adjective” and it is in the predicate, but not properly a “predicate adjective.” The placement the verb ESTIN may serve to emphasize the element hAGIOU, because it breaks up the normal word order. The verb is not necessary.
Yancy Smith, PhD [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 5636 Wedgworth Road Fort Worth, TX 76133 817-361-7565
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
— B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
No, if you keep the word order and don’t add it the information in the case to the English pony translation, it does not illustrate your point. hHAGIOU is not a simple predicate adjective, rather, it is part of the adverbial construction EK PNEUMATOS … hAGIOU. It is an “adjective” and it is in the predicate, but not properly a “predicate adjective.” The placement the verb ESTIN may serve to emphasize the element hAGIOU, because it breaks up the normal word order. The verb is not necessary.
Yancy Smith, PhD [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 5636 Wedgworth Road Fort Worth, TX 76133 817-361-7565
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
— B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
hAGION cannot modify GENNHQEN because of the intervening preposition. While discontinuous phrases are allow in Greek, there are strict limits on the form they take. In the case of prepositional phrases, you are only going to find two patterns:
Preposition -> Adjective -> X -> Noun Preposition -> Noun -> X -> Adjective
Discontinuous constituency like this arises with the author/speaker viewed the first part of the discontinuity as particularly important or relevant to the message.
The only occasions where a word that is functionally in a prepositional phrase can appear before the preposition are in Poetry, though even then, I can only say that for Classical poetry. I haven’t looked at Hellenistic poetry. Also, in Homeric Greek, there is significantly more freedom in the placement of prepositions, but such phenomena are not relevant to what we’re seeing here.
If you’re willing to push through some rather technical discussion, I’ve done some writing on the subject of discontinuous phrases in Greek, specifically looking at the Hellenistic period:
http://evepheso.wordpress.com/studies-in-greek-syntax/
Mike Aubrey http://evepheso.wordpress.com
ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐνθυμηθέντος ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος κυρίου κατ’ ὄναρ ἐφάνη αὐτῷ λέγων, Ἰωσὴφ υἱὸς Δαυίδ, μὴ φοβηθῇς παραλαβεῖν Μαρίαν τὴν γυναῖκά σου, τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου:
TO GAR EN AUTHi GENNHQEN EK PNEUMATOW ESTIN hAGIOU.
Unless I am missing something, the form in the verse is hAGIOU, not hAGION, and for that reason must go with the genitive PNEUMATOS and not the nominative TO GENNHQEN.
I don’t see any variants with hAGION.
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
You are indeed correct. I didn’t actually look at the verse. My own comments were from memory from studying discontinuous constituents.
Mike
Fair enough, Mike, but are you saying that if the text DID say
τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἅγιον (hAGION)
in the sense of “the thing born of the Spirit in you is holy,” that that would not be permissible Greek for some reason?
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
No, because then hAGION is not modifying GENNHQEN. Its then modifying ESTIN.
From memory, I had reconstructed the texts wrong in my head.
Hypothetically, if GENNHQEN, PNEUMATOS, and hAGION were all the same case/gender/number in the same structure, hAGION cannot be viewed as modifying GENNHQEN.
And next time, I will look directly at the text instead of speaking from memory.
Mike
I think we have some confusion here. The word ἁγίου is an adjective. One does not normally expect an adjective to modify a verb — not even a copulative verb (perhaps a couple of exceptions in neut).
Matthew 1:20 (NA27) 20ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐνθυμηθέντος ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος κυρίου κατʼ ὄναρ ἐφάνη αὐτῷ λέγων· Ἰωσὴφ υἱὸς Δαυίδ, μὴ φοβηθῇς παραλαβεῖν Μαρίαν τὴν γυναῖκά σου· τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου.
It seems to me that this is a simple case of a pred adj. I will demonstrate my understanding by putting dashes between words which function as a conceptual unit. “The-begotten-in-her-by-the-Spirit is holy.”
george gfsomsel
If an adjective is functioning a the clause level and not the phrase level as it is here, then in as much as the verb is the head of the clause, the adjective is dependent on the verb.
Mike
Michael you lost me with so many technicalities of something simple an straight forward. In KJ it is “for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost” and NIV is “because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit”.
The interesting in this passage is the word “γεννηθὲν” which is not the ‘born’ but the “conceived”.
=====
My point exactly. The verb is NOT necessary; yet, Matthew puts it in.
Did some digging around and found a similar discussion from 4 yrs ago:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2006-May/038687.html
There is a construction for “Holy Spirit” at the latter part of Matthew 1:20
that apparently is found nowhere else in the NT:
TO GAR EN AUTHi GENNHQEN EK PNEUMATOS ESTIN AGIOU.
This is universally translated along the lines of “That which is conceived
in her is of the Holy Spirit.” However, nowhere else in the NT does ESTIN
come between the words for Holy Spirit. Should we see here “Spirit [which] is
holy” = Holy Spirit?
What prevents this from being translated as “That which is conceived of her
by the Spirit is holy,” i.e., the Child is holy? Other than the fact that no
one else has ever translated it that way?
Thanks,
Solomon Landers
================
>> If it were as you propose then it would need to be in the nominative to agree with TO (I know, it could be acc, but it isn’t).
>>
george
>> gfsomsel
================
>>> George has already explained why your suggestion can’t work with the
>>> text we have. I would just add that, although the configuration EK
>>> PNEUMATOS ESTIN hAGIOU with the verb EINAI intervening between the
>>> noun PNEUMATOS and the adjective hAGIOU is rare, there is at least
>>> one other instance of it in the GNT:
>>> Lk 2:25 … KAI PNEUMA HN hAGION EP’ AUTON.
>>> Carl W. Conrad
================
>>>> I believe George is correct on this matter. The noun and the adjective agree
>>>> in case, number, and gender, therefore it is most natural for it to be a
>>>> modifier. It would need to be a predicate nominative or predicate accusative
>>>> to allow the translation “is holy.” It may repay the effort to examine other
>>>> instance where Matthew splits the noun and adjective with ESTIN/EIMI. It
>>>> looks like Matthew, in his grammatical style, sometimes chooses to divide
>>>> referents and modifiers/adjectives w/ ESTIN (5:34, 35; 10:26); we may
>>>> attribute it to a form of hypotaxis that is common in Greek, though not in
>>>> languages, such as Hebrew or English, that tend to be bound by juxtaposition
>>>> of words. I don’t believe that this has any significance to the meaning of the passage
>>>> at hand.
>>>> Dave Smith
>>>> Hudson, NC
================
The concord between PNEUMATOS and hAGIOU links them hands down. The PLACEMENT of ESTIN is optional, but the flexibility of word order in Greek allows the copulative verb to be placed almost anywhere in the sentence, including between the head noun of a prepositional clause and its adjective, without being or becoming a part of the clause itself.
For the sentence to mean what you are suggesting, it would have to be in the accusative case.
Best wishes,
BTW, the suggestion from the archive is also wrong.
Yancy Smith, PhD
hAGION cannot modify GENNHQEN because of the intervening preposition. While discontinuous phrases are allow in Greek, there are strict limits on the form they take. In the case of prepositional phrases, you are only going to find two patterns:
Preposition -> Adjective -> X -> Noun Preposition -> Noun -> X -> Adjective
Discontinuous constituency like this arises with the author/speaker viewed the first part of the discontinuity as particularly important or relevant to the message.
The only occasions where a word that is functionally in a prepositional phrase can appear before the preposition are in Poetry, though even then, I can only say that for Classical poetry. I haven’t looked at Hellenistic poetry. Also, in Homeric Greek, there is significantly more freedom in the placement of prepositions, but such phenomena are not relevant to what we’re seeing here.
If you’re willing to push through some rather technical discussion, I’ve done some writing on the subject of discontinuous phrases in Greek, specifically looking at the Hellenistic period:
http://evepheso.wordpress.com/studies-in-greek-syntax/
Mike Aubrey http://evepheso.wordpress.com
ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐνθυμηθέντος ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος κυρίου κατ’ ὄναρ ἐφάνη αὐτῷ λέγων, Ἰωσὴφ υἱὸς Δαυίδ, μὴ φοβηθῇς παραλαβεῖν Μαρίαν τὴν γυναῖκά σου, τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου:
TO GAR EN AUTHi GENNHQEN EK PNEUMATOW ESTIN hAGIOU.
Unless I am missing something, the form in the verse is hAGIOU, not hAGION, and for that reason must go with the genitive PNEUMATOS and not the nominative TO GENNHQEN.
I don’t see any variants with hAGION.
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
You are indeed correct. I didn’t actually look at the verse. My own comments were from memory from studying discontinuous constituents.
Mike
Fair enough, Mike, but are you saying that if the text DID say
τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἅγιον (hAGION)
in the sense of “the thing born of the Spirit in you is holy,” that that would not be permissible Greek for some reason?
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
No, because then hAGION is not modifying GENNHQEN. Its then modifying ESTIN.
From memory, I had reconstructed the texts wrong in my head.
Hypothetically, if GENNHQEN, PNEUMATOS, and hAGION were all the same case/gender/number in the same structure, hAGION cannot be viewed as modifying GENNHQEN.
And next time, I will look directly at the text instead of speaking from memory.
Mike
I think we have some confusion here. The word ἁγίου is an adjective. One does not normally expect an adjective to modify a verb — not even a copulative verb (perhaps a couple of exceptions in neut).
Matthew 1:20 (NA27) 20ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐνθυμηθέντος ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος κυρίου κατʼ ὄναρ ἐφάνη αὐτῷ λέγων· Ἰωσὴφ υἱὸς Δαυίδ, μὴ φοβηθῇς παραλαβεῖν Μαρίαν τὴν γυναῖκά σου· τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου.
It seems to me that this is a simple case of a pred adj. I will demonstrate my understanding by putting dashes between words which function as a conceptual unit. “The-begotten-in-her-by-the-Spirit is holy.”
george gfsomsel
If an adjective is functioning a the clause level and not the phrase level as it is here, then in as much as the verb is the head of the clause, the adjective is dependent on the verb.
Mike
Michael you lost me with so many technicalities of something simple an straight forward. In KJ it is “for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost” and NIV is “because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit”.
The interesting in this passage is the word “γεννηθὲν” which is not the ‘born’ but the “conceived”.
=====
My point exactly. The verb is NOT necessary; yet, Matthew puts it in.
Did some digging around and found a similar discussion from 4 yrs ago:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2006-May/038687.html
There is a construction for “Holy Spirit” at the latter part of Matthew 1:20
that apparently is found nowhere else in the NT:
TO GAR EN AUTHi GENNHQEN EK PNEUMATOS ESTIN AGIOU.
This is universally translated along the lines of “That which is conceived
in her is of the Holy Spirit.” However, nowhere else in the NT does ESTIN
come between the words for Holy Spirit. Should we see here “Spirit [which] is
holy” = Holy Spirit?
What prevents this from being translated as “That which is conceived of her
by the Spirit is holy,” i.e., the Child is holy? Other than the fact that no
one else has ever translated it that way?
Thanks,
Solomon Landers
================
>> If it were as you propose then it would need to be in the nominative to agree with TO (I know, it could be acc, but it isn’t).
>>
george
>> gfsomsel
================
>>> George has already explained why your suggestion can’t work with the
>>> text we have. I would just add that, although the configuration EK
>>> PNEUMATOS ESTIN hAGIOU with the verb EINAI intervening between the
>>> noun PNEUMATOS and the adjective hAGIOU is rare, there is at least
>>> one other instance of it in the GNT:
>>> Lk 2:25 … KAI PNEUMA HN hAGION EP’ AUTON.
>>> Carl W. Conrad
================
>>>> I believe George is correct on this matter. The noun and the adjective agree
>>>> in case, number, and gender, therefore it is most natural for it to be a
>>>> modifier. It would need to be a predicate nominative or predicate accusative
>>>> to allow the translation “is holy.” It may repay the effort to examine other
>>>> instance where Matthew splits the noun and adjective with ESTIN/EIMI. It
>>>> looks like Matthew, in his grammatical style, sometimes chooses to divide
>>>> referents and modifiers/adjectives w/ ESTIN (5:34, 35; 10:26); we may
>>>> attribute it to a form of hypotaxis that is common in Greek, though not in
>>>> languages, such as Hebrew or English, that tend to be bound by juxtaposition
>>>> of words. I don’t believe that this has any significance to the meaning of the passage
>>>> at hand.
>>>> Dave Smith
>>>> Hudson, NC
================
The concord between PNEUMATOS and hAGIOU links them hands down. The PLACEMENT of ESTIN is optional, but the flexibility of word order in Greek allows the copulative verb to be placed almost anywhere in the sentence, including between the head noun of a prepositional clause and its adjective, without being or becoming a part of the clause itself.
For the sentence to mean what you are suggesting, it would have to be in the accusative case.
Best wishes,
BTW, the suggestion from the archive is also wrong.
Yancy Smith, PhD