"Holy Ghost" or "Holy Spirit": Which do you prefer?

[Izdaari Eristikon]

When this thread began, I had the impression that the main idea was to state one's preference, not justify it on doctrinal or linguistic grounds.

IMO, it's impossible to show that "spirit" resolves any problems that "ghost" would have; they both conjure up ideas of spook stories in the minds of 13 year olds and people who are unfamiliar with half the words in any version of the BCP.

Right, I was only expressing my preference.

I don't think there is any doctrinal difference. Modern English usage I would think favors "spirit" over "ghost", but it can be (and already has been) argued both ways.

 

[elahmine]

Holy Spirit. Holy Ghost reminds me of A Christmas Carol.

 

[MKJ]

When this thread began, I had the impression that the main idea was to state one's preference, not justify it on doctrinal or linguistic grounds.

IMO, it's impossible to show that "spirit" resolves any problems that "ghost" would have; they both conjure up ideas of spook stories in the minds of 13 year olds and people who are unfamiliar with half the words in any version of the BCP.

No no, 'ghost" is so alien to moderns that it constitutes a real barrier in understanding the meaning of Holy Ghost".

But yes, it was originally about personal preference. As far as I can tell there are actually few who consider one option or the other a serious issue.

 

[Albion]

No no, 'ghost" is so alien to moderns that it constitutes a real barrier in understanding the meaning of Holy Ghost".

Really? In teaching about the Holy Ghost we have to explain what the Holy Trinity is, right? Yet the suggestion is that we have to reword the reference to the Holy "Ghost" lest IT turn out to be hard to understand? Is that the point?

That's like undertaking to explain the splitting of the atom but worrying that it will be hard to do unless we change the word atom to thingy.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Really? In teaching about the Holy Ghost we have to explain what the Holy Trinity is, right? Yet the suggestion is that we have to reword the reference to the Holy "Ghost" lest IT turn out to be hard to understand? Is that the point?

That's like undertaking to explain the splitting of the atom but worrying that it will be hard to do unless we change the word atom to thingy.

"We need a magneto-hydrodynamic resonator to fix our nuclear reactor."

"What's that?"

"Well, technically... it's a thingy."

 

[MKJ]

Really? In teaching about the Holy Ghost we have to explain what the Holy Trinity is, right? Yet the suggestion is that we have to reword the reference to the Holy "Ghost" lest IT turn out to be hard to understand? Is that the point?

That's like undertaking to explain the splitting of the atom but worrying that it will be hard to do unless we change the word atom to thingy.

Yes, exactly. I have no issue with Holy Spirit, as I said in the beginning - I personally am used to Holy Ghost and I have a lot of respect for Cramner's poetic choices in regards to language origins.

But to suggest that Holy Ghost is not understandable to modern people is just a gross exaggeration - I can't take it seriously. Any understanding about the names of the person's of the Trinity is going to require explanation to the uninitiated, and of the three I don't imagine Holy Ghost would be the most controversial.

 

[NileIP]

I am comfortable with both terms. The priest explained in catechism class that either is fine. However, Holy Spirit is used more often now because the meaning of the word Ghost has lost some of its nuance so some people may associate God with death, malevolence and foreboding.

 

[brownen]

I prefer Holy Spirit.

 

[R_A]

Look at the etymology of both words:

spirit's is: Middle English spirit, from Latin spīritus (“breath; spirit&#8221. Compare inspire, respire, transpire, all ultimately from Latin spīrō (“I breathe, blow, respire&#8221. Displaced native Middle English gast (“spirit&#8221 (from Old English gāst (“breath, soul, spirit&#8221).

ghost's is: From Middle English gost, gast, from Old English gāst (“breath, soul, spirit, ghost, life, mind, angel, demon, man, human being&#8221, from Proto-Germanic *gaistaz (“ghost, spirit&#8221, from Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰeizd-, *ǵʰizd- (“anger, agitation&#8221. Cognate with Scots ghaist (“ghost&#8221, West Frisian geast (“spirit&#8221, Dutch geest (“spirit, mind, ghost&#8221, German Geist (“spirit, mind, intellect&#8221, Swedish gast (“ghost&#8221, Sanskrit हेड (heḍa, “anger, hatred&#8221.

((All information from the links given above))

English borrowed words from the Latin; it is what made middle English develop from old english; the Norman conquest triggered a lasting change in the English language, infusing Norman and Latin elements into the Anglo-Saxon base.

Furthermore, we can see that the end etymology of ghost is not only more ambiguous but has interestingly always included the idea of something supernormal, sometimes even with a negative conotation (especially the very root of Indo-European).

On the other hand spirit is actually more direct, not to mention given its ecclesiastical nature from the Vulgate, making it a great translation, given the ancient Hebrew and early Christian concept.

In addition, note the words "displaced native."

When kids go out trick-or-treating on Halloween and say they are going to dress as a ghost, they aren't dressing as the rational aspect of the soul which connects us and allows us to have a relationship with God; they are going as a disembodied boogieman (or boogiewoman) to haunt and spook, which fits the historic use of ghost, given above, rather well.

We speak modern English, not middle English, where the changes began, nor early modern English, the last gasps. The etymology is clear and so is the common use of the language in most of the English-speaking world. The Article of Religion in question is most certainly therefore in play.

That isn't to say that private liturgies, such as collegiate or seminal, must align. Rather, when the people worship, the language must be in their tongue. No one speaks English like that anymore. However, if an ordained priest and some of his or her friends were to meet for a liturgy outside the main Sunday one for all, and they did understand a different language, then Anglican orthopraxy allows a different language. After all, there was a Latin translation of the 1559 which was popular in certain circles, but those liturgies were attended by those who understood Latin.

I just have to say, this is an excellent post. I've enjoyed the etymological insights into the meaning of words, such as this and what you posted some time ago comparing presbyter and priest (showing how the latter is derived from the former).

If ghost IS properly speaking the slightly nefarious concept, do we know why Middle English used 'ghost' for all the concepts where would use 'spirit' now? In other words why did 'ghost' ever acquire (in that era) this positive connotation that we're now trying to reclaim back to the word 'spirit'?

 

[PaladinValer]

I just have to say, this is an excellent post. I've enjoyed the etymological insights into the meaning of words, such as this and what you posted some time ago comparing presbyter and priest (showing how the latter is derived from the former).

Thank you and you are most welcome. The history of words is a fascinating subject.

If ghost IS properly speaking the slightly nefarious concept, do we know why Middle English used 'ghost' for all the concepts where would use 'spirit' now? In other words why did 'ghost' ever acquire (in that era) this positive connotation that we're now trying to reclaim back to the word 'spirit'?

Well, think about it this way:

In English, when you want to know how long someone has lived, you ask them "how old are you?" In Spanish however, the language has a different syntax, so they say "quantos anos tienes?". While that dynamically translates the same, its formal translation is literally "how many years do you have?"

Here, we have two languages that do not have a very common root (despite the fact that both are rooted in Indo-European, their ancestors split from the common vine if you will long before). Middle English was a Germanic language whereas Latin was, of course, a parent language in and of itself. Furthermore, the culture was different.

However, those who spoke English still required to understand theology, and in addition, since we do know that the idea that the Holy Bible was never translated in the vernacular to be valid history, then we know that the laity and the clergy had to have some way to understand the theology.

When a word doesn't translate perfect into another language, one of three things usually happens: either it is transliterated, it is added to the other language, or a current word which is closest to it picks up an additional meaning. For Middle English, both options 2 and 3 occurred: ghost picked up a new meaning (as you can see by the etymology, it wasn't perfect, but it was close given the culture and philosophy already present in English and English-speaking people) and the word spirit found its way through the Norman conquest. For a time, the two could be used simultaneously, but when using ghost, the speaker or writer had to be very careful to ensure context was given for the intended definition could be appropriately and reasonably reached by the listener or reader. A good example is the word "hell", which we know also had a double meaning, both the literal "hell" but also the immediate afterlife hades or sheol.

As English developed, the assimilation of the Latin elements became more common place and fixed. A noticeable percentage of our language does have a Latin root, especially with our prefixes and suffixes. The very word "spirit" came to English from Latin, and as I have shown by the etymology, when you read the Holy Bible and take into account the proper schema, the Latin is an excellent match to the intent and theology, whereas "ghost" only got its additional meaning later in the history of English. Furthermore, since modern English has evolved to the point as it has, the word "ghost" has recaptured something of its more ancient and, dare I say, purely English definition.

Now that isn't to suggest we should be careless. The English language has, until recently, continued to have the concept of having almost two "variants": a secular English and an ecclesiastical one. Even in the proposed Prayer Books of 1927 and 1928 in the Church of England, you'll still find "Holy Ghost" being used, we cannot commit the linguistical heresy of culturalism and ascribe our modern English to these proposed Prayer Books, let alone the 1662, 1549, and the 1611 1st/2nd Ed. KJV! However, English has changed rapidly since then, and the idea of a secular and ecclesiastical English has been dropped, largely because of the rediscovery that the Hebrew doesn't have a "thee" to God and "you" to everyone else. Thus, such an ecclesiastical English, paradoxically, is actually bad because it suggests something that was never true to begin with. So, you find shortly after that ecclesiastical use English is swiftly dropped, leaving the so-called "secular" English to cover both. In many ways, English became, despite increasingly diverse, in this way, more unified by having a common usage for all situations secular and religious, particularly Christian.

Since the 1960's, the ecclesiastical English has lost its foothold in the English-speaking world. Fifty two years later, it is practically gone. The pioneers who brought the Prayer Book and the Bible into contemporary usage back in the 50's (RSV) and 60's (trial liturgies) knew what was coming. Today, we have modern English Bibles and Prayer Books throughout practically the entire Anglican Communion in the language of the people because that is what is spoken today. That's what the liturgy should be in; that's what the Holy Bible should be in; that's what the Book of Common Prayer should be in. Our own Anglican heritage and tradition demands we adapt so that the Gospel can be brought to new generations of Christians, be they baptized newborns or elderly folks. Especially for those who were born in the 60's, they will barely remember the old ecclesiastical use, and their kids will be native speakers without it. The time has come for it to go the way of the wind.

 

[LuxMundi]

I don't really have a preference, depends on the context. If the liturgy is BCP then use 'Holy Ghost' but if it's Common Worship then use 'Holy Spirit'.

 

[Socktastic]

As far as I recall Holy Ghost was still being used in some churches into the 90's/00's ... I mean i'm an 1980/1990 baby and I still use it and understand what it's referring to. It all depends on who is active in the community and what they're passing down.

People are generally smart enough to understand the difference once they start looking into it, whilst we should strive for a "user friendly" language i'm not sure your standard English person really sees there being much of a difference between spirit and ghost. One they relate to spiritualism and the other to people screaming because a piece of old castle fell next to them.

The two terms are used for the same part of the trinity, and that is far more important than getting into whether or not people are able to understand the difference between the Holy Ghost and Casper.

Anyway. I use Holy Ghost mainly. It's what i'm used to.

 

[PaladinValer]

As far as I recall Holy Ghost was still being used in some churches into the 90's/00's ... I mean i'm an 1980/1990 baby and I still use it and understand what it's referring to. It all depends on who is active in the community and what they're passing down.

It depends; most do not, and their number is increasing.

Furthermore, as the Article of Religion states, the worship needs to be in the language of the people. The English language isn't the same as it was in the 20's and 30's. It isn't even the same as it was in the 60's nor even the 80's.

 

[Decanus]

Being raised a Catholic, Holy Spirit is the normal thing for me to say. Whenever I used to hear people say Holy Ghost, I thought they were weird, because I saw ghosts as being those entities that haunt your houses, or souls of Ordinary people who are unable to move on to the afterlife.

When I say ghost, it just doesn't feel right. Spirit seems much more appropriate for God, it has more meaning. But maybe this is just how I feel about it