Holy Ghost vs. Holy Spirit translation

  • Thread starter Thread starter MockSock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MockSock

Guest
This is one for all those knowledgeable people on here who know their stuff about Greek and Hebrew and Latin and whatnot, but please anyone feel free to chip in anyway.

As kids, we used to say “Holy Ghost”, its only in the last few years that I’ve started saying “Holy Spirit” and sometimes I find myself slipping back into old habits.

I just wondered, which is the more accurate translation?
 
MockSock said:
As kids, we used to say “Holy Ghost”, its only in the last few years that I’ve started saying “Holy Spirit” and sometimes I find myself slipping back into old habits.
Click to expand...
English speakers have been substituting Holy Spirit for Holy Ghost for at least five decades. The reason is because the noun ‘ghost’, whilst originally referring to a non-physical and immaterial being, now primarily refers to the spirit of a deceased person and often connotes boogeyman-type beings.

It’s important to note that English is a bit odd as a language as we have both Romance (inherited largely via French) and Germanic (the indigenous component of English) words functioning very closely in parallel. For example the Holy Spirit in German is ‘der Heilige Geist’: ‘Heilige’ is cognate (that is, sharing a common etymology) with the English ‘Holy’, likewise ‘Geist’ with ‘Ghost’. In French it is Saint-Esprit: ‘Esprit’ is cognate with the English ‘Spirit’.

Is there a more accurate translation? Based on how contemporary English-speakers generally understand and use both terms, ‘Spirit’ is more accurate than ‘Ghost’. But this is a very minor difference and I don’t think it’s something which is worth dying upon a hill in disputation. People should use whichever term to which they’re accustomed.
 
Alternatively, you can take the original languages as your starting point, since the OP’s question was specifically about translation. The Hebrew word ruach occurs 377 times in the OT. Apart from “spirit”, it is also quite often translated as “breath”, “air”, “wind”, and even occasionally “tempest”, among other English words.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_7307.htm
 
Last edited:
Bithynian said:
Based on how contemporary English-speakers generally understand and use both terms, ‘Spirit’ is more accurate than ‘Ghost’. But this is a very minor difference and I don’t think it’s something which is worth dying upon a hill in disputation. People should use whichever term to which they’re accustomed.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. In addition to what you said, the use in English of the term “Holy Ghost” in recent years has become an indication that the person praying leans towards traditional pre-Vatican II Catholicism. The term “Holy Spirit” is heavily associated with post-Vatican II practice.
 
Last edited:
MockSock said:
ghost
Click to expand...
No. Words in different languages rarely have the same semantic range. The Hebrew word ruach is translated using different English words (whether spirit, wind, breath, etc.) in order to clarify its primary meaning in any given verse.
 
MockSock said:
40.png
BartholomewB:
Apart from “spirit”, it is also quite often translated as “breath”, “air”, “wind”, and even occasionally “tempest”, among other English words.
Click to expand...
Does ghost mean those things?
Click to expand...
It’s the exact same word. Ghost comes from the Germanic geist, which means those things, as well as spirit. Spirit from the Latin spiritus, which is the same thing too. English is a primarily Germanic language with heavy Latin and Greek influences.
 
I was under the impression that the translation change from Ghost to Spirit. Has to do with the common use of the word spirit. Sprit and Ghost used to mean roughly the smae thing. But now in spoken English ghost is used to mean someone who is dead and their ghost is walking around building (imagine Halloween ghost). So the change was made to not confuse people with the new meaning of the word ghost. The ‘problem’ with living languages is meanings of words can and do shift with time.
 
Lysander said:
The ‘problem’ with living languages is meanings of words can and do shift with time.
Click to expand...
Which is why the Church has used Latin as its official language for thousands of years. Latin became a dead language early on and the meanings of its words ceased to evolve or shift, causing fewer problems for the Church than if it had used a living language.
 
Last edited:
MockSock said:
Does ghost mean those things?
Click to expand...
No, and neither does “spirit”. Translation doesn’t work like that. It’s quite unusual to find that a word in one language exactly matches a corresponding word in another language. Think of the Spanish word corredor, which means both “corridor” and “runner” or “racer”. What would be your reaction if someone told you, “Three corridors finished the half-marathon in under an hour”?
 
Last edited:
Sorry but for me Holy Ghost reminds something like this… 👻
I definitely prefer Holy Spirit.
 
I alternate on purpose so that I don’t slump into regarding the Holy Spirit as an emotion used by conquering athletes (Fighting Spirit). By alternating with Ghost, it reminds me always that the Spirit is indeed immaterial being and “person” rather than a feeling of strength.
So when I am doing my rosary as I circumnavigate the track at the Y, I will half the time say, “Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost”
 
if I’m using older prayers, I will say Holy Ghost, if I’m reading the Douay-Rheims I will say Holy Ghost. However, almost all of my other prayers I say Holy Spirit , even in French since that’s the direct translation.
 
BartholomewB said:
Think of the Spanish word corredor, which means both “corridor” and “runner” or “racer”. What would be your reaction if someone told you, “Three corridors finished the half-marathon in under an hour”?
Click to expand...
As you point out; translations on their own are problematic. Once you have a translation, it is helpful to see how the word is used in context.
 
MockSock said:
This is one for all those knowledgeable people on here who know their stuff about Greek and Hebrew and Latin and whatnot, but please anyone feel free to chip in anyway.

As kids, we used to say “Holy Ghost”, its only in the last few years that I’ve started saying “Holy Spirit” and sometimes I find myself slipping back into old habits.

I just wondered, which is the more accurate translation?
Click to expand...
They both mean Exactly the same portion of God…

Think: In 1000’s of languages - 1000’s of Vernaculae terms - point to God’s Essence
 
I think that might be part of the reason the translation change happen.
 
MockSock said:
I just wondered, which is the more accurate translation?
Click to expand...
Both. The only problem with :“ghost” is that it has taken on a new meaning in colloquial language, as in Casper the friendly ghost. But that doesn’t change the fact that “Holy Ghost” is still as accurate a translation as “Holy Spirit”.
 
Jbrady said:
Both. The only problem with :“ghost” is that it has taken on a new meaning in colloquial language
Click to expand...
It’s a very minor problem - and for very few…

Once educated . that little problem vanishes
 
It’s just a fashion. Ghost is the saxon based word (in German it’s Geist) and spirit is the latin based word.

There are “spooky” connections with both. Spiritists use things like ouija boards to summon spirits; houses are haunted by ghosts.

Personally I adhere to the standard view that good English style prefers the saxon to the latin when there’s a choice, so I say Holy Ghost
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top