Scott Hahn referring to Holy Spirit as she

[andrewagill]

In the Targumim.

The Targum is an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Though it be a translation, it is a translation from a very closely related language (perhaps like Old English or Middle English translated into Modern English)

Still, this is a translation, and the original Hebrew in these circumstances is not in doubt. I would not accept these uses as Holy Writ in the circumstance that they contradict the original Hebrew that we have, unless anyone can come up with a compelling reason why I should.

Since the Shekinah is light, those passages of the Apocrypha and New Testament which mention radiance, and in which the Greek text reads δόξα, refer to the Shekinah, there being no other Greek equivalent for the word. Thus, according to Luke ii. 9, “the glory of the Lord δόζα Ḳυρίου] shone round about them” (comp. II Peter i. 17; Eph. i. 6; II Cor. iv. 6); and it is supposed that in John i. 14 and Rev. xxi. 3 the words σκηνοῦν and σκηνή were expressly selected as implying the Shekinah.

I don’t have any issue with the Deuterocanonicals that started in Hebrew using a word that can be traced back to Shekinah, and that would be strong evidence that the original Hebrew text used Shekinah, but it’s a little shaky to suggest that books that originated in Greek used a Greek word to imply a Hebrew word.

But δόξα is feminine, you are right.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

This rumor continues to circulate. This began some time back because of an article in the New Oxford review which, I believe, distorts and misinterprets Dr. Hahn’s work in Love Comes First. Anyhow, Scott Hahn wrote this response to the editor.

In response to your New Oxford Note “A Little Bit of Gnosticism” (Feb.) about me, I have to wonder whether you read what I wrote about the Holy Spirit.

First, I expressly deny that the Holy Spirit is feminine, in both the hardcover and paperback editions of my book First Comes Love. In this connection, I cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and its teaching about God: “He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective ‘perfections’ of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband” (#370).

Second, I always refer to the Holy Spirit as “He” – never “She” – in all my writings and teachings.

Third, it is absurd to say that modern defenders of Gnosticism (such as Elaine Pagels) derive any support whatsoever from exploratory study of maternal aspects of God and the Holy Spirit, whether by me or the orthodox Catholics I cite (e.g., St. Ephrem, St. Methodius, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. Edith Stein, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Louis Bouyer, Matthias Scheeben).

Fourth, what you imply about me supporting lesbian marriage is unspeakably vile and slanderous. And on what basis do you argue: That if the Spirit has a maternal function, then Jesus had two mommies? The same twisted and perverse logic could be turned right around to show that Dale Vree, the Editor of the NOR, must support gay marriage between men: “If the Spirit’s role is really paternal, then Jesus had two daddies – at least (the first and third Persons of the Trinity), not to mention St. Joseph.” As I said, this is twisted and perverse.

Your readers deserve better. Indeed, I invite them to read my chapter and judge for themselves, which they can now find online (courtesy of Doubleday).

If his writings were ambiguous before (and I’m not saying they are), this letter certainly clarifies his position regarding the Holy Spirit.