From the book
Candida Phoenix Philosophica
Anonymous · Diotimos Editions · 2026
Browse this book’s lexicon →Orientation
At a Glance
- The wordRuah is a printed Hebrew transliteration used in a dispute over the hovering spirit.
- In the CandidaThe author claims it always describes wind and air, while admitting limited Hebrew and reliance on learned informants.
- TranslationThe form and the attribution of the lexical claim remain visible.
- A place to readRead pp. 41-47, I.041.1-I.046.1, as objection and answer.
Meaning
Ruah matters because the identity of one spirit turns on how a scriptural word is read. The opponents invoke it together with Elohim to identify the spirit above the waters as God the Holy Spirit. The author instead argues for a created wind or air. The entry follows that contested use; it does not establish a complete Hebrew dictionary entry or impose one meaning on all biblical occurrences.
Use in the book
The word first appears among the opponents’ principal grounds (pp. 41-42, I.041.1). They also invoke the Bible gloss that wind did not yet exist. Their lexical and chronological claims work together: the phrase must be divine, they argue, because the natural alternative is unavailable. The author therefore has to challenge more than a single English translation.
His reply at pp. 44-45 makes the strong claim that Ruah always describes wind and air in Scripture (I.044.1). He cites good authors and instruction from learned people, including Hebrews. He then freely admits knowing little Hebrew or other Oriental languages. The combination of confidence and acknowledged dependence is part of the evidence for his method; neither half should be suppressed.10
The argument also relies on a Creator-creature distinction independent of that lexical assertion. Elohim already names the triune Creator, whereas the hovering spirit is listed with created things and is not said to create or perfect them (pp. 42-45, I.042.1-I.044.1). Ruah is thus one support within a cumulative answer, not the sole basis on which the author rests his conclusion.
The accompanying expression of God receives a further explanation (pp. 45-46, I.045.1). The author invokes intensifying divine-name idioms, proposing exceedingly great spirit. Elijah’s designation as a man of God supplies another analogy against identifying every thing associated with God as divine. This argument belongs to Elohim and the phrase’s construction, while Ruah concerns the spirit’s proposed natural referent.
The chronology is answered at pp. 46-47 (I.046.1). Wind and air are one, according to the author and the Nuysement formula that wind is air in motion. He therefore denies the Bible gloss’s assertion that wind was absent. A created spirit can also be called holy after its holy Creator without becoming God the Holy Spirit. The conclusion links lexical interpretation, natural identity and theological distinction.
The later wind chapter returns to the air-in-motion account and the watery origin of air (pp. 97-98, II.097.1). It does not offer a fresh survey of Hebrew usage. That distinction matters: repetition of the physical formula strengthens the book’s internal continuity, but it is not an independent external confirmation of the earlier universal lexical claim.
Places to read
- Part I · I.041.1Ruah in the opponents’ stated grounds.
- Part I · I.044.1The author’s lexical assertion and confession of limited knowledge.
- Part I and Part II · I.045.1; I.046.1; II.097.123The associated divine-name argument and wind-air interpretation.
Translation
Ruah is the source’s form. The entry does not manufacture a standardized original-script spelling or an etymology. Wind and air records the author’s proposed interpretation, with his universal word always attributed rather than silently endorsed.
Spirit remains appropriate when translating the larger dispute because that is the term whose identity is under examination. Replacing every occurrence in advance with wind would make the author’s conclusion appear already settled in his statement of the opposing position.
Connections
Elohim follows the accompanying name, Trinity follows the Creator-creature distinction, and Air and wind follows the proposed natural referent. Keeping the entries separate makes clear that lexical sense, grammatical association and physical explanation are different parts of the dispute.
Cautions
The author’s claim to have consulted informants is testimony about his preparation, not comprehensive verification of every scriptural use.
The argument should not be generalized into a claim that Candida rejects the divine Holy Spirit. Its stated purpose is to defend divine honour while identifying this hovering spirit as created.
Ruah
Ruah — Attested source form; the headword is a reading reference rather than an added historical lemma. I.041.1; I.044.1.
Wind und Lufft
Wind und Lufft — Attested source form; the headword is a reading reference rather than an added historical lemma. I.044.1.
Hebræischen Sprach
Hebræischen Sprach — Attested source form; the headword is a reading reference rather than an added historical lemma. I.044.1.
Source note
I.044.1 places the strong lexical assertion and the admission of limited Hebrew in the same paragraph. The wording is preserved as a historical argument. This lexicon has not established the assertion as a general rule of Hebrew semantics.