From: Daniel Ria–o (danielrr@mad.servicom.es)
Date: Wed Dec 10 1997 - 15:39:09 EST
>Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>
>> "Definitely and unquestionably" are pretty strong words, but I'll stick
>>with the argument that Rolf suggested and that I supported, that
>>hOMOKLHRON here is predicative and adjectival. I note that Accordance
>>also lists it as a noun, but I nevertheless really think it is an
>>adjective, agreeing, to be sure, with the first neuter subject PNEUMA,
>>but nevertheless used predicatively, i.e., adverbially. Here's what Louw
>>and Nida say:
>>
>> 59.30 hOLOKLHROS, ON: a totality, with special emphasis upon the entity
>>as a whole - 'whole, entire.' KAI HOLOKLHRON hUMWN TO PNEUMA KAI hH YUCH
>>KAI TO SWMA AMEMPTWS ... THRHQEIH 'and may he keep your entire being,
>>spirit, soul, and body, without blame' 1Th 5:23. In a number of languages
>>it may be difficult to speak of 'your entire being.' A substitute
>>expression in 1Th 5:23 may be 'yourselves as one person.'
>>
>> What I believe they are doing here is offering a translation in good
>>English, reversing the subject and the Greek passive to an English active
>>construction, yet the last entry there, 'yourselves as one person', does,
>>I think, view the construction as Rolf and I have argued it.
>
John M Moe Wrote:
>I know that Kittel's TDNT is not held in high regard by many on this list
>but I call attention to Foerster's article (3:767) which includes the
>following sentence in a paragraph discussing this use of hOLOKLHROS at
>1Th. 5:23.
>
>"The predicative hOLOKLHRON, which embraces all three nouns, expresses the
>hope that the Thessalonians, each as a totality, may remain unaffected by
>evil in every respect."
>
>This too seems in full agreement with the view expressed by Carl and Rolf.
I have another suggestion to do: I believe that *o(lo/klhron* is
predicative, and almost certainly it is *not* a substantive here, as Carl
W. Conrad noted; but it must not be taken all the three nouns, as TDNT
says, but only with *to\ pneu=ma*, and *h( yuch\ kai\ to\ sw=ma* are
adverbially modified by *a)me/mptws*. Then we have not only another case of
chiasmus, but also an ellegant "variatio" in the adverbial-predicative
construction: an adjective with the first member, a real adverb with the
second and third. I think this is the sense of the Nova Vulgata translation.
If this explanation seems too sophisticated (in the real sense of
the word. The main objection is the absence of a particle that separates
the different "cola"), then I think that an alternative solution is to take
*o(lo/klhron* as an attributive adjective with *to\ pneu=ma* (for the
position cf. in the same passage *o( Qeo\s th=s ei)rh/nhs*) and
*a)me/mptws* as an adverbial modifier of all the three items, but I think
that the former explanation is better.
Daniel
___________________________________________________________________
Daniel Rian~o Rufilanchas
c. Santa Engracia 52, 7 dcha.
28010-Madrid
Espan~a
e-mail: danielrr@mad.servicom.es
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:37 EDT