Re: 1 Thessalonians 5:23

From: Rolf Furuli (furuli@online.no)
Date: Thu Dec 11 1997 - 06:30:34 EST


John Reece wrote:

<Rolf & Carl,

<Please tell me if you think the following two sources are definitely and
<unquestionably wrong:

<Max Zerwick, 1966, _A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament_,
<page 621, "hOLOKLHROS entire, complete, whole, hOLOKLHRON hUMWN your
<entirity, the whole of you; subject of THRHQEIH."

<Harold K. Moulton, 1977, _The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised_, page
<287, "hOLOKLHROS,......in N.T. the whole, 1 Thes. 5.23".

Dear John,

It is difficult to say that something is "unquestionably wrong", and it is
better to weight the arguments.

The word hOLOKLHRON is used 6 times in the OT and 2 times in the NT. It is
an adjective and is used as such in in all instances ( Lev 23:15; Deut
16:9; 27:6; Josh 8:31; Ezek 15:5 and James 1:4) except in Zech 11:16 where
it is substantivized, and this is indicated by the article TO. GRAMCORD
lists all the instances in the OT and NT, including Zech 11:16, as
adjectives, except 1 Thess 5:23 where the word is listed as a substantive.

Let us look at 1 Thess 5:23 again. We start with the verb. Who is the agent
in the passive construction of THREW? The agent is God, and the prayer is
that God must keep..., and here we need a complement, either a predicative
or an adverbial. There are two candidates, hOLOKLHRON and AMEMPTWS. We may
take a look at 3:13 to learn from the similarities and dissimilarities. In
this verse we find AMEMPTOS, which is an adjective qualifying KARDIAS, and
which indicates an unblamable STATE. In 5:23, however, we do not find the
adjective but the adverb AMEMPTWS which signify a MANNER rather than a
state. It would be strange to pray that God`s keeping should be blameless,
because all he does is without fault, and therefore is it not natural that
AMEMPTWS is a complement of THRHQEIH but rather is a part of the adverbial,
being qualified itself by EN THi PAROUSIA..The following comparison between
the adverbials of 3:13 and 5:23 is striking:

5:23: AMEMPTWS EN THi PAROUSIA TOU KURIOU hHMWN IESOU CRISTOU
3:13 EN hAGIOSYNH (..) EN THi PAROUSIA TOU KURIOU hHMWN IESOU

If the above arguments hold the other candidate, hOLOKLHRON, must be the
complement.

I will also look at the question from another angle. In 3:13 we find the
phrase hUMWN TAS KARDIAS AMEMPTOUS. We find the personal pronoun before the
noun it qualifies, and there is an agreement in number. The individual
heart of each member of the congregation is denoted. Looking at 5:23 we
find the phrase hUMWN TO PNEUMA KAI hH YUCH KAI TO SWMA, and following the
pattern of 3:13 all three substantives must be qualified by hUMWN.
(Daniel`s suggestion that only TO PNEUMA is qualified by hUMWN is
grammatically possible but is communicatively so strange that grammatical
precedents must be produced to accept it.). But the singularity of the
nouns strongly suggests that what is denoted is not an individual spirit,
soul and body of each congregation member but a collective organism. The
use of "body" accords with this. If the personal body of each member was
meant and Paul prayed that they must be kept until the PAROUSIA, then his
view would be that the PAROUSIA was imminent, but this is definitely denied
in his second letter to the congregation.

The singularity of hOLOKLHRON is also important. If it is a substantive
which is the grammatical subject of THRHQEIH why is it not in the plural as
it is in James 1:4, a verse which is quite parallel in meaning? The reason
must be that it is not qualified by hUMWN but is a predicative. With this
function it would parallel TO STERIXAI of 3:13:

3:13: TO STERIXAI hUMWN TAS KARDIAS AMEMPTOUS
5:23 hOLOKLHRON hUMWN TO PNEUMA KAI hH YUCH KAI TO SWMA

By way of conclusion I would say that hOLOKLHRON is unattested as a
substantive both in the OT and the NT. If it were such in 5:23 ( or was a
substantivized adjective) I would expect the definite article to precede
it. Its singularity is problematic for the subject interpretation and the
parallel with 3:13 also speaks against it.

Regards
Rolf

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
furuli@online.no



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:37 EDT