[Traduction Oecumenique de la Bible] of this Pauline verse and the explanations given in the end to justify it. The translation: “My the God of peace himself make you perfect and holy, and may your spirit, your soul and your body be kept perfectly safe in order to be blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The originality of this translation consist in the fact that the word (GREEK), which in Paul preceded the tripartite enumeration, is shifted so as to follow it and, in addition, transformed into an adverb, so that the two words that come next: (GREEK)(in the singular, since the subject was (GREEK)) become (in the plural): “Be kept perfectly save in order to be blameless”. To tell the truth, that does not change much, and cannot change much, in the obvious meaning of the text.The latter could be changed only by the, obviously impossible, suppression of one of the three terms of the enumeration. But this little ingenuity on the part of the translators allows them to introduce in a note a contorted exegesis with an intended goal about which they make on secret:


Some understand: “May your entire being, that is, spirit, soul and body …” This division of the human person into three elements would be that of Greek philosophy. It is not usual in Paul, and this verse, understood in this sense, would be a completely isolated text in the New Testatment. In order to avoid this difficulty, others have understood the first term of the enumeration, “your spirit”, to be the equivalent of “yourself”; they then translate: “may your whole person , soul and body”, thus recovering the representation that Judaism and Paul had of the human person. We have rendered the sentence in a way that makes a simple enumeration of terms apparent, each of which can designate, for Paul, the entire man, whether it is a matter of pneuma, psyche or soma. There is no need at all, then, for an explanation borrowed from a Greek anthropology in three components, which, moreover, are never expressed with these three terms.[1]

有些人的理解是:「愿你的整个存有,就是灵,魂和身体。。。」这个把人分为三个元素的做法属于希腊哲学。保罗与这段经文往往不会被以这种方式理解,它会造成完全独立与圣经的本文之外。为了避免这样的困境,有些人将「你的灵(your spirit)」理解为与「你自己(yourself)」;他们接着将其翻译为:「愿你的全人,魂和身体」,以此重新恢复了犹太教以及保罗对于人类位格的叙述法。我们已经用一种简单的词汇来表达这句话的意义,对于保罗而言,全人乃是pneuma,psyche或soma的事。故此我们根本不需要藉用希腊哲学对于这三个部分的解释,因为希腊哲学的解释根本不是这三个词所要表达的。

One could not better display a stratagem. One could not be more subtle, more sophisticated, more inconsistent, too, but at the same time more honest, in the end more clear and, in the final proposition, more precise.


[1] TOB, 1973 edition (Ed. Du Cerf).

Pg 121

But here is another strange thing. This unfortunate trichotomy, so suspect because of the “Platonist” Origen, this trichotomy that some would like to be able to forbid in reading Saint Paul for fear of having to admit that the Apostle, at least once, “Platonizes”, this accused trichotomy that some strive, for want of something better, to exorcise by making it commonplace, which one finds in Paul or in Origen or in anyone else, has nothing Platonic about it.


We can first of all take this on the word of some good exegetes, those at least who are not hypnotized by the First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians. Do we not recognize, for example, the mark of Hellenic influence, and more precisely of Platonic opinion, on the Book of Wisdom, a little before the Christian era, in the fact that certain passages of this book enunciate or presuppose a bipartite division of the human composite, a division “more conformed to Greek customs than to Semitic”?[1] Do they not strive, with reason, moreover, to show that the recognized use of “Platonic doctrines about the distinction of body and soul” and about the immortality of the latter takes nothing away from the biblical foundation of a thought that is not that of a philosopher but that of a wise man of Israel, “nourished by the Old Testament”?[2]

我们可以先想想某些优良的释经书籍对于这个字的解释,最起码那些书籍并没有被保罗至帖撒罗尼迦前书催眠。例如,难道我们分辨不出希罗主义的标签?或更准确的说,柏拉图在「智慧书(the Book of Wisdom)」中的看法不过就出现在基督教时代不久之前,这本书的某些段落不就明确的解释,或假设了人类具有两种构成部分,一种「更倾向于希腊风俗,而不是闪族风俗」的区分法?此外,难到他们没有尽全力来表明他们所发现的「柏拉图分辨身体与魂的教义」以及后者(指灵-译者)的不灭根本不是基于哲学家,而是基于「熟读旧约」的以色列智者的思想,完全以圣经为基础。

If happens that one has not read much of Plato, one can also go back to some authorities on him: what one finds in his work is totally different from what one finds in Saint Paul. There is a certain psychological trichotomy, in other words, a tripartite division of the soul: reasonable, irascible and concupiscible. So it is in the Republic, Phaedrus and Timaeus. According to Phaedrus, the (GREEK) and the (GREEK) are the two horses of the chariot led by the νοῦς (nous). Origen, who is familiar with this division, is very careful not to take it his own; he observes, on the contrary, that is “is not confirmed by the authority of Holy Scripture” and, for this reason, on two occasions, he rejects it.[3] The translators of the TOB were very close to perceiving all that since at the end of their laborious explanations they finally tell us that Paul had undoubtedly borrowed nothing :from a three-part Greek anthropology, given the fact that the latter is never expressed in Pauline terms.


[1] C. Larchere, O. P., Etudes sur le livre de la Sagesse(1969), 278.

[2] Jerusalem Bible, 1004-5; Introduction to the Book of Wisdom (E. Osty).

[3] Peri archon, 1.3, c.4, n.1;GCS, 5, 264. Contra Celsum, 1.5, c.47, Sources chretiennes 147; cf. Select. In Ps 17, 29; PG 12, 1236 A. See Henri Crouzel, Origenen et la philosophie (aubier, 1962), 130.

Pg 122

But why then this fear, which has made them shrink from the simplest translation?


It is not correct, moreover, to say that the text of I Thessalonians is an isolated text in the Scripture and in Paul himself. Undoubtedly it has been unduly compared to a verse from Deuteronomy: “You shall love Yahweh your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength”, to the sole end of insinuating that only the number three was here and there to be retained, as signifying simply a totality;[1] it is enough to read these two texts to see that they are not comparable. But, on the contrary, when the Letter to the Hebrews celebrates the Word of God, who “penetrates to the division of soul and spirit” (Heb 4:12), it is inspired without any doubt by an anthropology similar to that of Paul. And one can hardly maintain that the formula of the latter is a mere pleonasm, “for other passages show clearly that the Apostle, despite all the elasticity or ‘fluidity’ of his terminology, distinguishes clearly between the phenomena that indicate the body, soul and spirit”.[2] He does so in the First Letter to the Corinthians, when twice he contrasts the unspiritual, or natural [psychique ] man and the spiritual man.[3] W. David Stacey has maintained that these latter texts cannot correspond to that of the Letter to the Thessalonians; of the two conceptions in conflict, it would be necessary on the basis of all evidence to choose the one later in date, as expressing the mature thought of the Apostle:[4] the antagonism of natural and spiritual would be substituted for the hierarchical union of soul and spirit. But here again, the desire to eliminate or at least to neutralize a text deemed embarrassing seems to us to have led Dr. Stacey astray. It is very evident that the text of I Thessalonians is far from having the same significance as that of I Corinthians; that does not prevent the thought of Saint Paul from remaining coherent from one letter to another. The soul (the Psyche) is never for its part the object, in itself, of a pejorative

此外,说帖撒罗尼加前书的段落是在圣经中以及保罗作品中独立的段落是错误的。毫无疑问的,这段经文被错误的与申命记的经文比较:「你们当尽心、尽魂并尽力爱耶和华你的神(You shall love Yahweh your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength,根据英文重译-译者)」,这处经文暗示这两处经文都当以数字三理解之,并以三作为总数;光阅读这两处经文就能发现不能把它们放在一起作比较。但是,在另一面,当希伯来书歌颂神的话说到,「刺穿魂与灵的分界(penetrates to the division of soul and spirit)(希伯来四12)」的时候,就让人毫不怀疑的认定这是与保罗相似的人论。人们很难坚称后者的公式不过是老太婆的裹脚布,「因为使徒在其它的经文段落明确的表明,不论使徒的用语有任何的弹性或『不确定性』,对人类的区分表明出身体、魂与灵。」这是保罗在至哥林多人前书中的做法,同时他又两次将其与不属灵,或天然的「natural(属魂的)」人与「属灵人」对比。W. David Stacey坚称后面(申命记)的经文段论不能被拿来与帖撒罗尼加的经文相提并论;因为两者的观念是相互冲突的,所以必须基于所有的证据选择时间上较后的观念,把它当作使徒较为成熟的想法:将天然的与属灵的相对的对立主义被灵与魂按次序的联合所代替。此处还有一种想要消除,或最起码中和一段看起来让Dr. Stacey难堪的经文。很明显的就是帖撒罗尼加前书的经文的意义完全与哥林多前书的经文不同;但这也无法禁止保罗在不同的书信间调理分明的阐述他的思想。魂(Psyche)的本身从未是主题,反而被获得一种轻蔑

[1] Dr. 6:5. According to Stacey, Pauline View, 124. Robinson is right to say that Paul does not make a systematic dissection of the various elements of the personality (to be sure!); the true analogy with I Thessalonians would be found in Deuteronomy 6:5, in which a similar enumeration figures, in order to make the totality of the human personality. Thus also, above, E. Schweizer.

Dr. 6:5. 根据Stacey的Pauline View, 124。Robinson正确的论到保罗并没有系统化的把人(格)中不同的元素分成几个部分(这是肯定的!);我们可以在申命记六5终找到帖撒罗尼加前书的模拟;此处经文也采取了同样的数目,为的是要构成人类位格的完整性。E. Schweizer也持守同样的看法。

[2] V. Warnach, article “Homme” in the Encyclopedie de la Foi, ed. H. Fries, vol. 2 (Ed. Du Cerf, 1965), 253. Cf. 253-60.

[3] I Cor 2:14-15; 15:44-46. Cf. Jude 1:19.

[4] Pauline View, 124.

Pg 123

appreciation. If, in another context, he is severe or not very admiring of the man he calls “natural”, it is insofar as the latter is only natural, insofar he closes himself – or remains still provisionally closed[1] — to the Spirit of God, who would (or will) make of him a “spiritual” man, conferring on him thus his “fullness”, as the Letter to the Ephesians will express it (5:18). The natural man of I Corinthians 2 can have a certain “human wisdom” that is not uniquely “carnal wisdom” (Cf. 2 Cor. 1:12), which does not lack all value but understands nothing “of the things of the Spirit of God”: for him, they are “folly”. To this “wise man”, to this “cultivated man”, to “this man of reason here below”, the Apostle contrasts the “wisdom of God” manifested in Christ.[2]

的评估。保罗在别处经文中,对于他所谓「天然的(natural)」人展现出一种严厉或不欣赏的态度,乃是因为后者在天然的范畴中,若他将自己限制在-或暂时的停留在-神的灵的范畴中,他就会(或将会)成为一个「属灵的(spiritual)」人,得以「完全(fullness)」,就像以弗所书所说的一样(5:18)。哥林多前书二章中那个天然的人可以拥有某种「人的智慧(human wisdom)」,与「属肉体的智慧(carnal wisdom)」不同(参考林后1:12)。这个智慧并不是毫无价值的,但却无法了解「神的灵的事(of the things of the Spirit of God)」;对于他,这些事情是「愚拙的」。对于这个「聪明人」,「有教养的人」,「具有此处所谓之理性的人」而言,使徒以在基督里所彰显出来的「神的智慧(wisdom of God)」对比之。

It will be more appropriate to bring out here the Pauline opposition, in a still more radical sense, between the flesh and the spirit. The carnal man is not the one who would stop, so to speak, at a first landing, that of the flesh, which is to say, in such a case, at things of the body, but the one who has fallen into evil. Body and flesh (it is really necessary to repeat this, since people still seem to be mistaken about this at times) are in no way synonymous or even comparable and do not belong to categories of the same order. In the thinking of Saint Paul, the “flesh” has a “close solidarity with sin”; it is this congenital weakness that makes the human soul fall into the slavery of sin. The “spirit”, its antagonist, is “the state of freedom in which it blossoms when it has been faithful to the Spirit of God, who attracts it and comes to dwell within it”. There is no question here of any gradation, but of opposition, pure and simple. Saint Paul does not speak there of any duality whatever in the structure of the human being, he does not correct a tripartite anthropology by another bipartite one. For him, flesh and spirit never designate two components of human nature – like body and soul would be – but always states – contrasted states – of the whole man.[3]


[1] The “worldly beings who have no spirit” of Jude 1:19 are of the first category, according to the portrait that is traced of it. One can also say that the whole of mankind, according to Paul, is included in it, following the picture of the first three chapters of the Letter to the Romans.

根据经文的描述,Jude 1:19中的「那些属世的人没有灵(worldly beings who have no spirit)」属于第一类。 读者也可以说,根据保罗所写的罗马书前三章,整个人类也被包括在其中。

[2] In I Corinthians 15:44-46, the opposition between “natural” and “spiritual” is another, as the context suffices to show.

[3] Hans Urs von Balthasar, Prayer, trans. G. Harrison (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986), 260. The human soul is the place of the struggle between the flesh and the spirit. Cf. Galatians 5, Romans 8: “The struggle that is to lead the disciple of Christ attacks what Saint Paul calls the “flesh” as the center of all violence: impurity, hate, discord, jealousy, transports, disputes, etc., and arouses the life according to the Spirit in charity, joy, peace, goddness, gentleness, self-mastery (Source [Fribourg, February 1987], 7-8).

Hans Urs von Balthasar, Prayer, trans. G. Harrison (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986), 260。魂是肉体和灵争斗的地方。参考加拉太五,罗马八:「这个斗争导致基督的门徒攻击保罗所谓的『肉体』,并将其视为一切暴虐的中心:参杂、仇恨、不和、嫉妒、放荡、高抬自我」( Source [Fribourg, February 1987], 7-8)。

Pg 124

If one wants, therefore, to find a certain Greek antecedent of philosophical significance for the Pauline trichotomy, it would not be appropriate to look for it on Plat’s side. It would rather in Aristotle. The Stagirite in fact acknowledges in man, an animated body, the presence of a superior element, the spirit (νοῦς, nous), the principle of intellectual life, immortal and divine. Nevertheless, the parallel takes a sharp turn: for there would be at least one major difference. While Aristotle spoke of a (νοῦς, nous), Paul speaks of a (πνεῦμα, pnuema). Now, as we know, the difference is not merely one of terminology. It is no longer a question of a simple nuance of thought. The substitution of one term for another was, besides, not made by Paul alone; it had already been carried out a little earlier by Philo. Friendly toward Helenism, Philo “was imbued with the doctrine of the contemplative nous”;[1] nevertheless, in the passages where he comments on the creation account, he does not speak of (νοῦς, nous) but of (πνεῦμα, pnuema). God, he says, breaths into man a pneuma; not content with making him simply alive, composed of soul and body, he gave him part of his spirit; this is what Moses teaches by saying that he made him in his image. This pneuma, in man, is the principle of a higher life, the place of Now such is also one of the pneuma meanings of in Saint Paul. It is not in Greece that we must search for its origin but in the Bible.

因此,若有人想要为保罗的三元论找出某位希腊哲学的先祖,那就不应该先看柏拉图,反而应当先检视亚里士多德。Stagirite事实上承认在人里面有一个被赋予生命的身体,并有一个高等的元素,灵(νοῦς ,nous,应作心思-译者),理性、不死并神圣生命的主要原理。有鉴于此,这种对比就会进入一个急转弯:因为最起码会此处有一个重大的差异。当亚里士多德所谓的νοῦς (nous)乃是保罗的πνεῦμα(pnuema)。我们现在知道,这个差异并不仅仅是名词上的,也不再是思想间细微差别的问题。此外,保罗并不是唯一一个用一个名词代换另一个名词的作者;在他之前的非斐罗(Philo)就已经这样做过了。斐罗对于希罗主义是友善的,并「被灌输了当时盛行的nous教义」;有鉴于此,他在某些评注创造细节的段落中,并没有使用(νοῦς, nous),而是使用了(πνεῦμα, pnuema)。他说神把一个pneuma吹到人里面;不仅仅把他造为一个由魂与身体构成的活人,祂也把祂的灵的一部分赐给了人;这就是摩西说神根据自己的形像造人所教导的。这个在人里面的pneuma就是更高之生命的原理,与神交通的所在。这也就是保罗神学中的pneuma意义之一。我们不能在希腊文化中,反而当在圣经中寻找其起源。

Father Joseph Huby has said it in a few words, which more recent authors would benefit from rereading: In the Pauline verse, “famous because of the trichotomy spirit, soul, body, of the human composite, some thought to see a borrowing from Plato or Aristotle. Both do acknowledge, in fact, three principles in man; but if the latter two of those coincide with those[3] enumerated by Saint Paul, the first is different. In Plato, it is the nous, the intellectual soul …, considered, moreover, by Aristotle as separable. Instead of νοῦς (nous), Saint Paul puts spirit or pneuma, here; with him as in Philo, this is a Semitic term, suggested by the account in Genesis (2:7), where it is said that God breathed into the nostrils of the man a breath of life…”[4] The Pleiade Bible has taken the same explanation, which seems imperative to us. “Spirit, soul, body”, recalls Michel Leturmy in a note to his translation, “such is, with the Semites, the most common division with respect to the human composite.”[5] In a note to the translation of Matthew 6:25, the same author explains that the ψυχή (GREEK)(psyche) translates the Arameaean nasfsha, breach of the throat, animal life (the ‘soul’), through opposition of πνεῦμα(pnuema), which translates the Aramaean rouah, divine respiration, breath of the nostrils (the ‘spirit’): see Genesis 2:7.

[6] Joseph Huby神父的论点对于现代的作者们是有益处的:在保罗的作品中,「因着三元人类构造的灵、魂与身体而著名的经文,有些人认为是从柏拉图或亚里士多德借用来的观念。事实上,这两者都承认人的三个本能;但是若三个原理的后两个与保罗的区分法一致,第一个却是不同的。灵在柏拉图的思想中是νοῦς(心思或理性),具有智慧的魂。。。,此外,亚里士多德则认为它是一个独立分开的部分。保罗在此并没有使用νοῦς (nous),反而使用了灵或pneuma;他就像菲罗一样,使用了这个闪族的,并根据创世记(2:7)的词汇。创世纪说到神将一口生命之气吹到人的鼻孔中。。。」Pleiade版圣经也采用了同样的解释,对我们而言这是理所当然的。Michel Leturmy在他的一个译注中说到,「灵、魂、体是闪族最常用来分辨人的组成部分的方法。」在马太福音6:25的译注中,这位译者解释说希腊文ψυχή (psyche)被翻译为亚兰文的nasfsha,喉咙呼出之气,动物的生命(soul-「魂」),与πνεῦμα(pnuema)相对,这个字被翻译为亚兰文的rouha,神的呼吸,鼻孔的气息(spirit-「灵」):参考创世纪2:7。

We do not believe it would be enough, however, to trace the words of the Pauline traid simply to those of the Bible. The Apostle’s anthropology is also based, in part, on his experience acquired from life in the Spirit of God. There are numerous commentators who, in consequence, consider the Pauline πνεῦμα (pneuma) to designate in reality, not something of man that would be higher than his soul, but the human soul insofar as it is informed by grace, participating, as Second Letter of Peter(1:4) says, in an effective way in the divine nature, united to the very essence of God by the coming of the divine Spirit into it.[7] The ψυχή (psuche) in this case would be not only ‘sensible life’ but also the higher reality of man as man, that is although Buzy translates it in an overly intellectualist language, “reason without grace”.[8] This would be “The state of the specifically living being, which is inherent in man

我们不相信仅仅将保罗的三分用语追朔至圣经是足够的。使徒的人论的某些部分也是根据他对在神的灵中生命的经历。这也造成,许多圣经注释认为保罗的πνευμα (pneuma)指的是一种实际(reality,指对于神的灵中之生命的主观经历-译者),而不是人里面某种高于魂的东西,而是人的魂被恩典构成的部分,就如同彼得后书(1:4)所说的,有分于神的性情,借着神的灵进到人的魂里面而于神自己的本质联合。虽然Buzy以过于理性主义的方式将ψυχή (psuche)这个字翻译为「缺少恩典的理性(reason without grace)」,但是这个字在此不仅仅指的是情感的生命(sensible life),而是人之所以作为人那个更高等的实际。就是,「人里面所领受的那个特别的,活生生之存有的状态(The state of the specifically living being, which is inherent in man as such.)」。

[1] Andre-Jean Festugiere, O.P., “La Division corps-ames-esprit de I Thess. 5,23 et la philosophie agecque”, in Recherches de science religieuse  (1930). We are summarizing here the whole of this decisive and complete paper, which was reproduced by the author in I’Ideal religieux des Grecs et I’Evangile (Gabalda, 1932), 196-220.

Andre-Jean Festugiere, O.P., “La Division corps-ames-esprit de I Thess. 5,23 et la philosophie agecque”, in Recherches de science religieuse (1930)。我们在此将这篇具有决定性并完整的报告作出了总结,I’Ideal religieux des Grecs et I’Evangile (Gabalda, 1932), 196-220的作者也作出了同样的总结。

[2] Philo, Allegories des Lois, 1:12-13: “quis rerum divinarum sit haeres. Quod deterior potiori…”Text in Festugiere.

[3] In fact, the coincidence is only partial. The body, soma, designates rather in Plato the carnal passions, and the soul, psyche, the good passions. With Aristotle, as we have said, the analogy would be closer.


[4] Saint Paul, Epitre aux Galates, epitres aux Thessalonicien, “Verbum alutis” series, 14 (Beauchesne, 1946).On the various meanings of πνεῦμα(pnuema) in Greek philosophy and Paul, cf. the explanation of Bernard Allo, O.P., commentary on the First Letter to the Corinthians (Gabalda), 91-112.

“Verbum alutis” series, 14 (Beauchesne, 1946).关于πνεῦμα(pnuema) 在希腊哲学与保罗思像中不同的意义,参考Bernard Allo, O.P.的解释,commentary on the First Letter to the Corinthians (Gabalda), 91-112。

[5] Bible de la Pleiade, Nouveau Testament (1971), 689. Translation: “May the God of peace himself make you completely holy, and may your whole being, spirit, soul and body, be kept safe and blameless for the coming of our Lord Jesus Churst.”

Bible de la Pleiade, Nouveau Testament (1971), 689。译文:「愿平安的神亲自让你完全圣洁,并愿你的全人,灵、魂和身体得蒙保守,在我们主耶稣基督来临的时候无可指责。」

[6] Op. cit., 22. Cf. Jean Grosjean, 762, note to Hebrews 4:12: the separation of the soul and the spirit is an “Aramaean way of designating concretely the innermost point of man, according to the distinction (stressed by M. Jousse) between guttural breathing (soul) and nasal breathing (spirit)”.

Op. cit., 22. Cf. Jean Grosjean, 762, note to Hebrews 4:12:魂与灵的分别是「亚兰人用来标明人最深的部分的方式,乃是根据喉咙的气息(soul-魂)与鼻孔的气息(spirit-灵)间的分别」。

[7] Thus F. Amiot, Saint Paul;  Verbum slutis series, 13(1946_, 351 and 352.

[8] D. Buzy, 170.

Pg 125