Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - [Corpus-Paul] 1 Thess 1:3 problems

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Chris Tilling" <chris AT christilling.de>
  • To: <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [Corpus-Paul] 1 Thess 1:3 problems
  • Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 08:53:49 +0100

Dear list members. I posted a similar post on my blog, but I thought I could
be doing with help from a wider audience.

What is the relation of the objective genitive in 1 Thess 1:3 ('tou kuriou
hmwn Ihsou Xristou') to the lengthy object of the sentence (starting with
umwn, working through the triad of faith, love and hope)? Is the objective
genitive modifying just the 'hope', or also the 'faith' and 'love'? This
question, while considered in earlier commentaries, has gone out of fashion
in modern works. That the objective genitive modifies just 'hope' is simply
assumed. But is this assumption correct?

Leon Morris, one of the few more modern scholars to at least raise the
question, states:

‘It is not absolutely clear whether we should take “in our Lord Jesus
Christ” with “hope”, or, as Neil, for example, does, with the whole of the
preceding, including the work of faith and labor of love’.[1]

Here are some reasons, against the (albeit silent) modern scholarly
consensus, to follow the line of thought represented by Neil (whose work on
Thessalonians I sadly don't have access to). First, the triad of 'faith,
hope and love' occur together regularly in early Christian writings. That
this is so suggests that the objective genitive may modify all of the
preceding, given their natural association with one another. Second, the
umwn that begins the ‘lengthy object’[2] of the sentence is dependent on
ergou ... kopou and upomonhς. This 'object' culminates in the appearance of
the objective genitive, and thus suggests that tou kuriou hmwn Ihsou Xristou
relates to the entire 'object'.

Furthermore, the reasons I've found in commentaries against Neil's position
fail to fully convince. For example, Morris makes the suggestion that the
objective genitive relates only to ‘hope’ because the phrase ‘before our God
and Father’ must also be read to do so.[3] However, such a reading of this
phrase is deeply problematic, and I prefer to see it as related to the
opening participle (mnhmoneuonteς), as most commentators do. The main reason
given against Neil's reading is that the focus on just ‘hope’ in Christ sits
very comfortably with the rest of the letter that has the eschatological
events centred around Christ very much to the fore. And Christ is not tied
to faith or love in 1 Thess, so the argument goes. However, while Paul doesn
’t speak of love toward Christ in this letter explicitly, the idea is
arguably present. And while Paul does speak of the object of faith in 1:8 as
God, the entire third chapter will demonstrate how faith is expressed by
whether or not the Thessalonians are ‘standing firm in the Lord’ (3:8).

Another potentially more problematic argument (not found in any
commentaries) against reading the objective genitive as modifying all three
elements of the ‘lengthy object’, is that Chrysostom reads it automatically
as only referring to ‘hope’ (cf. my blog post on Silva's GF principle for a
discussion on such reasoning).

So, what do people think? Is the objective genitive modifying just 'hope',
or the entire triad?

[1]Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, (Michigan:
William B. Eerdmans, 1991), 42.
[2]to use the language of Earl Richard, First and Second Thessalonians.
Sacra Pagina Series Vol. 11 (Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1995), 46.
[3]Leon Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 42, esp.
fn. 24.

All the best,
Chris

------------------------------------------------------------
Chris and Anja Tilling
http://www.christilling.de
Schillerstrasse 32
D-72810 Gomaringen
fon. (0049) 07072 915046




  • [Corpus-Paul] 1 Thess 1:3 problems, Chris Tilling, 12/08/2005

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page