as such. So too, schematically, Bonnetian: “The three terms come back to the following: grace, soul and body.” Father Andre-Jean Festugiere is clearly opposed to this interpretation, which also proceeds in some from the fear of attributing to the Apostle an anthropology judged to be “Platonic”. For him, the anthropology of Saint Paul is undoubtedly trichotomic; the pneuma in question in the wish addressed to the Thessalonians, as in the texts mentioned above from the First Letter to the Corinthians – and as, in additions, the Letter to the Hebrews speaks of it – is not the Holy Spirit, but actually a part of man: “The movement of the phrase, the two και(kai), the insistence on saying that we must be completely, in our whole being, under the divine safeguard” are the proof of it. Besides, if this pnuema is not itself the divine life realized in man, it is indeed in him the center of the higher life: moral, religious, mystical; it is the “center of the Christian life”, which is not a matter of feeling but of faith.
Bonnetian根據這個觀念，也說：「這三個詞應當是：恩典、魂和身體。」Andre-Jean Festugiere神父明確的反對這種害怕把使徒的人論判斷為「柏拉圖式」人論的解釋。對於他，保羅的人論毫無疑問是三元的；不論是帖撒羅尼加所提到的pneuma，還是前面提到的哥林多前書－還要加上希伯來書對於這個字的論述－都不是聖靈，而事實上是人的一部分：「這段經文中用兩個και(kai)堅決的主張我們的全人在神的保守下必須完全」就是最佳的明證。此外，若pnuema這個字並不是神的生命在人裡面的實化，那麼它確實就是人裡面更高生命的中心：道德的，宗教的並神秘的；它就是「基督徒生命的中心（center of the Christian life）」，不是感覺的事，而是信心的事。
Some hesitate to choose between these two contradictory interpretations, even if it means apparently contradicting themselves in their explanatory formulas. They are of the feeling that the thought of Paul is profound and complex; they would like to lose nothing of it but do not see well how to explain it in our language in a coherent fashion. Such is Fahter Joseph Huby, following the passage we have quoted: “For Paul, the pnuema is more precisely the spirit of man insofar as influenced, informed and heightened by divine grace”; it is the “principle of thinking, center or moral and religious life and summit of the soul. The original (biblical) concept of the pnuema, the human soul breathes from God, is magnificently deepened; the pneuma designates the reason informed by grace, man insofar as he becomes spirit, participating in the nature of God; through the spirit, the νοῦς (nous) becomes capable of conquering the flesh …, it united to the very essence of God through the coming of the divine Spirit.” In this essay, somewhat awkward in its attempts at reconciliation, in which a fourth term νοῦς (nous) is introduced, we see to which side the author is leaning. We will say as much
有些人拒絕在這兩種相互矛盾的詮釋中作出選擇，就好像這些詮釋與他們本身的釋經公式相互衝突一樣。他們都感覺到保羅的思想是深邃並複雜的；他們既不願意失去任何保羅的思想，又無法用與其相應的語言解釋它。就好像Joseph Huby神父一樣，在前面引用的段落後他又說：「對於保羅而言，pnuema應當是人的靈，被神的恩典所充滿並加強」；它乃是「理性的原理，宗教生活的中心或道德，以及魂的巔峰。Pneuma原始(聖經的)觀念要更為深遂，是人的魂從神得到的呼細深；pneuma指的是恩典所充滿的理性，只要人在這個範疇中，他就會成為靈（spirit），有分於神的性情；νοῦς (nous)藉著靈就能夠勝過肉體。。。，它藉著神的靈的臨在於神的本質聯合。」在這篇論文中，將第四個詞νοῦς (nous)融入保羅觀念的嘗試並不是太成功，我們藉此可以看間作者的傾向。我們也要論到
 Stacey, Pauline View.
 Course tahght at Saint-Sulpice (1939), 79.
 Festugiere, “Division”, 198-99.
 Ibid., 218. Cf. B. Allo, Revue biblique, 43 (1934), 341: The human pnuema in Paul depends no more on pagan mysticism than it does on Greek philosophy, and “there, where it is considered a constitutive, existential part of man, it is certainly not a fragment of God.”
Ibid., 218. Cf. B. Allo, Revue biblique, 43 (1934), 341：在保羅的思想中，人的pnuema既不需要倚賴異教徒的神秘主義，也不需要倚賴希臘哲學，並且，「它被視為人組成的一個部分，不可能是神的一個碎片。」
 Huby, Saint Paul.
of Max Alain Chevalier, who with respect to I Corinthains 14:14-16, after having noted for us “the freely equivocal use of the word pneuma by Paul”, seems to restrict immediately the significance of his observation by saying that this word “designates without describing it the inner man filled with the presence of God”. Karl Barth, in his Dogmatics, escapes such oscillations only thanks to his general doctrine, which prohibits him from “reifying” in a way, from giving a proper consistency to the human spirit considered in its relation to God. After having justly observed that the ruah of the Old Testament does not correspond to the (GREEK) of the New, but, insofar as a “anthropological notion”, to theπνεῦμα(pnuema) of the address to the Thessalonians, Barth makes hast to add: “On the other hand, one cannot assert without reservation that the Old Testament and the New refer to a trichotomy of the human being. For both, the human being in himself is body and soul, earthly form and earthly life; but the body possesses a soul, and its earthly form is that of a living being, in the measure in which the human being receives the spirit and safeguards it.” This spirit must, however, be conceived, “not as a property of man, but as a gratuitous gift”, which a death must be returned to God and which persists, “which God withdraws from him or grants to him”. What must be maintained above all, according to Barth is that man “is in no way ‘related to God’(Gunkel); he has simple been awakened to his proper existence by the breath that God breathes into him and which allows him to breathe himself. What is he and what does he posses that he has not received and that does not differentiate him from God, since it is God who has created him?”
Max Alain Chevalier，他在為我們提供一個關於哥林多前書14:14-16的注釋後說到，「保羅以模擬兩可的方式使用pnuema這個字」,這使得他看起來直接的限制了自己對於這個字的觀察，並說「並沒有把它用來當作充滿神同在的內在之人。」卡爾巴特在他的「教義（Dogmatics）」一書中跳脫了這種搖擺不定的態度，這要感謝他綜合性的教義架構，使得他不得不提供人的靈與神間固定的關係。巴特正確的觀察到舊約的ruah並不能被視為新約中的(GREEK)，但是，至於「人論的觀點（anthropological notion）」，論到帖撒羅尼加書中的πνεῦμα(pnuema)的時候，巴特心不甘情不情願的加上：「在另一方面，人們無法不帶著保留的堅稱舊約與新約對於人的存有採取三元論的看法。對與這兩者，人的裡面是身體和魂，屬地形式與屬地的生命；但是身體擁有一個魂，它的屬地形式就是一個活的存有，人類領受了靈並要保守它。」然而，這個靈必然不能被當作「人本身的財產，而是從恩典來的恩賜」，在死後回到神那裏去，「神自由的從他收回（靈），或賜予他」。根據巴特，我們必須堅持的是，人「在各方面都不可能『與神建立關係(Gunkel)』，人不過使因為神吹入他裡面的氣息而被喚醒，恢復他應有的存在狀態，並使得他能夠呼吸到神的自己。他天然所是並所有的並不能將他與神分別開來，難到神不是創造他的那位？」
The human pneuma of which Paul speaks would thus be both an element so little constitutive of his being that God can take it back from him and a created element that differentiates him from God. Such is the Barthian pardox. Without having to take him literally, perhaps
 Espirit de Deus, paroles d’hommes (Delachaux et Niestle, 1966).
 “The Text of John 20:22, where it is said that Jesus breathes over his disciples, declaring these words: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’, constitutes a going beyond Genesis 2:7, intended by the Evangelist.”
 Dogmaticsi, French trans. Vol,. 2, t.I (Geneva, 1960), 266: “To die is to ‘render one’s spirit’, as Luther translates inaccurately but correctly, in this perspective, the expression in Acts 5:5 and 10; 12:23. In dying, Jesus returns his spirit into the hands of his Father (Lk 23:46). In dying Stephen prays that Jesus might receive his spirit (Acts 7:55).
Dogmaticsi, French trans. Vol,. 2, t.I (Geneva, 1960), 266：「死就是『放棄你的靈』，就如同路得不精準卻又正確的翻譯，從這個角度來看，這個翻譯乃是源自行傳5:5和10；12:23。在死亡之時，耶穌將祂的靈交還到父的手中（路加23:46）。司提反在將死之際禱告耶穌能夠接受他的靈（行傳7:55）。
 Ibid., 260, see 262, the references he gives to Scripture.
Ibid., 260, 參考 262，以及他所引用的經文。
we would have to unite ourselves with the “spirit” of it. Would it in fact be necessary to choose between two contradictory interpretations that confront each other or design ourselves to a [false] harmonization that itself does not avoid contradiction? An expressions used by Saint Paul himself, I Corinthians 2:11, could suggest an intermediate solution to us: “Who therefore among man knows the secrets of a man if not the spirit of the man which is in him (το πνευμα του ανθρωπου το εν)?” This pnuema is certainly no the Holy Spirit, since Paul adds: “Similarly, no one knows the secrets of God except the Spirit of God.”Yet it does not appear completely like a constituent part of man as such, like the body or the soul: after having said “the spirit of the man”, Paul corrects himself in a way to say: “the spirit who is in him”, which marks a nuance of capital importance. Thus, what par excellence makes a man, what constitutes man in his worth among the beings of this world, much more, what makes him a being superior to the world, would be an element that, rather than being “of man”, would be “in man”. There is , it seems to us, in this Pauline πνεῦμα the same kind of ambiguity, notional because real, as in the divine “image” or divine “breath” of creation, such as Christian tradition interprets them. From one author to another, and sometimes in the same author, the same ambiguity will give place to oscillations, which will not go, however, to the point of compromising, before, a rather recent date, the idea of a tripartite anthropology. We conclude, with a recent interpreter, that the Pauline concept of πνεῦμαis a concept “of which our modern anthropologies can absolutely not take account”.
我們就得與這個教訓的「靈」聯合為一。難到我們非得要在兩個相互矛盾的詮釋中作出選擇，或著我們要做出［虛假的］妥協，而忽視其中的矛盾？保羅自己在哥林多前書2:11中為我們提出了一個中立的解決方案：「除了在人裡頭的靈，誰知道人的事（το πνευμα του ανθρωπου το εν）？」這個pnuema肯定不是聖靈，因為保羅還加上了：「像這樣，除了神的靈，也沒有人知道神的事。」使得這看起來完全不像人的構成部分，就好像身體或魂一樣：在說到「人的靈（the spirit of the man）」之後，保羅糾正了自己，說「在他裡面的靈（the spirit who is in him）」這就使得大寫的細微差別變的非常重要。故此，使得人成為卓越的那個東西，將人構成為在世界中更有價值的那個東西，更有甚者，使得人成為超越世界之存有的那個東西，並不是「人的（of man）」，而是「在人裡面（in man）」的那個東西。對於我們而言，這個在保羅教義中的πνεῦμα具有同樣的含糊不明之處，就好像基督教傳統所詮釋的，被造之物之神的「形像（image）」或「氣息（breath）」一樣。一個又一個的作者，有時候甚至是同一個作者，都會顯示出同樣的含糊不明之處，為人們提供了不同詮釋的空間，以至於無法達成共識，這種情況一直延續到相當近代的三分人論的觀念。我們的結論乃是，對於近代的神學詮釋而言，保羅對於πνεῦμα的觀念乃是一個「可以被我們現代人論完全忽視」的觀念。
 Chevaller, Espirit de Dieu. One cannot speak of incohrerence, for if the vocabulary is not fixed, the variations of meaning are explained rather well by the different contexts. Paul’s letters do not constitute a didactic treaties.
Chevaller, Espirit de Dieu。我們不能有不同的闡述，引為若沒有固定得用辭，對於不同的本文就會有不同的詮釋。保羅的書信並不會構成教導性的教義。
2. Patristic Tradition
I. The first two centuries: Irenaeus
I. The first two centuries: Irenaeus
It is a fact that Christian antiquity did not judge insignificant the Pauline verse about body, soul and spirit. Nevertheless, from one author to another, the interpretation differ, without always being in contradictory opposition to each other.
In his letter to the Philadelphians, Saint Ignatius of Antioch simple makes the Apostle’s enumeration his own in judging that his correspondents, like the Ephesians and the Smyrnians, “will be honored by the Lord Jesus Christ, in whom they hope with flesh, soul and spirit (πνεῦμα), in faith, charity and concord”. Anthenagoras also distinguishes between soul and spirit; for him, the soul is place between “the spirit of matter”, which is to say “the flesh and blood”, and the “heavenly sprit”, which is “pure spirit”, and it can, according to its choice, mix with one or become the other:
安提阿的英格那丟（Saint Ignatius of Antioch）在至非拉鐵非的信中直接了當的採用了使徒的算法來判定收信人就像以弗所人和士每拿人一樣，「將會被他們在信心、恩慈並和諧中帶著肉體、魂與靈（πνεῦμα）所期盼的主耶穌基督所看重。」雅典安哥拉（Anthenagoras）也別了魂與靈；對於他，魂乃是在「物質的靈（spirit of matter）」,或者所謂的「血與肉（the flesh and blood）」，以及「屬天的靈（heavenly sprit）」，也就是「純潔的靈（pure spirit）」之間，魂可以根據自己的取向與其中的一個混合，甚至成為其中的一個：
The soul becomes passive when it receives the spirit of matter and is mixed with it, by looking below toward earthly things and, to speak in a general way, when it becomes only flesh and blood and ceases to be a pure spirit.
We believe that we will live another life, … heavenly and no longer earthly, if at least, close to God and with God, we have steadfast souls, mastering passion, and if we remain, not like bodies, but like a heavenly spirit…
In Tatian, also, the distinction seems clear, when he says: “We have knowledge of two sorts of spirits: one of them is called soul, the other is greater than the soul, it is the image and resemblance of God.” Only, subsequently, it is impossible to discern clearly if the spirit he distinguishes thus from the soul, and which he calls “divine”, is not
 Aux Philadelphiens, C.II, n.2 (P. T. Camelor, Sources chretiennes, 4th ed., 10:130-31).
 Supplique, c.27, n.1 (G. Bardy, Source chretiennes 3:144); … (GREEK).
 Ibid., C.31, n.3 (157-58).
 Discourse aux Grecs, c.12, n.1 (PG 6, 829 C).