On the (apocryphal?) source of 1 Cor. 2:9 and more ...

by behemot 10 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  behemot

  In 1 Cor. 2:9 Paul states: "Just as it is written: 'Eye has not seen and ear has not heard, neither have there been conceived in the heart of man the things that God has prepared for those who love him". (NWT)

  This statement poses a textual problem in that there is no exactly corresponding text in the OT from which Paul might be quoting. The WT claims that here Paul "seems to be combining the thoughts of Isaiah 52:15, 64:4 and 65:17" (Insight, vol. 2, box page 366).

  But, could it be that Paul was quoting from a source that was in later times to be expunged from the writings making up the official canon?

  The WT rules out this possibility when, referring to the "Apocrypha", it states that "none of the Chistian Bible writers quoted from these books". (Insight, vol. 1, page 121).

  But is this true? In the case of 1 Cor. 2:9 at least two possible candidates have been pointed to as the original source of Paul's quotation: the Gospel of Thomas and the Dialogue of the Saviour, which read as follows:

  Gospel of Thomas 17: "Jesus said: 'I will give you what no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, what no hand has touched, what has not arisen in the human heart.'"

  Dialogue of the Saviour (Nag Hammadi Codices III, 5 140,2-5): "The Lord said: 'You have asked me about a saying (...) which eye has not seen, nor have I have heard it, except from you ...'"

  Besides, in his commentary to 1 Corinthians, Ambrosiaster (author of a commentary on Paul's Epistles) claims that the quote comes from the Apocalypse of Elijah ("Hoc est scriptum in Apocalypsi Heliae in apocryphis"). Origen and Euthalius also make similar claims, but I didn't manage to locate in the text of the Apocalypse the exact quotation these commentators refer to (can someone help please?).

  Other examples of possible use of "apocryphal" sources by NT writers (that I'm aware of) are:

  Hebrews 1:3 (compare Wisdom of Solomon 7:25-26)

  Hebrews 11:35 (compare 2 Maccabees 7:1-15)

  James 1:19 (compare Ecclesiasticus 5:11)

  Judas vv. 14,15 (compare 1 Enoch 1:9)

  If you know other similar instances, please post them here.

  Behemot
• 

  JosephMalik

  In 1 Cor. 2:9 Paul states: "Just as it is written: 'Eye has not seen and ear has not heard, neither have there been conceived in the heart of man the things that God has prepared for those who love him". (NWT)

  behemot,

  Just because Paul may have used a source familiar to his readers does not mean that Paul is validating that entire source as inspired. All Paul is doing is making a particular point with information familiar to them. This is also true of other texts that use parts of material not considered to be scripture. We do this all the time even with posts on this forum. This is not the big deal that many make of it. Most of what we read is not scripture and there is nothing out of the ordinary if we quote some of it from time to time to make a point.

  Joseph
• 

  CyrusThePersian

  Just because Paul may have used a source familiar to his readers does not mean that Paul is validating that entire source as inspired. All Paul is doing is making a particular point with information familiar to them

  Interesting idea, JM, however one may ask, why did Paul use a non-Biblical source when he could have used a much more authoritative source, the Hebrew Scriptures, to convey the same thought? (Isa. 52:15, 64:4, 65:17) After all, at least some-if not most- of the Corinthian congregation were Jews. (Acts 18:1-11)

  The big problem is not that these writers used apocryphal writings, but how they used them. In most of the references Behemot listed above these quoted writings are treated with utmost respect and authority ("as it is written..." "The scripture says", etc.) Contrast this with the way Paul refers to a definitely non-scriptural reference in Acts 17:28 where he says "..one of the poets among you" distancing himself from the reference and showing that he doesn't consider this poet to be an authority.

  CyrusThePersian
• 

  CyrusThePersian

  Behemot,

  Another quotation is found at James 4:5. Leolaia did an excellent essay on this scripture here:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/80498/1310189/post.ashx#1310189
• 

  Philippus79

  My experience was that from my WT background I believed the 1st and 2nd century congregation to be organized, structured and basically united in teaching and ideas.
  
  But after having studied this topic whoroughly and without the "help" of the WT, I learned that "chistianity" basically was a mess with independent congregations all over the Roman Empire, without an authoritative canon and hundreds of writings, apocrypha and pseudopycripha circulating among the brothers.
  
  In addition to those "christian" writing, they also treasured and used books and writing that were not even part of the then availabe "jewish canon". And since nobody had a "canon" no one could tell the believers to read these writings and neglect those. Stories about miracles, about Jesus living, about Peter flying about talking animals, fables and jewish fables circulated and enjoyed great prestige.
  
  Really, the only common factor among those Christians was the idea of Jesus of nazareth being the Messiah and probably the evidence thereof given in the jewish canon.
  
  So it is no surprise to find quotes of those writings in what later became the NT.
  
  regards,
  
  
  Phil
• 

  sir82

  Wasn't the Gospel of Thomas written after 1 Corinthians?
• 

  Slappy

  Just a thought, but could Paul have been paraphrasing, just in more flowery terminology in order to get his point across? As soon as I read the verse in question, Ecclesiastes 3:11 popped into my head.

  He hath made every [thing] beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

  Also, it's my belief that for those inspired to write what they did, if they had no qualms of including quotes and references from sources not included in the Bible, then who are we to say yea or nay? It could be that those sources from which they quoted weren't necessary to convey the idea that God wanted to get across to us, and as a result were not added.

  Again, just a thought, no hard evidence to support it.
• 

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite

  But, could it be that Paul was quoting from a source that was in later times to be expunged from the writings making up the official canon?

  Usually the easiest answer is the correct answer. So, yes, Paul quotes from literature he considered sacred enough to be foundation for Christian belief, but it didn't make it into the NWT. Perhaps, over the centuries, Hojovah changed his mind about what was or wasn't inspired by him.

  B the X
• 

  peacefulpete

  Again we think alike, consider this link to an earlier discussion:thomas 17 1 Cor 2:9
• 

  peacefulpete

  Well the link doesn't seems to work so here is a cut and paste from the thread, from Leolaia:

  The saying is attributed by Plutarch (first century AD) to Empedocles of Sicily (fifth century BC) and likely entered from Hellenistic sources into the Jewish literary tradition, where it was incorporated separately into different apocryphal works. The Testament of Jacob 5:10-12, in a passage that parallels of the Vision of Isaiah in the Ascension of Isaiah, likely contained the passage in a pre-Christian recension. Origen (Commentary on Matthew, 27:9) claimed that the quote in 1 Corinthians 2:9 was taken from the lost Secrets of Elijah: "In nullo regulari libro hoc positum inuenitur, nisi in Secretis Eliae prophetae", and Ambrosiaster (Commentary on 1 Corinthians, 2:9) essentially claimed the same, naming the work as the Apocalypse of Elijah. Epiphanius (Panarion, 42) also attributes Ephesians 5:14 to "Elijah" (para to Elia), while Jerome (Commentary on Isaiah, 64:4; Epistle 57.9) noted that the passage in 1 Corinthians 2:9 occurs in both the Apocalypse of Elijah and the Ascension of Isaiah. Indeed, the passage is found in the Latin and Slavonic of the Ascension of Isaiah:

  "This angel said to me, 'Isaiah, son of Amoz, it is enough for you for these are great things, for you have observed what no one born of flesh has observed, what eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man, how great things God has prepared for all those who love him. And you shall return into your robe [i.e. earthly body] until your days are complete; then you shall come here [i.e. to heaven].' " (Ascension of Isaiah 11:34-35).

  Note that this passage has features shared with 1 Corinthians 2:9 that are not found in the Gospel of Thomas logion, which lacks the clause about the "great things God has prepared for all those who love him", whereas the Thomas version is closer to the antithesis in 1 John 1. As for the Apocalypse of Elijah, unfortunately all we have is a very late Christian recension and it is not even clear whether this is the same apocalypse known to the church fathers. 1 Clement 34:8, writing to the same church of Corinth as did Paul in 1 Corinthians, also quotes the same saying but interestingly is not dependent on Paul because the author refers to "great things" (hupomenousin) that are prepared, which is absent in Paul but present in the pre-Christian Ascension of Isaiah. Paul himself introduces the saying in 1 Corinthians 2:9 with the "it is written" introductory formula, which indicates that he was depending on a written source like the Ascension of Isaiah or the Apocalypse of Elijah, and that this work had scriptural status for Paul. It is also possible that Paul was quoting from memory and thought that the passage was from canonical Isaiah and forgot its actual origin. It would be natural for the passage to occur in both the Ascension of Isaiah and the Apocalypse of Elijah as both works (in the case of the former, specifically the Vision of Isaiah in ch. 6-11) relate to figures who have ascended to heaven. As for the Hellenistic nature of the citation, H. Koester notes that it belongs to a wider cluster of wisdom material and sayings in 1 Corinthians 1-4 which is highly distinctive, shows multiple links to non-canonical Jesus sayings in the Gospel of Thomas, and suggests a proto-gnostic theology on the part of Paul's Corinth opponents that baptism is an initiation into the mystery of secret gnosis (as it is in Secret Mark; compare 1 Corinthians 1:15-17 which appears to contrast this soteriology with Paul's cross-soteriology).