Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T05:49:24.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Source and Rewriting of 1 Corinthians 2.9 in Christian, Jewish and Islamic Traditions (1 Clem 34.8; GosJud 47.10–13; a ḥadīth qudsī)*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2015

Claire Clivaz  and
Sara Schulthess
Claire Clivaz
Affiliation:
Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Lausanne, CH1015, Lausanne, Switzerland. Email: claire.clivaz@unil.ch
Sara Schulthess
Affiliation:
Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Lausanne, CH1015, Lausanne, Switzerland. Email: sara.schulthess@unil.ch
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article reopens the dossier of the sources, parallels and rewritings of 1 Cor 2.9, a saying that Paul attributes to a written source, when other sources put it into Jesus' mouth (e.g. GosThom 17). The state of research shows that the hypothesis of an oral source is generally preferred but an accurate study of 1 Clem 34.8, a parallel too often neglected, supports the presence of a written source that existed before 1 Cor 2.9. GosJud 47.10–13 will help to understand the attribution of the saying to Jesus. Finally, the article takes into account the well-known parallel in Islamic tradition, a ḥadīth qudsī.

Keywords

agraphon1 Corinthians1 ClementGospel of Judasḥadīth
Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , April 2015 , pp. 183 - 200
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

1. Introduction

There are some questions in New Testament studies that are particularly humbling for researchers. Amongst these questions is the issue of the sources, parallels and rewritings of 1 Cor 2.9, a passage which Paul attributes to a written source as yet unidentified: ‘But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor human heart conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him.”’Footnote 1 As Jean-Daniel Dubois said: ‘The search for possible parallels to the biblical saying quoted by the apostle Paul can create a certain sensation of dizziness.’Footnote 2 With regard to the source from which 1 Cor 2.9 could have come, Jean-Marie Sévrin stresses that ‘[t]he number of hypotheses highlights the fact that none of them is conclusive, and the distance between Isa [6]4.4 and 1 Cor 2.9 is such that it cannot be said that Paul alleges the authority of the Isaiah text as it stands’.Footnote 3 For a list of the possible parallels and rewritings, the article by Klaus Berger (1978) remains the most exhaustive study, citing several dozen attestations.Footnote 4 Dubois indicates that the Encomium on John the Baptist 142.31–4 should be added to that list,Footnote 5 as well as the Islamic traditions regarding this saying, as mentioned in an article by Alfred-Louis de Prémare.Footnote 6 We also noted that Berger mentioned only one ‘Turfan Fragment’,Footnote 7 whereas Jean-Marie Sévrin mentions two of them.Footnote 8 Yet more surprising is his omission of the attestation of 1 Clem 34.8, although he does mention 2 Clem 11.7 and 14.5.Footnote 9 In view of the present lack of any exhaustive survey of the parallels and rewritings of 1 Cor 2.9, this article proposes to contribute to the overall study of the question by examining three elements that are either new or not usually taken into account, namely: 1 Clem 34.8; GosJud 47.10–13; a ḥadīth qudsī.

In Section 2 of this article, we will begin by presenting an examination of the present state of researchFootnote 10 on the question of the source on which 1 Cor 2.9 draws, highlighting that the hypothesis of an oral source is generally preferred, whether explicitly or implicitly. Section 3 will demonstrate that 1 Clem 34.8 – a parallel too often neglected – serves to confirm the presence of a source that existed before 1 Cor 2.9. Section 4 will revisit the list of parallels that attribute the saying cited in 1 Cor 2.9 to Jesus, adding to it the parallel found in GosJud 47.10–13. In Section 5 the complex question of a ḥadīth (plural aḥādīth), from the Islamic tradition that contains the saying of 1 Cor 2.9, will be examined. The ḥadīth is not usually included in the study of the sources, parallels and rewritings of Paul's verse.Footnote 11 In a mirrored sense, this cultural shift will give a better understanding of the presence, in a canonised text, of an ‘apocryphal scripture’ or even an ‘agraphon scripture’, to adopt a paradoxical phrase. The fact that Paul can cite as scripture a text that apparently does not belong to the Hebrew Bible influences how this saying was perceived and interpreted. It is a saying that has often disturbed New Testament commentators, a point we shall come back to at the end of our study.

2. The State of Research on the Sources of 1 Cor 2.9: Written or Oral?

The only source prior to 1 Cor 2.9 that offers a parallel to the saying and on which there is currently any consensusFootnote 12 is The Book of Biblical Antiquities 26.13 of Pseudo-Philo (LAB), where God says to CenezFootnote 13 as he speaks of the time ‘when the sins of my people are filled up’:

And then I will take [these stones] and many others even better, from that place which no eye has seen nor ear heard neither has it ever come up into the heart of man, until the like will come to pass unto the world and the just shall have no need for the light of the sun nor of the shining of the moon, for the light of these precious stones shall be their light.Footnote 14

It should be noted from the outset that in this version of the saying it is God who speaks, and that ‘that which no eye has seen nor ear heard neither has it ever come up into the heart of man’ refers to a place: we will return to these aspects later. Among the other hypotheses concerning independent sources and/or ones prior to 1 Cor 2.9, those relating to the Testament of Jacob have been abandoned.Footnote 15 The idea that it is a simple rewriting or an oral tradition to do with Isa 64.3 – which goes back to JeromeFootnote 16 – does not stand up to scrutiny, because of the differences in content and vocabulary between the saying of 1 Cor 2.9 and the text of Isaiah, whether in Hebrew or Greek.Footnote 17 Finally, the suggestions that the saying depends on Gospel of Thomas 17 or an ‘Elijah apocryphon’ have recently been rejected by Christopher Tuckett and Joseph Verheyden.

In GosThom 17, the saying, only available in Coptic, is ascribed to Jesus: ‘Jesus said “I shall give you what no eye has seen and what no ear has heard, and what no hand has touched and what has never occurred to the human mind.”’Footnote 18 In 2003, Christopher TuckettFootnote 19 showed that the hypothesis of a dependence on Gospel of Thomas was unsustainable.Footnote 20 Amongst other arguments, Tuckett first underlines the fact that Paul does not link the saying to a ‘word of the Lord’ but to a ‘scripture’, which poses the difficulty of explaining why Paul would have removed from the mouth of Jesus a logion that would formerly have been attributed to him.Footnote 21 Tuckett concludes that ‘the saying in 1 Cor. 2:9 may have been known and used by the Corinthians. But there is nothing to suggest that Paul knew the saying in the form of a saying of Jesus.’Footnote 22 We would reinforce Tuckett's arguments by underlining that Origen, in the two passages of his Commentary on Matthew where he mentions 1 Cor 2.9,Footnote 23 makes absolutely no mention of the Gospel of Thomas, even though he knew it.Footnote 24 There is also nothing to indicate that Origen knew the logion of GosThom 17, but even if he did know it, he does not mention a source that would have attributed the saying to Jesus. These observations confirm Tuckett's thesis: Paul does not take up the saying from a source that he attributes to Jesus.Footnote 25 In consequence, an investigation still remains to be made, for Tuckett does not say when or why the saying became a logion attributed to Jesus. We will examine this point in Section 4.

Turning to Origen's proposed hypothesis of an ‘Elijah apocryphon’ as the source of the saying, Joseph Verheyden has clearly demonstrated that it cannot be sustained.Footnote 26 Drawing first on the work of David Frankfurter, he reiterates that there is no attestation of an ‘Elijah apocryphon’ before Origen.Footnote 27 The saying in question is not found in what today is known as The Apocalypse of Elijah and it cannot be a fragment of a lost text or of any other ‘Elijah apocryphon’.Footnote 28 Verheyden then goes back to the two passages in Origen's Commentary on Matthew and highlights the theologian's hesitation as well as the speculative aspect of his reasoning.Footnote 29 Above all, Verheyden draws attention to a passage in the Panarion of Epiphanius where there is evidence in the manuscript tradition of confusion between ‘Elijah’ and ‘Isaiah’, one that could easily have arisen because of the similarity in the Greek between ΗΛΕΙΑΣ and ΗΣΑΙΑΣ.Footnote 30 He backs up his ‘suspicion’ with information from Jerome's Commentary on Isaiah. Jerome places the Ascension of Isaiah, where a parallel to 1 Cor 2.9 is found in AscIs 11.34, side by side with the ApocEl to explain the source of the saying of 1 Cor 2.9:Footnote 31 ‘the addition of “Ascensio Isaiae” could be a tacit correction of what he had read in Origen’.Footnote 32 Verheyden thus supports Kretschmar's hypothesis:Footnote 33 it is very likely that Origen had access to the AscIs, especially if the hypothesis of Enrico Norelli regarding the composition and circulation of this text (one work written in two stages) is taken into account.Footnote 34 But Verheyden categorically asserts that ‘there can be no doubt that [AscIs] 11,34 was taken from 1 Cor 2.9’,Footnote 35 while leaving open the question of the sources of 1 Cor 2.9.

However, by rejecting the possibility of an ‘Elijah apocryphon’ and by leaving Paul's reference to a written source without any explanation, Verheyden implicitly lessens the probability of a written source for 1 Cor 2.9 and opens the door for the hypothesis of an oral source.Footnote 36 This hypothesis comes up against some serious objections: first, Paul says that he is quoting a scripture in 1 Cor 2.9, which cannot simply be Isa 64.3 as Verheyden recognises. Secondly, LAB 26.13 represents an independent Jewish source existing prior to 1 Cor 2.9; AscIs 11.34 as a second attestation of an independent source is still a possibility to be discussed, according to Norelli.Footnote 37 Thirdly, there were other attestations that could confirm the existence of an independent source for 1 Cor 2.9: we believe that 1 Clem 34.8 does just that, as we will see in Section 3. Little account has been taken of this occurrence in examining 1 Cor 2.9, and it may be noted that the scholars who do not consider it are also those who explicitly or implicitly favour an oral source for 1 Cor 2.9.

This is seen especially in the work of Klaus Berger, who has conducted the most exhaustive study of the parallels to 1 Cor 2.9 but nevertheless omitted 1 Clem 34.8. For Berger, 1 Cor 2.9 does not attest to a literary source but to an ‘apokalyptische Schultradition’.Footnote 38 He stresses that, ‘[a]part from the Gospel of Thomas, the Turfan fragment and the letter of Pseudo-Titus, which consider this tradition to be the word of the earthly Jesus, this passage is viewed as a quotation by Paul alone. In all the other texts named here ..., the tradition is fully integrated into the context.’Footnote 39 Berger is so concerned with bringing his discussion to a close by reducing the importance of the sources that present the saying as words of Jesus, that he forgets to mention other occurrences cited in his own article, namely the Arabic Apocryphal Gospel of John 37.56Footnote 40 and the Apocalypse of Peter (Ethiopic and Karshuni versions),Footnote 41 where this saying is attributed to Jesus. Besides, there are further occurrences not mentioned by Berger where the saying is placed on the lips of Jesus or attributed to him in indirect speech: Acts of Peter 39 (Latin) or Martyrdom of Peter 9 (Greek); Enc. on John the Baptist 142.31–4; GosJud 47.10–13; and finally the Festal Letter 39.9 of Athanasius.Footnote 42

So it can be seen that attributing the saying of 1 Cor 2.9 to Jesus, whether in direct or indirect speech, is far from anecdotal, as Berger, followed by Sévrin, claimed.Footnote 43 Furthermore, Berger's main affirmation – that only Paul makes this saying into a quotation – is unsustainable in the light of 1 Clem 34.8, which will now be discussed.

3. 1 Clem 34.8: A Neglected Attestation of an Independent Written Source of 1 Cor 2.9

In 1 Clem 34.8, the saying is as follows: ‘For he said: “no eye has seen, nor ear heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man, the things which he has prepared for those who wait for him”.’Footnote 44 Without claiming to have examined the secondary literature exhaustively, it can be observed that the attestation of 1 Clem 34.8, even though it is the oldest after 1 Cor 2.9, is generally not mentionedFootnote 45 or else it is mentioned only in passing.Footnote 46 Tuckett has observed in a note Wolfgang Schrage's suggestion that there was an independent tradition in 1 Clem 34.8, taken up in 2 Clem 11.7, but neither Schrage nor Tuckett investigate the matter any further.Footnote 47 There is only a single author who has devoted some attention to an analysis of this parallel: Johannes B. Bauer,Footnote 48 in his article from 1957.

Bauer is of the opinion that 1 Clem 34.8 is much closer to Isa 64.3 than 1 Cor 2.9 is: he thinks that the passage in 1 Clement cites a collection of testimonia on Isa 64.3 or an apocryphon that develops from the verse.Footnote 49 Drawing on the analysis of rabbinic sources by Strack and Billerbeck,Footnote 50 he observes that ‘the earliest explicit exegesis of Isa 64.3 is given by R. Schimeon b. Chalaphata (around 190), in the Midr. Qoh. 1.8’.Footnote 51 These are pointers to a Jewish milieu, just as LAB 26.13, even if it is precarious to base a chronology on a midrashic tradition. Two important facts stand out in Bauer's analysis: 1 Clem 34.8 presents another version of the saying of 1 Cor 2.9 which is closer to Isa 64.3; and he understands 1 Clem 34.8 as referring to a written source. This second point is fully supported by an analysis of the whole of 1 Clement.

Indeed, 1 Clement contains no less than thirty occurrences of introductory formulae with λέγει,Footnote 52 such as the expression λέγει γάρ with which 1 Clem 34.8 opens. They all introduce quotations that come from sources considered as ‘scriptures’. My first observation is that the expressions with λέγει introduce unknown texts a total of six times.Footnote 53 The analysis of the occurrences of λέγει shows that 1 Clement quotes at the end of the first century ce the ‘canonical’Footnote 54 Jewish Scriptures in exactly the same way as the apocryphal ones. It is all the more comprehensible that Paul should do the same forty years earlier in 1 Cor 2.9. Secondly, the saying presented in 34.8 is spoken by someoneFootnote 55 whose identity is left unspecified; in 34.7, the singular subject immediately preceding is God,Footnote 56 which leads us back to the saying of LAB 26.13, where it is precisely God who pronounces this saying,Footnote 57 but where ‘what eye has not seen’ describes a place and not promises (1 Clem 34.8). A last point which is particularly striking is that 1 Clement knows 1 Corinthians perfectly well and explicitly quotes this letter of Paul,Footnote 58 but without relating the saying cited at 1 Clem 34.8 either to Paul or to 1 Cor 2.9.

These observations confirm that the passage refers to an earlier written, independent source of 1 Cor 2.9. In this source, the saying appears as reported speech, apparently attributed to God, with an eschatological note and in a form different from that of 1 Cor 2.9. The plausibility of a written source that preceded 1 Clement, no longer extant, is supported by the fact that 1 Clement otherwise attests to a wide circulation of texts among the early Christian communities.Footnote 59 The long passage from an unknown text quoted in 1 Clem 23.3–4 confirms that the author had access to texts that we no longer have today. In concluding Section 3, we will therefore assert that two texts attest to the existence of an independent source for the saying quoted at 1 Cor 2.9: LAB 26.13 and 1 Clem 34.8. There is ambiguity concerning AscIs 11.34 in the present state of research.Footnote 60

4. When Was This Saying Placed in the Mouth of Jesus?

If the oldest attestations of this saying place it in the mouth of God, when and why was it put into the mouth of Jesus, as shown by the witnesses mentioned in Section 2? No doubt the list is not exhaustive: GosThom 17; two Turfan fragments, M554 and M589;Footnote 61 Epistle of Pseudo-Titus 1.1; the Arabic Apocr. GosJohn 37.56;Footnote 62 Apocalypse of Peter (Ethiopic and Karshuni versions);Footnote 63 Acts of Peter 39 (Latin); Martyrdom of Peter 9 (Greek); Encom. on John the Baptist 142.31–4; GosJud 47.10–13; and Athanasius' Festal Letter 39.9. Of these texts, one that is worth highlighting is GosJud 47.10–13, a new passage to add to the list of parallels of 1 Cor 2.9.

It is still impossible to say whether Paul was the first to have given a Christological interpretation to the saying but, whatever the case, the way he sets it in the context of 1 Cor 2.6–16, playing with the traditions of his addressees,Footnote 64 marks a significant step in the history of its interpretation. After Paul, the Christological focus is widespread but in general the eschatological perspective is maintained. The fact that 1 Clem 34.8 has no trace of a Christological reading of the saying highlights to a greater extent the probability that this is an echo of a source independent of 1 Cor 2.9.Footnote 65 In the traditions following Paul, the Christological focus is clearly seen both in the fact that the saying becomes a logion of Jesus (right up to Athanasius' Festal Letter 39.9) and by the interpretation of the mention of ‘what eye has not seen’ as a reference to Jesus.

Jean-Daniel Dubois noted ‘the vitality of this biblical saying in the debates among Gnostics and non-Gnostics’, a vitality that needs to be taken into account in order to establish the history of the tradition.Footnote 66 For Dubois, the Prayer of the Apostle Paul develops the Christological aspect of the saying, so much so that he suggests translating PrPaul A 27 as ‘grant who no angel eye will see’, instead of ‘grant what no angel eye will see’.Footnote 67 It can be seen here that the Christological reading of the saying is secondary and that it will be increasingly understood as the original saying. The ambiguity of the description ‘things that the eye has not seen’ is also found in the attestation of GosJud 47.10–13:

Jesus said, ‘[Come], that I may teach you about the [(things)…] that [no (?)] human will (ever) see. For there exists a great and boundless aeon, whose extent no generation of angels could (?) see, [in] which is the great invisible Spirit, which no eye of an [angel] has ever seen, no thought of the heart has ever comprehended, and it was never called by any name.’Footnote 68

As can be seen from the number of uncertain words in brackets, the manuscript has many lacunae.Footnote 69 Despite this, it can be seen that: (1) it is Jesus who pronounces the saying; (2) this version is close to that of the PrPaul A 27 with the mention of an ‘eye of an angel’; (3) the saying refers to either the ‘great invisible Spirit’ or the ‘great and boundless realm’ with which the great Spirit is associated: it is impossible to decide, given the current state of the Coptic text, which the two standard English translations also render.Footnote 70 If one follows the second interpretation, then there would be a description of a place in this passage, the ‘great realm’, just as in LAB 26.13. In fact, other parallels relate the saying of 1 Cor 2.9 to a place, namely Paradise, as in the ḥadīth qudsī of the Islamic tradition, commenting on the Surat as-Sajda 32.17–20.

5. The Saying ‘What Eye Has Not Seen’: An ‘Apocryphal Scripture’ in Christianity and Islam

Alfred-Louis de Prémare summarises the situation thus:

The canonical corpus of the Ḥadîṯ reproduces the following text, which is attributed to the prophet Muhammad by the links of transmission that go back to one or other of his companions: ‘God said, “I have prepared for my holy servants what eye has not seen, nor ear heard, and what has not entered into the heart of man.”’ The context is, very generally, that of a description of the Paradise promised to faithful believers, linked to the explanation or illustration of a verse of the Quran, Surah 32.17–20Footnote 71 … This text entered Islamic tradition at a very early date and later became popular. We find it in the earliest general collections of the Ḥadîṯ: those of al-Buẖârî, Muslim, al-Tirmiḏî, Ibn Mâğa, Ibn Ḥanbal.Footnote 72

In most cases, this ḥadīth is found in the mouth of God, through his apostle, which makes it a ḥadīth qudsī (sacred narrative). In some instances, the ḥadīth is associated with the Torah, according to the lines of transmission, but it is never linked with the apostle Paul.Footnote 73 Denise Masson simply supposes that Bukhārī ‘quotes Saint Paul without giving his name’,Footnote 74 but there is nothing to say that 1 Corinthians was the channel of transmission and we cannot exclude another source.

The saying as found in the aḥādīth is particularly interesting: it is pronounced by God (as in 1 Clem 34.8), addressed to his ‘servants’ and is describing a place, namely Paradise. We see that the saying transmitted by the Islamic traditions has features in common with LAB 26.13. In the introduction of his study, Prémare evokes the Isrā'īliyyāt, a broad notion in the Islamic tradition, described as follows by the Encyclopaedia of Islam:

An Arabic term covering three kinds of narratives, which are found in the commentators on the Ḳur'an, the mystics, the compilers of edifying histories and writers on various levels. 1. Narratives regarded as historical, which served to complement the often summary information provided by the revealed Book in respect of the personages in the Bible (Tawrāt and Indjīl), particularly the prophets. 2. Edifying narratives placed within the chronological (but entirely undefined) framework of ‘the period of the (ancient) lsraelites’. 3. Fables belonging to folklore, allegedly (but sometimes actually) borrowed from Jewish sources. The line of demarcation between this class and the preceding one is difficult to establish.Footnote 75

Thus, it would not be surprising to find in a ḥadīth a Jewish (or Christian) extracanonical tradition. This raises the question: can we exclude the New Testament channel? It would not be the only time that the aḥādīth show influences from the New Testament. The parallels are mostly not very close as in our case, but Tacchini mentions two others influences from the letters of Paul in the Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (Eph 2.20–2; l Cor 12.12 and 25–6).Footnote 76 David Cook distinguished three other cases of Pauline influence.Footnote 77 All these sayings have transmission chains but are never related to Paul, in contrast to aḥādīth with Gospels influence, which often refer to Jesus.Footnote 78

Traits of the New Testament in early Islamic literature lead to the question of the early translations of the New Testament into Arabic. In his reference article,Footnote 79 Sydney Griffith demonstrated that the Gospels were first translated during the first Abbasid century (750–850).Footnote 80 After this period appeared the six great ḥadīth collections (kutub as-sittah) of Bukhārī (d. 870), Muslim (d. 875), Abū Da'ud (d. 888), Tirmidhī (d. 892), al-Nasā'ī (d. 915) and Ibn Māja (d. 886),Footnote 81 collecting materials allegedly going back to the time of the Prophet. Can we then avoid the comparison between the text of the ḥadīth and the Arabic versions of the verse? The ḥadīth in the different collections is uniform: ‘Allah said, “I have prepared for My righteous slaves what no eye has ever seen, nor ear has ever heard nor a human heart can ever think of.”’Footnote 82 We have chosen to compare it to three of the oldest manuscripts of the Pauline letters: Vat. Ar. 13 (ninth–tenth centuries),Footnote 83 Sin. Ar. 151 (year 867),Footnote 84 Sin. Ar. 155 (ninth century).Footnote 85 It is interesting to see that the three manuscripts have a very similar text.

Except for the difference between ‘those who love him’ () and ‘my righteous servants’ ( لِعِبَادِيَ), the formulations of the verse in Arabic and the ḥadīth are very similar.Footnote 86 Can we conclude that there is some literary dependence, in one way or the other? A particular detail caught our attention: in both traditions the verb خطر [khaṭara] is used to express ‘what has not come up into the heart of man’. خطر [khaṭara] does not mean ‘to come up’ but means primarily ‘to move’, ‘to agitate’ (for instance as a camel does with its tail or a man with his sword or spear).Footnote 87 Associated with قلب [‘alá qalb] or بال [‘alá bāl] it has the secondary meaning of ‘to occur to somebody's mind’. This verb is not used in the Qu'ran,Footnote 88 and does not seem to appear in other aḥādīth Footnote 89 (in the first or second meaning). It is even possible that the meaning ‘to occur to somebody's mind’ was developed during this period in association with the saying, whether from the ḥadīth, from the Arabic versions or from another source. Yet, how can we then explain that this expression, which is not the direct translation of ‘to come up’, appears both in the ḥadīth and the three Arabic versions?Footnote 90

Here we also have to emphasise the intriguing uniformity of 1 Cor 2.9 in the three manuscripts. In fact, Sin. Ar. 151 was translated from Syriac,Footnote 91 Sin. Ar. 155 from Greek,Footnote 92 and Vat. Ar. 13 shows influences from both Greek and Syriac.Footnote 93 Consequently, the manuscripts often have very different texts; in 1 Cor 2.9, it is interesting to see that they have a very similar verse. Did the ḥadīth know one Arabic version which had a similar vocabulary? Or, on the contrary, did the translators of the Pauline letters know the ḥadīth tradition which had a uniform verse? Both hypotheses are unlikely, but not impossible. Should we then suppose that the ḥadīth and the Arabic versions knew another source or that they were both influenced by a popular saying?

Furthermore, we should also consider the Arabic Apocr. GosJohn 37.56, where we find: ‘what eye has not seen, nor ear heard, and what has not entered into the heart of man, I have prepared for those who believe in me before the ages’.Footnote 94 The eschatological promises in the apocryphal text and in the ḥadīth are very close. In both cases, we have an ‘I-formulation’, but in the case of Apocryphal Gospel of John as a part of an eschatological discourse of Jesus. Apocr. GosJohn 37.56 also used the expression خطرعلى قلب بشر [khaṭara ‘alá qalb bašar]. The text is preserved in Arabic in two manuscripts from the twelfth and the fourteenth centuries respectively, but the researchers agree on an early translation from the Syriac, going back to the beginning of the ninth century.Footnote 95

With the ḥadīṭ and Apocr. GosJohn 37.56, we face the same ‘bulk of communications between early Islam and Jewish and Christian traditions [that occurs] via the medium of Arabic as a language used by all three parties’Footnote 96 as with narratives about Mary's life and Jesus' childhood in Quranic material or Christian apocryphal texts. As for the Isrā'īliyyāt, the potential interactions between New Testament apocrypha and early Islamic literature have been also underlined by de Prémare: ‘The text “What the eye has not seen” could equally have been used by the ḥadīṭ from a Christian pseudepigraph.’Footnote 97

In short, we have textual similarities between three different Arabic versions of Paul, an Arabic Christian apocryphal text and a popular Islamic tradition, something that still has to be explained. Besides, the ḥadīth itself shares common features with L.A.B. 26.13 by describing a place, and also with 1 Clem 34.8, as an eschatological promise pronounced by God and not by Jesus (Jesus' sayings not being rare in the aḥādīth, see n. 77). Do we find here the trace of the independent written source?

6. Conclusion

We have here some clues and many gaps to be filled with a certain amount of historical imagination. Yet even so, taking into account the Islamic traditions regarding the saying of 1 Cor 2.9 does help to widen the debate and offers interesting attestations of the saying transmitted without any reference to a Christological context, placed in the mouth of God and describing a place, that is, Paradise. For research on the Christian apocrypha and Islamic scholarship on the ḥadīth to be mutually beneficial, a number of steps still need to be taken for the two disciplines to adapt to one another. Fikret Karcic, who takes note of the methodological differences between the Western academic approach and Islamic studies, sees one thing clearly: electronic means of research can only be of service in charting the innumerable versions of the aḥādīth.Footnote 98 Given the use of the expression ‘the apocryphal continent’,Footnote 99 it would be fitting to speak of an ‘ocean’ of aḥādīth as a corollary. The path taken by the ḥadīth that speaks of Paradise, which ‘eye has not seen’, as ḥadīth qudsī of a very respectable age, presents an interesting mirror image of the ‘apocryphal scripture’ to which 1 Cor 2.9 alludes.

In working through this question, it is a constant surprise to find that not only Paul, but also 1 Clement makes no distinction between the canonical Hebrew Scriptures and those that were not canonical.Footnote 100 In the third century ce, Origen apparently does not yet have any difficulty in thinking that Paul cited an unknown apocryphon,Footnote 101 whereas a century later JeromeFootnote 102 and Athanasius will no longer accept it. This quotation by Paul of an ‘apocryphal scripture’ has sometimes posed a difficulty for contemporary New Testament exegetes. This is illustrated, for example, by William Walker, who uses textual criticism in an unconvincing way to attempt to view 1 Cor 2.6–9 as an interpolation.Footnote 103 Another example is Judith Kovacs, who feels obliged to show in every way possible that 1 Cor 2.6–16 is in absolute conformity with Pauline thought.Footnote 104 It is most likely this concern that is expressed in the repeated tendency to opt for the hypothesis of an oral source behind the saying of 1 Cor 2.9.Footnote 105 Hopefully, by seriously stressing the fact that Paul states that he is quoting a scripture in 1 Cor 2.9 and by a careful consideration of 1 Clement, the text cited in 1 Clem 34.8 can be included alongside LAB 26.13 among the independent written sources of the saying of 1 Cor 2.9. Similarly, considering the Islamic tradition reinforces the hypothesis of a written source, in the light of the ḥadīth that provides the saying. Meanwhile, a broad approach of the diverse attestations including GosJud 47.10–13 serves to underline that the Christological interpretation of the saying is not found before 1 Cor 2.9 but from then on is increasingly accentuated, either by the transformation of the saying into a logion of Jesus or by making the description of the saying apply to the person of Jesus. Therefore, against Paul's interpretation, eschatology continues to prevail in the interpretative history of the saying: the description of ‘what eye has not seen’ is left in suspense as a future expectation. In conclusion, we can only be pleased about the fact that Paul read other texts, and that Muhammad and his followers were interested in the ‘tales of the ancients’.Footnote 106 Without their curiosity, the saying ‘what eye has not seen’ would perhaps not have left its trace in 1 Cor 2.9 and in the ḥadīth.

Footnotes

*

Sections 1–4 of the article are based on a French 2010 paper: C. Clivaz, ‘1 Co 2,9, ses sources et ses réécritures: trois nouveaux éléments pour un dossier sans fin (1 Clem 34,8 ; EvJud 47,10–13 ; un hadîth qudsi)’, IIIe colloque international de l'AELAC. Strasbourg 2010 (ed. R. Gounelle et al.; Prangins: Ed. Zèbre, forthcoming). The translation of this part is published with the agreement of the editor Rémi Gounelle. Section 5 develops researches of the Swiss National Science Fondation project no. 143810 (2013–16), led by Claire Clivaz, co-led by David Bouvier, with Sara Schulthess as PhD student (University of Lausanne), co-direction with Herman Teule (Radboud University Nijmegen).

References

1 NRSV. For the Greek text, Nestle-Aland28 proposes the following: ἀλλὰ καθὼς γέγραπται· ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδεν καὶ οὖς οὐκ ἤκουσεν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἀνέβη, ἃ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ θεὸς τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν.

2 Dubois, J.-D., ‘L'utilisation gnostique du centon biblique cité en 1 Corinthiens 2,9’, ΚΑΤΑ ΤΟΥΣ Ο´; selon les Septante: trente études sur la Bible grecque des Septante. En hommage à Marguerite Harl (ed. Dorival, G. and Munnich, O.; Paris: Cerf, 1995) 371–9Google Scholar, here 374 (our translation).

3 Sévrin, J.-M., ‘“Ce que l'œil n'a pas vu ...”: 1 Co 2,9 comme parole de Jésus’, Lectures et relectures de la Bible: festschrift P.-M. Bogaert (ed. Auwers, J.-M. and Wénin, A.; BETL 144; Leuven: University Press, 1999) 307–24Google Scholar, at 307 n. 1 (our translation).

4 Berger, K., ‘Zur Diskussion über die Herkunft von i Kor. ii. 9’, NTS 24 (1978) 270–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Cf. Dubois, ‘L'utilisation gnostique’, 374–5 n. 12. This reference was drawn to his attention by Anne Boud'hors, who has since published the text in Boud'hors, A., ‘Éloge de Jean-Baptiste’, Écrits apocryphes chrétiens, vol. i (ed. Bovon, F. and Geoltrain, P.; Pléiade 442; Paris: Gallimard, 1997) 1553–78Google Scholar.

6 Dubois, ‘L'utilisation gnostique’, 375 n. 12: de Prémare, A.-L., ‘“Comme il est écrit”: l'histoire d'un texte’, Studia Islamica (1989) 27–56 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Mention of this reference dates back to at least 1957 and an article by Gardet, L., ‘Les fins dernières selon la théologie musulmane’, Revue Thomiste 57 (1957/1) 246–300 Google Scholar, at 290. Cf. n. 11 below for further references.

7 Cf. Berger, ‘Zur Diskussion’, 276, 278, 280. He mentions a ‘Turfan-Fragment’ without giving any further details about it.

8 Cf. Sévrin, “‘Ce que l’œil n'a pas vu”', 308 n. 7: ‘Fragments de Turfan, M554 et M589, qui ne diffèrent guère entre eux. Édition: F.W.K. Müller, Handschriften – Reste in Estrangelo – Schrift aus Turfan 2, in Pr. Ak. Wiss. Berlin, Phil.-Hist. Kl. (1907), Abhang ii, pp. 67–68.’

9 Cf. Berger, ‘Zur Diskussion’, 278.

10 For a more detailed state of research: Clivaz, ‘1 Co 2,9’.

11 Jean-Daniel Dubois is one of the rare scholars to point out its existence in a study of 1 Cor 2.9: see Dubois, ‘L'utilisation gnostique’, 375 n. 12. The discussion in this article is primarily based on Seale, M. S., ‘A Biblical Proof Text in Al-Ghazali’, The Muslim World 54 (1964/3) 156–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; de Prémare, ‘“Comme il est écrit”’; id., ‘Des Alexandries i: du livre au texte (ed. Giard, L. and Jacob, C.; Paris: BNF, 2001) 179–96Google Scholar, at 182; Tacchini, D., ‘Paul the Forgerer: Classical and Modern Radical Muslim Views of the Apostle of Tarsus’, Islamochristiana 34 (2008), 129–47Google Scholar, at 131–2. The following authors also associate this ḥadīth with 1 Cor 2.9: Gardet, ‘Les fins dernières’, 290; Masson, D., Le Coran et la révélation judéo-chrétienne: études comparées, vol. ii (Paris: Librairie d'Amérique et d'Orient, 1958) 760Google Scholar; id., Monothéisme coranique et monothéisme biblique: doctrines comparées (Paris: Desclée De Brouwer, 1976) 745Google Scholar; id., L'eau, le feu, la lumière: d'après la Bible, le Coran et les traditions monothéistes (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1985) 165Google Scholar. Albert-Marie Denis and Jean-Claude Haelewyck cite the references of Masson and of de Prémare in their Introduction à la littérature religieuse judéo-hellénistique: pseudépigraphes de l'Ancien Testament (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000) 612–13Google Scholar n. 16.

12 See e.g. Tuckett, C. M., ‘Paul and Jesus Tradition: The Evidence of 1 Corinthians 2:9 and Gospel of Thomas 17’, Paul and the Corinthians: Studies on a Community in Conflict. Essays in Honour of Margaret Thrall (ed. Burke, T. J., Elliott, J. K.; NovTSupp 109; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003) 55–73 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 63: ‘At least one version of the saying is agreed as providing independent attestation, viz. PsPhilo 26:13.’

13 Cf. Josh 15.17; Judg 1.3.

14 James, M. R., trans., The Biblical Antiquities of Philo (London: SPCK, 1917), 157Google Scholar (our adaptation into modern English).

15 Hofius showed in 1975 that the Testament of Jacob could not be a source of 1 Cor 2.9, contra Nordheim (cf. von Nordheim, E., ‘Das Zitat des Paulus in I Kor. 2,9, und seine Beziehung zum koptischen Testament Jakobs’, ZNW 65 (1974) 112–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hofius, O., ‘Das Zitat i Kor 2,9 und das koptische Testament des Jakob’, ZNW 66 (1975) 140–2Google Scholar). But as Klaus Berger rightly points out in considering Hofius, the Christian influences present in the Testament of Jacob do not make it dependent on New Testament sources (Berger, ‘Zur Diskussion’, 270–1 n. 1).

16 Cf. Jerome, Pachomius 57.9 (see Veilleux, A., ed. and trans., Instructions, Letters and Other Writings of Saint Pachomius and His Disciples (Pachomian Koinonia 3; Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1982 Google Scholar).

17 See Verheyden, J., ‘Origen and the Origin of 1 Cor 2,9’, The Corinthian Correspondence (ed. Bieringer, R.; BETL 125; Leuven: Peeters, 1996) 491–511 Google Scholar, at 493. In n. 8 on the same page, Verheyden presents the state of research on this point. See also Sévrin, ‘“Ce que l’œil n'a pas vu”', 307. As for Berger, he proposes Isa 6.10 and 30.20 as the basis of his reconstruction of the history of the tradition, which confirms that there is no need to look to Isa 64.3 (Berger, ‘Zur Diskussion’, 277). But some scholars are still defending an implicit quotation. See e.g. Inkelaar, H.-J., Conflict over Wisdom: The Theme of 1 Corinthians 1–4 Rooted in Scripture (CBET 63; Leuven: Peeters, 2011) 231–69Google Scholar; Williams, H. H. D., The Wisdom of the Wise: The Presence and Function of Scripture within 1 Cor. 1:18–3:23 (AJECAGJU 49; Leiden: Brill, 2001) 157–208 Google Scholar.

18 Layton, B., ed., Nag Hammadi Codex ii, 2–7 together with xiii,2, Brit. Lib. 4926(1) and P. Oxy. 1, 654, 655 (NHS 20; Leiden: Brill, 1989) 61Google Scholar.

19 See Tuckett, ‘Paul and Jesus Tradition’.

20 A hypothesis repeatedly posited by Helmut Koester, then James Robinson and Stephen Patterson. See Koester, H., Trajectories Through Early Christianity (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1971) 158–204 Google Scholar; Robinson, J. M., ‘The Study of the Historical Jesus after Nag Hammadi’, Semeia 44 (1988) 45–55 Google Scholar; Patterson, S. J., ‘Paul and the Jesus Tradition: It Is Time for Another Look’, HTR 84 (1991) 23–41 Google Scholar. About a possible dependence of the Gospel of Thomas on Paul, see Gathercole, S., ‘The Influence of Paul on the Gospel of Thomas (§§ 53.3 and 17)’, Das Thomasevangelium: Entstehung – Rezeption – Theologie (ed. Frey, J., Popkes, E. E., Schröter, J.; BZNW 157; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008) 72–94 Google Scholar; Skinner, C. W., ‘The Gospel of Thomas’s Rejection of Paul's Theological Ideas’, Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts and Convergences (ed. Bird, M. F., Willitts, J.; LNTS 411; London/New York: T&T Clark, 2011) 220–41Google Scholar.

21 Cf. Tuckett, ‘Paul and Jesus Tradition’, 64 and 71.

22 Tuckett, ‘Paul and Jesus Tradition’, 72.

23 Origen, CommSer 28 (Matt 23.37–9) and 117 (Matt 27.9–10); see Klostermann, E., ed., Origenes Werke, vol. xi: Origenes Matthäuserklärung ii. Die lateinische Übersetzung der Commentariorum Series (GCS 38; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1933) 40–50 Google Scholar and 249–50.

24 Origen, Hom. Lc 1.2; see Lienhard, J. T., trans., Origen: Homilies on Luke (The Fathers of the Church 94; Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1996) 6Google Scholar; Sévrin, ‘“Ce que l’œil n'a pas vu”', 313.

25 Tuckett's article opens up the debate on the supposed age of certain logia of the Gospel of Thomas. GosThom 17 preceding 1 Cor 2.9 has played a not insignificant role in this respect, especially in the writings of Helmut Koester. See Tuckett, ‘Paul and Jesus Tradition’, 57.

26 Verheyden, ‘Origen’.

27 Frankfurter, D., Elijah in Upper Egypt: The Apocalypse of Elijah and Early Egyptian Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 47Google Scholar; cited by Verheyden, ‘Origen’, 498.

28 Verheyden, ‘Origen’, 500: ‘There is no such quotation in the extant text of the Apocalypse of Elijah. Attempts to locate the passage in the parts that are lacking, in an hypothetical longer Vorlage, or at the end of the text (as its conclusion), all have proven to be unsuccessful. There is no evidence in the manuscripts that the end is missing.’

29 Verheyden, ‘Origen’, 506.

30 Epiphanius, Panarion 42.12.3 (ed. K. Holl; GCS 31; Leipzig/Berlin: J.C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung/Akademie-Verlag, 1980) 179–80; to explain the confusion, Verheyden refers to Zahn, T., Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, vol. ii/2 (Erlangen/Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1892)Google Scholar 804 n. 2 (Verheyden, ‘Origen’, 507 n. 61).

31 Cf. Jerome, Comm. Is. 64.3: see Adriaen, M., ed., S. Hieronymi Presbyteri: opera exegetica (CC 73A; Turnout: Brepols, 1963) 735Google Scholar.

32 Verheyden, ‘Origen’, 509.

33 Verheyden, ‘Origen’, 510; cf. Kretschmar, G., Studien zur frühchristlichen Trinitätstheologie (BHT 21; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1956) 71–4Google Scholar, at 72.

34 Verheyden, ‘Origen’, 511. Cf. Norelli, E., Ascensio Isaiae, vol. i: Textus; vol. ii: Commentarius (CC SerAp 7–8; Turnhout: Brepols, 1995)Google Scholar.

35 Verheyden, ‘Origen’, 510.

36 As suggested by Prigent, Koch and Barbaglio, who advanced the Jewish synagogal liturgy as milieu from which the saying of 1 Cor 2.9 could have come. See Prigent, P., ‘Ce que l'œil n'a pas vu, 1 Cor. 2,9: histoire et préhistoire d'une citation’, TZ 14 (1958), 416–29Google Scholar, at 426–9; Koch, D.-A., Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986) 62Google Scholar; Barbaglio, G., ‘L'uso della scrittura nel Proto-Paolo’, La Bibbia nell'antichità Cristiana i: Da Gesù a Origene (ed. Norelli, E., Bologna: Dehoniane, 1993) 65–85 Google Scholar, at 73: ‘La soluzione più probabile è che anche qui Paolo dipenda dalla tradizione orale, a sua volta influenzata dalla corrente apocalittica.’

37 Norelli, Ascensio Isaiae, ii.590–2.

38 Berger, ‘Zur Diskussion’, 280.

39 Berger, ‘Zur Diskussion’, 280 (our translation).

40 Cf. Berger, ‘Zur Diskussion’, 275.

41 See Berger, ‘Zur Diskussion’, 274. Berger gives as a reference for these two passages Mingana, A., The Apocalypse of Peter (Woodbrooke Studies 3.2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1931) 224Google Scholar; Grébaut, S., ‘Littérature éthiopienne pseudo-clélmentine’, ROC 8 (1913) 69–78 Google Scholar, at 71. These references are cited in Berger, ‘Zur Diskussion’, 274 nn. 1–2.

42 Jean-François Cottier points out that in AcThom 36.3 the saying is also placed in the mouth of Jesus, see Cottier, J.-F., ‘L'épître du Pseudo-Tite ’, Écrits apocryphes chrétiens, vol. ii (ed. Geoltrain, P., Kaestli, J.-D.; Pléiade 516; Paris: Gallimard, 2005) 1131–71Google Scholar, at 1139 (note on 1.1). Actually, it is the apostle Judas Thomas who utters it: cf. Elliott, J. K., ed., The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993) 439–511 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. About the Festal Letter 39.9 of Athanasius, see Clivaz, ‘1 Co 2,9’. Cf. the edition of Aragione, G., ‘La lettre festale 39 d'Athanase: présentation et traduction de la version copte et de l'extrait grec’, Le canon du Nouveau Testament: regards nouveaux sur l'histoire de sa formation (ed. Aragione, G., Junod, E., Norelli, E.; MdB 54; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2005) 197–219 Google Scholar.

43 Sévrin, ‘“Ce que l’œil n'a pas vu”', 312: ‘Except the Gospel of Thomas, only the Turfan fragments, Martyrdom of Peter and the letter of Pseudo-Titus can be considered as witnesses for a tradition of this sentence as parable of Jesus’ (our translation).

44 λέγει γάρ· ὀφθαλμος οὐκ εἶδεν καὶ οὖς οὐκ ἤκουσεν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἀνέβη, ὄσα ἡτοίμασεν τοῖς ῾υπομένουσιν αὐτον. Edition of Jaubert, Annie, ed., Clément de Rome: Épître aux Corinthiens (SC 167; Paris: Cerf, 1971) 156Google Scholar. In the English edition, the passage is translated as follows: ‘For [the Scriptures] saith, “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which He hath prepared for them that wait for him”’ ( Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to ad 325, vol. i: Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenæus (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993 2) 14Google Scholar).

45 This is seen by e.g. Berger, Barbaglio, Dubois and Verheyden.

46 Tuckett, ‘Paul and Jesus Tradition’, 63 n. 50; Sévrin, ‘“Ce que l’œil n'a pas vu”', 311 n. 17. Denis and Haelwyck mention it as a quotation of 1 Cor 2.9 and as free use of Isa 64.3 or 65.16–25: Denis, Haelwyck, Introduction, 612 and 614. Andrew Gregory sees it as a ‘commonplace’: Gregory, A. F., Tuckett, C. M., ‘2 Clement and the Writings That Later Formed the New Testament’, The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (ed. Gregory, A. F., Tuckett, C. M.; Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2005) 251–92Google Scholar, at 285.

47 Tuckett, ‘Paul and Jesus Tradition’, 63 n. 50; he refers to Schrage, W., Der erste Brief an die Korinther (EKKNT 7/1; Zurich: Benzinger, 1991)Google Scholar 246 n. 139.

48 See Bauer, J. B., ‘ΤΟΙΣ ΑΓΑΠΩΣΙΝ ΤΟΝ ΘΕΟΝ… Rm 8,28 (1 Cor 2,9, 1 Cor 8,3)’, ZNW 50 (1959) 106–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 108–11, mentioned by Sévrin, ‘“Ce que l’œil n'a pas vu”', 311 n. 17.

49 Bauer, ‘ΤΟΙΣ ΑΓΑΠΩΣΙΝ ΤΟΝ ΘΕΟΝ’, 109.

50 Cf. Strack, H. L., Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, vol. iii (München: C. H. Beck, 1926) 328Google Scholar.

51 Bauer, ‘ΤΟΙΣ ΑΓΑΠΩΣΙΝ ΤΟΝ ΘΕΟΝ’, 109.

52 1 Clem 8.2.3; 8.4,1; 8.4.6; 10.2,4; 10.6.1; 13.1.3; 14.5.2; 15.2.1; 15.4.1; 15.6.2; 17.2.2; 17.6.1; 18.2.2; 21.2.1; 23.3.1; 26.2.1; 26.3.1; 28.2.3; 29.3.1; 30.4.1; 34.3.1; 34.6.1; 34.8.1; 36.5.2; 37.5.2; 42.5.3; 46.3.2; 52.3.1; 56.6.1; 57.3.1.

53 Cf. 1 Clem 17.6.1; 23.3.1; 26.2.1; 29.3.1; 34.3.1; 34.8.1.

54 We use the term here with care for it does not have the same sense at the end of the first century ce that will be given to it later, whether for the Hebrew Bible or the Christian Scriptures.

55 We do not agree with Jaubert, who translated λέγει by ‘il est dit’ (‘it is said’) (Jaubert, Clément de Rome, 157). Roberts and Donaldson added in square brackets ‘the Scripture’ as subject but meant here 1 Cor 2.9 (cf. n. 44).

56 1 Clem 34.7–8: ‘Crions vers lui avec instance comme d'une seule bouche, afin d'avoir part à ses grandes et magnifiques promesses. Car il dit: “L’œil n'a pas vu et l'oreille n'a pas entendu, et cela n'est pas monté au cœur de l'homme, tout ce qu'il a préparé pour ceux qui l'attendent.”' (Jaubert, Clément de Rome, 157). We have changed ‘il est dit’ (‘it is said’) to ‘il dit’ (‘he says’).

57 Acts of Thomas 36.3 also understands that this saying refers to ‘what God has prepared in advance for those who love him’; cf. Poirier, P.-H., Tissot, Y., trans., ‘Les Actes de Thomas’, Ecrits apocryphes chrétiens, vol. I (ed. Bovon, F., Geoltrain, P.; Pléiade 442; Paris: Gallimard, 1997) 1321–1470 Google Scholar, at 1363. In AscIs 11.34, it is the angel of the Holy Spirit who speaks.

58 Cf. 1 Clem 47.1–4.

59 See on this topic: Clivaz, C., ‘Heb 5.7, Jesus' Prayer on the Mount of Olives and Jewish Christianity: Hearing Early Christian Voices in Canonical and Apocryphal Texts’, A Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in its Ancient Context (ed. Bauckham, R., Driver, D., Hart, T. et al. ; LNTS 387; London: T&T Clark, 2008) 187–209 Google Scholar, at 207.

60 Cf. Norelli, Ascensio Isaiae, ii.590–2.

61 Cf. Sévrin, ‘“Ce que l’œil n'a pas vu”', 308, n. 7.

62 See Section 5.

63 Cf. n. 41 above.

64 Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn rightly points out that the earliest literary attestation of the contrast πνευματικός – ψυχικός is found in 1 Cor 2; he highlights how Paul mixes his ideas with the vocabulary of his addressees; see Kuhn, H. W., ‘The Wisdom Passage in 1 Corinthians 2:6–16 between Qumran and Proto-Gnosticism’, Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies Oslo 1998. Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet (ed. Falk, D. K., Martínez, F. G., Schuller, E. M.; StTDJ 35; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2000) 240–53Google Scholar, esp. 245, 247.

65 This argument could also be used in favour of the independence of the tradition mentioned in AscIs 11.34.

66 Dubois, ‘L'utilisation gnostique’, 379.

67 See PrPaul A 27: Dubois, J.-D., trans., ‘La prière de l'apôtre Paul’, Écrits gnostiques: la bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi (ed. Mahé, J.-P., Poirier, P.-H.; Pléiade 538; Paris: Gallimard, 2007) 1–24 Google Scholar, at 9; and id., ‘L'utilisation gnostique’, 377. See his argument in Dubois, ‘L'utilisation gnostique’, 372; he follows the suggestion of Gérard Roquet. For our opinion, see Clivaz, ‘1 Co 2,9’.

68 GosJud 47.2–13: see Kasser, R. et al. , eds., The Gospel of Judas together with the Letter of Peter to Philip, James, and a Book of Allogenes from Codex Tchacos: Critical Edition (Washington: National Geographic, 2007) 246Google Scholar.

69 For the Coptic text, see Kasser et al., The Gospel of Judas, 213.

70 See the first edition of Kasser et al., The Gospel of Judas (n. 68 above), and the second edition (Washington: National Geographic, 20082) 42.

71 De Prémare, ‘“Comme il est écrit”’, 27 (our translation).

72 De Prémare, ‘“Comme il est écrit”’, 49 (our translation).

73 Cf. de Prémare, ‘“Comme il est écrit”’, 40–2.

74 ‘Cit[e] Saint Paul sans donner son nom’: Masson, Le Coran, 760; id., Monothéisme coranique, 745. This opinion is repeated in Denis and Haelewyck, Introduction, 613 n. 16.

75 Vajda, G., ‘lsrā'līyyāt’, Encyclopaedia of lslam, vol. iv (ed. van Donzel, E., Lewis, B., Pellat, Ch.; Leiden: Brill 1978 2) 221–2Google Scholar. Translation Brill Online: www.encislam.brill.nl/subscriber/entry?entry=islam_SlM-3670, last accessed 16 May 2014.

76 Tacchini, ‘Paul the Forgerer’, 131–2. To find Pauline traditions in Islamic texts is rather unexpected: ‘these Pauline influences in the Sahih of Bukhari allow us to affirm that even the despised Paul contributed to the construction of Islam’ (Tacchini, ‘Paul the Forgerer’, 132).

77 1 Cor 3.13; 1 Cor 4.10; 2 Thess 3.10, cf. Cook, D., ‘New Testament Citations in the Hadith Literature and the Question of Early Gospel Translations into Arabic’, The Encounter of Eastern Christianity and Early Islam (ed. Grypeou, E., Swanson, M. N., Thomas, D.; Leiden: Brill, 2006) 184–223 Google Scholar, at 217–18. But Cook should problematise his use of the notion ‘citations’; in many cases the intertextuality is far from evident.

78 For example this reuse of Matt 5.19: ‘The Messiah Jesus son of Mary said: Whoever learns, teaches and acts, that person shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven’, c.f. Ibn ‘Asākir, Ta’rikh madīnat Dimashq (Beirut, 1995–2001) vol. XLVII, 456, cited by Cook, ‘New Testament Citations’, 207.

79 Griffith, S. H., ‘The Gospel in Arabic: An Inquiry Into its Appearance in the First Abbasid Century’, Oriens Christianus 67 (1983) 126–67Google Scholar.

80 Unfortunately, the great majority of studies on the New Testament Arabic versions focus on the Gospels, neglecting the Pauline letters. But in view of the manuscript tradition, we maintain that the Pauline letters were translated at the same time as the Gospels.

81 Robson, J., ‘Ḥadīth’, Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol. iii (ed. Lewis, B., Ménage, V. L., Pellat, C., Schacht, J.; Leiden, Brill: 1971 2) 24–30 Google Scholar.

82 قَالَ اللَّهُ أَعْدَدْتُ لِعِبَادِيَ الصَّالِحِينَ مَا لاَ عَيْنٌ رَأَتْ وَ لاَ أُذُنٌ سَمِعَتْ وَلاَ خَطَرَ عَلَى قَلْبِ بَشَرٍ

In the English translation of the Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī of Muhsin Kahn (Al Saadawi Publications and Dar-us-Salam, 1984(?), http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/), the ḥadīth is referenced as follows: Vol. 9, Book 93, Hadith 589, but with no reference to Arabic edition; this numeration is popular (e.g. Tacchini uses it). The question of the references of the ḥadīth collections is particularly complicated and cannot be discussed here, but computer tools available on Internet are a great help to find the Arabic text in the different collections: http://sunnah.com. For more information about the website: http://sunnah.com/about. Reference of the ḥadīth in another collection: Ibn-Šaraf An-Nawawī (Abū-Zakariyah Yahyā), Riyāḍ as-ṣāliḥīn (Beirut: Mu‘assasat ar-risālah, 1980) 304Google Scholar, no. 1881.

83 Vat. Ar. 13: ‘But as it is written: “what the eyes have not seen, not have the ears heard, nor has it occurred to the heart of man ... for those who love him”.’

و لاكن كما انه مكتوب ان التى لم تراه العيون و الاذان لم تسمع و على قلب انسان لم يخطر ... للذين

Early Christian Arabic manuscripts are unvocalised. There is as yet no edition of the Vat. Ar. 13. We are currently working on the edition of 1 Corinthians in Vat. Ar. 13.

84 Sin. Ar. 151: ‘However, as it is written: “the eye has not seen, nor has the ear heard, nor has it occurred to the heart of man what God has prepared for those who love him”.’

بل كما هو مكتوب ان العين لم تر و الاذن لم تسمع و لم تخطر على قلب الانسان ما اعد اللَّهُ للذين

Staal, H., Mt. Sinai Arabic Codex 151, vol. i: The Pauline Epistles (CSCO 452 and 453; Louvain: Peeters, 1983)Google Scholar.

85 Sin. Ar. 155: ‘But as it is written: “what the eye has not seen, nor has the ear heard, nor has it occurred to the heart of man what God has prepared for those who love him”.’

و لاكن كما هو مكتوب ما لم ترى عين و لم تسمع اذن و لم يخطر على قلب انسان ما قد اعد اللَّهُ للذين

Gibson, M. D., An Arabic Version of the Epistles of St Paul to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians with Part of the Epistles to the Ephesians (Studia Sinaitica ii; London: C. J. Clay, 1894)Google Scholar.

86 Here the few differences: the ḥadīth uses the negation لا, the New Testament manuscripts have the negation لم ; the ḥadīth uses for the ‘heart of man’ بشر [qalb bašar], the manuscripts have انسان [qalb insān].

87 Lane, W., Arabic–English Lexicon (London: Williams & Norgate, 1863) 764–5Google Scholar; de Biberstein Kazimirski, A., Dictionnaire Arabe-Français, vol. i (Paris: Maisonneuve, 1860) 593Google Scholar.

88 Kassis, H. E., A Concordance of the Qu'ran (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983)Google Scholar.

89 We used the research tools of http://sunnah.com/. See n. 82.

90 Furthermore, other versions of the New Testament such as the Vulgate, the Peshitta, the Harklean version, the Sahidic and Bohairic versions, have all translated ἀνέβη by ‘to come up’. Only the Ethiopic version has the verb ‘to think’ (thanks to Charlotte Touati for this hint).

91 Staal, Mt. Sinai Arabic Codex (CSCO 453), v–vii.

92 Gibson, An Arabic Version, 7.

93 See n. 83.

94 Apocr. GosJohn 37.56:

و لم تبصره عين و لم يسمع به اذن و لا خطر على قلب بشر فاني اعددت ذلك للمومنيني قبل الدهور

Edition of the Ambrosiana manuscript by Galbiati, I., Iohannis evangelium apocryphum arabice (Milan: Mondadori, 1957), 159Google Scholar. See also Moraldi, L., Vangelo Arabo apocrifo dell'Apostolo Giovanni da un Manoscritto della Biblioteca Ambrosiana (Milan: Editoriale Jaca Book, 1991) 142Google Scholar.

95 Horn, C., ‘Syriac and Arabic Perspectives on the Structural and Motif Parallels Regarding Jesus' Childhood in Christian Apocrypha and Early Islamic Literature: The “Book of Mary”, the Arabic Apocryphal Gospel of John, and the Qur'an’, Apocrypha 19 (2008) 267–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 288.

96 Horn, ‘Syriac and Arabic Perspectives’, 291.

97 de Prémare, ‘“Comme il est écrit”’, 34 (our translation).

98 Karcic, F., ‘Textual Analysis in Islamic Studies: A Short Historical and Comparative Survey’, Islamic Studies 45 (2006/2), 191–220 Google Scholar, at 219; cf. his conclusion, Karcic, ‘Textual Analysis’, 220: ‘Textual analysis in Islamic studies may be improved by the development of language-related disciplines, the formulation of a general theory of interpretation of the revealed texts, and the adoption of adequate computer tools of analysis.’ See our remarks in n. 82.

99 See Picard, J.-C., Le Continent apocryphe: essai sur les littératures apocryphes juive et chrétienne (Instrumenta Patristica 36; Turnhout: Brepols, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

100 See Section 3 above and the analysis of the expressions using λέγει in 1 Clement.

101 See Verheyden, ‘Origen’, 498.

102 See Verheyden, ‘Origen’, 491.

103 Walker, W. O. J., ‘1 Corinthians 2.6–16: A Non-Pauline Interpolation’, JSNT 47 (1992) 75–94 Google Scholar; id., Interpolations in the Pauline Letters (JSNTSupp 213; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001)Google Scholar.

104 Kovacs, J. L., ‘The Archons, the Spirit and the Death of Christ: Do We Need the Hypothesis of Gnostic Opponents to Explain 1 Corinthians 2.6–16?’, Apocalyptic and the New Testament: Essays in Honor of J. Louis Martyn (ed. Marcus, J., Soards, M. L.; JSNTSupp 24; Sheffield: JSOT, 1989) 217–36Google Scholar.

105 Cf. the discussion in Section 2 above.

106 He is reproached for this (cf. Surah 25.4–5).