Re: [GTh] Dating evidence.
- In a message dated 06/07/2002 3:22:12AM, michael@... writes:
<< Well, I have One. There is a weak argument which is accepted by some and
others do not. That is the quote of Thomas saying 17 inside the Pauline
Specifically 1st Corinthians 2:9,
For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by
the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath
prepared for him that waiteth for him.
1 Corinthians 2:9
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered
into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love
As much as I'd like to agree with you John, the fact the Paul says it's
"written" would suggest to me he was refering to the Isaiah quote rather
than Got 17. Darn though, you got my hopes up anyway. :)
I would say however that since Paul hunted early Christians and looked for
such materials as evidence of their guilt, he of all people would be likely
to have access to these kinds of documents assuming they were already
circulating in his lifetime.
>>Well, having checked numerous sources on this, the general agreement of
those sources is that it was not Isaiah. The New Interpreters Bibles and some
of the more weighty analysis say that over the centuries, there have been
for 1st Corinthians 2:9(Basically they say that they were all wrong)
I believe that Clement had stated he thought it was ISaiah (the reference
books say he was in error), they generally end in agreement. That either this
is such a loose interoperation of Isaiah(As to not actually be Isaiah) and
made up(Which the Paul purists would abhor)
Presumably Paul would not be so careless, or they come right out and say"
WHERE DO these words actually Appear?"
So perhaps it is a Paul would not misquote so badly his source Argument.(
By the Theologians)
Nevertheless it would appear to be the Thomas Saying rather than ISaiah.
As well it authentic Pauline.( Which can not be said for all that is
attributed to Paul)
I believe at least One Newer Bible cites Thomas for this verse and I
have seen the
Argument presented on the Web from Published accounts as well.
That is if the majority of Searchers are correct and this is not
it would seem to be Thomas.
In any case, The original location is not in question. Thomas might
Isaiah and place within the Sayings List the be Altered slightly again by a
to his own purpose, then quoted by Paul.
We all know what happens when you extract several times down
several authors. However, I would say Paul purists would have less trouble
with Paul quoting Thomas than, severely misquoting Isaiah. (As an it is
Nevertheless the failing of the argument is not this point, but
in the end you have to decide if Paul is quoting Thomas, or Thomas is quoting
That in my opinion is the weakness of the argument rather than
the Old testament source.
Regards JOHN MOON
Springfield, TENN. 37172
I cannot recall if it is PAtterson or Davies that writes that this
It has not come up for about a year. Presumably they have done more research
Saying than I. I. Shall re check for the sources.
- In a message dated 6/13/2 7:41:00 AM, Mike wrote:
originally had five disciples is attested also in Jewish writings,
apparently independently, and among the five names there given is 'Mattias',
as I recall.>>
Most scholars I've read have discounted this list of disciples as being late.
Ill find some references and send em along later.