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).