Kata Markon

["Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000 AT attbi.com>]

After finding parallels in an English translation of Plato and the KJV of 1 
Cor,
Rick concludes:

> Many have declared that Paul's thought concerning the physical body and the
> soul were derived from Plato. Here is stong evidence that Paul did indeed
> read Plato.
>

Several observations.

1. As List policy specifies, any exegesis or investigation of a Pauline 
passage
should be done on the basis of the Greek text of the passage and NOT on the 
basis
of any, let alone the KJV, translation of the text. So until we see that the
**Greek** of 1 Cor matches the **Greek** of Plato, any claim that there is a
parallel between the two texts, let alone that Paul is **drawing** directly on
Plato, is highly suspect. The parallels may be more apparent than real. So 
please
provide the Greek of the relevant texts.

2. Even if the **Greek** texts bear formal resemblances to one another, it is
**still** illegitimate --without further ado-- to conclude that the **only**
explanation for the parallel is that Paul read Plato and is quoting him. As 
with
much of Shakespeare for moderns, Platonic sayings and phraseology became 
(through
Neo Platonism) part of the culture of Paul's time. And just as when someone 
now
says "do not guild the lily", it cannot be taken as strong evidence that 
he/she
has actually read King John (which, by the way, says "paint the lilly"), so 
too,
Paul's (reputed) use of phraseology that might ultimately derive from Plato is
not necessarily an indication that Paul **read** Plato. He may simply have 
been
taking up a phrase which, though derived from Plato, was now a commonplace of
speech.

3, One swallow does not make a spring. You'll have to find far more than one
possible parallel to Plato in Paul to show that Paul was directly familiar 
with
Plato's works.

4. How do you know that Plato himself was not using a commonplace? Have you
investigated literature antecedent to and contemporary with Plato to see if 
the
phrase in question is actually original to him?  If it **is/was** a 
commonplace,
then your case looks pretty shoddy, since the first premise on which it is 
built
has not been shown to be true.


Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson

--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
          Floor 1
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000 AT attbi.com
          jgibson000 AT hotmail.com