Paul's "style" - identifying the original text

Status
Not open for further replies.

Eoghan

Puritan Board Senior
I was shocked when there was a discussion of 1 Corinthians for the answer to questions about the text - it is probably not part of the original text. This was followed by an explanation that a Greek scholar felt that the particular verses should not be there, it was not in the style of Paul and there was a marked shift in phrasing.

I really felt that this was an easy way to deal with some of the more problematic teachings of Paul. I had rather thought that we had a genuine N.T. text, well attested and authorative. If I am honest it reminded me of conversations I have had with Brethren. When quoting a particular text they have interupted to tell me that that text only applies to the millennium or some other period in their dispensational theology. ( I fully acknowledge that not all Brethren are dispensational)

Am I wrong? I seem to recall FF Bruce asserting that no textual corrections affected any doctrines?
 
I was shocked when there was a discussion of 1 Corinthians for the answer to questions about the text - it is probably not part of the original text. This was followed by an explanation that a Greek scholar felt that the particular verses should not be there, it was not in the style of Paul and there was a marked shift in phrasing.

I really felt that this was an easy way to deal with some of the more problematic teachings of Paul. I had rather thought that we had a genuine N.T. text, well attested and authorative. If I am honest it reminded me of conversations I have had with Brethren. When quoting a particular text they have interupted to tell me that that text only applies to the millennium or some other period in their dispensational theology. ( I fully acknowledge that not all Brethren are dispensational)

Am I wrong? I seem to recall FF Bruce asserting that no textual corrections affected any doctrines?
How many of Paul's writings has this man studied? 13 letters? Do you think it is within the realm of possibility that he had any breadth of style beyond what is observable in the relatively few pages we have from him?

Regardless of speculations-turned-dogma regarding what was or wasn't Paul's style, this man's doctrine Scripture is seriously lacking. God has preserved his Word in every age.
 
Do you have any specifics? Did the guy mean all of 1 Corinthians? Even liberal scholars admit that is one of the most Pauline letters in terms of style.
 
It was the section on women keeping silent - if they have questions they should ask at home. The implication as I read it was that the menfolk were engaged in some sort of Q & A session similar to the adult Sunday school favoured by our cousins across the pond.

Instead of refuting my reading of the text, I was told the text probably wasn't canonical! (thinking of the Carlsberg adverts for 'probably' the best beer in the world)
 
Instead of refuting my reading of the text, I was told the text probably wasn't canonical! (thinking of the Carlsberg adverts for 'probably' the best beer in the world)

They might be getting 1 Corinthians confused with some parts of the pastorals. Few liberal scholars question the Pauline authorship of 1 Corinthians. They do question the pastorals.
 
It brought to mind the frustrations of discussing scripture with Dispensationalists, who would dismiss my texts as from a different dispensation.
 
My understanding of the controversy over 2 Cor. 10-13 is some think that portion is a recapitulation of a lost letter referred to in 2 Cor. 2:4 (sometimes called the Letter of Tears or the Severe Letter), which based on Paul's description there is not believed to refer to the book of 1 Corinthians. But I am not aware of any notable scholars that dispute the ultimate Pauline authorship of even those chapters. But I stand to be corrected if shown otherwise.

Clarification: I stand to be corrected with respect to whether or not any scholars question the Pauline authorship of chapters 10-13. I do not.
 
Last edited:
It brought to mind the frustrations of discussing scripture with Dispensationalists, who would dismiss my texts as from a different dispensation.

Kind of similar to Paul's command not to despise prophesying?

I'm not trying to make an argument for continuationism, but redemptive-historical thinking isn't always as separated from dispensational thinking as we sometimes think it is.
 
They might be getting 1 Corinthians confused with some parts of the pastorals. Few liberal scholars question the Pauline authorship of 1 Corinthians. They do question the pastorals.

Do the liberals question the canonicity just because they question the authorship?
 
Do the liberals question the canonicity just because they question the authorship?

Some might. Liberals wouldn't be as bothered by the canonicity as we would be. They know that the criteria for canonicity aren't axioms in the Bible, and they probably wouldn't care one way or another. They would question the authorship on grounds of vocab, doctrine, etc.
 
Some might. Liberals wouldn't be as bothered by the canonicity as we would be. They know that the criteria for canonicity aren't axioms in the Bible, and they probably wouldn't care one way or another. They would question the authorship on grounds of vocab, doctrine, etc.
Would not though the Epistles vary to some degree based upon situations and doctrines bring addressed, and If a scribe was being used to record it down and not Apostle directly at times?
 
Would not though the Epistles vary to some degree based upon situations and doctrines bring addressed, and If a scribe was being used to record it down and not Apostle directly at times?

Yes, and Paul said as much. That's not what the liberals are saying, though. They claim, erroneously I think, that the doctrines of a high Christology and structure in the church are a later development; ergo, it couldn't have been by Paul.
 
Yes, and Paul said as much. That's not what the liberals are saying, though. They claim, erroneously I think, that the doctrines of a high Christology and structure in the church are a later development; ergo, it couldn't have been by Paul.
They really hammer on both Peter and Paul having too much of Gnostic involvement in their Epistles.
 
They really hammer on both Peter and Paul having too much of Gnostic involvement in their Epistles.

That's a new one. Most scholars today, liberal and conservative, admit that what we call "Gnosticism" wasn't around in a real form back then.
 
I thought both Peter and Paul addressed it starting out in early church though?

There is little evidence that Peter did. Scholars used to think that Paul was attacking Gnosticism in Colossians, but that doesn't really match up to what we know of Gnosticism today. Paul was responding to a syncretism of Jewish mysticism and Near Eastern mystery religions.
 
That's a new one. Most scholars today, liberal and conservative, admit that what we call "Gnosticism" wasn't around in a real form back then.
Some might say that of "deutero-pauline" letters thus giving them a later date and thus not by Paul himself. Colossians falls into this category.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top