Paul’s Letters

[Calm]

I am not terribly fond of this part of the NT, so thought I would put these up to help others in my situation.  If you have a go to study aid on these, please add.  Or discuss ideas you believe inform your study here.
 

Ben Spackman…

https://benspackman.com/2023/07/four-ways-we-can-misread-paul/

https://benspackman.com/2023/07/covenant-and-law-grace-works-and-faith/

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I am not terribly fond of this part of the NT, so thought I would put these up to help others in my situation.  If you have a go to study aid on these, please add.  Or discuss ideas you believe inform your study here.
 

Ben Spackman…

https://benspackman.com/2023/07/four-ways-we-can-misread-paul/

https://benspackman.com/2023/07/covenant-and-law-grace-works-and-faith/

What is it you don't care for?  I love the New Testament.

I'm sure I don't have any academic insights like these.  But I do consider Paul an interesting character, perhaps the McConkie of his day.

[Pyreaux]

I love some of the broader themes that he refers to, over the smaller individual verses in isolation we could argue over. For instance, I don't care so much over why he said women should remain quiet in church; was he a chauvinist or were the women particularly chatty in church? Whatever the mysterious unexplained reasoning for his policies from a specific time and place is not as intriguing to me as the mysterious "mysteries" he keeps talking about.

I am focused on the themes of apocalyptic ascent, the higher law of Christ that makes us all priests/divine and the carnal law of Moses that prevented Israel from becoming priests, Gnostic-like technical language, and how the ways of Abraham were the same as the gospel, before Moses. How Christians were to not serve the Laws of Moses, Kosher Laws or the Sabbath.

Edit: I came back to reread this. Geiwitz, I had submitted an incoherent mess.

Edited July 23, 2023 by Pyreaux
Grammer, Spelling, Coherence

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

What is it you don't care for?  I love the New Testament.

I'm sure I don't have any academic insights like these.  But I do consider Paul an interesting character, perhaps the McConkie of his day.

I prefer more narratives in scripture, I love the gospels. 

[InCognitus]

Good topic.

From Ben Spackman:  "So much of Paul’s letters is devoted to reconciling and explaining the issues of Jew vs Pagan/Gentile, Jesus vs. Torah, and I can’t recall the last time our Elders Quorum got embroiled over circumcision."

(Making a note to myself to bring up circumcision in Elders Quorum tomorrow).

[Stargazer]

15 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I love some of the broader themes that he refers to, over the smaller individual verses in isolation we could argue over. For instance, I don't care so much over why he said women should remain quiet in church; was he a chauvinist or were the women particularly chatty in church? Whatever the mysterious unexplained reasoning for his policies from a specific time and place is not as intriguing to me as the mysterious "mysteries" he keeps talking about.

I am focused on the themes of apocalyptic ascent, the higher law of Christ that makes us all priests/divine and the carnal law of Moses that prevented Israel from becoming priests, Gnostic-like technical language, and how the ways of Abraham were the same as the gospel, before Moses. How Christians were to not serve the Laws of Moses, Kosher Laws or the Sabbath.

Edit: I came back to reread this. Geiwitz, I had submitted an incoherent mess.

Who's Geiwitz?

I was thinking that Paul's silence for women in church grew out of his birth culture. Here's a bit of an explanation I found "out there":

Quote

"In Jesus’ time, women participated fully in the religious life of the community. This included participation in synagogue services and in the regular study sessions that were conducted in the synagogue’s bet midrash (house of study). There was no separation of the sexes in synagogues, and women could be counted as part of the required congregational quorum of ten adults. There was, however, one inequality. For social reasons, women were not allowed to read the Scriptures publicly.

"In the Babylonian Talmud and the Tosefta, we find an early rabbinic (tannaic) ruling: “All are qualified to be among the seven [who read from the Torah in the synagogue on the Sabbath], even a minor or a woman; however, the sages ruled that a woman should not read from the Torah out of respect for the congregation.” This is apparently a reference to the same social custom or decorum that we find mentioned in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians: “Women should keep silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Torah states. If they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home, for it is a disgrace for a woman to speak in the congregation.”

Source: The Place of Women in First-century Synagogues: They were much more active in religious life than they are today

Note that I got this from the website of CBE (Christians for Biblical Equality), an organization which gives its purpose as:  "We are an international organization working to educate, advocate, and liberate women and men from Christian patriarchy"

 

[Saint Bonaventure]

I read the links Calm posted and have a few thoughts that might help folks who struggle with Paul:

• I think a case can be made that 1 Cor. 14:33-35 and 1 Tim 2:12 only indicate that women should not be homilists in the liturgical assembly. Paul is repeated and effusive in his appreciation of women--of Phoebe, Lydia, and Priscilla. He is not opposed to women praying and prophesying in the liturgical assembly (1 Cor. 11), or to older women teaching younger women (Titus 2). 
• Perhaps some difficulty with Paul for Latter-day Saints arises from a gendered division of labor that is specific to the LDS context. I don't know of any evidence that in the early Christian Church all males held priesthood offices.
• There is evidence of Bishops, Priests/Elders, and Deacons, and some flexibility with such as the churches gradually take shape (some early churches were led by a Bishop, others are referenced as having Elders--presbyteros, from which the word priest is derived), but I am unaware of any authoritative source that indicates that all males were to be bishops, priests, or deacons. To the contrary, there is evidence of certain men being ordained to such, and there is evidence of a liturgical framework that supports this practice of selective ordination. There is also evidence of the Royal Priesthood held by all Church members, male and female, without ordination but with the sacrament of baptism (1 Peter 2).
• The selective ordination model makes sense in terms of having a male homilist in the liturgical assembly. It also doesn't create a liturgical assembly where the men do all the holy, sacramental work and the women are forbidden to do such. A few men are doing the sacramental work, but all the other men participate just as the women do. The men vs women, team "p" versus team "v" thing isn't all that acute.   
• Some have no doubt already done this, but if you haven't gone to a modern translation to understand Paul you should. I think it's a must. The classic translations, like the King James and the Douay-Rheims, have a beautiful dignity, but they are a serious barrier to understanding Paul. When it comes to Paul, the RSV, ESV, and NRSV are all much clearer than are the classic translations.  
• I have many commentaries on Paul and can share.

Here is a quote from the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible regarding 1 Cor. 14:33-35. It substantiates my assertion that Paul's prescription may only apply to the circumstance of homilist:

Quote

 

14:34–35 Paul enjoins silence upon Christian women in public worship. This is not an absolute restriction, since women can lawfully pray and prophesy in the liturgical assembly (11:5) and are encouraged to teach in other circumstances (*** 2:3–4). Paul is prohibiting women from instructing the congregation in the official capacity of a pastor or homilist. See note on 1 Tim 2:12.

The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The New Testament (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010), 306.

 

 

[Calm]

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2023/08/digital-only/pauls-metaphors-of-salvation-in-their-ancient-contexts?lang=eng
 

Quote

How does one put into words all that Jesus Christ has done for us? For Paul, the answer was to use concepts that were familiar in his time and could be likened to Jesus Christ—concepts such as justification, grace, and propitiation/atonement.

While each of these concepts may sometimes be misunderstood in the present day, in Romans 3:24–25, Paul used them as metaphors to explain salvation in terms that Christ’s followers at the time might have better understood. Therefore, knowing more about the original contexts of these words can help us better understand Paul’s teachings about our salvation in Jesus Christ.

 

[halconero]

Co-signed with everything Saint Bonaventure said, especially on his penultimate bullet. A modern translation is a must. I would also suggest one with a good commentary elucidating plausible historical and doctrinal contexts for Paul’s letters.

I find Paul much more enjoyable when I read with the question in mind of “what questions is he trying to resolve and why?” as well as in their suggested historical order. You get a clearer idea of how both he and the early Church evolved in their thinking and practice over time.

[InCognitus]

So is everyone getting into Paul's letters?   I like all the greetings at the end of the epistle to the Romans, with all the names we should be naming our kids like:  Amplias, Epaenetus, Urbane, Stachys, Apelles, Aristobulus, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Asyncritus, Phlegon, Patrobas, Nereus and Philologus.  Those should all be good Utah names.

On a different note, my daughter-in-law sent us a text yesterday, saying they were doing a family home evening from Come Follow Me in the book of Acts.  Their oldest kids are twin boys and they are six years old.

Mom asking the question:  "What does the Holy Ghost help you to do?"

Six year old boy response:  "Break out of jail and stuff?"

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

So is everyone getting into Paul's letters?   I like all the greetings at the end of the epistle to the Romans, with all the names we should be naming our kids like:  Amplias, Epaenetus, Urbane, Stachys, Apelles, Aristobulus, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Asyncritus, Phlegon, Patrobas, Nereus and Philologus.  Those should all be good Utah names.

On a different note, my daughter-in-law sent us a text yesterday, saying they were doing a family home evening from Come Follow Me in the book of Acts.  Their oldest kids are twin boys and they are six years old.

Mom asking the question:  "What does the Holy Ghost help you to do?"

Six year old boy response:  "Break out of jail and stuff?"

Paul in the KJV of the bible and I are not friends.  Its like someone copies his letters but left out every second or third word.  I have no idea what he is saying a lot of the time.

[InCognitus]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Paul in the KJV of the bible and I are not friends.  Its like someone copies his letters but left out every second or third word.  I have no idea what he is saying a lot of the time.

Probably the best example of that (in my opinion) is Romans chapter 7 with all the "would", "would not", and "do" combinations.  i.e. "For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me."  (Romans 7:19–20)

Other translations help a little bit, but not much  

[Saint Bonaventure]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

Paul in the KJV of the bible and I are not friends.  Its like someone copies his letters but left out every second or third word.  I have no idea what he is saying a lot of the time.

I do not enjoy the KJV's translation of Paul's letters. I think that the KJV is a major source of confusion around Paul.

[CA Steve]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

Paul in the KJV of the bible and I are not friends.  Its like someone copies his letters but left out every second or third word.  I have no idea what he is saying a lot of the time.

You might find BYU professor Dr Thomas Wayment's thoughts on Paul, the JST and the KJV interesting and helpful to understand Paul. Dr Wayment helps understand Paul's letters and gives him a human side.

Have Apostle Paul's Letters Been Mistranslated? (Thomas Wayment 2 of 2)

[Craig Speechly]

An then there's the Biblical Scholar consensus that Paul only wrote 7 of the 13 epistles. That the other 6 are in fact Pauline pseudepigrapha, or were authored by individuals who wanted their epistles to have the doctrinal authority of Paul but were not actually written by Paul.

Many of the important Pauline epistles that are important to LDS doctrines were not even written by Paul.  The letters to the Ephesians for example, which tells us the offices and organization of Christ's Church as stated in Ephesians 4:11 reads: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers"  and yet none of this was written by Paul, it was written some 15-20 years after Paul's death.

Here is a Link to a seminary study guide that states that this pseudepigrapha is "Essential Doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ,” and yet the Biblical consensus is that it didn't even come from Paul. Of course this study guide doesn't give any mention that Paul didn't write Ephesians, it allows the student to assume that it was written by Paul and carry his authority.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Craig Speechly

[ksfisher]

19 hours ago, bluebell said:

Its like someone copies his letters but left out every second or third word.

To me it feels like words are added.  It's like Paul never uses 10 words when 20 will do.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I do not enjoy the KJV's translation of Paul's letters. I think that the KJV is a major source of confusion around Paul.

I think you are right.  The Follow Him podcast on these chapters had Dr. Adam Miller on as their scholar and he essentially said the same thing.  I think I'm going to have to try to find a different bible version to deal with his stuff.  

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

To me it feels like words are added.  It's like Paul never uses 10 words when 20 will do.

So true.  And then sometimes, like someone has mixed up the order of the words so that they don't make any sense at all when read together.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

You might find BYU professor Dr Thomas Wayment's thoughts on Paul, the JST and the KJV interesting and helpful to understand Paul. Dr Wayment helps understand Paul's letters and gives him a human side.

Have Apostle Paul's Letters Been Mistranslated? (Thomas Wayment 2 of 2)

Thank you!

[teddyaware]

3 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I do not enjoy the KJV's translation of Paul's letters. I think that the KJV is a major source of confusion around Paul.

Cite a couple examples of what you’re referring to, along with alternate translations of the same passages that help clear up the confusion?

[CA Steve]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think I'm going to have to try to find a different bible version to deal with his stuff.  

For the NT, I would recommend The New Testament: A Translation for Latter-day Saints, Revised Edition

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

For the NT, I would recommend The New Testament: A Translation for Latter-day Saints, Revised Edition

I second that recommendation. Be sure to get the second edition too.

[Saint Bonaventure]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

Cite a couple examples of what you’re referring to, along with alternate translations of the same passages that help clear up the confusion?

I will do this. I'm on the run today, but I'll choose a few passages and respond when I can catch my breath. My digital library has all of the main English versions. 

[teddyaware]

55 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I will do this. I'm on the run today, but I'll choose a few passages and respond when I can catch my breath. My digital library has all of the main English versions. 

Thanks, I appreciate the effort.

[OGHoosier]

11 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

An then there's the Biblical Scholar consensus that Paul only wrote 7 of the 13 epistles. That the other 6 are in fact Pauline pseudepigrapha, or were authored by individuals who wanted their epistles to have the doctrinal authority of Paul but were not actually written by Paul.

Many of the important Pauline epistles that are important to LDS doctrines were not even written by Paul.  The letters to the Ephesians for example, which tells us the offices and organization of Christ's Church as stated in Ephesians 4:11 reads: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers"  and yet none of this was written by Paul, it was written some 15-20 years after Paul's death.

Here is a Link to a seminary study guide that states that this pseudepigrapha is "Essential Doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ,” and yet the Biblical consensus is that it didn't even come from Paul. Of course this study guide doesn't give any mention that Paul didn't write Ephesians, it allows the student to assume that it was written by Paul and carry his authority.

I would offer some commentary on your invocation of Biblical Scholarship™ and it's implications for Church use of the Epistles.  

Quote

An then there's the Biblical Scholar consensus that Paul only wrote 7 of the 13 epistles. You've flipped it on it's head. Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon are undisputedly Pauline. Everything else is contested. That's a consensus that Paul wrote "at least" 7 of the 13, not "only." That the other 6 are in fact alleged to be Pauline pseudepigrapha, or were authored by individuals who wanted their epistles to have the doctrinal authority of Paul but were not actually written by Paul.

Many  One at worst, lol of the important Pauline epistles that are important to LDS doctrines were not even written by Paul. 1 Corinthians is more important to us than Ephesians imo, and that is undisputedly Pauline. The letters to the Ephesians for example, which tells us the offices and organization of Christ's Church as stated in Ephesians 4:11 reads: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers"  and yet none of this was written by Paul, it was written some 15-20 years after Paul's death.

Here is a Link to a seminary study guide that states that this pseudepigrapha is "Essential Doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ,” and yet the Biblical consensus is that it didn't even come from Paul. Of course this study guide doesn't give any mention that Paul didn't write Ephesians, it allows the student to assume that it was written by Paul and carry his authority.

First, it's an open question whether or not any of the stylistic arguments about Pauline Epistles matter in the first place, as ghostwriters exist (W.W. Phelps wrote a lot of stuff attributed to Joseph Smith in the Times and Seasons) so matters of individual style are not very conclusive as to the authoritativeness of a document. That said, I don't know the arguments about Ephesians as well as I know some other issues, so I won't launch too many bombs, but I'll just note that a pretty well-regarded monograph was released in 2014 defending Pauline authorship of Ephesians. Luke Timothy Johnson, N.T. Wright, and Duane Watson also hold Pauline authorship. Now, of course, the easy move is to say "well they're dogmatically committed, also that's just a few cranks against the SCHOLARLY CONSENSUS."

And I'd say, okay, but their arguments are still there. You may not be convinced by them, but they are, and that does mean something (unless you wish to impugn their integrity.) What I've learned from years of adventures in Biblical Scholarship (going somewhat deeper than a Bart Ehrman book) is that your mileage really varies on what is or is not compelling. I'm reminded of a time when I was reading through the faculty papers on the philosophy board in the JFSB at BYU. I was looking through a paper on Locke, and I recalled another paper I had recently encountered which took the same passage and interpreted it in the radically opposite direction. Their interpretations were so far apart that I was tempted to think that one of them was doing a Foucaultian subtextual thing - how could they interpret it so differently? But that sort of thing is what I see in Biblical Scholarship™. All the time. So, I've eventually gotten to this quietist view about the whole thing. Unraveling the web of biases, social pressures, and temporality, on a field already dependent on subjective assertions...everybody can believe as they are convinced by individual arguments from  Biblical Scholarship™, but I have very little confidence in the truth-tracking nature of its methodology at least as far as the New Testament is concerned. The Consensus, however, deserves little rhetorical weight.

I'm a neutral on the authorship of the Ephesians. I haven't given this particular issue a whole lot of attention, comparatively speaking. But man, it grinds my gears when people get on the Biblical Scholarship™ soapbox. Gonna change my handle to "Consensusolatry Watch."

Edited August 16, 2023 by OGHoosier