Interpreting the Language of St Paul

  • Dennis L. Stamps


Before exploring the problems and significance of interpreting the language of St Paul, two matters need to be established. First, why bother with the writings of St Paul? Second, what is the significance of the lexical interplay between the words ‘translation’ and ‘interpretation’ when referring to the texts by St Paul.


Receptor Language Source Text Religious Text Good Translation Interpretative Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    There are many studies of the Pauline Gentile mission; a helpful introduction can be found in K. Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles (Philadelphia, 1976).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Rowland, Christian Origins (London, 1985) pp. 194–7.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    For just such a reading, see L. Goppelt, Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times, trans. R. A. Guelich (London, 1962).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Interesting surveys of the history of biblical scholarship can be found in: Robert Morgan with John Barton, Biblical Interpretation (Oxford, 1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hans Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative (New Haven, Conn., 1974)Google Scholar
  6. 5.
    Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, trans. Edwin C. Hoskyns (London, 1933).Google Scholar
  7. 9.
    A helpful discussion of the difference in both disciplines can be found in P. Cotterell and M. Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (London, 1989) pp. 77–102.Google Scholar
  8. 10.
    See C. Tuckett, Reading the New Testament (London, 1987)Google Scholar
  9. H. Conzelmann and A. Lindemann, Interpreting the New Testament, trans. S. S. Schatzmann (Peabody, Mass., 1988)Google Scholar
  10. G. D. Fee, New Testament Exegesis (Philadelphia, 1983)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Conzelmann and Lindemann, op. cit., pp. 158–99.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    For a discussion of ancient letter form, see D. E. Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment, Library of Early Christianity (Philadelphia, 1987) pp. 162–4.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    These include Laodiceans, 3 Corinthians. These and related writings can be found in E. Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha, ed. by W. Schneemelcher, 2 vols (Philadelphia, 1963–5).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Discussion over authenticity and authorship of the New Testament Pauline epistles can be found in most New Testament Introductions, for example, W. G. Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament, 14th edn (Nashville, 1966).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Calvin J. Roetzel, The Letters of Paul (London, 1982) pp. 93–116.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Conzelmann and Lindemann, op. cit., p. 199: ‘Pauline authorship is assumed hypothetically … for reasons of methodology.’Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    David G. Meade, Pseudonymity and Canon (Tubingen, 1986).Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    See a fine discussion on this point in Luke T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament (London, 1986) pp. 255–7.Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    G. D. Fee and D. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All its Worth (London, 1982) pp. 57–71Google Scholar
  20. also Cotterell and Turner, op. cit., pp. 100–2.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A most accessible survey is now Werner Jeanrond, Theological Hermeneutics (London, 1991)Google Scholar
  22. see also, A. C. Thiselton, The Two Horizons (Grand Rapids, 1980)Google Scholar
  23. 22.
    The role of the imagination in New Testament interpretation is well outlined in David Jasper, The New Testament and the Literary Imagination (London, 1987).Google Scholar
  24. 23.
    Good discussions of where and how to draw the line are found in G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (London, 1980), andGoogle Scholar
  25. Stephen Prickett, Word and ‘The Word’ (Cambridge, 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 24.
    See Aune, op. cit., p. 160.Google Scholar
  27. 25.
    A full discussion of New Testament letters and their relationship to ancient epistolary form is found in W. G. Doty, Letters in Primitive Christianity (Philadelphia, 1973).Google Scholar
  28. 26.
    J. L. White, Light from Ancient Utters (Philadelphia, 1986) pp. 215–16.Google Scholar
  29. 27.
    J. Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of Paul (Tübingen, 1991).Google Scholar
  30. 28.
    One critic describes the central point of the letters as: ‘witnesses to and interpretations of the experience of the crucified and raised Messiah Jesus in the continuing life of the church’ (Johnson, op. cit., p. 243).Google Scholar
  31. 29.
    G. Lyons, Pauline Autobiography, SBL Dissertation series no. 73 (Atlanta, 1985).Google Scholar
  32. 30.
    Stanley K. Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Atlanta, 1981).Google Scholar
  33. 31.
    Aune, op. cit., p. 183–98.Google Scholar
  34. 33.
    Most New Testament introductions discuss the occasional nature of the letters; for a brief but good discussion, see Roetzel, op. cit.Google Scholar
  35. 34.
    A. B. Spencer, Paul’s Literary Style (Jackson, Miss., 1984) is an exception.Google Scholar
  36. N. Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 4, Style (Edinburgh, 1976), has a chapter on the style of Paul, mainly to prove Semitic influence.Google Scholar
  37. 35.
    C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 2nd edn (Cambridge, 1953) p. 3.Google Scholar
  38. 37.
    See Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, Studies in Biblical Greek no. 1 (New York, 1989) pp. 141–56.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    A. J. Malherbe, Social Aspects of Early Christianity, 2nd edn (Philadelphia, 1983) pp. 29–59.Google Scholar
  40. 42.
    Turner, op. cit., p. 86.Google Scholar
  41. 43.
    M. D. Hooker, From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul (Cambridge, 1990).Google Scholar
  42. 44.
    On transparent versus opaque, see Prickett, op. cit., pp. 35–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 45.
    G. A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (London and Chapel Hill, N.C., 1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 46.
    Burton L. Mack, Rhetoric and the New Testament (Minneapolis, 1990).Google Scholar
  45. 47.
    See two fascinating analyses of Paul based on his conversion experience: A. F. Segal, Paul the Convert (New Haven, Conn., 1991), andGoogle Scholar
  46. G. Josipovici, The Book of God (New Haven, Conn., 1988) pp. 235–53Google Scholar
  47. 49.
    David Jasper, Rhetoric, Power and Community (London, 1992) p. 40.Google Scholar
  48. 50.
    W. Wuellner, ‘Paul’s Rhetoric of Argumentation in Romans’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol: 38 (1976) p. 351.Google Scholar
  49. 51.
    Susan Bassnett-McGuire, Translation Studies (London, 1980) pp. 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 52.
    F. F. Bruce, The English Bible: A History of Translations (London, 1961), provides an excellent survey of the history of Bible translation.Google Scholar
  51. 53.
    Bassnett-McGuire, op. cit., p. 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 56.
    E. A. Nida and C. R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation, Helps for Translators no. 8 (Leiden, 1969).Google Scholar
  53. 57.
    As quoted in Bassnett-McGuire, op. cit., p. 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 59.
    E. A. Nida, ‘Principles of Translation as Exemplified by Bible Translating’, in On Translation, ed. R. A. Brower (Cambridge, Mass., 1959) p. 19.Google Scholar
  55. 60.
    For an introduction to the dilemma, see Terence Hawkes, Structuralism and Semiotics (London, 1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 61.
    The concept adequate and functional versus equivalence is discussed by Basil Hatim and Ian Mason, Discourse and the Translator (London, 1990) pp. 7–8.Google Scholar
  57. 62.
    Prickett, op. cit., 4–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 63.
    George Steiner, After Babel (Oxford, 1975) p. 47.Google Scholar
  59. 65.
    Harold Bloom, A Map of Misreading (Oxford, 1975).Google Scholar
  60. 66.
    Help is given by Peter de Bolla, Harold Bloom: Towards Historical Rhetorics (London, 1988).Google Scholar
  61. 67.
    The idea of intertextuality and translation is discussed in Bassnett-McGuire, op. cit., pp. 79, 104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. and Hatim and Mason, op. cit., pp. 120–37Google Scholar
  63. 68.
    J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law (London, 1990)Google Scholar
  64. and E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia, 1977)Google Scholar
  65. 69.
    Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, ‘Rhetorical Situation and Historical Reconstruction in 1 Corinthians’, New Testament Studies, vol. 33 (1987) pp. 386–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 71.
    Hatim and Mason, op. cit., p. 11.Google Scholar
  67. 72.
    M. Bakhtin, Speech Genres, and Other Late Essays, trans. Vern W. McGee, University of Texas Press Slavic Series no. 8 (Austin, Tx., 1986) p. 144.Google Scholar
  68. 73.
    Roland Barthes, ‘The Death of the Author’, in Image-Music-Text, trans. S. Heath (New York, 1977) p. 146.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dennis L. Stamps

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations