Talk:First Epistle to the Corinthians

message: I son't see the point of the photograph. A Georgian (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Since the previous outline was so bad, I started from scratch. Here's the original stuff if someone wants to reintroduce it. --JBJ830726 23:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I slightly changed the reference so the link does now point directly to the list on NETBible _> MonstaPro:Talk:Contrib. 14:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outline cleanup 

message: Is there any possibility of using a more scholarly, inclusive language and modern Bible source? The KJV/AV Bible is hardly a suitable source for serious Theological study
A pretty thorough exegesis has been added based on a new translation.  I would not be so hard on the KJV, though, its shortcomings have more to do with the manuscripts available at the time than with its precision, which is usually excellent, and sometimes preferable to, say, the RSV.  74.184.50.87 (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible Translation 

message: 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 (New International Version)
3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
Should the above controversial passage noted?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.25.175 (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of Women in the church 

message: I'm on a mission to bring down the weasel-words tag!  All we have to do is change a few sentances so that it would make sense to someone of any faith.  For example, "Paul argued against their erroneous beliefs" would only make sense from a Christian viewpoint.  "Paul considered their beliefs un-Christian and argued strongly against them" is more NPOV, and still conveys the same meaning. As a test, maybe some non-Christian readers out there could read this article and give us their feedback.  Anyone? --Glistenray 02:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed the tag is no longer present: did you manage it?! _> MonstaPro:Talk:Contrib. 14:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel-words tag

message: What's with the tag on the front?  I see nothing here on the talk page to warrant it?  Unless I'm just missing it.. could someone enlighten me? T Berg Drop a Line ޗ  pls</sub></span> 04:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the edit summary in which it was added reads: "POV tag because of the many references to an ill-supported and single sided interpretation. Scholarly material is plentiful and yet no balance is recognized here." But, I read over the article and I see no glaring problems. I'd be fine with taking it down, personally. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Took it down. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality? 

message: What is the original language of this book of the bible? Generally, I would have assumed that all books of the bible were written in either Hebrew or Aramaic. All the books of the Jewish Bible are, as far as I am aware. If this was originally in Greek, this should be made explicit, so that those (like myself) who are not Christian and are reading it will understand that quotes from this book, in Greek, reflect the original, and not a Septuagint translation of Hebrew/Aramaic. LordAmeth (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Greek A Georgian (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be made more explicit in the article. Thanks! LordAmeth (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had prepared a wordier response but must have forgotten to save it. All of the New Testament books were written in Greek, although there is some speculation that the author of Matthew had before him a gospel in Hebrews (or Aramaic) called the Gospel to the Hebrews (not to be confused with the Epistle to the Hebrews).  The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are supposed to have benefited from proto documents such as the Saying of Jesus, and narratives (designated by their imputers Q, M, etc.) which may have been in Hebrew (and/or) Aramaic, and these, in turn would have gone back to oral traditions and/or actual quotations from Hebrew (and/or Aramaic).  There are entire schools of theologians devoted to these matters.  I was intrigued by the theory expounded by (but not original to)the late Dr. Robert Lindsey in his introduction to his translation of Mark into Hebrew, that in translating the New Testament from Greek into Hebrew one encounters expressions which are awkward in Greek but idiomatic in Hebrew, and, therefore, probably authentic traces of the actual words of Jesus, creating the possibility that one might, in the late Professor David Flusser's words, hear his voice!  I'll add one last note regarding translation at the risk of losing your attention; I think that the care to which translators have gone to remain faithful to the texts influenced the vocabulary and very syntax of English, since for centuries the only book available to hoi polloi was the Bible. A Georgian (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting stuff. Thanks for taking the time to write that out. LordAmeth (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: In this epistle, Paul breaks with the Pharisaic belief that justice is the highest virtue, and elevates instead charity.  Around the same year Paul wrote this epistle, the stoic philosopher Seneca wrote De Clementia, also replacing the stoic virtue of justice with that of mercy.  Has anyone ever suggested that paul was influenced by Seneca?  Or perhaps that there was just tome new discourse privileging charity or mercy, emerging in the Roman world? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charity 

message: I wonder about the focus and quality here given that it starts by saying this includes "some of the most famous phrases" of the NT and then neglects the most famous of all, 1 Corinthians 11:24: This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.. If that is missing, I wonder how many more errors there are.... History2007 (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of wondering and criticising, why not make the addition you are suggesting? LADave (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My watchlist says: "You have 1,235 pages on your watchlist", so this page has to wait. I have 200 other pages I have to fix first. And on my salary here, this will take time. I will eventually get to it, if I can not get anyone to do it for free first. History2007 (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article quality

message: All the discussion is about content and interpretation, none about where and when were the original texts found, in which manuscripts, and who do they compare?
Tremendous oversight in an scholarly article.
--ROO BOOKAROO 
To be clearer: there seems to be four sets of dates related to this document:
* Estimated dates of writing: fairly covered in the article, but with little discussion of any related controversy.
* Date when the document is first mentioned as appearing in the historical record: Marcion collection (Apostolikon)?
* Dates of inclusion in the canon.
* Dates of the earliest manuscripts: key fragments, and totality of the epistle, with attendant controversies about reliability of the text. 
* Any discussion by the Dutch Radicals, who made a specialty of criticizing Paul's epistles?
--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No discussion of the original manuscripts where (and when) the text was found   

message: I cannot change the code, dont know how, the page does not need to mention a football team as it does not bear the same name, the disambig link is enough.--Inayity (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Hat note 

message: The first line of the authorship section of this article is as follows,
"There is consensus among historians and Christian theologians that Paul is the author of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, classifying its authorship as "undisputed" (see Authorship of the Pauline epistles)."
You will notice that no names are given for these historians or theologians. Instead of including any in-line citations there is a link to an article on Wikipedia. The section in the referenced article that addresses this book of the New Testament does not agree with this article or even with itself. As you can see,
"Undisputed epistles
The name "undisputed" epistles represents the traditional scholarly consensus asserting that Paul authored each letter.[1][2] However, even the least disputed of letters, such as Galatians, have found critics.[12] Moreover, the unity of the letters is questioned by some scholars. First and Second Corinthians have garnered particular suspicion, with some scholars, among them Edgar Goodspeed and Norman Perrin, supposing one or both texts as we have them today are actually amalgamations of multiple individual letters. There remains considerable discussion as to the presence of possible significant interpolations. However, such textual corruption is difficult to detect and even more so to verify, leaving little agreement as to the extent of the epistles' integrity. See also Radical Criticism, which maintains that the external evidence for attributing any of the letters to Paul is so weak, that it should be considered that all the letters appearing in the Marcion canon were written in Paul's name by members of the Marcionite Church and were afterwards edited and adopted by the Catholic Church.
These seven letters are quoted or mentioned by the earliest of sources, and are included in every ancient canon, including that of Marcion (c.140).[13] There is no record of scholarly doubt concerning authorship until the 19th century when, around 1840, German scholar Ferdinand Christian Baur accepted only four of the letters bearing Paul's name as genuine, which he called the Hauptebriefe (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and Galatians). Hilgenfeld (1875) and H. J. Holtzmann (1885) instead accepted the seven letters listed above, adding Philemon, 1 Thessalonians, and Philippians. Few scholars have argued against this list of seven epistles, which all share common themes, emphasis, vocabulary and style. They also exhibit a uniformity of doctrine concerning the Mosaic Law, Christ, and faith."
The First paragraph disagrees with this article and the second paragraph appears to be arguing with the first. I assume that the referenced article originally agreed with this article but with the changing nature of Wikipedia it would really be better to rely on outside sources.
Also, the first paragraph in the reference would perhaps suggest that this article should not represent the authorship of 1 Corinthians as completely undisputed since apparently it is not. Louieoddie (talk) 12:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undisputed Authorship 

message: The second paragraph of the "Composition" section has no in-line citation at all, outside of bible references. It includes sentences like these,
"This statement, in turn, is CLEARLY REMINISCENT of Paul's Second Missionary Journey, when Paul traveled from Corinth to Ephesus, before going to Jerusalem for Pentecost (cf. Acts 18:22). THUS, IT IS POSSIBLE that I Corinthians was written during Paul's first (brief) stay in Ephesus, at the end of his Second Journey, usually dated to early 54 AD." 
(Caps added for emphasis)
There are no scholarly references. Clearly someone's opinions are being expressed but who's? It looks to be someones independent research using mostly a bible. Louieoddie (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Epistle to the Romans which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 16:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: However, the epistle does contain a passage that is widely believed to have been interpolated into the text by a later scribe:
As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
— 1 Corinthians 14:34–35, NRSV
Is this accurate. This study describes things as an 'hypothesis'. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/014610790003000204
I am unsure that this is closed to being a settled issue, but I have not done much research in this area. Thoughts? Thanks Bedfordres (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Widely Believed to be Interpolated?