DCHindley

Theos is used by "both" authors. It is only when theos is used when speaking about Jesus Christ that it lacks a definite article, stressing the quality of divinity rather than specifying "the" God of the Jews. It is very noticeable when looked at closely. Would we expect the quality of God to change when Jesus is in the building?

As for sample size, there are a number of reasons why statistical analysis of Pauline style has constantly produced variable results. I am thinking of Kenneth J. Neumann, The Authenticity of the Pauline Epistles in the Light of Stylostatistical Analysis (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Scholars Press, 1990). Another related book on the subject is Anthony Kenny's A Stylometric Study of the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Clarendon Press, 1986) which compares the NT books.

DCH

DCHindley

All I know is that the author of 1 Cor 10:9 used the definite article with kurion, if we accept this reading rather than ton Christon, and that this appears to be a reference to Ex 17:2 Lxx, which reads kurion without a definite article ("why tempt ye (the) Lord?" in Brenton's translation).

However, Ex 17:2 is about the rock that gushes forth a spring of water, which would relate to 1 Cor 10:4 "and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ," not the story of the fiery serpents in Numbers 21:6-7.

The earliest mss (p46, ca 200 CE) has ton Christon, which suggests that the variant ton kurion is either a copyist's emendation that also refers to Christ, or that ton Christon is a very early copyist's emendation because he took ton kurion to refer to Christ, as it usually does in the Pauline letters.

Clear as mud ...

DCH

Loomis

Romans 10:9 doesn’t say that Jesus is God. In fact it says that God raised Jesus from the dead. The author of Romans 10:5-13 appears to saying that the character called Jesus is the same lord as the lord called LORD in certain sections of the Old Testament. It only becomes a problem when you try to reconcile it with the understanding that the LORD in the OT is Yahweh – and that Yahweh is God.

But there is zero support for Yahweh in the New Testament. There is no indication (based strictly on the text) that any NT author ever heard of a god named Yahweh. There is every indication that their bibles only read LORD.

If you read Romans 10:5-13 in its own context from the limited perspective of an author who lacks that understanding - then it’s all reasonably coherent and it makes perfect sense. It suggests that the author thought that the LORD in Joel 2:32 (for example) was not God.

Another possibility is that the author just didn’t care, and was just butchering Hebrew Scripture with complete abandonment.