But though I be unskilled in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been thoroughly made manifest among you in all things.
Read Chapter 11
Ambrosiaster
AD 400
This does not refer to the apostles, who were unlettered men of no eloquence, but to the false teachers whose rhetorical skill the Corinthians preferred. Paul did not mean by this that he did not know how to speak but that commendation did not depend on mere eloquence. A person of little eloquence is not guilty before God, but someone who does not know God is liable to be charged with ignorance, because it was a sin to be ignorant of what is conducive to salvation. It was not eloquence which would commend Paul’s message but the power to save which accompanied it. Commentary on Paul’s Epistles.
Rude in speech. Unskilled in the polished and rhetorical eloquence of the Greeks, such as we find in Isocrates, Demosthenes, Lucian. Hence we find in S. Paul so many sudden transitions, ellipses, and solecisms (Chrysostom and Theophylact). S. Jerome ( Ephesians 151ad Algas. qu10) says: "I have frequently said and I repeat it now, that when S. Paul spoke of himself as being "rude in speech yet not in knowledge," he was not merely using the language of humility, but was speaking from a consciousness of the truth. For in his writings there are many profound passages unexplained in words, dealing, with truths evident enough to himself, but incapable of being conveyed to others." He says the same in his epistle to Hedibia, where he adds that for this reason Paul kept Titus by him, who was a Greek scholar, just as S. Peter had S. Mark. Cf. 1 Corinthians 2:1-4, notes. On the other hand, S. Augustine (de Doct. Christ. lib. iv. c7) thinks that Paul calls himself here rude in speech, not as giv...
Though I be rude in speech, (as St. Jerome also thought) in my expressions in the Greek tongue, yet not in knowledge, the chief or only thing to be regarded. Nay, St. Paul's adversaries acknowledged that his letters were weighty and strong. (chap. x. ver. 11.) St. Chrysostom in many places, and St. Augustine, lib. iv. de Doct. Christiana, chap. vi. and vii tom. 3. p. 68. and seq., shows at large the solid rhetoric and eloquence of St. Paul, even in this and the next chapter. (Witham)
Paul was learned in Hebrew letters and sat at the feet of Gamaliel, whom he was not ashamed to acknowledge, but he showed a contempt for Greek eloquence, or at least he kept quiet about it because of his humility, so that his preaching lay not in the persuasiveness of his words but in the power of his signs.
For since those that corrupted the Corinthians had the advantage in this, that they were not rude; he mentions this also, showing that he was not ashamed of, but even prided himself upon it. And he said not, But though I be rude in speech, yet so also are they , for this would have seemed to be accusing them as well as himself, and exalting these: but he overthrows the thing itself, the wisdom from without. And indeed in his former Epistle he contends even vehemently about this thing, saying that it not only contributes nothing to the Preaching, but it even throws a shadow on the glory of the Cross; 1 Corinthians 2:1 for he says, I came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom unto you, lest the cross of Christ should be made void; 1 Corinthians 1:17 and many other things of the same kind; because in knowledge they were rude, which is also the extremest form of rudeness. When therefore it was necessary to institute a comparison in those things which were great, he compares himself wi...
The false apostles obviously had the gift of eloquence which Paul lacked. But that means nothing as far as the substance of the preaching is concerned and may even cast a shadow over the glory of the cross, which is anything but superficially attractive.
