What can language sciences do for readers of Paul's letters?

Engagement with language sciences proves to be fruitful, at least toward generating new hypotheses about the decipherment problems encountered by Paul's readers. A brief summary of such hypotheses would include the following:

(1) Discursive Recursion
This concept grows out of research in linguistics and psycholinguistics on syntactic recursion and discourse structure, respectively. It appears likely that Paul's texts have extraordinary levels of recursion in their discursive structure.

(2) A Competitive Principle
This is a corollary (and competitor) to the Gricean and Neo-Gricean hypotheses about a Cooperative Principle that guides human communication. It appears likely that Paul's texts are among the Biblical texts that are guided at least in part by a competitive principle, made explicit in several places (cf. Matt 13:10-15; Mark 4:10-12; Luke 8:10; John 6:22-68).

(3) Parsimonious Elenchic Dialogue - Recursive Anaphoric Polysemy ("PED-RAP")
This hypothesis grows out of insights from a variety of disciplines. The concept of parsimony comes especially from the philosophy of science, as a criterion for selection among competing explanations. The criterion of parsimony is motivated by the hypothesis that nature tends toward simpler rather than more complex dynamics, and that descriptions of nature ought therefore also to be parsimonious. The concept of elenchus comes from the ancient Hellenistic world, where it came to refer to a competitive, testing form of rhetoric, dialogue, or discourse. It appears likely that Paul's letters are characterized by these qualities. Stated differently: Paul competed, with stunning efficiency. The tremendous complexes of arguments are perfectly arranged around single-pointed, competitive necessities. 
The second part of the PED-RAP hypothesis describes a major reason for readers' confusion: not only are Paul's texts hugely recursive, but they also use polysemy intentionally (to achieve aims efficiently) and anaphorically. An example of a RAP might be Paul's use of the verb egkakeo in 2 Cor 4:1, where it may support, through intentional polysemy, propositions made in 2 Cor 2-3 both about ministerial fitness and ministerial boldness.

Dangerous and difficult decipherment

How dangerous and difficult is the problem of deciphering Paul's letters? His contemporary Peter[1] warned that "in them are some confusing[2] things, which the undiscipled[3] and unstable[4] twist[5], as also the other scriptures, to their own destruction of themselves" (2 Peter 3:16). A similar warning comes from the conflict-filled, modern history of Christianity. Differences of opinion about the meaning of Paul's texts have played a leading role here.[6]
Why are Paul's letters so confusing? Can language sciences[7] help solve the problem, with diagnosis or cure?[8]
_________________________
[1] For a recent overview of the arguments for and against Peter's authorship of 2 Peter, see D.A. Keating, First and Second Peter, Jude, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011, pp. 127-9; a skeptical, opposing summary of arguments is provided by J.N.D. Kelly, A commentary on the epistles of Peter and of Jude, Black's New Testament commentaries, London: Black, 1969, pp. 235-6.
[2] dysnóeta: i.e. difficult to understand
[3] amatheîs: i.e. untaught, untrained
[4] astériktos: i.e. "not supported by a staff", "not remaining still" (LSJ), "weak" (BDAG)
[5] streblóo: i.e. distort, stretch, torture, pervert (LSJ)
[6] For example, the Protestant-Catholic/Orthodox schism is usually traced back to Martin Luther's "Reformation Discovery" of an alternative interpretation of Romans 1:17. See e.g. A. Hastings et al (eds), The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 399; F.L. Cross & E.A Livingstone (eds), The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 1008.
[7] By "language sciences" I refer to the highly diverse field of disciplines that aim to study language, including Philology, Linguistics (Grammar/Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics, Morphology), Sociolinguistics, Psycholinguistics, Text Linguistics, Discourse Analysis, Conversation Analysis, Literary Criticism, Translation Studies, Semiotics, Logic, and the Philosophy of Language.
[8] St. Peter's cure ought to be noted without delay: he advises readers to reject any antinomian (moral libertarian) interpretation of St. Paul's letters (see 2 Peter 3:11-18, cp. 1 Peter 1:13-2:25).

Scientific translation, or translation-as-description

From the brief study (available to read here):

....Ricoeur’s labyrinth of translation problems builds on the dead-ends of hypothesized linguistic incommensurability, linguistic relativity, and unavoidable information loss. It extends further by hypothesizing that human language centrally involves tasks of “safeguarding the secret”, preservation of otherness (or foreignness), and “non-communication”.[1] Therefore, the "other" person speaking, in your own language or another language, is always partly or fully incomprehensible to you. This is not so much proved as presupposed by Ricoeur (whose appeals to the philosophy and sciences of language are not robust), and defended on the basis that it is impossible to refute. Why? Because, Ricoeur claims, there is never a way to verify that one has properly understood the other.... (p. 4)

....What can brighten the outlook for translation? Given that the practice of science, for some 23 centuries at least, has sought to describe phenomena with increasing accuracy, and decreasing misrepresentation,[2] a scientific practice of translation, i.e. translation-as-description, deserves consideration. This essay’s major hypothesis is: A scientific practice of translation is able to counter-act two dynamics that, alone or together, undermine translation accuracy: insufficient control of translation accuracy, and theoretically motivated surrender of the goal of translation accuracy....  (p. 5)

___________________

[1] Paul Ricoeur, On Translation, E. Brennan (trans.), Abingdon: Routledge, 2006, 8, 22-23, 28, 35.
[2] H.G. Gauch (Jr.), Scientific Method in Brief, Cambridge: CUP, 2012, 34-51.

What might 1 Corinthians 13:7 tell us?

Love “bears all things, entrusts all things, hopes all things, endures all things”.

If that is the right way to translate 1 Corinthians 13:7*, what might it tell us?

1. Love has amazing symmetry.

For example, a Christian bears a cross** out of love, and entrusts that burden to God out of love. More symmetries can be discovered between bearing, entrusting, hoping and enduring.

2. Love is tremendously capable.

Paul sums it up this way: “Love never fails” (1 Cor. 13:8). Love never fails, because it is able to bear anything, entrust anything, hope anything, endure anything.

3. Love’s power is related to its symmetry.

A Christian can bear a cross because he or she entrusts the burden, and him- or herself, to God. Love can endure anything, because it is able to hope so powerfully.

___________
* A brief summary of evidence was made here.
** Matthew 10:38; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23, 14:27.

A new solution for 1 Corinthians 13:7

From the archive (Google+ post from August 6, 2015):

There is linguistic evidence - and logical force - for translating 1 Corinthians 13:7, "Love bears all things, entrusts all things, hopes all things, endures all things". Why "entrust"? That is [often] the verb's sense when it appears with an object in the accusative case (compare Luke 16:11), for starters! It also makes sense: love entrusts all things, especially when the object of its love is God. Furthermore, the composition of the four parts is thereby shown to be symmetrical and chiastic: A B B’ A’, bear-entrust, hope-endure.

More analysis is provided in the brief study, "Does love entrust, or believe, all things?".