In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Paul wrote: “As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”
Or did he?
In one of the MJ podcasts Professor Ehrman says (to paraphrase) “most serious scholars agree” that this bit was inserted later. However, my amateur online research (which includes several peer-reviewed academic works) does not show such a consensus. Some say it. But there are many theories and none seem to have majority support:
(1) A sexist Roman scribe added it (and you can tell because Scribe B put umlauts in the Codex Vaticanus which meant he questioned its authenticity).
(2) A sexist Roman scribe moved it from somewhere else to after verse 40 the end of Corinthians 14 (where some manuscripts have it) to add emphasis, but then it got moved to verses 34-35 (where it looks kind of misplaced).
(3) Paul wrote it but he meant only that women should be quiet when others are talking to prevent disorder during prophesying and tongue-speaking, which is the point of the chapter (so why specify women).
(4) Paul wrote it but it applies to big church and not to home worship (to reconcile with Cor. 11 where it says women may prophesy).
(5) Paul wrote it as a straw-man “quote” so he could refute it (which seems consistent with what comes next).
(6) Paul wrote it and meant it because Paul was sexist (well, sexist for now, but normal for his time).
So is there a definitive scholarly peer-reviewed consensus? If not, what say you as to the likely background of this?
Thanks
Welcome!
I think you would find that the majority of non-fundamentalist scholars agree it is an interpolation. It is a passage found in different places in different manuscripts. This is a sure sign to textual scholars that it is an interpolation. And even more importantly the sentiments expressed directly contradict Paul’s generally favorable view of women’s participation in his churches. Finally, if you read it in context the passage interrupts the flow of Paul’s argument.
I don’t want to hijack the thread, so feel free to move if I’m wandering too far, but
Why do interpolations tend to wander?
It seems to me that if we have a pristine text, and a scribe adds a spurious passage to a copy, people copying his amended text will just copy it as though it was authentic; whereas if they have a pristine unaltered copy, they just won’t copy it. What would lead them to copy it but move it?
Is the theory that the addition was first introduced as just a note scribbled in a margin, or on the back of an blank page, or even written on its own leaf but bound with the main text (so it was with the main text, but not seamlessly integrated into it); and subsequent scribes thought it was meant to be part of the text but had at most hints about where it was meant to go?
Thanks all for the replies. Two follow-ups.
(1) Again we have the “most scholars agree” statement but where is that written? I see scholars all over the place.
(2) Is it not true that the oldest manuscripts have the sexist part where it is now, and the “wandering” happened later?
Also we’re not saying that we think this passage is an interpolation because the majority of critical scholars think so, but that the majority of critical scholars think so because of the reasons we listed. This is not simply an appeal to authority. Consensus or not the arguments must be valid in themselves.
For what its worth, in BeDuhn’s reconstruction of Marcion’s Apostolikon the injunction against women speaking in an assembly is in the same place as the canonical version of 1 Corinthians 14. Under BeDuhn’s conceptual framework, this would be evidence of a textual tradition dating to the mid first century.
When I ordered G. Zuntz’s “The text of the epistles” I thought I would get a copy of the old editions. It turned out that I got a fresh copy printed especially for me using digital printing. Why waste paper when you can issue a secure digital version. Such a digression.
Zuntz personally does not take a position on the matter. It points to two things. First, 1 Cor 14:33b-35 “mulier taceat in ecclesia” breaks the obvious connection between 33a and 36. Second, it may be a Pauline addition or a foreign insert later placed somewhere in the margin.
A question without an answer.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)