Payne: Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Marking Added Text, Including 1 Corinthians 14.34–5

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Payne: Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Marking Added Text, Including 1 Corinthians 14.34–5

Post by andrewcriddle »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:26 am But it is hard to imagine that the earliest Christian tradition including the Marcosian tradition and possibly the Marcionite would have allowed women to have such a prominent place in the Church if - as you suggest - Paul originally told them to keep their mouths shut. Seems like one of a number of additions to the Pauline corpus by orthodox reactionaries.
I doubt if the verses were part of Marcion's text. Even if Marcion knew of them he would probably have seen as even the law says as suspicious.


Andrew Criddle

EDITED TO ADD

See Correction Below.
Last edited by andrewcriddle on Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Payne: Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Marking Added Text, Including 1 Corinthians 14.34–5

Post by Secret Alias »

But that assumes that Marcion, the first Pauline tradition that is discernible, erased rather than - IMHO - those which co-opted Paul into an ecumenical tradition added the material. The description of the Marcosians in Irenaeus is even more fascinating. It almost sounds like the culture which gave birth to the 'shut up' addition to the MS. Women standing around babbling prophesy as a cultural characteristic of early Christianity. As I said quite fascinating.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Kapyong
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Payne: Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Marking Added Text, Including 1 Corinthians 14.34–5

Post by Kapyong »

Gday all,
Here below is a further response from Philip :

Andrew Criddle writes, “Shall we say that there is no direct evidence for a manuscript entirely lacking the verses. Neither MS 88 or Fuldensis provide direct evidence in this sense (both clearly contain the verses).”

The fact that vellum sheets of Fuldensis, Vaticanus, and ms. 88 contain verses 34-35 does not in any way entail that none of them gives direct evidence for a manuscript entirely lacking the verses. Surely, you agree that many, if not most, extensive manuscripts contain direct evidence for more than one reading. That is why the NA28 apparatus includes superscript letters to note that a corrector of a manuscript supports one reading and the original manuscript (marked with an *) attests a different reading. For text critical purposes, they have distinct manuscript support even if both reading are on the same sheet of vellum.

My 1995 NTS 41 article “Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.34-5” (pages 240-262, available for free download from www.pbpayne.com under Publications: Articles) argues that Bishop Victor of Capua ordered the re-writing of 1 Cor 14:34-40 in the lower margin of Codex Fuldensis, that the substitute text written in the lower margin omits verses 34-35, and that Bishop Victor intended to omit verses 34-35 in the lower margin. Otherwise, why the extensive re-write? Bruce Metzger agreed with these conclusions. It is clear that Bishop Victor intended to replace text at every other location in Fuldensis where there is a corresponding set of marks placed alongside the beginning of text to be replaced and at the end of the replacement text in the bottom margin in Fuldensis. Furthermore, every other such case can be demonstrated to reflect actual manuscripts. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt that Bishop Victor of Capua had manuscript basis for this substitute text omitting verses 34-35. In addition, this one correction goes against Victor’s normal pattern of corrections, namely to bring the text of Fuldensis into harmony with what we know as the Vulgate text. Consequently, it is highly doubtful that Victor would order the original scribe to enter this correction in the bottom margin contrary to the Vulgate text, against his normal pattern of corrections, without manuscript evidence. The substitute text in the margin of Fuldensis without verses 34-35 is, therefore, “direct evidence for a manuscript entirely lacking the verses.”

Furthermore, I argue with ample evidence that the original scribe B of the Vaticanus NT used the distigme-obelos symbol to mark the locations of blocks of added text and that one of these occurs at the exact location where 1 Cor 14:34-35 is added after verse 33, a location for which there is no evidence for any other block of added text. The combination of the distigme-obelos symbol in the margin with a gap in the text at the exact location of a block of text beginning with 1 Cor 14:34-35 is, therefore, also “direct evidence for a manuscript entirely lacking the verses.”

My 1998 NTS 44 article “Ms. 88 as Evidence for a Text Without 1 Cor 14.34-5” (pages 152-158, available for free download from www.pbpayne.com under Publications: Articles) demonstrates that the scribe who wrote Ms. 88 copied an exemplar that skipped from 14:33 to 14:36. It also demonstrates that the scribe who wrote ms. 88 intended its readers to read verses 34-35 after verse 33, not after v. 40. Since ms. 88 is not a “Western” text and does not exhibit the usual pattern of readings of a “Western” text, it cannot have been copied from a “Western” text. Yet this is the way in which Andrew Criddle seems to understand it. Furthermore, there is only a remote possibility that the scribe of ms. 88 had access to a Western text and its position for 1 Cor 14:34-35 after v. 40. Even if, improbably, the scribe of ms. 88 was aware of a “Western” text with 1 Cor 14:34-35 after v. 40, this scribe clearly regarded that text to be incorrect and so instructed readers to read vv. 34-35 after v. 33. It does not make sense that this scribe would undermine this “Western” reading from a separate manuscript (not the exemplar) if this scribe was trying to preserve it from that separate manuscript. If, however, this scribe was copying a text that did not contain verses 34-35, the text of ms. 88 and all its symbols in the margin and in the text make perfect sense of how a scribe would correct his exemplar to add vv. 34-35. Therefore, ms. 88 also provides “direct evidence for a manuscript entirely lacking the verses.”

Unless you equate “direct evidence” with “proof” that these verses were lacking from the original form of this letter by Paul to the church in Corinth, Fuldensis, Vaticanus, and ms. 88 do in fact give us “direct evidence for a manuscript entirely lacking the verses.” My book, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters, identifies four other evidences from manuscripts and nine other internal evidences that these verses were not in Paul’s original letter.

If anyone wishes to acquire one of the few remaining copies of the 1999 color facsimile of Codex Vaticanus B or my book (list $32.99) for $19.99, you can reach me at phil@linguistsoftware.com.

Andrew Criddle also writes, “I am also a little troubled with the idea that there was a quite widespread feeling that the verses were not original without any surviving explicit testimony to that effect.”

I have two comments. First, I am not sure what time period Andrew Criddle intends to refer to by “the idea that there was a quite widespread feeling that the verses were not original.” Is he referring to some period of time in the early church or to contemporary feelings? I do not regard this feeling to be a widespread feeling in the fourth century through the mid-twentieth century, and it could have begun only after the verses were added. My guess is that the addition in the margin was probably made by a reader concerned that Paul’s repeated affirmations of “all” prophesying and teaching clashed with the conventional wisdom of the day that women should be silent in public gatherings (EKKLHSIA) and/or to try to harmonize it with that reader’s understanding of 1 Timothy 2:12, with which it has significant verbal and conceptual parallels.

To explain its widespread inclusion somewhere in surviving texts, my guess is that most likely a reader added vv. 34-35 in the margin of the first collection of Paul’s letters that was widely copied or one of its ancestors. Ulrich Schmid in “Conceptualizing ‘Scribal’ Performances: Reader’s Notes” pages 49-64 in The Textual History of the Greek New Testament: Changing Views in Contemporary Research (ed. Klaus Wachtel and Michael Holmes; Atlanta: SBL, 2011) 58 writes, “The inclination of scribes, at least in the view of the ancients, seems to have been toward the inclusion of marginal material into the main text.” He showed this was sometimes done even when the marginal text makes no sense in the body text. After its addition in the margin, at least one scribe inserted vv. 34-35 from the margin into the body text after v. 33. This became the dominant text. At least one scribe inserted verses 34-35 after v. 40, and it became the beginning of the “Western” text for these verses. This is the only plausible explanation of the two locations since no manuscript of any Paul’s letters ever moved this large a block of text this far away without an obvious reason, and there is no obvious reason for this transposition.

Second, the whole point of my article is that Vaticanus does provide explicit testimony that these verses were not original by obelizing them. Vaticanus uses the distigme-obleos symbol consistently in every one of its occurrences to mark the location of a block of added text, including this one (vv. 34-35). All those by the original scribe have the gap in the text at the exact point the text was added, here at the end of 1 Cor 14:33.

Philip B. Payne
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Payne: Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Marking Added Text, Including 1 Corinthians 14.34–5

Post by andrewcriddle »

andrewcriddle wrote: Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:06 pm
Secret Alias wrote: Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:26 am But it is hard to imagine that the earliest Christian tradition including the Marcosian tradition and possibly the Marcionite would have allowed women to have such a prominent place in the Church if - as you suggest - Paul originally told them to keep their mouths shut. Seems like one of a number of additions to the Pauline corpus by orthodox reactionaries.
I doubt if the verses were part of Marcion's text. Even if Marcion knew of them he would probably have seen as even the law says as suspicious.


Andrew Criddle
I was surprised to find that the verses apparently are very strongly supported in Marcion. Tertullian and Epiphanius and Adamantius.

See Ben Smith's excellent resource. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1838&start=10#p40566

It is unexpected but seems to be true.

Andrew Criddle
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Payne: Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Marking Added Text, Including 1 Corinthians 14.34–5

Post by Secret Alias »

But that's been my consistent point about these spurious 'Marcionite reconstructions.' No one stops to ask - what are we reporting? What are the sources reporting? Tertullian does not say that Marcion's gospel has this verse. It comes up in the discussion of 'spiritual gifts' as an acknowledgement of what was in the canon of Tertullian, Irenaeus or whomever you decide wrote the original material:

And as he puts
it on record that it is written in the law that the Creator will
speak with other tongues and other lips, since with this reference
he confirms <the legitimacy of> the gift of tongues, here again he
cannot be supposed to have used the Creator's prophecy to express
approval of a different god's spiritual gift. Once more, when he
enjoins upon women silence in the church, that they are not to
speak, at all events with the idea of learning—though he has
already shown that even they have the right to prophesy, since
he insists that a woman must be veiled, even when prophesying—
it was from the law that he received authority for putting the
woman in subjection,j that law which, let me say it once for all,
<you suppose> he had no right to take note of except for its destruc-
tion.

Epiphanius's list is a compendium of 'Marcionite citations' from the existing Marcionite literature which he compiled (despite what he claims - Epiphanius is the worst source in Patristics a pathological liar).
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Payne: Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Marking Added Text, Including 1 Corinthians 14.34–5

Post by Secret Alias »

I have De Recta in Deum Fide Pretty translation and I can tell you the reference comes in very long speech by Adamantius (two and a half pages in length almost right in the middle on p 99). None of these references is an actual or convincing attestation for its presence in Marcionism. The last thing the Marcionite (Mark) says is "Is it not so written for it says "These things happened to them without a type, but they were written for our admonition." Then Eutropius says "what continuity of thought can be preserved by using this expression ..." Then Adamantius launches into his two and a half page speech about Marcionite corruptions where the saying about women keeping silent appears. It is true that he says that somethings the Marcionites kept only altering them.

If sir I may presume on your wisdom bear with me and hear when the apostle whom my opponents have brought forward really does say. You will then perceive their want of understanding. The wretched Marcion although he corrupted the statements of the apostle did not completely erase them but these people (viz. the type of Marcionite Mark apparently represents) right up to the present remove anything that does not agree with their opinion. So whatever it may be that they do not understand and have abandoned because it opposes their views - all this I have gathered up (like small grapes left for gleaners) from the apostolic and prophetic utterances and I will clearly express it for your understanding. The apostle speaks thus, "Let the women keep silence in the Church for permission has not been given them to speak but to be subordinate as also the Law says." Against he says "This is the third time I am coming to you. By the evidence of two or three witnesses shall every word stand." In similar manner here also the Apostle without question is seen to follow the Law when he says "Then shall come into effect the saying that is written 'Death has been swallowed up in victory, death where is thy victory." Let my opponents indicate where this statement is written except in the Law and the prophets. When the Apostle says that the word written in the Law will come to pass does he believe the Law has been abrogated or that it will be fulfilled? It belongs to things impossible to abrogate the Law and yet to assert that what is written in it will come to pass!

and on and on it goes. Pretty however notes that Mark never gets a chance to respond to this long speech. Instead as Pretty notes Mark's first words have nothing at all to do with this two and a half page speech. Pretty writes "From here to the end of the pages misplaced the name Marinus appears in place of Mark in many of the MSS but not in the Latin of Rufinus." But clearly Rufinus has cleaned up the MSS. In other words, the section has been completely corrupted.

Indeed if you look at that long two and a half page speech it is only at the very end that Adamantius actually addresses Mark's point so I suspect that the original material that have to do with Marcionite corruption were added later. Here is what we read toward the end of the two and half page speech:

Does not the Apostle very clearly proclaim Christ out of the Law when he tells the Corinthians "that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea then all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the same spiritual rock that followed them and the rock was Christ."

This is likely the only authentic 'bit' in the two and a half page speech. All the other material was likely added because Adamantius accepts or does not comment upon the strange Marcionite reading.

In case you are interested Marinus's first words immediately following this speech:

You have given attention to the words of the Apostle you will heed these too "The first man, Adam became a living being the last the Lord a life-producing spirit. The first man was of the earth, earthly; the second the Lord was from heaven."

Adamantius responds:

Clearly the Apostle shows that both the first man Adam and the second the Lord came from the same God and not from some other.

In my opinion there is still something of the original thread of logic. Christ is the type upon which Adam the particular human being was fashioned.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Payne: Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Marking Added Text, Including 1 Corinthians 14.34–5

Post by Secret Alias »

So getting back to one of my frequent discussion topics - what does 'attested in Marcion' really mean here? I will tell you what it means. It's a lazy short-hand - almost deliberately misrepresenting the situation. 'attested in Marcion' really means 'attested in conversations about Marcion' among the Church Fathers. This is in turn is taken by scholars to mean something like 'this passage was in Marcion' which is complete and utter garbage. Epiphanius likely also derived his shitty list through this sort of logic. But its not the same thing as actually knowing that the passage was in Marcion's canon. In order to have confidence that a passage was in Marcion's canon you have to have a reliable witness, one who likely had the canon in front of them or in turn used a reliable source (i.e. the writings or statement of a Marcionite) making an explicit statement that sentence or phrase X was in Marcion. Yes Epiphanius says he had the canon in front of him. But he's a liar and claimed to have and to have witnessed lots of things that never happened or that we can be certain he never saw.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Kapyong
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Payne: Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Marking Added Text, Including 1 Corinthians 14.34–5

Post by Kapyong »

Gday all :)
Kapyong wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:29 pm This is why I might actually buy a copy of Linguists' Software's amazing replica of Codex Vaticanus that Phil Payne helped make (perhaps when Bitcoin hits $10K) :
Image
I now have a copy of the Big Book B, it really is magnificent.
Sent from Florence on Tuesday, arrived in my suburb Friday late morning - but a glitch in the address delayed it a few hours - at least they didn't mistake Australia for Austria :)

The Prolegomena was signed by Pope John Paul II on Christmas Day 1999 (apparently a replica, not individually signed.)

Oh, and Bitcoin is about AUD $10,745 - but it was about $7,300 when I wrote the above a month back.


Kapyong
Post Reply