1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 Not Authentic Say Cambridge Scholars
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 7:24 am
Investigating the roots of western civilization (ye olde BC&H forum of IIDB lives on...)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
There are certainly sociopolitical pressures on modern liberal churches to do something about verses like this, but the case for bracketing 14.34-35 together also derives from textual criticism. Several manuscripts locate these verses elsewhere in the chapter, leading some to suspect that they have been brought in from the margin at different points. Furthermore, verse 34, in a context precisely of prophesying and speaking in tongues, are enjoined to keep silence, whereas in 11.2-16 it is innocently assumed that women will be prophesying and speaking in tongues; one can try to jiggle something out of the context all one wishes, but it is far from crazy to think that 11.2-16 and 14.34-35 (both verses, since the contradiction includes verse 34) come from different hands.Stuart wrote: ↑Sun Jul 29, 2018 1:02 pmThere is a seam here, but it does not include verse 14:34, only the verses after it. And the evidence is extremely strong for the antiquity of 14:34. I have to conclude that the desire to delegitimize verses 14:34-35 is based far less on the evidence from redaction criticism than sociopolitical concerns.
You are correct the passage has been considered Montanist reference by several critics who see it as an interpolation. Verses 14:35-38 have language of the Pastoral layers and have been well noted for years. The Cambridge folks over reach with verse 14:34 reference, as it belongs to the prior set of verses in language and is consistent with other parts of 1 Corinthians.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Wed Jul 25, 2018 12:43 pm What I find puzzling is the consistent idea of the Marcionites encouraging 'female prophesy.' Sounds a lot like Montanism and the followers of the heretic Marcus:
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 destruction. So now, to leave this question of spiritual gifts, the facts themselves will be called upon to prove which of us is making rash claims for his god, and whether it can be alleged in opposition to my statement of claim, that even though the Creator has promised these for some Christ of his not yet revealed, because he is intended for the Jews alone, they will in their own time and in their own Christ and in their own people have their own operations. So then let Marcion put in evidence any gifts there are of his god, any prophets, provided they have spoken not by human emotion but by God's spirit, who have foretold things to come, and also made manifest the secrets of the heart: let him produce some psalm, some vision, some prayer, so long as it is a spiritual one, in ecstasy, which means abeyance of mind, if there is added also an interpretation of the tongue: let him also prove to me that in his presence some woman has prophesied, some great speaker from among those more saintly females of his.
OK you have two separate concepts going here, and three things I need to separate and talk about.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:11 pmThere are certainly sociopolitical pressures on modern liberal churches to do something about verses like this, but the case for bracketing 14.34-35 together also derives from textual criticism. Several manuscripts locate these verses elsewhere in the chapter, leading some to suspect that they have been brought in from the margin at different points. Furthermore, verse 34, in a context precisely of prophesying and speaking in tongues, are enjoined to keep silence, whereas in 11.2-16 it is innocently assumed that women will be prophesying and speaking in tongues; one can try to jiggle something out of the context all one wishes, but it is far from crazy to think that 11.2-16 and 14.34-35 (both verses, since the contradiction includes verse 34) come from different hands.Stuart wrote: ↑Sun Jul 29, 2018 1:02 pmThere is a seam here, but it does not include verse 14:34, only the verses after it. And the evidence is extremely strong for the antiquity of 14:34. I have to conclude that the desire to delegitimize verses 14:34-35 is based far less on the evidence from redaction criticism than sociopolitical concerns.
Sure. Understood. And to some extent I even agree. But not all exegetes share your opinion on this matter, and of course many of those will practically be forced to resolve the tension between 11.2-16 and 14.34-35 simply because it exists, and not (necessarily) for sociopolitical reasons.Stuart wrote: ↑Sun Jul 29, 2018 8:27 pmOK you have two separate concepts going here, and three things I need to separate and talk about.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:11 pmThere are certainly sociopolitical pressures on modern liberal churches to do something about verses like this, but the case for bracketing 14.34-35 together also derives from textual criticism. Several manuscripts locate these verses elsewhere in the chapter, leading some to suspect that they have been brought in from the margin at different points. Furthermore, verse 34, in a context precisely of prophesying and speaking in tongues, are enjoined to keep silence, whereas in 11.2-16 it is innocently assumed that women will be prophesying and speaking in tongues; one can try to jiggle something out of the context all one wishes, but it is far from crazy to think that 11.2-16 and 14.34-35 (both verses, since the contradiction includes verse 34) come from different hands.Stuart wrote: ↑Sun Jul 29, 2018 1:02 pmThere is a seam here, but it does not include verse 14:34, only the verses after it. And the evidence is extremely strong for the antiquity of 14:34. I have to conclude that the desire to delegitimize verses 14:34-35 is based far less on the evidence from redaction criticism than sociopolitical concerns.
1. Different hands
I use the term "first published version" for a long tract like 1 Corinthians to distinguish that from any concept of unity or singular authorship. To say there are multiple authors does not distinguish from the threshold of the first published edition, the first collectors edition. My entire point is that multiple hands were in the tracts (they were not yet in letter form) before the collector put addresses on them. (This is most apparent in 2 Corinthians were 7 letters are commonly identified within it, and 4 of those 7 are definitely in the Marcionite form.)
So it is not a problem for me that there would be more than one hand in the "original", as I use the first publish point as a letter of Paul as the start line. That the original had sources is no surprise, it's in fact expected
Nobody who omits verses 34-35 feels this objection in the slightest. They simply take 33b with the previous sentence. Many translations punctuate the sentence like that, translations whose translators bore no theological reason to mentally excise verses 34-35:2. The movement of verses 14:34-35 is found in the Western text (Metzger lists: D/d F G/g 88* Ambrosiaster, Sedulius, Scotus .. also one Vulgate - Codex Reginensis). This does not necessarily carry authenticity, and is not the same weight as the WNI. 88 is 12th century, F and G are sisters, and curiously the Latin side of F does not transpose these verses, although there is a mark in the margin to perhaps indicate to skip to verse 14:36 after 14:33 (it may simply be noting that is where the Greek text goes). Bezae is the earliest manuscript (5th or 6th century).
Mechanically we are looking at two possibilities, either these two verse were added later, or else they were omitted by Greek progenitor of D and F/G, and then placed at the end of the chapter. Of the two the latter seems more likely based on the nonsensical reading which results wedging 14:33 to 14:36
14:33 ... (As in all the assemblies of the saints, 14:36 or did the word of God come forth from you, or did it only reach you? ...
Is that a sentence even? Compare this to the normal order
14:33 ... As in all the assemblies of the saints,let the women be silent in the assembly. For it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be submissive, as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their husbands in their own homes. For it is a shame for women to speak in the assembly. 14:36 Or did the word of God come forth from you, or did it only reach you? ...
Now if it left out 14:33(b) and connected 14:33(a) to 14:37 that would make sense. Of course this is the same manuscript the substitutes Matthew's genealogy for Luke's. And it has been speculated, due to the improbable errors in both the Greek side and the Latin side (different errors) along with the peculiar writing style where it's hard to tell at a glance the Greek from the Latin, that the scribe's first language was something other than Latin or Greek.
Mechanically it doesn't make sense to omit.
Many of your points are quite valid and worth arguing for. But my point was that sociopolitical concerns are not the only horse in the race when it comes to reasons to question verse 34. I have highlighted the part above which, as I pointed out, you are mistaken about. I have no intent of defending the Cambridge group or any other particular group of scholars on the issue. My sole purpose was and still is to point out the textual element as opposed to the sociopolitical.(Note, "church of the saints" is not uncommon in Marcion; what is never attested is the "church of God", which is a marker of post-Marcionite text)
3. Verses 11:3-10 are pretty well attested in Marcion. This again introduces the concept that ALL pastoral layers have to be post-Marcionite text
verse 11:3
AM 5.8.1 Caput viri Christus est. "The head of man is Christ." Did Tertullian simply leave out omnis as unnecessary for his argument, or is παντὸς which was often added elsewhere, a Catholic addition to the text? (I lean toward the former argument)
verses 11:5-6
AM 5.8.11 ceterum prophetandi ius et illas habere iam ostendit, cum mulieri etiam prophetanti velamen imponit "however they already have the right of prophesying, and shows that a veil imposed on a woman prophesying" - refers to 1 Corinthians 11:5-6
verses 11:7
AM 5.8.1 Vir enim non debet caput velare, cum sit dei imago Epiphanisu Panoranion 42 ἀνὴρ οὐκ ὀφείλει κομᾶν, δόξα καὶ εἰκὼν θεοῦ ὑπάρχων DA 5.23 (Greek only, questionable validity as Marcionite) ἀνὴρ μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ὀφείλει κατακαλύπτεσθαι τὴν κεφαλήν, εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα θεοῦ ὑπάρχων; Epiphanius reads δόξα καὶ εἰκὼν for εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα no mss, support, ditto κομᾶν for κατακαλύπτεσθαι which Tertullian disagrees caput velare, so probably “long hair” was suggested by verse 14-15 and found it’s way into Epiphanius
verses 11:9
AM 5.8.2 Si quia ex viro et propter virum facta est, Tertullian sums up verse 11:9, not an exact quote
verses 11:10
AM 5.8.2 Sed et quare mulier potestatem super caput habere debebit?
It should be noted here that Tertullian is agreeing with Marcion in verses 11:3-10 that women have the right to prophesy so long as they wear a veil. Verse 14:34 alone does not contradict that. (But verses 14:35-36 do contradict this authority granted here.)
********************
So we get to the crux of the different views. The Cambridge group is assuming that the "original" text is a unity, and that pastoral elements are automatically later and thus post first published addition. Second they are not fine parsing. Third they accept a nonsense reading of 14:33 connecting to 14:36 which is resoundingly rejected by textual critics (and IMO came about as a wild reading not uncommon to D; wild does not equal early). Third it ignores the evidence of the Marcionite witnesses of the text.
We have to be careful with our definition of original, especially when we consider these tracts developed as snowballs. Anyone reading Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians or Hebrews can clearly see these were not letters composed in a single sitting and sent to somebody on a single sheet of papyrus as you'd expect from normal correspondence. These are artificial letters, loaded with encyclical material and a hodgepodge of parts which themselves have been tinkered with. The concept of original becomes extremely nebulous.
But the concept of "original" also implies a person of Paul, rather than a legend, and argues for an authentic core, and thus for authority from Paul.
But it stops there and doesn't examine the other elements such an argument calls for, which I scratched the surface on. It's sort of like Stephen Huller opening up pandora's box of questioning the very same unity and authenticity with a church father that causes his theories the most problems, but then attempting to close the box again to avoid the very same questions of unity and authenticity with the church fathers that best support his theories. Some serious Texas sharpshooting going on here (with the Cambridge group).