1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 Not Authentic Say Cambridge Scholars

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12692
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 Not Authentic Say Cambridge Scholars

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:07 am

And finally the earliest attestations are quite bad actually. No allusions in Irenaeus (unless you count Tertullian's Against Marcion as Irenaean). Tertullian is really the earliest source. No allusions in Origen (unless you count the catenae). Not in Clement. It's really a third century scripture. And you'd think that Irenaeus would have cited in his report on the Marcosian women if he'd known it.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 12692
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 Not Authentic Say Cambridge Scholars

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:25 am

But you've got to stop pretending that you can just make up categories, invent cultures that never existed. Where is this proto-Christianity viz. 'dualist Gentiles' etc? If you can't prove it existed you really shouldn't feel confident you are developing any sort of meaningful explanation.
“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

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1876
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 Not Authentic Say Cambridge Scholars

Post by andrewcriddle » Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:18 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:56 am
Andrew here at the forum doesn't think it was in the Marcionite canon (but then again he is from Cambridge):
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

EDITED TO ADD

See Correction Below.
I changed my mind
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3539&p=76883#p76883

Andrew Criddle

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12692
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 Not Authentic Say Cambridge Scholars

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:25 am

But are these 'attestations' of the passage being in Marcion's gospel or was the passage cited original against Marcion because of the high place of women in their organization and this misinterpreted as 'proof' of some association with Marcion? Does the Tertullian reference sound like an argument for it having a place in Marcion's canon or just abuse - a refutation - of Marcion from a beloved source (Paul)? I am certain it's the latter.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 12692
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 Not Authentic Say Cambridge Scholars

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:26 am

Please point to the citation which you regard as the strongest evidence for this passage being in Marcion's canon.
“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
Giuseppe
Posts: 8321
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 Not Authentic Say Cambridge Scholars

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:34 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:25 am
But you've got to stop pretending that you can just make up categories, invent cultures that never existed. Where is this proto-Christianity viz. 'dualist Gentiles' etc? If you can't prove it existed you really shouldn't feel confident you are developing any sort of meaningful explanation.
Surely you are answering to another thread.
At any case this is the minimal answer:
https://vridar.org/2013/12/11/the-devil ... l-of-john/
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1876
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 Not Authentic Say Cambridge Scholars

Post by andrewcriddle » Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:48 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:26 am
Please point to the citation which you regard as the strongest evidence for this passage being in Marcion's canon.
We have the apparent support of Tertullian and Epiphanius and Adamantius. If this is not good evidence then our ability to reconstruct Marcion's text is very limited (which is quite possible)

Andrew Criddle

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12692
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 Not Authentic Say Cambridge Scholars

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Jul 31, 2018 12:46 pm

But the 'support' of Tertullian is little more than using the passage against Marcion. It is not a statement that the passage was in Marcion. Epiphanius was at best a compiler of information that came before him of which Irenaeus's Against Marcion (the source of Tertullian's text) might well have been one. There isn't a smoking gun in any of this. It's just convenient to read Tertullian as if he was citing from Marcion's canon which he never claims to be doing or at least he doesn't make explicit which of his references are from his own canon and which are from Marcion (assuming of course that he had Marcion's canon which I do not assume he had). And the reference to 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 in Adamantius has nothing to do with Marcionism.

So you have in order:

1. the use of 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 against Marcion in Tertullian (essentially saying he likes girls too much)
2. the inclusion of 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 in Epiphanius 'collection' of "material from his [Marcion's] own Gospel which is contradictory to his villainous
tampering" i.e. the pamphlet he attaches as a kind of appendix to the Panarion. While 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 is included in the pamphlet Epiphanius cites the passage as proof that Marcion's understanding of Paul is incorrect because clearly valued the Law and God's ordinances:
If God’s holy apostle enjoins good order on God’s holy church on the Law’s authority, then the Law from which he took the good order is not disorderly; nor is it the law of a foreign God because it subjected wife to husband. For this was satisfactory to the apostle too in his legislation for the church — as he says, “as also saith the Law.”

And where did the Law say so, but when God said at once to Eve, “Thy resort shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee?” For even though it is also found in other passages the original statement of it is here,

Now if the wife was declared subject to the husband from then on by God’s ordinance — and if the apostle subjects her accordingly, and not in disagreement with the God who made husband and wife, then the apostle too, by commanding it, shows decisively that he is a lawgiver for the same God to whom both the Law and the whole Old Testament belong, and that the New Testament is the same God’s as well — that is, the two Testaments, which then and now subjected wife to husband for the sake of an equivalent godly order.
This can hardly be used as proof that Marcion's canon contained 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35.
3. A citation of 1 Corinthians 14.34, 35 in the middle of a massively long speech by Adamantius with no relation whatsoever to Marcion's canon.

I submit none of these references has any relevance to the question of whether or not Marcion's canon contained this passage.
“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

Stuart
Posts: 616
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 Not Authentic Say Cambridge Scholars

Post by Stuart » Tue Jul 31, 2018 4:40 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:04 am
It's actually not well attested in Marcion. It's cited that way - i.e. as if it was in Marcion by modern and ancient compilers of information alike (Epiphanius is drawing on Tertullian among other sources for his pamphlet in the Panarion). The citation in Tertullian would actually make you think it wasn't in Marcion. But that's what's wrong with Marcionite studies. We have a model developed as a kind of dogma (not surprising for things related to religion. It goes "if a gospel or Pauline verse is referenced in Against Marcion, that means it was 'in Marcion.'" This sort of dogmatism is absurd on several levels. It assumes that there aren't layers to Against Marcion which there clearly are. As I have been showing in the other thread even Evans the most recent translator of the work acknowledges that what we have is a thrice revised work with the editor who wrote the introduction confessing the 'thrice removed' nature of Against Marcion also inserted the third book (itself a falsified Against the Jews) into the middle of what is now Books 2 and 4.
Stephen that is hwy one examines very closely the vocabulary and it's similarities and differences. And it is in the specific Greek where the differences are most striking and the test best applied. It is the vocabulary which separates verse 14:34 and 14:35.

Where I try to differ in my approach is to let the text attested -always with a degree of uncertainty- speak for itself. Look at what it says and then

I understand Andrew's skepticism, but as you point out many times, the Marcionite author's did know the OT and did cite it. I find the usage in 14:34 very similar to the mentions of the Law in the Gospel of John (e.g., John 7:51, 8:17, 10:34, 15:25), where it is stand offish, as "your Law" (you Jews or Jewish Christians being meant). Here it's καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει "as it also says in the Law". The Law, which in this case is not the Law at all but but a sort of Talmud drawn Jewish understanding or ruling, is cited not as primary reasoning, but as "also" as in you other guys (pro-Torah Christians) can't object to this because it's in your law too.

Had it been a later Orthodox insertion, I would expect it to actually quote something from the LXX and καὶ would not have been there. It's an after thought, a secondary argument, not primary. The primary is typical authoritative Paul, "As in ALL the assemblies of the saints (i.e., Christians), the women are to be silent, for they are not permitted to speak." That is simply a command by his own authority, which the Marcionite Paul NEVER feels he need qualify. He only spells it out in Galatians as coming from revelation of Christ to him alone. The "Law" is not the authority for this ruling, nor is any specific LXX passage cited.

This notion that the Marcionites were the same as some (not by any means all) Gnostics in elevating women to equal status with men is simply unfounded, not based on anything we know about the Marcionites. Andrew is not this basing that opinion on anything I have seen demonstrated about the Marcionites.

Again verse 14:35 is to be evaluated separately from 14:34.

General note. The biggest differences I have found in the reconstructed text versus the Catholic text is not so much theological, although there are differences, it is in the organizational structure of the church described. The Marcionite text presents a nearly uniform church, small in numbers, governed by Paul himself (single charismatic wandering leader), with limited hierarchy. The issues of later generations, such as administration, rank and order, interfaith marriages and their offspring, perception of the outside community, standards for doctrine, conduct within the congregation (man sleeping with mother aside ... which is an interesting demonstration in the difference between the versions), et al are missing. The concerns about doctrinal deviance are not in the congregation, but what is being taught by rival wandering preachers/apostles. The Apostle and Bishop appear to be same role, that of wandering preacher/teacher even sect leader. The Bishop is not yet an administrative role.

While most people studying Marcion focus on the doctrinal differences, they miss the picture of the structure of the church having changed radically.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift

Stuart
Posts: 616
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 Not Authentic Say Cambridge Scholars

Post by Stuart » Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:06 pm

Here is the attestation for verse 14:34 in Marcion

1) Epiphanius Panarion 42.146

Greek text
<ιε> <καὶ> <κγ> <σχόλιον>. «Αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ σιγάτωσαν· οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτέτραπται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν, ἀλλὰ ὑποτασσέσθωσαν, καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει».
<ιε> <καὶ> <κγ> <ἔλεγχος>. Εἰ κατὰ τὸν νόμον διατάσσεται ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ ἀπόστολος τὴν εὐταξίαν τῇ ἁγίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκλησίᾳ, οὐκ ἄτακτος ὁ νόμος, ἀφ' οὗπερ τὴν εὐταξίαν μετακομίζεται οὐδὲ ἀλλοτρίου θεοῦ ὑπάρχει ὁ νόμος, τὴν γυναῖκα καθυποτάξας τῷ ἀνδρί. συναρέσκει γὰρ καὶ τῷ ἀποστόλῳ τοῦτο ἐν τῇ τῆς ἐκκλησίας νομοθεσίᾳ, ὥς φησι· «καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει». ποῦ δὲ εἶπεν ὁ νόμος ἀλλὰ ἐν τῷ εἰπεῖν τὸν θεὸν πρὸς τὴν Εὔαν εὐθύς «πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα σου ἡ ἀποστροφή σου καὶ αὐτός σου κυριεύσει»; εἰ γὰρ καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις τόποις, ἀλλὰ ἐντεῦθεν ἡ ἀρχή. εἰ τοίνυν ἀπὸ τότε ἡ γυνὴ ὑπετάγη ἐκ προστάγματος θεοῦ τῷ ἀνδρὶ καὶ ἀκολούθως ὁ ἀπόστολος καθυποτάσσει ταύτην, οὐκ ἀντιθέτως τῷ ποιήσαντι τὸν ἄνθρωπον καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα θεῷ καὶ αὐτὸς κελεύων δείκνυσιν ἐξ ἅπαντος ὅτι τοῦ αὐτοῦ [θεοῦ] ὑπάρχει ὁ ἀπόστολος νομοθέτης θεοῦ, οὗ καὶ ὁ νόμος ἦν καὶ ἡ πᾶσα παλαιὰ διαθήκη, καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη, τουτέστιν αἱ δύο διαθῆκαι, αἱ τὴν γυναῖκα τότε καὶ νῦν καθυποτάξασαι τῷ ἀνδρὶ δι' εὐσεβῆ καὶ ἀντίρροπον εὐταξίαν.

English (from https://books.google.com/books?id=IKyxt ... on&f=false go to page 352:
Scholion 15 and 23. "Let your women keep silence in the church; for it is not permitted unto them to speak, but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the Law."
(a) Elenchus 15 and 23. If God's holy apostle enjoins good order on God's holy church on the Law's authority, then the Law from which he took the good order is not disorderly; nor is the law of a foriegn God because it subjected wife to husband. For this was satisfactory to the apostle too in his legislation for the church - as he says, "as also saith the Law."
(b) And where did the Law say so, but when God said at once to Eve, "They resort shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee?" For even though it is also found in other passages the original statement of it is here.
(c) Now if the wife was declared subject to the husband from then on by God's ordinance - abnd if the apostle subjects her accordingly, and not in disagreement with God who made husband and wife, then the apostle too, by commanding it, show decisively that he is a lawgiver for the same God to whom both the Law and the whole Old Testament belong, and that the New Testament is the same God's as well - that ism the two Testaments, which then and now subjected wife to husband for the sake of an equivalent godly order.

Epiphanius makes the mistake here of assuming verse 14:35 is present as well, even though it is not attested (clearly he compiled a list from some sources of known NT passages of the Marcionite text). Verse 14:35 is used by Epiphanius to tie the wife to the husband and then proceeds with his scholasticism to harmonize the Marcionite to the Old Testament. His logic collapses if verse 14:35 is not present, which IMO it was not

2) Dialogue Adamantius 2.18 (English Robert A. Pretty), although it is the Catholic champion Adamantius speaking, he makes it clear he is quoting the Marcionite text (well as reliable as DA ever gets when Adamantius speaks):

... The wretch Marcion, although he corrupted the statements of the apostle did not completely erase them, but these people (i.e., Marcionites) right up to the present (written ~300 AD) remove anything that does not agree with their opinions. 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 expound it for your understanding. the Apostle speaks thus, "Let the women keep silence in Church; for permission has not been given for them to speak, but to be subordinate, as also the Law says" ...

Ὁ γὰρ σχέτλιος Μαρκιων, ῥαδιουργήσας τὰ κατὰ τὸν ἀπόστολον, οὐ παντάπασιν ἀπήλειψε, καὶ οὗτοι μέχρι τοῦ δεῦρο περιαιροῦσιν ὅσα οὖν μὴ νοήσαντες κατέλειψαν ἑαυτοῖς ἐναντιούμενα, ταῦτα ὥσπερ ἐπιφυλλίδας ἀναλεξάμενος ἐκ τῶν ἀποστολικῶν καὶ προφητικῶν φωνῶν, προφανῶς τῇ σῇ συνέσει ἐπιδείξομαι. λέγει δὲ οὕτως ὁ ἀπόστολος·
αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ σιγάτωσαν, οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτέτραπται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ὑποτάσσεsθαι. καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει.

Rufinus Latin:
Infelix enim Marcion, cum adulterasset scripturas, apostoli codicem non est ausus in omnibus uel falsare uel etiem delere; sed isti etiam nunc quae eis uisa fuerint auferunt, id est ea quae assertionibus suis uidentur esse contraria, et sola derelinquunt quae aduersa sibi non intellexerunt. Haec ergo ego uelut racemos quodam ab istis pessimis uindemiatoribus derelictus de apostolicis et euangelicis uocibus colligens, etiam ex ipsis ut se habeat ueritas approbabo. Itaque dicit apostolos: Mulieres in ecclesia taceant. Non enim permittitur eis loqui sed subditas esse, sicut et lex dixit.


note: Marcion reads ⌐ ἐκκλησίᾳ for ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις (ecclesia for ecclesiis) 119 330 2400 syrP Cop Eth OL:KI, similar for ἐπιτέτραπται which makes me suspect a common corrupted anti-Marcionite source for Panoranion and Adamantius texts

Tertulllian only mentions 14:34 in passing AM 5.8.11, although he covers exactly the same points. but he refers back to 11:5-6 to show that women's prophecy is still allowed provided they be veiled (11:10) as showing Marcion also allowed this.

Aeque praescribens silentium mulieribus in ecclesia, ne quid discendi duntaxat gratia loquanturex lege accipit subiciendae feminae auctoritatem;

In precisely the same manner,[ Æque] when enjoining on women silence in the church, that they speak not for the mere sake [Duntaxat gratia] of learning (although that even they have the right of prophesying, he has already shown [1 Corinthians xi.5, 6] when he covers the woman that prophesies with a veil), he goes to the law for his sanction that woman should be under obedience.

Tertullian unlike Epiphanius does not tie verse 14:34 to verse 14:35, which is not present in any of the accounts. He makes the same claim as Epiphanius, by ignoring the "καὶ" so he can make the Law the primary motivation, rather than a "by the way" clause.

As attestation goes this is some of the strongest for any verse in the Marcionite collection.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift

Post Reply