Page 1 of 3

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

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 7:24 am
by Secret Alias

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

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:49 am
by FransJVermeiren

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

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:56 am
by Secret Alias
And here is a practical application for this situation - the Marcionites. The traditional (stupid) way of reading Against Marcion is that every time Tertullian references a scripture that = 'it was in Marcion's canon.' But when Tertullian mentions this line in Book 5 it is clearly to rebut the Marcionites who (strangely) are attached to women prophesying in their churches (compare Apelles and Philomena; Philomela is a woman who's tongue was removed in Greek myths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philomela). The point is that Tertullian is not saying that 1 Corinthians 14.34, 35 are in the Marcionite canon only that the lines are in the 'true canon.' He is citing the material against Marcion not as if it was present in the Marcionite as is almost always the case (cf the treatment of Galatians chapters 1 and 2). In short, you can't use Against Marcion or Epiphanius to reconstruct the Marcionite canon any more than you can use comic books to develop a history of 20th century. On the interchangeability of the names https://books.google.com/books?id=tGL0G ... na&f=false. "The ms 1 has Philomena while one scribe has written in the marginal Philumene, which is the Latin transliteration of the Greek word 4>i\ou|jivn, the 'loved-one', a word appropriate to a prostitute. The classical Philomela (= nightingale) becomes Philomena in mediaeval Latin." https://books.google.com/books?id=uNPB_ ... in&f=false

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

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 12:43 pm
by Secret Alias
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.

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

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 3:39 pm
by iskander
beowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 2:09 pm

Re: Aquila and Prisca Two Male Apostles in a Gay Marriage?

Post by beowulf » Mon Mar 10, 2014 2:55 pm
1Corinthians 14
“34women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. 35If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home.”

Is Cor 14:34 a saying of Paul’s or the face of the other church suddenly appearing like a jack in the box- the other church overruling Paul’s powerful and beautiful statement of Galatians 3:27-28?
“Galatians 3 27As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”


Religions hate women –In 1 Cor 14:34 we hear the RCC and its masturbating, cruel priesthood. Did Paul wish them as a replacement for the law he detested?

The contradiction means religion cannot be trusted. The voter can rectify with relative ease, but the wrong of the church, mosque, and temple can be rectified only rarely.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=439&hilit=aquila

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

Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2018 1:02 pm
by Stuart
This is based on sociopolitical concerns, not actual form criticism

1) Verse 14:34 is well attested in Marcion. My notes below:

P42.146 Αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ σιγάτωσαν· οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτέτραπται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν, ἀλλὰ ὑποτασσέσθωσαν, καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει
DA 2.18 αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ σιγάτωσαν, οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτέτραπται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ὑποτάσσεsθαι. καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει.
Mulieres in ecclesia taceant. Non enim permittitur eis loqui sed subditas esse, sicut et lex dixit.

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 mentions in passing women's need to be silent in AM 5.8.11 Aeque praescribens silentium mulieribus in ecclesia, ne quid discendi duntaxat gratia loquantur … ex lege accipit subiciendae feminae auctoritatem; Note, the plural was somehow changed to singular in the Marcionite text, which Clabeaux rates incorrect.

So 14:34 was almost certainly present in the first published edition.

2) the admonition for women to be silent (σιγάω) in the congregation is far from isolated, and must be seen in context to similar requirement to be silent for speaking in tongues without an interpreter (verses 14:27-28) and to be silent with your own prophecy when another is speaking his prophecy (14:30). Women are not being singled out alone here.

3) the reference to the Law, seems to be a general view of all Jewish scripture and interpretation (rather consistent with other Marcionite and Gnostic opinions but not so much proto-Orthodox views), as the only reference close comes from the Talmud Berakhot 24a (below).

אמר רב חסדא שוק באשה ערוה שנאמר גלי שוק עברי נהרות וכתיב תגל ערותך וגם תראה חרפתך אמר שמואל קול באשה ערוה שנאמר כי קולך ערב ומראך נאוה אמר רב ששת שער באשה ערוה שנאמר שערך כעדר העזים:

Along these lines, Rav Ḥisda said: Even a woman’s exposed leg is considered nakedness, as it is stated: “Uncover the leg and pass through the rivers” (Isaiah 47:2), and it is written in the following verse: “Your nakedness shall be revealed and your shame shall be seen” (Isaiah 47:3). Shmuel further stated: A woman’s singing voice is considered nakedness, which he derives from the praise accorded a woman’s voice, as it is stated: “Sweet is your voice and your countenance is alluring” (Song of Songs 2:14). Similarly, Rav Sheshet stated: Even a woman’s hair is considered nakedness, for it too is praised, as it is written: “Your hair is like a flock of goats, trailing down from Mount Gilead” (Song of Songs 4:1).

4) Women's rank is held lower then men as can bee seen in another attested passage in Marcion from 1 Corinthians 11:3-10 (verse 11:10 a reference to Genesis 6:1-7, a passage Gnostics and Marcionites used as a club against Catholics, where the creator says he regrets he made man). A women's head is to be veiled in the assembly (church today) ... although this can be just symbolic, as in a tiny hat to represent authority. (Don't want any Nephalim running around). Verse 14:34 like this passage, holds women's place a bit lower, but doesn't deny any authority.

Verses 14:35-36 (actually 14:35-38) however do display the hallmarks of later interpolation, being focused on later concerns of the church, and specifically authority, rank and discipline (we are well past the early formation days, probably a generation or two later).

If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home;
for it is improper for a woman to speak in the assembly.
Was it from you that the word of God first went forth or has it come to you only?

The challenge here has been suggested by many, is from the virgins and widows, whose role is prominent in pseudepigrapha such as Paul and Thecla. This could be seen as something of a mendicant Nun movement of sorts. (Monastic encratic roots again appearing very early in Christian writings.) That we are dealing with such women is suggested in the rest of the probable interpolation which seems focused on a Montanist like movement:

If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual,
let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment.
But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

Here the author appeals to the already well established authority of Paul's writing to say prophecy must be consistent with his (the church authorities). These five verses together basically say the church is taking ownership of Paul and decides if preaching, prophecy or tongues fit their doctrine, and that those doing so must be recognized, that is under the authority of the bishops and elders.

Verses 14:39-40 can this be seen as just a summary of 14:28-34, which give no hint of challenging charisma, rather that it be orderly.

There is a seam here, but it doe snot 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.

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

Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:11 pm
by Ben C. Smith
Stuart wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 2018 1:02 pm
There 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.
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.

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

Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:35 pm
by Stuart
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.
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.

The Charismatic aspects of Christianity are not normally associated with the Marcionite churches. But then again they are not associated with the Catholic either. But it may have been significant part of the early movement. But like astrology it was suppressed, likely by both the Catholics and Marcionites, as they had formal organizations, so similar need for some discipline and unity in theology. (Can't have loose canons preaching whatever they think of, like the Gnostics did)

I hope this opens your mind up to the notion that the Pauline letters do not represent either a unity nor come from a single writer, but instead are a collection of tracts (there are significant stylistic differences even in the attested Marcionite versions) with similar yet not identical theology. As I have been trying to point out to you for years, the Pauline letters most likely suggest "Marcion" as a collector of an earlier version of what we have than the author of the material. If he authored any, they were most likely Galatians and maybe Laodiceans (Marcionite form - note, the common material between Colossians and Ephesians is largely not attested in either letter; common material may be later). The concept of Marcion as collector rather than author is held by many scholars with a variety of opinion as to the content and origin of the Pauline letters. In fact pretty much any authentic-Pauline core concept requires that a collector and editor enter the picture at some point.

What a collection by Marcion means is that while he likely put together the formulaic openings and closings, adding even a bit of pseudo-biographical material, the bulk of the writings were likely by other earlier hands and not always consistent with his teaching. The same is true with his Gospel. People make a mistake when they attribute too much content and editorial detail to him or any other sect leader/author of any particular book. A much more likely scenario for all the Gospels and NT writings is a sect would accept them if they were "close enough" to their teachings and they could make use of them. Only if they strayed too much or directly opposed key points too much would they be altered or rewritten. Writing a new book was expensive and time consuming, often impractical. Cheap pulp paper would not be invented and widely available for many centuries. Consider that even today preachers with a wide variety of views simply pick and choose from their favorite books or gospels to preach what they want. You don't need a perfect theological fit. Horse shoes and hand grenades.

Note: my use of Marcion, Paul, or any other legendary characters is to be consistent with the accepted nomenclature of the placeholder "person" (fiction) put in that role. It is not a value judgment of their existence or place in space time.

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

Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2018 8:27 pm
by Stuart
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:11 pm
Stuart wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 2018 1:02 pm
There 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.
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.
OK you have two separate concepts going here, and three things I need to separate and talk about.

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

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.

(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).

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

Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:51 pm
by Ben C. Smith
Stuart wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 2018 8:27 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:11 pm
Stuart wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 2018 1:02 pm
There 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.
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.
OK you have two separate concepts going here, and three things I need to separate and talk about.

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
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.
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.
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:

1 Corinthians 14.33-36 (NAS): 33 ...for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. 34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. 36 Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?

1 Corinthians 14.33-36 (KJV): 33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

1 Corinthians 14.33-36 (NIV): 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace — as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people. 34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 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. 36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?

(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).
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.