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