Corpus-Paul

[Markus McDowell <mhmcdowe AT pepperdine.edu>]

Chris Cutler wrote:

> Maybe you have evidence that may question the authenticity
> of 1 Cor 14:34. If so I would like to hear it.

And Sheila E. McGinn responded:

>There is enough text critical evidence to raise problems for me.  As 
>Metzger points
>out in his _Textual
>Commentary on the GNT_, several witnesses transpose verses 34-35 to follow 
>verse 40.

Chris, CErtainly these veses create a problem, for a number of reasons:
1. The argument from the 'law' is not the way Paul argues anywhere ele 
(and what 'law' is he speaking of?)
2. It contradicts what is written in 11.2-16
3. It appears to inteerupt the disucsison of prophesy, which continues in 
v37
4. words such as  EPITREPESQAI and hUPOTASSESQAI are not found in the 
undisputed Paulines,. but are found in household codes in 1Tim 2.12 and 
Col 3.18; Eph 5.22 in haustefeln.

Yet, it maybe it does not intterupr the flow...maybe he is stil lspeaking 
of prophecy. ertianly it fits wit hthe largher discusisn of ORDER in 
WORSHIP. And it is not that unusual for Paul to digreess ;-) 
A;thoiguh an interpolation in many ways solves the problem, the 
diffiuclty for me is that the passage is not MISSING in any manuscripts. 
Even Betz (Hermeneia, Galatians, p 246 n 54) admits that the 
transposition found in D G is no argument for assuming a interpoloation - 
the majority of manuscriapts have  where modern translsation put it.
Other options hvae been offered, in addition to interpolatin:

1. it is a Corinthina quote, as Paul does in pother places...the response 
would be at the end. (but this is an abwful long quote, and Paul's 
response is pretty brief). Talbertargues that the 'you' aty the end is 
singular, except in vberse 36 - 'you men' - but it problem wouldnt mean 
women ONLY.
2. HE is speaking to a specific group of women. This is certainly true, 
for this raises another question: he is apaprently only spoeaking to 
MARRIED women. Shall we then deduce that speaking is permissible for 
single women? This is logically indefensible, it would seem to me. W. 
Weullner suggests it is women who have been converted becuase their 
household became 'Christian' when the patriarch did...and theyu are 
asking lots of questions in the mileux of the 'newfound social freedom' 
of the gentile Xians in the Cor church.

To paraphrase one lister, I think it is a gloss on TTh and that he is 
speaking to a aprticualr group who are cuasing problems on MWF. :-)



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MARKUS H. MCDOWELL
Adjunct Professor            PhD student
Religion Division            Center for Advanced Theological Studies
Pepperdine University        Fuller Theological Seminary
Malibu, California           Pasadena, California   
http://home1.gte.net/markusm/
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .