Corpus-Paul

[<crhutson AT salisbury.net>]

Listers,

I've been out of town for the holiday, so this is a few days old, but in 
response to Kent Yinger:

I wrote re. interpolation at 1 Cor 14:34-35 . . .
>
>> In his commentary, Fee makes as strong a case as can be made for the
>interpolation theory.
>>
>> But it is not a persuasive theory. There is no manuscript support for
>omitting 34-35.

And Kent responded:

>True, there is "no manuscript support" in the sense that no mss omit it
>here. However, if my memory serves me correctly (I'm not near my copy of
>Fee's commentary), Fee's argument as to external evidence revolves around a
>fair amount of unusual placement of the passage in various mss. While not
>firm evidence of omission, the alternate placements require some
>explanation, don't they? Fee's (and others') suggestions of an interpolation
>based largely on scribal tendencies seems at least as plausible to me as
>explanations suggested by others these other placements and, thus, for the
>original inclusion of vv 34-35 at this point in the text. As with so many
>matters, the persuasiveness of a theory remains in the eye of the beholder.

Kent, I believe Curt Niccum has demonstrated in his article in NTS that the 
mss which contain vv 34-35 after v. 40 all comprise a small regional 
idiosyncrasy in copying.  There is no textual evidence for any widespread 
rearrangement of these verses, nor any for omitting these verses.

I also wrote:


>> Besides, claiming that this is an interpolation doesn't solve the problem
>about women's roles in the churches, because this is still the canonical
>text.


to which Kent responded:
>
>This one caught me by surprise ("still in the canonical text"). I take it
>that you are saying, "Even if 14:34-35 is an interpolation, it is still in
>the canonical text." I'm uncertain as to what you mean by "the canonical
>text." Rome resolved this with the Vulgate, but that doesn't satisfy most of
>us in the NT guild. If canonization was more-or-less concluded in the 3rd or
>4th centuries, is that the text  (which? Vaticanus? Alexandrinus? etc.) we
>are calling "canonical"? Help me understand what is "canonical text" for you
>in regard to Paul's letters. Thanks.
>
>Kent

Kent, well, pick your manuscripts, and pick whichever canon list you prefer 
to use.  The fact is, vv. 34-35 are in all of them.  I realize that the canon 
remained in flux for at least three centuries after the texts were written 
(and some would say it is still unsettled), but I believe pretty much every 
Christian canon list ever created includes 1 Corinthians, and every ms of 1 
Corinthians contains 14:34-35.  So the only way one could argue that these 
verses are not canonical would be to argue that there should be no canon in 
the first place.  If you have a Christian canon, then whatever it looks like, 
these verses are in it.

As for me, I accept that Paul wrote these verses, no matter how disagreable 
they are, and I try to understand why he wrote them, since they stand in 
clear tension with other things he wrote about women.  

Thanks for your questions, Kent. I hope this helps.

Chris

-----------------------------
Christopher R. Hutson
   Hood Theological Seminary
   800 W. Thomas Street
   Salisbury, NC  28144
   (704) 636-6818
   www.hoodseminary.edu
crhutson AT salisbury.net
-----------------------------
 




________________________________________________________________
Sent via the Salisbury.Net WebMail system at salisbury.net