Corpus-Paul

["Jeff Krantz @ optonline.net" <jkrantz AT optonline.net>]

Listers,

I haven't been able to keep up with the thread, so I hope I'm not offering
something already pointed out by someone else, but the "disagreeable" nature
of the questioned verses (which I accept as original) lasts only until one
reads either "Let the Women Speak In Church"  (David Odell-Scott, Biblical
Theology Bulletin, 13, 1983) or "Paul's Understanding of the Holy Spirit"
(Charles Talbert, can't dig up the citation at the moment) both of which
argue from different perspectives that Paul here quotes back to the
Corinthians from their own letter, and then goes on to contradict them.
Paul's pattern of making reference to the letter from the Corinthians and
then opposing what he cites is present elsewhere in 1 Cor, and both the
grammar of the sentence and it's location within the larger argument about
pneumatic gifts support this reading.

It is regrettable that the androcentric, ecclesial reading of this text has
so thoroughly determined our understanding of its meaning that these two
articles have been so thoroughly ignored.

Peace,

Fr. Jeff Krantz
Mercer School of Theology
http://www.preachingpeace.org


----- Original Message -----
From: <crhutson AT salisbury.net>
To: <crhutson AT salisbury.net>; "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
"Kent Yinger" <kent.yinger AT verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Liberating Paul


> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Corpus-Paul mailing list
> Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul