Corpus-Paul

[Ken Berry <ken AT wbtc.com>]

Chris,

I also wonder about your use of the phrase "the canonical text." Consider
Eugene Ulrich's comments about canon:

"Canon concerns biblical books, not the specific textual form of the books.
One must distinguish two senses of the word 'text': a literary opus and the
particular wording of that opus. It is the literary opus, and not the
particular wording of that opus, with which canon is concerned. Both in
Judaism and in Christianity it is books, not the textual form of the books,
that are canonical." (The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible
[Eerdmans, 1999], 57)

Ulrich also quotes Bruce Metzger along the same lines: "In short, it appears
that the question of canonicity pertains to the document qua document, and
not to the particular form or version of that document." (Canon of the New
Testament [Oxford UP, 1987], 270)

Ulrich has in view the widely variant forms or multiple literary editions of
some OT books like Jeremiah. Metzger notes that certain church fathers, such
as Eusebius and Jerome, knew of textual variations and discussed which
reading or form of the text was preferable, but did not suggest only one was
canonical (269).

I am not necessarily persuaded that 1 Cor 14:34-35 is an interpolation, but
I don't think an appeal to canon makes this particular question or
discussion moot, even for those who accept the concept of a normative canon.
I think one still has to weigh carefully the possibility that corruptions or
interpolations affected the textual tradition prior to any extant
manuscripts. I would say such corruptions need not be considered normative,
but of course it may be very difficult in a particular congregation,
denomination, or other community of interpretation to reach a consensus that
corruption or interpolation has most likely occurred in a specific instance
like this. 

Ken Berry
World Bible Translation Center
Fort Worth, Texas


on 11/29/04 11:00 AM, corpus-paul-request AT lists.ibiblio.org at
corpus-paul-request AT lists.ibiblio.org wrote:

> [Chris Hutson] 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.
>