Yes, I think that seems likely. That the manuscript has εκκλησιαις instead of εκκλησιαι is suggestive too.
Also, I’ve been reading a bit on the history of Pentecostalism and am beginning to comprehend how 34, 35 might fit in with the rest of chapter 14.
This is very interesting, thanks folks!
What do you mean here exactly by “signs of textual reorganization”?
There seems to be some confusion between Ε and ΑΙ in the manuscript, the sounds having merged. ΓΥΝΑΙΚΑΙΣΥΜΩΝ obviously stands for γυναῖκες ὑμῶν. How about ΟΥΓΑΡΕΠΙΤΡΕΠΕΤΕΑΥΤΑΙΣΛΑΛΕΙΝ, are we supposed to read ἐπιτρέπεται?
Yes, I meant the post-crucifixion sightings. There’s a risk that I’m seriously misrepresenting Ehrman, since I’ve only read that blog text, but my point is that we don’t really need a “rational” explanation, no more than we do for the Iliad passage. Ehrman’s explanation looks like a very facile euhemerism to me. There’s no way we can say 2000 years later how they came up with those stories originally (unless one believes they actually happened, and in that case I can only respect one’s religious convictions). Sure, people see all sort of things when they’re half asleep (I’ve seen a “ghost” myself once standing near my bed, not unlike those in Homer…), but these post-crucifixion sightings are nothing like that, they happened in full day and plain daylight (and to many people) – in today’s world I’d say it’s time for a brain scan, and double quick!
Is there any certainty about v. 33b - where does it belong? I think it is needless to say verses are a later addition, not necessarily marking where a sentence ends. Theoretically, it could be either:
(a) ὡς ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν ἁγίων αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις σιγάτωσαν
or:
(b) οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἀκαταστασίας ὁ θεὸς ἀλλὰ εἰρήνης ὡς ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις
I think option (a) sounds more natural. Why? Paul uses ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης many times, but never limits being ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης to ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. God is a God of peace, in or outside the churches of the saints. Calling him the God of peace like in all churches of the saints sounds strange to my ears.
On the other hand, saying: “As in all churches of the saints, the women in the assembly should not speak… or has the word of God come to you alone?” sounds perfectly natural.
Maybe finding manuscript evidence for the original function of v. 33b would help. If 33b belongs to 34-35, rather than 33a, 33b-35 probably is authentic and belongs there. Because taking 33b-35 out leaves us with 33a followed by 36, which sounds a bit odd.
Philipp B. Payne has done some rather interesting research on text critical markings in Vaticanus B:
http://www.pbpayne.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/1_Cor_14_Distigme_Obelos_images2.pdf
Not that I am a big fan of the man, but perhaps he is right and the “distigme obelos” points to the scribe, who wrote Vaticanus B, being aware of manuscripts, where v. 34-35 are ommitted.
Or maybe it just shows that the scribe was aware that in some manuscripts 34-35 were placed after 40?
Possibly. Payne, I think, would say that there are no textcritical marks (distigmai, two dots) after v. 40. On the other hand, these textcritical marks usually appear in the same line, where the author seems to have been aware of the existence of another reading. In order to indicate the existence of two versions, the author would have needed to write the verses at both locations and then add textcritical marks at both locations. But perhaps he considered this to be redundant and was satisfied with simply indicating, that some manuscripts omit the verses after v. 33. It is hard to tell, since 1Cor 14:34-35 with its relocation of a verse is a special case.
To my knowledge, Payne´s hypothesis has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed paper, neither has any textcritical scholar critically approached his work. I am still not sure about what I should think.
If Payne is right about the 2nd-hand double dots and their significance, then that’s evidence of contact, direct or indirect, between post-scriptum Vat.B and a Western-type text. Nothing more than that, and even that’s uncertain, since on the evidence presented it may be simply be a matter of registering textual variation between MSS, not necessarily with a Western one. Manuscript collation is a frequent practice, though normally it leaves more definite traces.
33b. Originally the text was written continuous—no chapters or verses, they weren’t introduced until middle ages or later for verses—and punctuation was haphazard, sparse or nonexistent, not part of the tradition. So there’d be no real indication of whether “33b” was meant to go with what precedes or with what follows. ο γενονεν at Jn.1:3(-4) is an analogous case—much theological dispute about that. To judge from the verse numeration, 33b was taken as the end of 33. The image provided by jeidsath (formatted as if for liturgal reading?) is ambivalent, the differential punctuation (high stop major vs. low stop minor) being a much later addition along with the diacritics. The given punctuation has no authority. An editor has to decide for her/himself.
ε/αι a very common confusion (phonetic collapse from 4th-3rd cent BC), especially pronounced in this MS. A token of grammatical illiteracy on the part of the copyist and/or his predecessor. I’m paticularly struck by the reduction of επερωτατωσαν in 35 to επερω, completely unintelligible unless the reader already knew the text. The corresponding υποτασσεσθωσαν impera. in 34 has become υποτασσεσθαι inf. (a much easier form) in parallel with λαλειν; but σιγατωσαν remains intact, however baffling the form might be. In these bilingual MSS (Latin on facing page) the Latin doesn’t always reflect the same text as the Greek, so maybe the Greek had ceased to matter so much for practical purposes.
A follow-up question. If the Western text-type is the result of an accident here, how many other distinctively Western readings are also the result of accident? Prima facie this case diminishes whatever authority the Western text is suppposed to have.
Pics or it didn’t happen.
1 Cor 14:34-39 in Vaticanus.
Sample editorial marks from two columns over. 1 Cor 15:12-17.
Isn’t it easier just to start your own religion? In your new religion, woman could have power as real priestesses instead of as fake priests. Look up the Textkit Pythia thread for ideas. Or even better, watch 300. Much more impressive stuff, in my opinion. Was all over the Western world before this Jesus fellow and his movement came along. Exactly the sort of thing that had Paul shaking in his boots at the end of 1 Cor 14. But maybe real female power is too scary?
We’re really only in this mess in the first place because Luther closed all the monasteries before giving thought to the fact that this meant eliminating almost all roles for women in the church.
EDIT: Are Payne’s images coming from a different manuscript?
Instead of books read boots.
Diff. MS? Apparently so, though the lineation is identical, and the cancellation of μου.
Corrected to boots.
When it reopens next week, I could head over to the Bancroft Library and take a look at their color facsimile.
It’s somewhat cheaper than purchasing it. (I don’t think that my wife would “remain silent” if I were to order that.)
Thanks for the images, again. That was nice reading.
Couple of questions: Do you know why some upsilons and one iota have two dots over them? And why are there three dots over μου in 39? The word is bracketed in NA27, can it be a textcritical sign?
Please do!
$10000 is a lot for a facsimile!
Payne´s images are from the original codex.
mwh, it is not just the two dots, but the combination of the dots with a long line (obelos, together distigmai obelos), which makes Payne think that the author/editor was aware of an omission of the verses in some manuscripts. He supports this by showing other examples, where the obelos-distigmai apparently marks omission, e. g. John 7:53ff.
basically he claims:
two dots = awareness of alternative readings
short line = paragraphos
two dots + long line (obelos) = awareness of omission in other MSS
Examples of these symbols can be viewed here:
http://www.pbpayne.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/1_Cor_14_Distigme_Obelos_images2.pdf
I am happy with both outcomes: omission is fine, Pauline is fine. If God thinks women should be quiet in church and inspired Paul to write these verses, so be it. If a later clown without apostolic authority added them, they have no meaning whatsoever. I am entirely open to both, even though the first option would be challenging. But so are many things in the Christian life. And challenge is not always bad.
Thanks Kaikai. Got it.
His earlier piece on distigmai here:
http://www.pbpayne.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/HTB07_199_226.pdf
See esp. p.217. (Dodgy argument re interpolation.) Canart in postscript raises question of what practical purpose they could have served.
He reprised it in his book, and responded in lengthy and minute detail to an unfavorable review of it.
What is it with these NT scholars? I think jeidsath and I should co-author an article—and then a book—and then live off the ensuing controversy—on the origin of the so-called Western text-type, claiming unprecedented importance and originality for our work. To maximize publicity we’d argue for its total worthlessness (alternatively, for its overwhelming superiority). Incidentally are there any good grounds for textually affiliating the wretched cod.Bezae with the magnificent Claromontanus? We could argue (seriously) that they represent completely different traditions. It’s time someone upturned all these antiquated text-type assignations and started afresh. We need a paradigm shift, to bring NT text-crit into line with mainstream text-crit which papyri have revolutionized.
Someone else identified the distigmai as the work of de Sepulveda (16th-cent. biblical scholar and would-be enslaver of Amerindians), marking up differences from the Erasmian text. This is much more plausible on the face of it, but Payne marshals palaeographical evidence against it.
See http://www.pbpayne.com/?cat=3
posts of Aug.23 and Mar.17 2010
Paul D — Calligraphic MSS—as this one is most emphatically is!— put double dots over word-initial υ and ι. It’s sometimes called a trema. The dots over μου are cancellation dots, another standard convention.
$10,000, a steal. How much do you think the original would cost? If ever its sex abuse payouts impoverish the Vatican—fat chance of that—maybe we’ll find out.
I shall now disappear for the next two weeks, possibly longer.
$10,000, a steal. How much do you think the original would cost? If ever its sex abuse payouts impoverish the Vatican—fat chance of that—maybe we’ll find out.
I’m more interested in the complete works of Menander that they keep in the Pope’s secret reading room.
@Paul, re: NT scholar recommendations. What subjects are you interested in?
Paul,
You might enjoy Bart Ehrman’s spiritual mentor Adolf von Harnack aka Carl Gustav Adolf von Harnack (7 May 1851 – 10 June 1930). Ehrman also leans on Walter Bauer but not nearly as often as Harnack. The more recent secular NT scholars are not very exciting; Funk, Crossan, Gerd Theißen … these are all 20th century guys. The last 25 years I can’t help you with much. Just look at a bibliography in commentary by someone like Craig S. Keener and you will find all the recent guys. Keener’s multi-volume commentary on Acts would be a good place to start.
Von Harnack looks interesting. Apparently an important thesis of his is the influence of Hellenistic philosophy on Christian thought. I think that’s just the sort of thing that interests me. What makes me a bit unsure is how old it is. It’s not that I think that it can’t be worth reading — I do read some 19th century stuff on Homer and find it valuable, but for Homer I think I can make some sort of informed judgement as to what is out-dated and what isn’t; for NT scholarship, I don’t have a clue. So maybe what I need is just some sort of good, reliable, uncontroversial introduction.
Joel, I don’t have anything very specific in mind except what I say above and what I said in the Halloween thread. I just thought you had something very specific in mind to recommend…
Two better historical Jesus scholars would be E.P. Sanders and Mark Goodacre.
(26)Τί οὖν ἐστιν, ἀδελφοί; ὅταν συνέρχησθε, ἕκαστος ψαλμὸν ἔχει, διδαχὴν ἔχει, ἀποκάλυψιν ἔχει, γλῶσσαν ἔχει, ἑρμηνείαν ἔχει· πάντα πρὸς οἰκοδομὴν γινέσθω. (27) εἴτε γλώσσῃ τις λαλεῖ, κατὰ δύο ἢ τὸ πλεῖστον τρεῖς καὶ ἀνὰ μέρος, καὶ εἷς διερμηνευέτω· (28) ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ᾖ διερμηνευτής, σιγάτω ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἑαυτῷ δὲ λαλείτω καὶ τῷ θεῷ. (29) προφῆται δὲ δύο ἢ τρεῖς λαλείτωσαν καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι διακρινέτωσαν· (30) ἐὰν δὲ ἄλλῳ ἀποκαλυφθῇ καθημένῳ, ὁ πρῶτος σιγάτω. (31) δύνασθε γὰρ καθ’ ἕνα πάντες προφητεύειν, ἵνα πάντες μανθάνωσιν καὶ πάντες παρακαλῶνται. (32) καὶ πνεύματα προφητῶν προφήταις ὑποτάσσεται, (33) οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἀκαταστασίας ὁ θεὸς ἀλλ’ εἰρήνης**** Ὡς ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν ἁγίων [.] (36) ἢ ἀφ’ ὑμῶν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθεν, ἢ εἰς ὑμᾶς μόνους κατήντησεν; [NA28, except that I have moved the full stop to the end of 33.]
D A Carson (Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood http://cdn.desiringgod.org/pdf/books_bbmw/bbmw.pdf at p.140 of this pdf) quotes Thayer, ἤ, §1.c as saying that one usage of the conjunction is:
before a sentence contrary to the one just preceding, to indicate that if one be denied or refuted the other must stand:
citing Matt 20.15, Rom 3.29, 1 Cor 9.6, 1 Cor 10.22, 1 Cor 14.26, 2 Cor 11.7, eg:
Rom 3.28 λογιζόμεθα γὰρ δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου. 29 ἢ Ἰουδαίων ὁ θεὸς μόνον; οὐχὶ καὶ ἐθνῶν; ναὶ καὶ ἐθνῶν,
2 Possibilities: A) a man is justified without works of the law; B) God is God of the Jews only.
B is what we ordinarily call a rhetorical question. We answer ‘no’, and thus confirm A.
1 Cor 9.6 4 μὴ οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν φαγεῖν καὶ πεῖν; 5 μὴ οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα περιάγειν ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ Κηφᾶς; 6 ἢ μόνος ἐγὼ καὶ Βαρναβᾶς οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν μὴ ἐργάζεσθαι;
A) we have authority to eat and drink (without working)
B) Barnabas and I only do not have authority to eat and drink without working
B seems inequitable, so A is strengthened.
We do this all the time. ‘Come to the park with us. Or are you going to sit there glued to the computer all day?’
With verses 34-5 in the text, then we have this same type of rhetorical device:
A) women should be silent in the churches
B) the word of God came to the Corinthians only.
B can’t be right, so it must be A. Without verses 34-5, it seems to me somewhat harder (not impossible) to find a definite point that the rhetorical question comes in as a counterpart to. Clearly it’s not that God is a God of peace. Perhaps it could be that the spirit of the prophets are subject to the prophets. I suppose they could have had some sort of doctrine of spontaneity, which would be opposed to Paul’s instructions about self-control and orderliness in verses 27-30. But it seems unlikely to me that there would be some sort of clear doctrinal difference about things like this. For example, that the Corinthians say that a dozen or more people can prophesy in one meeting, whereas all the other churches limit it to two or three (verse 29). But then, with that example, one would expect verse 36 straight after verse 29.
I can sort of see how it could work, but the tone doesn’t feel right to me. I think it’s because it comes after εἰρήνης, which seems to produce a sort of resolution before he, as I see it, begins to speak about women in the church. Any thoughts? Andrew
For those of you who are still interested in the omission question (v. 34-35), I just stumbled across this article:
http://jgrchj.net/volume10/JGRChJ10-4_Shack.pdf
The author, ironically a woman, attempts to prove that Payne is wrong and that the verses were in the original letter. I have not read it yet, and I am curious what I says. Is a woman going to destroy Payne´s feminist hopes? Strange world that we live in.