Editorial dilemma: the interpolation of 1 Cor 14:34-35 in the western manuscripts of D, G and 88

Abstract

I argue that the transposition of verses 34 and 35 after verse 40 in western manuscripts D, G and 88, does not strongly support the modern interpolation hypothesis which contends that since there are textual deviations, as well as significant inconsistencies if not contradictions between the content of verses 34 and 35 and the rest of First Corinthians, the verses were inserted into the epistle by post-Pauline editors. I review the "egalitarian interpretation" of 1 Cor 14:34-36, and my earlier arguments against the modern interpolation hypothesis. Assuming the egalitarian interpretation, I suggest the editors of manuscripts D, G and 88, removed verses 34 and 35 from their canonical location at 33/36, and inserted them after verse 40 in order to shelter the silencing and subordination of women from the critique of verse 36 and to positively associate the silencing and subordination of women with Paul's admonition for decency and order. I further argue that the editors assessed that the verses in question were misplaced by an earlier editor for which they offered a corrected edition. I conclude that both the earlier and modern interpolation interpretations of the final verses of the fourteenth chapter of First Corinthians assessed that the canonical text was incoherent. Yet both interpretative projects are unable to resolve the textual incoherence that results with the removal of verses 34 and 35 before the twofold negative rhetorical question of verse 36.

**********

In the last quarter of the 20th century, the assessment that verses 34 and 35 of 1 Corinthians 14 are a post-Pauline addition inserted between verses 33 and 36 is held by a majority of critical biblical scholars. The numerous reasons for the interpolation hypothesis need not be enumerated here. Clearly, the claim made in verses 34 and 35 that women should keep silent in the churches as a sign of their subordination to their husbands conflicts, and in some cases, contradicts what Paul has said elsewhere in First Corinthians (7:4, and 11:11) and other canonical Pauline epistles (Galatians 3:28) regarding the status of women. To further support the interpolation hypothesis, textual critics note the transposition of verses 34 and 35 after verse 40 in a number of western manuscripts (D, G and 88). It is asserted that since there are variations in the placement of verses 34 and 35, the critical reader should not assume that the verses "belong" in the common location at verses 33/36, let alone in First Corinthians at all.

Previously, I rejected the interpolation hypothesis that verses 34 and 35 were inserted in their present location in the canonical text between verses 33/36 by a post-Pauline editor (Odell-Scott 1983, 1987). Instead, I argued that the grammatical structure and the content of the text suggested that verses 34 and 35 were quotations from a Corinthian letter to Paul and that verse 36 was Paul's critical "reply." Now, as regards the placement of verses 34 and 35 after verse 40 in D, G and 88, I argue that the verses placed after verse 40 were moved there from their canonical locale by a later post-Pauline editor. In other words, I argue that a Western editor who influenced D, G and 88 moved the verses (34 and 35) located between verses 33/36, which originated from a letter from Corinth which Paul quoted in his critical reply, to the end of verse 40. I argue that this move of the verses by the editor changes the status of the verses from positions which are quoted in order to be critiqued and rejected by Paul to the status of Paul's position.

An Egalitarian Interpretation

Re-Plying the Silencing of Women

Briefly, I read First Corinthians 14:34-36 to be a complicated textus. Verses 34 and 35 trace a ply from the Corinthian Letter to Paul and verse 36 is Paul's reply (for a detailed analysis of the structure (textus) of a letter, see Odell-Scott 1991: vi). The first ply (verses 34 and 35) is a quote from a faction in the Corinthian church asserting that female silence in worship is expressive of women's subordination to men as dictated by law. Paul traces from their letter to him in his reply to them for a very good reason. Paul wishes to make clear exactly what it is to which he is responding. Paul traces letter for letter, word for word their position.

(34) The women should keep silence in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the laws says. (35) If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

To this trace from the Corinthian letter addressed to Paul he replies:

(36) What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?

To the ply from the Corinthian correspondence, Paul replies with a twofoldfold negative rhetorical query. It is a twofold question which is introduced with the particle H (eta) which is located at the beginning of verse 36 and translated "What!" The particle H serves to provide a disjunctive or comparative conjunction between separate ideas or convictions. The particle is capable of conveying a spectrum of negative conjunctions ranging from the simple noting of a difference by comparison to the refutation of one thing by another (Arndt & Gingrich: 342-43; Liddell & Scott: 1761; Smyth: 2856; and Robertson: 1188). The intensity of the disjunctive which any particular H conveys is dependent upon its context.