Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [textualcriticism] Re: The TC Argument Regarding the Silenced Women of Corinth

Expand Messages
  • Michael Marlowe
    ... I guess you would have to become more familiar with the materials and methods of TC before you could really understand why most scholars look upon this
    Message 1 of 36 , Jul 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      James M. Leonard wrote:

      > I am quite the novice in all things text critical,
      > so I cannot really evaluate the arguments,
      > and all the responses have been quite the
      > education for me. I will be re-reading the responses
      > to further this educational processes.
      > Note that it is Epp himself who cites "new evidence
      > text-critical in nature" (Junia, 15, emphasis added).

      I guess you would have to become more familiar with the materials and
      methods of TC before you could really understand why most scholars look upon
      this "new evidence" as being very weak. Epp's interpretation of a scribal
      annotation in Codex Fuldensis may seem important to you, after having read
      his article; but you must understand that an ambiguous scribal annotation in
      a sixth-century Italian MS of the Vulgate is really not very important in
      the balance of evidence. At the most, it may indicate that the annotator had
      seen (or thought he had seen) an omission of the verses in some old Latin
      MS, as Epp argues. Probably it only indicates that he was aware of the
      transposition in some Latin MSS. But it makes little difference. There are
      all sorts of queer things in the MSS, especially in the Latin ones. For
      instance, in Codex Fuldensis itself, the Gospels are in the form of a
      harmony. It does not have Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but a conflation of
      them all into one combined narrative. The epistles in it are useful as
      evidence for the earliest form of Jerome's Vulgate, but critics disagree
      about whether Jerome even did the epistles in the Vulgate. Questions often
      become very complicated when you get into all the messy details of TC. At
      any rate, this "evidence" for an omission that Epp sees in Codex Fuldensis
      is at least twice removed from the Greek copies, and five centuries after
      the original. When we look at all the evidence (not just the little things
      Epp wants you to notice), it overwhelmingly favors the inclusion of the
      verses. As I pointed out earlier, there is not even a single manuscript that
      omits them. So there are not many scholars who agree with Epp and Fee in
      this matter. Even those who do agree that 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is an
      interpolation, on internal grounds, usually attribute the interpolation to
      such an early stage of the transmission of the Pauline letters that any
      variation in the Latin copies has no relevance to the question (on this
      point see Conzelmann's commentary on First Corinthians).

      Michael
    • Dave Smith (REL110, 211,212)
      Friends and scholars, I have seen the posted discussions here and also previously in other publications. I would like to see inquiry made into the character
      Message 36 of 36 , Jul 3, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Friends and scholars,

        I have seen the posted discussions here and also previously in other
        publications. I would like to see inquiry made into the character of each
        witness and ask the following questions:

        1) Do any of these witnesses tend to introduce random deletions,
        substitutions, additions, and transpositions?
        2) Do these witnesses tend to be careful transmissions/translations of the
        text or something more akin to targums with midrashim?

        I think most folks realize that both of these questions have been posed to
        the category of the witnesses under consideration in the past, and it takes
        nothing more than a general perusal of a passage such as Luke 23-24 to
        realize that several of the manuscripts cited as proofs of the proposed
        hypothesis do display characteristic random deletions, substitutions, and
        transpositions. The existence of a divergent witness does not mean that it
        is a reliable witness. And even what may be considered unreliable or
        somewhat hostile witnesses, support the existence of the text in question.

        Now as for the several contextual/internal arguments that have been
        presented, pro & con, there exists a great deal of merit, and most seem to
        me a great deal less speculative than some of the textual critical
        arguments. Let me add one internal argument that I did not see, though I may
        have missed that discussion. Taking for granted that the issue is a certain
        1st century Robert's Rules of Order (v.40), let me go further to suggest
        that what St. Paul is addressing is a teaching session, and that is what is
        meant by EN EKKLHSIA, as in 14:19 KTL. It is catechal instruction (KATHCHSW,
        v.19), both here and possible throughout the passage, especially in 34-35.
        This is not the case where women were prophesying or even speaking in
        tougues, but they were asking questions from the floor, possibly stopping
        the prophets in mid-sentence. That is why St. Paul states EI DE TI MAQEIN
        QELOUSIN ... EPERWTATWSAN (v.35). Now I venture to say that few church
        services held in this day, even those presided over by women clergy, allow
        questions from the floor during their sermons. Nor would it be allowed for
        women sitting near the door with their children to call to the front and ask
        either their own husbands or other men for an explanation. St. Paul simply
        states that this sort of questioning should been done EN OIKWi, and from
        each woman's own man/husband (IDIOUS ANDRAS, v. 35). Now, these meetings may
        very well have been in someone's home, but it had become a [legal] assembly
        and the rules of order must apply, such as is the example in Acts 19, where
        a riot broke out because the rules for a public gathering were not followed.
        The hO NOMOS v. 34 is not Torah, but assembly rules. Shouting matches were
        not allowed. The whole rule was to stop the constant chatter (LALEIN, v.34)
        that detracted from the main speaker, whether woman or man.

        It has nothing to do with denying women, on the basis of gender alone, the
        proper excerise of their spiritual gifts. But, on the other hand, some women
        were in breach of the rules for assembly and public order. It just so
        happened that the men were not doing the same; they had other problems. The
        prophets and those who spoke in tongues were under the same guidelines as
        the women to be quiet while others were speaking (v. 28-33). Everyone in the
        assembly was under submission to the others, not just the women. And it may
        also be noted, that though the prophets were subject to all the other
        prophets (v. 27, 32), a woman was not subject to every man. What this
        consists of appears in the various Christian household codes. Christians
        were ultimately all subject to one another. There was no hierarchy, except
        for administrative purposes, and this may be one of those examples.

        Dave Smith
        Hudson, NC

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Michael Marlowe" <marlow@...>
        To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 11:46
        Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: The TC Argument Regarding the Silenced
        Women of Corinth


        > James Leonard wrote:
        > > I would, however, like to quote Dr. Epp as he explains the
        > > impact of the combined literary analysis and text-critical
        > > assessment for the tc argument: "...this combination...has
        > > moved a sizable group of scholars to view the passage on
        > > 'silent women' as a later intrusion ...
        >
        > I think Epp's assertion here has misled you into thinking that most
        scholars
        > who have denied the authenticity of 1 Cor. 14:34-35 have done so on the
        > basis of a "combination" of "literary analysis and text-critical
        > assessment." Despite what Epp says or implies about it, the transposition
        in
        > the existing old Latin MSS can have little relevance to the usual
        > explanation seen in scholarly literature, which is chiefly
        > redaction-critical in nature, not text-critical. The most
        commonly-accepted
        > explanation among secular scholars (and I believe that Ehrman can back me
        up
        > on this) is that these verses were inserted by a very early editor of the
        > "Corpus Paulinum," as a way of incorporating into Paul's remarks about
        > church order in 1 Corinthians the "deutero-Pauline" teaching about the
        role
        > of women that we see in 1 Timothy 2. Most scholars who talk about an
        > anti-feminist tendency in the early chuch see it in the Pastoral epistles,
        > not at some later post-canonical stage of the transmission of Paul's
        > letters; and the concept of an edited "Corpus Paulinum" plays a large part
        > in the explanation of 1 Cor. 14:34-35. Under this view, the verses are
        > thought to have been interpolated by the first editor of the collected
        > letters of Paul (before any Latin version was executed), and we have no
        > access to the unedited originals. The Latin versions are understood to be
        > based upon the (already edited) Corpus Paulinum. The *universal* presence
        of
        > 1 Cor. 14:34-35 in all streams of transmission requires some such
        > explanation, in which the insertion is supposed to have happened in the
        one
        > edition of Paul's letters that was copied by everyone in the generation
        > following Paul. So in a sense the text-critical argument contradicts the
        > usual redaction-critical argument. That is why Conzelmann dismisses the
        > shaky text-critical evidence that you have mentioned, as being wholly
        > irrelevant. But then Fee came along with a rather different argument, in
        > which redaction-criticism of the Corpus Paulinum plays no role, and I do
        not
        > think that many other scholars who regard the verses as being secondary
        > would look upon Fee's argument as adequate. It is missing the whole
        > redaction-critical dimension. Epp's discussion of this matter is also very
        > inadequate if he does not mention the redactional theory.
        >
        > Michael
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.