by George Sidney Hurd “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.” (1 Cor 14:34-35) This passage is problematic in many ways. In the first place, it contradicts what Paul says within the epistle itself. In chapter 11 Paul said that “every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head.” (1Cor 11:5). Such a statement would be superfluous if indeed women were required to remain in total silence in the congregational meetings. Also, Paul, just a few verses earlier, told all, without qualifications, to seek the gift of prophesy (14:1). Then, in verse 26 he says that each one, without any limitation as to sex, education or social status, was to participate with psalms, teachings, tongues, interpretation of tongues and prophesy, in order that all may be edified. For Paul to say in the next breath that women were forbidden to speak in the service would be a contradiction to all that Paul had just told them. Secondly, it says that they were not permitted to speak but were to be submissive “as the law also says.” Not only is any such statement entirely lacking in the law, but we frequently see God using women as prophetesses in the Old Testament. A prophetess speaks for God. It would therefore be impossible for a woman to be silent and at the same time prophesy. Prophetesses, such as Miriam, Huldah, and Deborah were consulted by the men of Israel when they wanted to know the will of God. Deborah even served as judge over Israel, making decisions for the nation of Israel as the Lord directed her (Judges 4:4-5). If Ester had kept silent, her people would have perished. In Revelation Jesus reproved the woman called Jezebel who was teaching in the church of Thyatira, calling upon her to repent of her fornication, but He did not tell her she needed to repent of teaching (Rev 2:21). Likewise, Paul instructed the older women to be “teachers of good things.” (Titus 2:3). Although it is true that one can teach by example, nevertheless Paul is here obviously referring to teaching with words as well, which requires that women speak. Some suppose that “as the law also says” is making reference to Genesis 3:16, but we have seen that the saying, “your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you,” is not an expression of God’s design but simply stating that man and woman would not enjoy the same harmonious complementary relationship they had before the fall. Also, Paul never appeals to the Old Covenant Law in order to substantiate New Covenant practice. Quite the contrary, Paul always contrasted the Law with grace. The third problematic statement is where it says that if the women wanted to learn something, they would have to ask their husbands at home. This would have left many women without anyone to learn from if they had questions. Many of them would have been unmarried or widows without a husband to ask. Many more would have had husbands who were either unbelievers or else ignorant concerning spiritual matters. Additionally, in 1Corinthians 7 Paul says that it would be better for virgins to remain single. Today with Google there would be a way around this problem, but if the only way a woman could get answers to spiritual questions was to ask her husband at home and she was unmarried, where would she go for answers? Fourthly, the reason given as to why the women should remain silent is: “for it is shameful for women to speak in church.” The word translated “shameful” (aischron) is a very debasing term. The root meaning of aischron and its cognates is “shameful, vile, filthy, vulgar or base.” This is out of keeping with Paul’s high regard for women, demonstrated in so many other passages (Rom 16:1-16; Gal 3:28; 1Tim 1:5 cf. 2Tim 3:14-15). Indicators that verses 34 and 35 are an interpolation Many noble attempts have been made to try to address these problems with verses 34 and 35, but they all either ignore other portions of Scripture or assume that which is not clearly stated in the context. There are several factors which indicate that these two verses were most probably not originally part of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. 1) Manuscript evidence suggests that it is an interpolation. An interpolation consists of words or phrases which were not initially a part of the original Greek text but were inserted by the scribes who copied it. While they are very rare in the New Testament and do not affect any major Christian doctrine, all textual scholars acknowledge their existence. All copies of the Bible prior to the mid fifteenth century were manuscripts, which means that they were hand-written by scribes who made copies of the older manuscripts before they became illegible. It is inevitable that some spelling errors be made in this process, and since a master scribe would often read the text aloud while several copied at the same time, some notes in the margins of the older manuscripts inadvertently became a part of the text in the new copies. This, however, should in no way diminish our full confidence in the Greek texts which translators use today to make our translations. While there are some differences in the extant Greek manuscripts, we now have more than 5,700 of them, dating as far back as the second century. Some of them are from the east and some from the west, with more being discovered every year by archeologists. By making a careful comparison of all extant manuscripts, textual scholars assure us that the Greek text we now have in our possession is more than 99% identical to the original manuscripts. The recent discoveries of older manuscripts have helped textual scholars discover and eliminate some later interpolations or additions to the original text. That is why your newer version of the Bible may not have some of the phrases or verses included in the older versions. For example: “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.” (Matt 17:21 KJV)
“Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” (Mark 9:44 KJV)
“For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.” (Mark 9:49 KJV) “Everyone will be salted with fire.” (Mark 9:49 NIV) “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” (Rom 8:1 KJV) “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” (Rom 8:1NIV) These are some examples where more recent scholarship, with earlier and more reliable manuscript evidence available to them, have been able to determine that these phrases were not a part of the original text but were interpolations. Mark 16:9-20 is perhaps one of the longest passages which many consider to be an interpolation since several earlier manuscripts do not contain it. Nevertheless, since there are reasonably good arguments for its validity, all translations include it, although most indicate in the footnote that some earlier manuscripts do not contain it. The NET Bible entitles it: “The Longer Ending of Mark.” While 1Corinthians 14:34,35, which we are considering, appears in all the Greek manuscripts we presently have, there is reasonable evidence that it was an early interpolation, inserted into the text prior to 175 AD., which is the date of the earliest copy of 1Corinthians which we have available to us. The reason why an increasing number of scholars have concluded that verses 34 and 35 are an interpolation is because it doesn’t appear in the same location in all the manuscripts. [i] Several manuscripts place verses 34 and 35 at the end of the chapter after verse 40, while one sixth century manuscript at verse 33 refers the reader to a footnote which only includes verses 36-40. [ii] This gives us reason to believe that it was an early insertion, possibly from a note in the margin by the owner of the old manuscript being read for copying by the master scribe, as though it were a part of the main body of the old manuscript, which the scribes simply copied as it was being read to them. Many church fathers, rather than holding to the New Testament view of women as presented by Jesus and Paul, reflected the same contempt for women as did much of the rest of the Greco-Roman world at the time. The Greek philosopher Plutarch of Athens said that a woman should feel shame at being heard in public just as she would if she were being stripped naked. [iii] Origin (AD 184 to AD 254), reflects the attitude of his time and culture when he said: “Men should not sit and listen to women…even if she says admirable or even holy things they are of no consequence since they come out of a woman’s mouth.” [iv] In like manner, Saint Augustine (AD 354 to AD 430), whose theology has been carefully followed by most theologians until well after the Reformation, said: “What difference does it make whether it comes from the wife or the mother? In any case it comes from Eve, the temptress, of whom we should be aware of in any woman… I do not see what use the woman would be to the man if it were not for her function of bearing children.” [v] Considering the contempt that most men had towards women at that time, it would not be surprising if a cleric, who lacked reverence for God’s Word, would insert the contents of verses 34 and 35 in a side-note of his copy of 1Corinthians in order to include it in his liturgical readings to the congregation. Then later, when his old manuscript was transcribed, the scribe either unwittingly or intentionally included the note in the main text of the new copy. 2) Contextual evidence for concluding that verses 34 and 35 are an interpolation. However, there is another major reason for concluding that verses 34 and 35 were not originally a part of Paul’s epistle. It is placed right in the middle of Paul’s instructions concerning the exercise of the gift of prophecy, thereby interrupting the flow of what Paul was saying. Verse 36 corresponds to what Paul was saying in verse 33 but seems out of place following verse 35, as can be seen: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. 30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. 34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. 36 Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? 37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. 38 But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant. 39 Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order.” (1 Cor 14:29-40) Verse 36 logically follows verse 32 rather than verse 35 since it would have been the prophets and not the women who might be tempted to think that they were the only ones receiving revelation from God, discounting all prophetic utterances of others who prophesied and refusing to submit his/her prophetic revelations to the judgment (or scrutiny) of the rest. Also, verse 36 cannot be directed specifically to the women in verses 34 and 35 since in the phrase “to you only” in verse 36, the adjective “only” (monos) is masculine, indicating that in 36 Paul is either speaking to men or to the congregation in general, rather than to women. This is probably one of the reasons why several manuscripts place verses 34 and 35 at the end of the chapter after verse 40. 3) Linguistic evidence indicates that verses 34 and 35 are an interpolation. A final consideration which indicates that verses 34 and 35 were probably not originally a part of 1Corinthians is that, according to some linguistic experts, the vocabulary used in these two verses is not characteristic of the Apostle Paul. [vi] So, we have seen that, not only are these verses very difficult – if not impossible to adequately interpret in a manner consistent with the overall teaching of Scripture concerning women, but also manuscript variations make it likely that it was an early interpolation. Also, it breaks Paul’s train of thought, which was concerning the orderly operation of the gifts of tongues, interpretation of tongues and prophesy - only to resume where he left off in verse 36. And finally, the vocabulary is not typical of the Apostol Paul. While all Scripture in its original form was verbally inspired by God, the thousands of extant copies must be carefully scrutinized, eliminating all orthographic errors and interpolations in order to assure that we have a precise, accurate representation of the original text. I realize that not all will agree with the arguments presented here, but they will be left with the option of either ignoring these verses or being left with the daunting task of seeking an interpretation which neither reads too much into the text nor undermines the role of women as seen in the Scriptures and in the very epistle of 1Corinthians itself. [i] Some Authors defending this view are: Gordon D. Fee. The Epistle to the Corinthians New International Commentary on the New Testament. Philip Barton Payne. Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters. Anthony Thiselton, The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Epistle to the First Corinthians Some other scholars holding this view are: Alan F. Johnson, Raymond F. Collins, Simon Kistemaker, Richard Horsley, [ii] Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th Revised Edition, edited by Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger in cooperation with the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, Münster/Westphalia, © 1993 by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart. [iii] C. K. Barrett, Black’s New Testament Commentary: The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA, 1968), p.331). [iv] Origin. Fragments of 1Corinthians [v] Augustine, Literal Commentary on Genesis IX.5 [vi] Gordon Fee, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle to the Corinthians (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 1987), p. 702. 
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |