(Thanks to friends and colleagues, particularly Joan Taylor in my own departmental at King's College London, and Philip Payne who has worked for years on this passage, I am able to provide a slightly more detailed version 3 of this attempt)
Though,
various attempts have been made by feminist readers to dispute that Paul had
forbidden women to speak in the church – mostly by claiming that the verses
were later interpolations into Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians,
one has pointed out that this passage has already been attested to the earliest
Pauline collection that we know of, that of Marcion from around the mid second
century, well attested by Tertullian, Epiphanius and Adamantius, as we will
quickly see. In
what follows and contrary to the interpolation claims, it will be shown that
the two verses in question (1 Cor 14:34-35) where, in fact, part of the oldest
stock of Paul’s letters that we know, and yet, that it had precisely the
opposite meaning from what was given to them by the canonical collection that
we know of today (Nestle-Aland28) or even the alternative placing of
these verses, as we have them in the old manuscripts D, F, G, ar, b, vgms,
Ambst, where we find these two verses placed after 1 Cor 14:40.
First the
Greek text of NA28 and a modern translation (ESV):
|
34 αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις
σιγάτωσαν, οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτρέπεται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν: ἀλλὰ ὑποτασσέσθωσαν, καθὼς καὶ ὁ
νόμος λέγει. 35 εἰ δέ τι μαθεῖν θέλουσιν, ἐν οἴκῳ τοὺς ἰδίους ἄνδρας ἐπερωτάτωσαν,
αἰσχρὸν γάρ ἐστιν γυναικὶ λαλεῖν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ.
|
34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. |
Let us look
at the witnesses to the oldest collection of Paul’s letters:
Cf. Tert.,
Adv. Marc. V 8,11: Aeque
praescribens silentium mulieribus in ecclesia, ne quid discendi duntaxat gratia
loquantur (ceterum prophetandi ius et illas habere iam ostendit, cum mulieri
etiam prophetanti velamen imponit), ex lege accipit subiciendae feminae auctoritatem,
quam, ut semel dixerim, nosse non debuit nisi in destructionem; Epiph.,
Pan. 42, sh./elench. 23 (123. 170-171): αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ σιγάτωσαν, οὐ γὰρ
ἐπιτέτραπται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν, ἀλλ' ὑποτασσέσθωσαν, καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει;
Adam., Dial. II 18 (having previously stated that he was quoting from the
'Apostolos' of Markion): λέγει δὲ οὕτως ὁ ἀπόστολος, αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ
σιγάτωσαν, οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτέτραπται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν, ἀλλ' ὑποτάσσεσθαι, καθὼς καὶ ὁ
νόμος λέγει.
All the
editors (Zahn, Harnack, Schmid, BeDuhn)
of Marcion’s collection of Paul’s letters reckon with the presence of these
verses, Zahn with the canonical version of verses 34-35, but with the singular ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ in verse 34, Harnack with the form of verse 34
given by Adamantius, seeing in Tertullian also a quotation of μαθεῖν θέλουσιν from verse 35, though he finds himself unable
to recover this verse. Schmid offers only the canonical text of verse 34 and
sees verse 35 as unattested: αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν (ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις) σιγάτωσαν, οὐ
γὰρ ἐπιτέτραπται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν, ἀλλ' ὑποτασσέσθωσαν, καθὼς καὶ
ὁ νόμος λέγει, and BeDuhn bases his translation on the Epiphanius text of verse 34
and the opening of verse 35 εἰ δέ τι
μαθεῖν θέλουσιν with omission marks at the end.
The
reconstruction here is confronted with several difficulties, firstly the place
of the verses in 1 Corinthians, secondly the precise shape and wording of verse
35 in particular, thirdly the content following from both, which has to take
into account the commentary of the heresiologists.
As far as
the second issue is concerned, Harnack already reckons with a "textual
change" in verse 35 with a view to Tertullian's comments. While Tertullian
obviously read a text according to which women are commanded to remain silent
in the assembly even according to the Law (= the Thora), he sees this commandment provided
with a restriction, as BeDuhn has correctly recognised: "Women are not to
speak to learn something, though they can speak in service of the spiritual
gifts", J. BeDuhn, The First New Testament. Marcion's Scriptural Canon
(2013), 284. This means that the prohibition of speaking refers only to
learning, especially since Tertullian explicitly points out that earlier in the
same letter Paul allowed women to speak prophetically. The ne quid discendi duntaxat gratia loquantur then makes it clear,
however, that Tertullian had evidently read an εἰ μή
("unless", ne quid) instead of the adversative conjunction εἰ δέ
τι.
As for the
opening of verse 34, this goes back to the canonical redaction, as the term ἅγιοι shows. It already
serves to prepare for the canonical expansion of verse 35.
So, how
does the text looked like in Marcion’s collection of Paul’s letters:
|
34 αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις
σιγάτωσαν, οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτρέπεται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν: ἀλλὰ ὑποτάσσεσθαι, καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει, 35 εἰ μὴ
μαθεῖν θέλουσιν.
|
34 the women should keep silent in an assembly. For they are not permitted to speak, but to submit themselves, as the Law also says, 35 there is anything they desire to learn. |
Still, even
the reconstructed text does not sound very different from what we read in NA28.
Let us,
however, come to the first of the three difficulties and then to the third, the
interpretation of these two verses:
All three
heresiologists use this quotation to demonstrate that even Marcion in his
"Apostolos" relies explicitly and positively on the (Jewish) Law, at
least that is how it appears through the quoted excerpt, but BeDuhn has rightly
pointed out that the position of verses 34-35 in chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians is
unstable. In his translation he does offer them before chapter 15, but in his
commentary he points out that Tertullian offers the discussion of these two
verses following the verse 14:21 and before his comments on 14:24ff. According
to Epiphanius, the verses may have stood between 14:21 and 15:1. That the
position of these two verses varies in the manuscripts is also shown by the older witnesses
to Paul’s letters. According to the New Testament manuscripts 06,
010, 012, ar, b, vgms, Ambst these two verses are found after verse
14:40, i.e. immediately at the end of this chapter.
It has also
been observed that in 03, verses 34-35 are marked in the margin of this codex
(Vaticanus) by a "distigme-obelos", indicating that the scribe of
this codex (or rather that of the older Vorlage)
considered the verses to be a "transposition within a passage", or
rather one of the "multi-word additions", but in this case, since "this
distigme" is one "plus characteristic bar ...(it) far more
appropriately identifies" an "addition" rather "than a
transposition", so P.B. Payne.
Meanwhile, two attempts have been made, published in the same journal, to
dispute these distigme-obelos marks in 03.
In a distinguished and detailed critique, Payne rejects both attempts and further
details his own well-reasoned arguments.
in P.B. Payne, Critique of Vaticanus Distigme-Obelos Denials (2021).
If we
proceed from the oldest witness for the pre-canonical version, Tertullian, there
seem to have been two attempts to detach these two verses from their original
place after verse 14:21 and to place them either after verse 14:33, where it is
said in advance that God "is not a God of disorder, but a God of
peace", or in the old witnesses listed another attempt was made to place
the verses after verse 14:40, in which it is said that "all things shall
be done decently and in order".
In the
position of the verses 34-35 after verse 14:21, however, these verses possessed
a completely different context and placed back there, receive a very different meaning,
precisely the one against which all three heresiologists take their stand. For
according to them, these two verses were meant by Marcion to discredit or even destroy
the Law. But why do the heresiologists think that Marcion could connect this
thrust with these verses?
The
position of the verses after verse 14:21 provides the explanation. First of
all, Marcion’s Paul formulated in verse 14:20 that the audience should be
"not children in understanding", "ignorant in wickedness,
but perfect in understanding". To this he adds the example of the Law,
verse 14:21: "In the Law it is written: In other tongues and in other lips
will I address this people," and he adds (verses 34-35), "34 the women should keep silent in an assembly. For they are not permitted to speak, but to submit themselves, as the Law also says, 35 there is anything they desire to learn."
Having quoted Isa 28:11-12 at the
outset, the text alludes to Gen 3:16 (καὶ τῇ γυναικὶ εἶπεν Πληθύνων πληθυνῶ τὰς
λύπας σου καὶ
τὸν στεναγμόν σου, ἐν λύπαις τέξῃ τέκνα- καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα σου
ἡ ἀποστροφή σου, καὶ αὐτός σου
κυριεύσει).
Here the entire context (in the left column Marcion's Paul, on the right, the canonical Paul):
|
21 ἐν τῷ νόμῳ γέγραπται ὅτι Ἐν ἑτερογλώσσοις καὶ ἐν χείλεσιν ἑτέροις λαλήσω τὸν λαὸν τούτον.
|
21 ἐν τῷ νόμῳ γέγραπται ὅτι Ἐν ἑτερογλώσσοις καὶ ἐν χείλεσιν ἑτέρων λαλήσω τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ, καὶ οὐδ' οὕτως εἰσακούσονταί μου, λέγει κύριος.
|
|
↑34 αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ σιγάτωσαν, οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτρέπεται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν: ἀλλὰ ὑποτάσσεσθαι, καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει, 35 εἰ μὴ μαθεῖν θέλουσιν.
|
|
|
22 ὥστε αἱ γλῶσσαι εἰς σημεῖόν εἰσιν οὐ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἀπίστοις, ἡ δὲ προφητεία οὐ τοῖς ἀπίστοις ἀλλὰ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν.
|
22 ὥστε αἱ γλῶσσαι εἰς σημεῖόν εἰσιν οὐ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἀπίστοις, ἡ δὲ προφητεία οὐ τοῖς ἀπίστοις ἀλλὰ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν. 23 Ἐὰν οὖν συνέλθῃ ἡ ἐκκλησία ὅλη ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ πάντες λαλῶσιν γλώσσαις, εἰσέλθωσιν δὲ ἰδιῶται ἢ ἄπιστοι, οὐκ ἐροῦσιν ὅτι μαίνεσθε;
|
|
24 ἐὰν δὲ πάντες προφητεύωσιν, εἰσέλθῃ δέ τις ἄπιστος, 25 καὶ οὕτως τὰ κρυπτὰ τῆς καρδίας αὐτοῦ φανερὰ γίνεται.
|
24 ἐὰν δὲ πάντες προφητεύωσιν, εἰσέλθῃ δέ τις ἄπιστος ἢ ἰδιώτης, ἐλέγχεται ὑπὸ πάντων, ἀνακρίνεται ὑπὸ πάντων, 25 τὰ κρυπτὰ τῆς καρδίας αὐτοῦ φανερὰ γίνεται, καὶ οὕτως πεσὼν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον προσκυνήσει τῷ θεῷ, ἀπαγγέλλων ὅτι Ὄντως ὁ θεὸς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐστιν.
|
The reading of the vv. “34-35” is related to their
place after 14:21. Tertullian stated:
“Even though he reminds
that it is written in the Law that the Creator will speak with other tongues
and other lips [= v. 21], since with this reminder he confirms <the
legitimacy of> the gift of tongues, here he cannot be shown to have retained
the Creator's teaching to express approval of a different god's spiritual gift.
[11] Likewise, when he enjoins upon women silence in the church [= v. 34], that
they are not to speak, at all events with the idea of learning [= v. 35]—though
he has already shown that even they have the right to prophesy, since he
insists that a woman must be veiled, even when prophesying—it was from the Law
that he received the authority for putting the woman in subjection, that Law
which, let me say it once for all, he did not retain to notice except for its
destruction.” (trans. Evans, rev.). In
the next paragraph (Adv. Marc. V 8,12) Tertullians goes to cordis occulta (= v. 24).
Epiph., Pan. 42,
sch. 15 and 23, giving v. 24 is commented upon in his Elenchus 15 and 23:
“If God’s holy
apostle enjoins good order on God’s holy church on the Law’s authority, then
the Law from which he took the good order is not disorderly; nor is it the law
of a foreign God because it subjected wife to husband. For this was satisfactory
to the apostle too in his legislation for the church – as he says, ‘as also
says the Law’. And were did the Law say so, but when God said at once to Eve, ‘Your
resort shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you?’ For even though
it is also found in other passages the original statement of it is here. Now if
the wife was declared subject to the husband from then on by God’s ordinance –
and if the apostle subjects her accordingly, and not in disagreement with the
God who made husband and wife, then the apostle too, by commanding it, shows
decisively that he is a lawgiver for the same God to whom both the Law and the
whole Old Testament belong, and that the New Testament is the same God’s as
well – that is, the two Testaments, which then and now subjected wife to
husband for the sake of an equivalent godly order.”
According to Tertullian,
Marcion refers to the Law in support of the gift of tongues, while he resorts
to the same Law in order to forbid the speaking of women. To Tertullian this
shows Marcion’s self-contradiction and inconsistency. Underneath this
heresiological rhetoric is hidden Marcion’s position which shines through, when
Tertullian ends his comment that Marcion only referred to the Law – as he
always does – according to Tertullian (“let me say it once for all”), “for its
destruction”. Apparently, therefore, Marcion seems to have read this passage very
differently from Tertullian:
When it is written
in the Law that God is going to speak in other tongues and lips to this people
with women to be silent and subjugated, as also the Law says, unless they want
to learn, then speaking in tongues is not something for women. It follows that this
kind of divine speaking to the people is only something for men through whom
the Lawmaker and Creator – according to Marcion the god of the Jews – speaks. And
as this god’s and his men’s speaking in tongues is a sign for unbelievers only,
whereas prophesying is something for believers, Marcion seems to have read that
the Law itself admits that the Jewish god is speaking to and through
unbelievers, while at the same time excluding women, those who speak
prophetically. In contrast, as vv. 24-25 explain, only these people (women and
those who believe and speak prophetically) are regarded as speaking not to
unbelievers, but believers. Hence, when an unbeliever comes to all those who
prophecy, what is hidden in his heart will become obvious.
That this
interpretation is not far from the reasoning against which Tertullian tries to
make his case, can be seen from Epiphanius. His counter-argument overlaps with
that of Tertullian, as they both try to argue against what they perceive as a
rejection of the god of the Jews and his Law. Epiphanius, like Tertullian,
tries to highlight the self-contradiction in Marcion that on the one side his
apostle Paul refers to the Law, according to Epiphanius to enjoin “good order”,
the subjecting of “wife to husband”, and on the other that the Old Testament
belongs to a different god, a lawmaker, and not to the same God of the New
Testament. Epiphanius, more clearly than Tertullian – perhaps because for
Epiphanius the later insertion of vv. 34-35 where already in his heart and mind
– reads no longer the criticism that Marcion combined with his reference to the
Law about tongues and women, he just drew from this as well as other places
that Marcion principally rejected the Law. So, Epiphanius concluded, that Marcion’s
drawing on the Law here shows his inconsistence. In Tertullian, however, Marcion’s
criticism of the Law was not one of principle only, but very particularly
linked to the rejection of the speaking in tongues – something Marcion credited
to the Jewish god – and to his linking of the rejection of women speaking in
tongues in the assembly to the Law, too and the conclusions he drew from there
with regard the nature of the Law and the Lawmaker. Tertullian clearly had the
vv. 34-35 firmly embedded in the arguments of vv. 21. 24 – and, it seems, that the
canonical redactors have removed this criticism of Law and Lawmaker by moving
these verses to the margins and they or others inserted them eventually in
different places later in the epistle.
Marcion's position and interpretation explain, on the one hand, the vehement reaction of all three heresiologists (Adamantius argues similarly to Epiphanius), who turn the tables and try to refute Marcion in his own words with their skilful excerpt, and, on the other, who at the same time brand Marcion’s invocation of the Law as an inner self-contradiction of his argumentation. They also made Marcion's Paul say quite the same of what was to be read in Paul's canonical letters, namely a subjecting of women to men, of wives to husbands, as we know it from the canonical readings in Eph 5:22-24; Col 3:18; 1Tim 2:11-12, Tit 2:5 and 1Petr 3:1.5; 4:17, but in tension with what is to be read in Paul before (1Cor 11:5; 14:5. 24 3x. 26. 31, where everywhere it is mentioned that "all" speak in the assembly). If one follows the present explanation, this tension is removed, a tension which Tertullian had already perceived between the alleged prohibition of women speaking in the assembly by the Law and *Paul's mention of women prophesying in the assembly (*1Cor 11:5; 14:5. 24. 26). If the explanation of the insertion of verses 34-35 as marginals is correct, one must reconstruct the textual history to be such that the canonical redaction had first cut the verses out of their context after 14:21 and noted them at a later place in the margin after verse 33. From there it was inserted - knowing its marginal character - by different scribes in the two different places, in one copy as verses 34-35, in another after verse 40. This development of the text is supported by a similar phenomenon, noticeable in 1Cor 15,45, where P46 misses both the potentially original reading of κύριος and the canonical redacted ἄνθρωπος. It is therefore not necessary - against the early attestation of the two verses - to regard them as non-Pauline, later interpolations, as has often been done. Payne speaks of "at least 62 text-critical studies" that argue for the interpolation thesis, of which he has examined 55 himself. With reference to 20 scholars, Fitzmyer even says that "today the majority of commentators" consider these two verses to be a "later addition".
This leads to the question which of the explanations seems more likely and which was the earliest text in this case.
Since we have no few witnesses who all agree that Marcion arrived as the
oldest and first of the teachers in Rome after the end of the second Jewish
war, hence after 135 CE, and has no longer lived when Marc Aurel came to power,
hence the year 161 CE, Harnack developed his argument for the dating of the publication of Marcion's New Testament - which has met with few
criticism. Marcion, as we are told by the early witnesses of the late second century and early third century became famous during the times of Antoninus Pius, hence
after 138, we can assume that his influence was felt in the years between 138
and prior to his death before 161. This ties in with the fact that Justin Martyr wrote a
book "To Marcion" (so the title given in Irenaeus, once also in
Eusebius quoting Irenaeus, even though Eusebius in another place gives it as
"Against Marcion" which, since then, one will find in many our
handbooks). Harnack then calculated from the indications given by Tertullian
that Marcion might have published his collection of the "New Testament" in
summer 144 CE, a calculation which fits.
Tertullian states that Marcion had been expelled several times from the Roman
church in the times of the Roman bishop Eleutherius who is given as being
bishop from 175 to 189 CE, hence, if Tertullian were right, Marcion died not
being expelled, perhaps rather as somebody who might have created another community
of his own in Rome. Yet, Stephen of Rome in mid 3rd century mentions that his
community still is in sacramental community with the Marcionites, hence much of
3rd and 4th c. heresiological reports about Marcion abducting a woman, being
the arch-heretic ... seems to be just that, heresiological reportings.
This means, Marcion's evidence for 1 Cor 14:34-35 seems to go back to the time
after the end of the Jewish war. As we do not have any earlier attestation for
a Pauline text prior to what we get from Marcion's collection, there are two
options:
either Marcion's text of Paul with these verses being a reference to the
Torah and denigrating its speaking of the Jewish god speaking in tongues and his harshness towards women, both that Paul is rejecting by 1 Cor is the oldest attainable voice which would tie in with the earlier reference to
women prophecying,
or we have to hypothesize an earlier text of Paul where these verses were
missing altogether, and they were introduced by Marcion, taken out again by
later redactors, but then these redactors would not have simply deleted these
verses, but perhaps put them in the margins and others may have reintroduced
them into different places, as we know from our manuscript evidence.
Taken Ockham's razor, I think the second option is more complex, introduces
more levels of hypotheses and, therefore, seems to be less historically
plausible.
If we add the observation that in almost all critical editions of the Greek New Testament the verb “submit” was not present in Ephesians 5:22 and the first being the Codex Sinaiticus, what do we know about Marcion's version of this verse? We have the note from Tertullian, that in *Laod 5:22 (=Eph) the verb "submit" was present, together with
the explanation. However, the relation between what we call Pseudopaulines and
the seven letters that we credit to Paul in Marcion's collection still needs to be studied, as one can notice semantic differences
between these. This could mean that even in Marcion's collection we can notice
the distinction between texts that go genuinely back to Paul and the other two
(*Load=Eph, *Col) or three (+ *2Thess) which he might have mistakenly taken for
being by Paul. As "submit" is missing in early witnesses for Eph 5:22, we could trace the development and hypothesize that Marcion has already integrated a letter which provided the first
layer of the subjugation of women (in their relation to men), but contradicted already 1 Cor
14,21ff. with its criticism of the Law's silencing of women in the congregation. In a
second phase when Marcion's collection was redacted the Eph. 5:22 position
had been extended and provided the basis for moving the verses 34/35 in 1 Cor from their place after 14,21ff to the different places where we find them in
the manuscript of the canonical letters.
Hence, it seems that it was the canonical redaction that provided the foundation for the arguments of the heresiologists of old, it was the canonical redaction. The canonical redaction moved the two verses out of their original context to clarify that these verses were not a denigration of the Jewish Law that forbade women to speak in an assembly, but that it was actually Paul’s advice against women to speak in the church. Respectively, we could say, what the heresiologists refuted was turned into a scriptural text that in all its circular form provided the basis for the heresiologists and for all misogynists of later times to argue.
BeDuhn, J. (2013),
The First New Testament. Marcion's Scriptural Canon (Oregon).
Fee, G.
D. (1987), The first epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Mich.).
Fellows,
R. G. (2019). "Are There Distigme-Obelos Symbols in Vaticanus?" New
Testament Studies 65, 246–251.
Fitzer,
G. (1963), "Das Weib schweige in der Gemeinde" über den
unpaulinischen Charakter der mulier-taceat-Verse in 1. Korinther 14 (München).
Fitzmyer,
J. A. (2008), First Corinthians. A new translation with introduction and
commentary (New Haven, Conn. u.a.).
Haines-Eitzen,
K. (2012), The gendered palimpsest. Women, writing, and representation in early
Christianity (New York, NY u.a.).
Harnack,
A. v. (1924), Marcion. Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott. Eine Monographie zur
Geschichte der Grundlegung der katholischen Kirche (Leipzig).
Heilmann,
J. (2018). Die These einer editio
princeps des Neuen Testaments im Spiegel der Forschungsdiskussion der
letzten zwei Jahrzehnte. Das Neue Testament und sein Text im 2. Jahrhundert. J.
Heilmann and M. Klinghardt (Tübingen): 21-56.
Klinghardt,
M. (2021), The Oldest Gospel and the Formation of the Canonical Gospels
(Leuven).
Krans,
J. (2019). "Paragraphos, Not Obelos, in Codex Vaticanus." New
Testament Studies 65, 252–257.
Murphy-O'Connor,
J. (1986). "Interpolations in 1 Corinthians." Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 48, 81-94.
Payne,
P. B. (2009), Man and woman, one in Christ an exegetical and theological study
of Paul's Letters (Grand Rapids, Mich.).
Payne,
P. B. (2017). "Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Marking Added Text,
Including 1 Corinthians 14.34–5." New Testament Studies 63, 604-625.
Payne,
P. B. (2021) "Critique of Vaticanus Distigme-Obelos Denials." https://www.pbpayne.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Critique-of-Fellows-Krans-Vaticanus-Distigme-Obelos-Denials.pdf.
Röhser,
G. (2018). Kanonische Ausgabe und neutestamentliche Theologie. Mögliche
Konsequenzen einer textgeschichtlichen These. Das Neue Testament und sein Text
im 2. Jahrhundert. J. Heilmann and M. Klinghardt (Tübingen): 259-284.
Schmid,
U. (2012), Marcion und sein Apostolos. Rekonstruktion und historische Einordnung
der marcionitischen Paulusbriefausgabe (Berlin).
Trobisch,
D. (1994), Paul's letter collection. Tracing the origins (Minneapolis).
Trobisch,
D. (2000), The First Edition of the New Testament (Oxford).
Trobisch,
D. (2010), Die Paulusbriefe und die Anfänge der christlichen Publizistik
(Bolivar, Mo.).
Zahn, T. v. (1892), Geschichte
des Neutestamentlichen Kanons 2,2 Urkunden und Belege zum ersten und dritten
Band, zweite Hälfte (Erlangen).
