Paul did not forbid women to speak in the church (1 Cor 14:34-35) (v3)

(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,[1] 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.[2] 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[3]) 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, vg^ms, 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.[4] Meanwhile, two attempts have been made, published in the same journal, to dispute these distigme-obelos marks in 03.[5] In a distinguished and detailed critique, Payne rejects both attempts and further details his own well-reasoned arguments.[6] 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[1] λαλήσω τὸν λαὸν τούτον.[2]	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.[3]
22 ὥστε αἱ γλῶσσαι εἰς σημεῖόν εἰσιν οὐ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἀπίστοις, ἡ δὲ προφητεία οὐ τοῖς ἀπίστοις ἀλλὰ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν.[4]	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[5] τὰ κρυπτὰ τῆς καρδίας[6] αὐτοῦ φανερὰ γίνεται.[7]	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.).[8] 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,[7] of which he has examined 55 himself.[8] With reference to 20 scholars, Fitzmyer even says that "today the majority of commentators" consider these two verses to be a "later addition".[9]

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[10] 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.

 

 

---

[1] Cf. Tertullian (aliis labiis), and P⁴⁶, 06^s, 010, 012, 018, 020, 025, 365, 630, 1175, 1505, 1881, M, lat, sy^(p), co, NA²⁸ sees it as the marcionite reading, while the canonical form is preserved in 01, 02, 03, 044, 0201, 0243, 6, 33, 81, 104, 326, 1241, 1739, 2464.

[2] Cf. Tert., Adv. Marc. V 8,10: Et si quod in lege scriptum esset commemorat, in aliis linguis et in aliis labiis locuturum creatorem, cum hac commemoratione charisma linguarum confirmat, nec hic potest videri alienum charisma creatoris praedicatione confirmasse; Epiph., Pan. 42, sch. 22 (122. 170): 21 ἐν τῷ νόμῳ γέγραπται ὅτι Ἐν ἑτερογλώσσοις καὶ ἐν χείλεσιν ἑτέροις λαλήσω τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ πρὸς τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον; Isa 28:11-12: 11 διὰ φαυλισμὸν χειλέων διὰ γλώσσης ἑτέρας, ὅτι λαλήσουσιν τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ 12 λέγοντες αὐτῷ Τοῦτο τὸ ἀνάπαυμα τῷ πεινῶντι καὶ τοῦτο τὸ σύντριμμα, καὶ οὐκ ἠθέλησαν ἀκούειν. Zahn and Harnack see Epiphanius’ representing Marcion’s Apostolos. Schmid sees as attested text: ἐν τῷ νόμῳ γέγραπται (ὅτι) εν ἑτερογλώσσαις καὶ ἐν χείλεσιν ἑτέροις λαλήσω ... BeDuhn follows in his translation Epiphanius, with the additional text taken from the canonical version in brackets. Regarding semantics: εἰσακούω can only be found in the canonical redaction (Mt 6:7; Lk 1:13; Acts 10:31; Heb 5:7). According to what the witnesses provide, Tertullian’s argument, the terminology of εἰσακούω and the auctorial κύριος the latter part (καὶ οὐδ' οὕτως εἰσακούσονταί μου, λέγει κύριος) seems to be the product of the canonical redaction.

[3] 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, sch./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 (after explaining that he is now quoting Marcion’s Apostolos): λέγει δὲ οὕτως ὁ ἀπόστολος· αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ σιγάτωσαν, οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτέτραπται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν, ἀλλ’ ὑποτάσσεσθαι, καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει. All previous editors reckon these verses to be present in Marcion’s Apostolos. Zahn sees them in the canonical form, albeit using the singular ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ in v. 34, Harnack follows Adamantius in v. 34, while he rightly sees Tertullian also hinting at μαθεῖν θέλουσιν from v. 35, even though he abstains from giving a reconstruction of v. 35. Schmid offers the canonical text of v. 34 alone and sees v. 35 as unattested: αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν (ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις) σιγάτωσαν, οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτέτραπται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν, ἀλλ’ ὑποτασσέσθωσαν, καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει. BeDuhn basis his translation on the text by Epiphanius in v. 34 and adds of v. 35 εἰ δέ τι μαθεῖν θέλουσιν.

As Tertullian refers to Paul’s earlier mention of women prophesying, his expression ne quid discendi duntaxat gratia loquantur shows that instead of an adversative conjunction (εἰ δέ τι) he apparently rather read εἰ μή (ne quid).

The opening of v. 34 is part of the canonical redaction as the term ἅγιοι shows. It prepares the canonical addition to v. 35. Similarly, the rest of v. 35 which is no longer attested by our witnesses goes back to the canonical redaction, as the term αἰσχρός indicates which only appears in canonical redactional verses.

[4] Zahn sees vv. 22 and 23 present in Marcion’s Apostolos, even though he cannot give the wording. In contrast, sind Harnack, Schmid und BeDuhn der Meinung, dass diese Verse nicht bezeugt sind. Dennoch könnte man in Tertullians Kommentar zur Stelle, Adv. Marc. V 8,12 mit der Gegenüberstellung von Juden und dem eigenen Volk auch ein Hinweis auf die Ungläubigen und Gläubigen dieser Verse lesen: Sed ut iam a spiritalibus recedamus, res ipsae probare debebunt quis nostrum temere deo suo vindicet, et an nostrae parti possit opponi, haec et si creator repromisit in suum Christum nondum revelatum, ut Iudaeis tantum destinatum, suas habitura in suo tempore in suo Christo et in suo populo operationes. σημεία is precanonically attested in *Ev 21:11. 25; *1Cor 1:22, though it is frequently encountered at the canonical level (Mt 16:3. 20; 24:24; Mk 13:22; 16:17; Lk 21:11. 25; Jn 2:11. 23; 3:2; 4:48; 6:2. 26, 7:31; 9:16; 11:47; 12:37; 20:30; Acts 2:19. 43; 4:30; 5:12; 6:8; 7:36; 8:6. 13; 14:3; 15:12; Rom 15:19; 1Cor 1:22; 2Cor 12:12; Acts 13:13. 14; 16:14; 19:20). ἄπιστος is attested for the pre-canonical version (*Ev 12:46; *2Cor 4:4). In v. 23, on the other hand, ἰδιώτης is further attested only for the canonical level (Acts 4:13; 1Cor 14:23. 24; 2Cor 11:6). Also μαίνομαι is found only on the canonical level (John 10:20; Acts 12:15; 26:24. 25). The semantic comparison supports the remarks on the allusions in v. 22, so the verse will have been present pre-canonically, while v. 23 rather seems to go back to the canonical redaction.

[5] Here καὶ οὕτως is inserted in 06², 018, 020, 044, 630, 1505, 1881, M, sy^(p), but this seems to be a corruption. The absence of it is noticeable in P⁴⁶, 01, 02, 03, D*, 010, 012, 048, 0201, 6, 33, 81, 104, 365, 1175, 1241, 1739, 2464, latt, co. The pre-canonical καὶ οὕτως was moved further back by the canonical redaction when the verse was broadened.

[6] P⁴⁶ offers the variant διανοιας.

[7] Cf. Tert., Adv. Marc. V 8,12: prophetas, qui tamen non de humano sensu sed de dei spiritu sint locuti, qui et futura praenuntiarint et cordis occulta traduxerint. Zahn sees the verse as unwitnessed but present in some form. This verse is read as an allusion to v. 25 (τὰ κρυπτὰ τῆς καρδίας αὐτοῦ φανερὰ γίνεται) by Harnack. Schmid sees τὰ κρυπτὰ τῆς καρδίας ... present. BeDuhn points out that in this passage not only the hidden things of the heart are spoken of, but also the prophets, consequently he rightly sees allusions to v. 24 as well as to v. 25. On ἰδιώτης of v. 24 as a canonical term, as shown before. Also ἐλέγχω, though attested 20 times in the NT, is found attested exclusively for the canonical level (Mt 18:15; Lk 3:19; Jn 3:20; 8:46; 16:8; Eph 5:11. 13; 1Tim 5:20; 2Tim 3:16; 4:2; Tit 1:9. 13; 2:15; Heb 12:5; Jas 2:9; Jude 1:15; Acts 3:19). ἀνακρίνω, which occurs 16 times in the NT, is also found exclusively on the canonical level (Lk 23:14; Acts 4:9; 12:19; 17:11; 24:8; 28:18; 1Cor 2:14. 15; 4:3. 4; 9:3; 10:25. 27). Because of the non-attestation of the central terms in the second part of v. 24, this part will go back to the canonical redaction. V. 25: πίπτειν has already been noted as a canonical term. πρόσωπον, on the other hand, is found 84 times in the NT, attested for the pre-canonical level, for instance, in *Ev 12:56; *2Cor 3:7. Clear is the evidence for προσκυνέω, which is attested 67 times in the NT, but not in a single place on the pre-canonical level, especially speaking is Lk, where the term is found several times (Lk 4:7. 8; 24:52), but not once in *Ev. No less striking is ἀπαγγέλλω, which is attested 52 times in the NT, and exclusively for the canonical level; in *Ev 7:18 the term is not found, but in a different sense; 7:22 probably stands in place of the canonical ἀπαγγείλατε which is used by a number of witnesses (05, 032, 579, 892, d, sys^.p.j, Tat^arab.pers, Ambst) given ειπατε, Lk 13:1 is missing in *Ev, Lk 18:37 has the term only in the testimony of Adamantius, but the verse is passed over by Epiphanius, the wording therefore is unknown, if the v. pre-canonically existed. Nor is the term attested for *Ev in Lk 14:21 and 24:9. With the annuntiari in Tert., Adv. Marc. IV 19,7 the rhetor argues precisely against the heretics who distort the text and he holds up his own version against theses. The other witnesses, Epiphanius and Ephrem do not know the term in Lk 8,20 from *Ev, pace M. Klinghardt, The Oldest Gospel and the Formation of the Canonical Gospels (2021), 674-675. 927-930. 1224-1225. The part of the verse no longer quoted will consequently be a canonical, editorial addition.

[8] Tert., Adv. Marc. V 8,10-11: Et si quod in lege scriptum esset commemorat, in aliis linguis et in aliis labiis locuturum creatorem, cum hac commemoratione charisma linguarum confirmat, nec hic potest videri alienum charisma creatoris praedicatione confirmasse. [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.

   

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).

 

---

[1] See, for example, G. Fitzer, "Das Weib schweige in der Gemeinde" über den unpaulinischen Charakter der mulier-taceat-Verse in 1. Korinther 14 (1963); J. Murphy-O'Connor, Interpolations in 1 Corinthians (1986), 90-92; G.D. Fee, The first epistle to the Corinthians (1987), 699-708.

[2] J. BeDuhn, The First New Testament. Marcion's Scriptural Canon (2013), 284.

[3] T.v. Zahn, Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons 2,2 Urkunden und Belege zum ersten und dritten Band, zweite Hälfte (1892); A.v. Harnack, Marcion. Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott. Eine Monographie zur Geschichte der Grundlegung der katholischen Kirche (1924); U. Schmid, Marcion und sein Apostolos. Rekonstruktion und historische Einordnung der marcionitischen Paulusbriefausgabe (2012); J. BeDuhn, The First New Testament. Marcion's Scriptural Canon (2013).

[4] P.B. Payne, Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Marking Added Text, Including 1 Corinthians 14.34–5 (2017), 615-616. 622.

[5] R.G. Fellows, Are There Distigme-Obelos Symbols in Vaticanus? (2019); J. Krans, Paragraphos, Not Obelos, in Codex Vaticanus (2019).

[6] P.B. Payne, Critique of Vaticanus Distigme-Obelos Denials (2021). In this article he also gives a list of his earlier work on the subject, which he has already been working on for "over 25 years" (ibid.).

[7] P.B. Payne, Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Marking Added Text, Including 1 Corinthians 14.34–5 (2017), 616.

[8] P.B. Payne, Man and woman, one in Christ an exegetical and theological study of Paul's Letters (2009), 226-267.

[9] J.A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians. A new translation with introduction and commentary (2008), 530. See the supporting view by K. Haines-Eitzen, The gendered palimpsest. Women, writing, and representation in early Christianity (2012), 62. See, for example, G. Fitzer, "Das Weib schweige in der Gemeinde" über den unpaulinischen Charakter der mulier-taceat-Verse in 1. Korinther 14 (1963); J. Murphy-O'Connor, Interpolations in 1 Corinthians (1986), 90-92; G.D. Fee, The first epistle to the Corinthians (1987), 699-708.

[10] See on this D. Trobisch, Paul's letter collection. Tracing the origins (1994); D. Trobisch, The First Edition of the New Testament (2000); D. Trobisch, Die Paulusbriefe und die Anfänge der christlichen Publizistik (2010); M. Klinghardt, The Oldest Gospel and the Formation of the Canonical Gospels (2021); J. Heilmann, Die These einer editio princeps des Neuen Testaments im Spiegel der Forschungsdiskussion der letzten zwei Jahrzehnte (2018); G. Röhser, Kanonische Ausgabe und neutestamentliche Theologie. Mögliche Konsequenzen einer textgeschichtlichen These (2018).