Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
$5.00
EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored 170+ books. Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).
Major Critical Texts of the New Testament
Byz RP: 2005 Byzantine Greek New Testament, Robinson & Pierpont TR1550: 1550 Stephanus New Testament Maj: The Majority Text (thousands of minuscules that display a similar text) Gries: 1774-1775 Johann Jakob Griesbach Greek New Testament Treg: 1857-1879 Samuel Prideaux Tregelles Greek New Testament Tisch: 1872 Tischendorf’s Greek New Testament WH: 1881 Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament NA28: 2012 Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament UBS5: 2014 Greek New Testament NU: Both Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Society SBLGNT: 2010 Greek New Testament THGNT: 2017 The Greek New Testament by Tyndale House GENTI: 2022 Greek-English New Testament Interlinear
1 Corinthians 14:33-35 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the congregations of the holy ones, 34 let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be in subjection, as the Law also says. 35 If they want to learn something, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the congregation.
Edward D. Andrews,
Gordon Fee regards the instruction for women to be silent in churches of 1 Corinthians 14:33–35, as a later, non-Pauline addition to the Letter. A few manuscripts, mostly Western (D F G 88* itd, Ambrosiaster Sedulius Scotus), place these verses after 40, which is the primary motivating factor moving scholars to deem these verses as glosses that were added into the text. Is Fee correct, or is his view ideological or motivated by the transposing verses 34–35 after verse 40? It should be remembered that those that transposed them were mostly Western and those that have verses 34–35 after verse 33 are the earliest and weightiest manuscripts (𝔓46 א A B), as well as Ψ 0243 33 81 88mg 1739 Maj syr cop Origen Pelagius. All weighty and substantial evidence points to 14:34-35 following verse 33 as original, and I am not sure why Metzger and the UBS committee see it as almost certain instead of certain. See Comfort and Metzger’s comments below, and then I will answer the question that begs to be asked: What did the apostle Paul mean for women to keep silent in the congregations? Are the women not to speak at all?
TR WH NU retain verses after 14:33 𝔓46 א A B Ψ 0243 33 81 88 1739 Maj syr cop Origen Pelagius all
Variant place verses after 14:40 D F G 88* itb Ambrosiaster
Philip Comfort,
In the interest of the argument that follows, it is important to see 14:34–35 in a full rendering: “34 The women are to keep silent in the church meetings, for it is not permitted for them to speak; but they must be submissive, even as the law says. 35 And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church meeting.”
In addition to the textual evidence cited above, it must also be said that Payne (1995, 240–262) has noted that both B and it (Old Latin Codex Fuldensis) have marginal markings or readings which suggest that their scribes knew of the textual problem pertaining to 14:34–35. In Codex Vaticanus, there is a marginal umlaut by the line that contains the end of 14:33, which, in Payne’s view, indicates awareness of the textual problem regarding 14:34–35. As for Codex Fuldensis (produced in 546/547), it seems certain that Victor of Capua (the editor and reader of the manuscript) asked the original scribe to rewrite 14:36–40 in the margin. Payne argues that this rewrite was done so as to exclude 14:34–35. However, it must be said that there are no clear sigla in the manuscript which indicate such an omission. Finally, Payne conjectures that manuscript 88 must have originally been copied from an exemplar that did not contain 14:34–35 (see Payne 1998, 152–158). Niccum (1997, 242–255) presents a thorough case against Payne’s observations and concludes that there is no textual evidence for the omission of 14:34–35. Miller (2003, 217–236) also sees other reasons for the presence of the umlaut in Codex B than signaling inauthenticity.
Even prior to Payne’s observations about B, it, and 88, certain scholars were convinced that 14:34–35 was a marginal gloss that found its way into the main text of other manuscripts. Fee (1987, 696–708) makes a strong and thorough argument for this position, which rests on one challenge: If the verses were originally part of Paul’s discourse at this juncture, why would any scribe have moved them after 14:40, where they are obviously out of place? Granted this transposition occurred in Western manuscripts only—and the Western text is known for textual transposition (see notes on Matt 5:4–5; Luke 4:5–10)—but in this case (contra the other verses just noted), the transposition spoils the sense. Thus, Fee’s conclusion is that the words were written as a marginal gloss, which was later inserted after 14:33 in several manuscripts and after 14:40 in others. It is possible that some scribe, influenced by 1 Tim 2:9–15, wanted to make it clear that women were not to speak at all during church meetings. However, since these verses appear in 𝔓46 (which dates to the second century), the gloss must have been made quite early. Ellis (1981, 219–220), therefore, suggests that the gloss was written by Paul himself. It is also possible that the compiler of the Pauline corpus added this gloss.
Without these verses, the passage reads:
“33 God is not the author of confusion but of harmony, as in all the churches of the saints.
36 Or from you did the word of God go forth? Or to you only did it reach?”
The connection between these verses is not readily apparent but is clear enough. Paul argues that peace and order reigns in all the churches—should it be any different at Corinth? Were the Corinthians the only ones to have believed the word—did not the same word reach all the churches? So why should the Corinthian meetings be any different from what was going on in all the churches? Thus, Paul was contending that the Corinthians’ meeting behavior should coincide with what was occurring in all the other churches.
With the verses included, the text reads:
“33 God is not the author of confusion but of harmony, as in all the churches of the saints.
34 The women are to keep silent in the church meetings, for it is not permitted for them to speak; but they must be submissive, even as the law says. 35 And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church meeting. 36 Or from you did the word of God go forth? Or to you only did it reach?”
As was discussed in the note on 14:33, the adverbial phrase “As in all the churches of the saints” (14:33b) could begin a new paragraph, modifying the following verses rather than the preceding.
The inclusion of 14:34–35 creates a number of exegetical concerns, the chief of which pertains to the issue of women’s verbal participation in church meetings. If Paul prohibited women from speaking in church meetings, why would he have indicated in 11:5 and 13 that women who pray and prophesy must do so with their heads covered? Obviously, these women were performing these verbal functions during a church meeting (see 11:17). So why would Paul later censure their speech? The only plausible answer is that he was not prohibiting them from functioning spiritually during the meeting; rather, he was prohibiting them from talking during the part of the meeting where the Scriptures were taught. In other words, the women had a right to participate in the prayers and prophecies, but they did not have a right to participate orally in the public discussions which arose from the teaching of Scripture. Indeed, it would be shameful to the men taking the lead in the church for them to be challenged by a woman or for a woman to assume mastery over the situation. (This is probably the situation that is addressed in 1 Tim 2:11–15.) Thus, women (or, wives) were commanded to learn from their husbands at home. Furthermore, it is possible that certain women at Corinth believed they were oracles for God or that they had some special insight into God’s word. If so, then Paul’s words could be a rebuke aimed specifically at them: “Did the word of God originate from you?”
In summary, it seems fair to consider that 14:34–35 might be a gloss. If so, the point of Paul’s passage is to urge the Corinthians to emulate the meeting behavior of the other churches (cf. 11:16). But if 14:34–35 is not a gloss—and there is no clear extant textual evidence to prove that it is—then we are faced with the challenge of exegeting the passage within the context of 1 Corinthians itself and the rest of the NT epistles. As such, it seems fair to say that Paul was not prohibiting all speech during a church meeting; rather, he was prohibiting female participation in the teaching of Scriptures in the church at Corinth, for this was a role designated to the male apostles and elders.
Bruce M. Metzger,
14:34–35include verses here{B} The letter {B} indicates that the text is almost certain.
Several witnesses, chiefly Western, place vv. 34–35 after v. 40. Such changes by copyists represent attempts to find a more appropriate location in the context for Paul’s instructions concerning women. Moffatt places vv. 33b-36 after v. 40, but all other translations include these verses here. Although many scholars think that a copyist added these verses to the text, perhaps under the influence of 1 Tim 2:9–15, all translations include them. The Spanish translation Biblia del Peregrino, published in 1993 under the direction of Luis Alonso Schökel, has a note stating that verses 33b-35 “seem to be an interpolation.”
The evidence of Codex Fuldensis, a sixth-century Latin Vulgate manuscript, is ambiguous. The Latin text of 1 Cor 14 runs onward throughout the chapter to v. 40. Following v. 33 is a scribal sign that directs the reader to a note standing in the lower margin of the page. This note provides the text of vv. 36–40. Did the copyist, without actually omitting vv. 34–35 from the text, intend the liturgist to omit vv. 34–35 when reading this text during the worship service? (For more detailed discussions of recent study, see Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, pp. 1148–50; and Garland, 1 Corinthians, 675–77.)
It should also be noted that some interpreters think that in vv. 34–35 Paul is quoting a statement from the Corinthian church’s letter to him, which he rejects in the next verse (for a discussion of this view, see Thiselton, pp. 1150–52). If this interpretation is followed, then translators will need to use quotation marks. This interpretation is not widely accepted, but in her 1924 translation, The New Testament in Modern English, Helen Barrett Montgomery translated as follows:
In your congregation (you write), as in all the churches of the saints, let women keep silence in the churches … for it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
Edward D. Andrews,
What Did the Apostle Paul Mean for Women to Keep Silent in the Congregations? Are The Women Not to Speak at All?
“Let the women keep silent in the congregations,” wrote the apostle Paul. (1 Corinthians 14:34) What did Paul mean? He was not saying that they could not even speak at all, or that they could not teach in any capacity, which would require speaking? No. In fact, he that “they are to teach what is good” in certain capacities. (2 Timothy 1:5; Titus 2:3-5) Here in the letter to the Corinthians, Paul told not only women but also persons who had the gift of tongues and prophecy to “keep silent” when there was another believer who was speaking. (1 Corinthians 14:26-30, 33) It is possible that some of the Christian women may have been so thrilled because of the newfound faith that they spoke up with questions interrupting the brother who was speaking, which actually was the custom in the first century throughout the Roman Empire. But Paul was moved by the Holy Spirit to avoid disorder, Paul urged them “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.”—1 Corinthians 14:35.
If we have the original words, we, in essence, have the original and; therefore, do not need the original documents.
Textual Criticism: the art and science (some would say only art) of determining the original text from variant readings exhibited by extant manuscripts.
Variant Reading(s): differing versions of a word or phrase found in two or more manuscripts within a variation unit (see below). Variant readings are also called alternate readings.
Variation Unit: any portion of text that exhibits variations in its reading between two or more different manuscripts. It is important to distinguish variation units from variant readings. Variation units are the places in the text where manuscripts disagree, and each variation unit has at least two variant readings. Setting the limits and range of a variation unit is sometimes difficult or even controversial because some variant readings affect others nearby. Such variations may be considered individually, or as elements of a single reading. One should also note that the terms “manuscript” and “witness” may appear to be used interchangeably in this context. Strictly speaking “witness” (see below) will only refer to the content of a given manuscript or fragment, which it predates to a greater or lesser extent. However, the only way to reference the “witness” is by referring to the manuscript or fragment that contains it. In this book, we have sometimes used the terminology “witness of x or y manuscript” to distinguish the content in this way.
TERMS AS TO HOW WE SHOULD OBJECTIVELY VIEW THE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY FOR THE READING ACCEPTED AS THE ORIGINAL
The modal verbs are might have been (30%), may have been (40%), could have been(55%), would have been (80%),must have been (95%), which are used to show that we believe the originality of a reading is certain, probable or possible.
The letter [WP] stands for Weak Possibility (30%), which indicates that this is a low-level proof that the reading might have been original in that it is enough evidence to accept that the variant might have been possible, but it is improbable. We can say the reading might have been original, as there is some evidence that is derived from manuscripts that carry very little weight, early versions, or patristic quotations.
The letter [P] stands for Plausible (40%), which indicates that this is a low-level proof that the reading may have been original in that it is enough to accept a variant to be original and we have enough evidence for our belief. The reading may have been original but it is not probably so.
The letter [PE] stands for Preponderance of Evidence (55%), which indicates that this is a higher-level proof that the reading could have been original in that it is enough to accept as such unless another reading emerges as more probable.
The letter [CE] stands for Convincing Evidence (80%), which indicates that the evidence is an even higher-level proof that the reading surely was the original in that the evidence is enough to accept it as substantially certainunless proven otherwise.
The letter [BRD] stands for Beyond Reasonable Doubt (95%), which indicates that this is the highest level of proof: the reading must have been original in that there is no reason to doubt it. It must be understood that feeling as though we have no reason to doubt is not the same as one hundred percent absolute certainty.
NOTE: This system is borrowed from the criminal just legal terms of the United States of America, the level of certainty involved in the use of modal verbs, and Bruce Metzger in his A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), who borrowed his system from Johann Albrecht Bengel in his edition of the Greek New Testament (Tübingen, 1734). In addition, the percentages are in no way attempting to be explicit but rather they are nothing more than a tool to give the non-textual scholar a sense of the degree of certainty. However, this does not mean the percentages are not reflective of certainty.
SOURCES
Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Nestle-Aland: NTG Apparatus Criticus, ed. Barbara Aland et al., 28. revidierte Auflage. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012).
Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994).
Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major English Translations (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008).
What Did the Apostle Paul Mean for Women to Keep Silent in the Congregations? Are The Women Not to Speak at All?
Leave a Reply