ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Are you learning Koine Greek, the Greek of the New Testament and most other post-classical Greek texts? Whatever your level, use this forum to discuss all things Koine, Biblical or otherwise, including grammar, textbook talk, difficult passages, and more.
KaikaiSimon
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 8:21 pm

ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by KaikaiSimon »

Hello everyone!

I am 27, German and currently studying theology and working as a bible teacher. I was wondering whether you could help me with a translation. The question is: How would you translate the ἤ in verse 36?

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.
36 ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθεν, ἢ εἰς ὑμᾶς μόνους κατήντησεν;

I guess everyone knows the standart translations than/or. However, I found this interesting entry in LSJ:
ἤ (B), an exclamation expressing disapproval, ἢ ἢ σιώπα Ar.Nu. 105; ἢ ἤ· τί δρᾶς; E.HF906 (lyr.), cf. Suid.

Some people have suggested translating the ἤ as "nonsense" or "what??", thus letting verses 34 and 35 appear as a quotation and verse 36 as a negation of this quotation. Do you think there is any basis for this translation?

Thanks for your help!

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by jeidsath »

In English, KJV-tradition bibles translate it as "What:" or "What!" The NIV translates it as "Or." In German, Luther translated it as "Oder" and the Vulgate similarly in Latin.

In regards to the quotation theory that you mention: As far as I know, everyone took this to mean what it looks like it says up until about 1970. After 1970 people wanted it to mean something else and seem to have found out that it did.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that those three verses could be an insertion, given their disconnect from Paul's argument. However, it's practically impossible to tell, given how scattered Paul is elsewhere. And it would have to be a very early insertion, as it seems that these verses influence the author of 1 Timothy, who seems to have been writing pseudoepigraphically, probably within a just few decades.

This is all another way of saying: Don't try to read the Bible that way. Learning Greek is no help if you fall into the mistake of making it into some life guidebook or Church constitution that you might wish God had written for you. It's a rather different (and better!) book than that.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by mwh »

Willkommen!
Nice try, but no, there is no basis for that interpretation. I agree with jeidsath on the Greek. I’m afraid Paul meant what he said. He’s out to quash any practice he doesn’t approve of, including (if only as a side-swipe) women who don’t know their proper place. He stamps hard, and the question is fairly belligerent, preempting opposition. It’s rhetorical bludgeoning (as so often in Paul), and the question is tantamount to “Or do you think that you know better than me?” He’s the one who speaks for God, as he pronounces in the very next sentence: “What I write to you is the command of the Lord.” Try as you will, you’ll find no feminist sentiment in Paul. He single-handedly set back the cause of women in the church by two millennia. Futile to try to redeem him.

EDIT. A thought. If you want to make your mark as a feminist theologian your best bet may be to set the record straight about Paul. That would mean exposing the desperately contrived moves made by his apologists. It’s time.

I write as a mildly interested but not terribly well informed outsider who doesn’t like to see Greek tortured and manipulated in the interests of producing a desired result. There’s far too much of it in Bible studies.
Last edited by mwh on Mon Dec 29, 2014 3:11 am, edited 3 times in total.

Markos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2966
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by Markos »

KaikaiSimon wrote: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.
36 ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθεν, ἢ εἰς ὑμᾶς μόνους κατήντησεν;

Some people have suggested translating the ἤ as "nonsense" or "what??", thus letting verses 34 and 35 appear as a quotation and verse 36 as a negation of this quotation. Do you think there is any basis for this translation?
No, it doesn't pass the smell test. Is that argument enough? ἢ has an ordinary meaning that fits the context here. You can always find that x means y in a certain context, but to transfer that meaning to another context where that meaning is far-fetched and seems to turn the text on its head is likely the result of an agenda. Feminist readings do indeed seem drawn to this method. A similar attempt to make Paul seem to say the opposite of what the Greek seems to say was discussed here:

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=60810
How would you translate the ἤ in verse 36?
I wouldn't translate it. I learned Ancient Greek so I would not have to translate stuff like this.

KaikaiSimon
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 8:21 pm

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by KaikaiSimon »

Thank you for replying, mwh, Markos and jeidsath!

In my response I will try to cover all the points that have been addressed. I will also add another thought (point D), which I would like to hear your opinion on.

A) Theology
I view the bible as God´s word and its authors as inspired by the Holy Spirit. That is also a reason, why - despite internal arguments such as vocabulary/style - I reject the idea of the Pastoral Epistles being pseudepigraphy. There are of course arguments for such a conservative view of Pauline authorship (style/wording could come from an amanuensis), but they have been explained well by others, e. g. Daniel B. Wallace. Jeidsath, what do you think the bible is?
Due to my evangelical beliefs, I try to understand it as well as I can and simply do what it says. That is my only "agenda". I am not personally interested in feminism, anti-feminism, pentacostalism, anti-pentecostalism or any other theological programme. And this is also the reason, why I have asked my question here. I stumbled across the feminist approaches toward 1Cor 14:34-36 and, even though they appeared to be very dubious, I wanted to hear some Greek scholars on the matter.

B) 1Cor 14:34-36 - Insertion?
Due to the controversial content of these verses, this view has attracted many theologians. jeidsath has mentioned, that it would have to be a very early insertion, which I agree with. After all, it appears in all manuscripts without a single exception.

C) 1Cor 14:34-36 - Quotation from the Corinthians?

As mwh and jeidsath have said, there is no basis for the theory - I have not found the slightest indication of these verses being a quotation, rather than Paul´s word. Some have tried to understand the ἢ as indicating it, but as Markos has put it, the ordinary meaning fits the context and trying to make the ἢ look as an exclamation of astonishment seems far-fetched and desperate.

D) Internal Argument Against the Interpolation Theory
I want to come back to the insertion idea. Actually, I think taking out the verses disturbs the flow of the text:

ὡς ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν ἁγίων,
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.
36 ἢ ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθεν, ἢ εἰς ὑμᾶς μόνους κατήντησεν

To me it appears that verse 36 leads us back to v. 33b. ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις they are doing it, so you should do it, too, ἢ εἰς ὑμᾶς μόνους ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ κατήντησεν? V. 34-35 really seem to be embedded here. Why would he say has it come to you alone, if he was not contrasting them with all the others (all churches of the saints)?


If we delete the verses we end up with:
31 δύνασθε γὰρ καθ᾽ ἕνα πάντες προφητεύειν, ἵνα πάντες μανθάνωσιν καὶ πάντες παρακαλῶνται,
32 καὶ πνεύματα προφητῶν προφήταις ὑποτάσσεται·
33 οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἀκαταστασίας ὁ θεὸς ἀλλὰ εἰρήνης.
36 ἢ ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθεν, ἢ εἰς ὑμᾶς μόνους κατήντησεν;
I do not see a logical connection between verse 33 and verse 36.


All that being said, I have to agree with mwh. Paul´s words are rather plain and painful for the modern ear. Some have tried to connect it to the preceeding context of prophesying. Paul then would have wanted to say they should not prophecy or evaluate prophesy. But he simply forbids to speak. I do not think that Paul hated women, because he had some very appreciating words for women, e. g. in Romans 16. I do think, however, that he believed that there were some clear restrictions, such as not speaking in church. 1Timothy 2:12 is not as strict, since εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ could mean a quiet demeanor, but οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτρέπεται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν is really quite "hardcore". σκληρός ἐστιν ὁ λόγος οὖτος· τίς δύναται αὐτοῦ ἀκούειν;

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2292
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by Paul Derouda »

Like our friend Nietzsche would have said:

"Gehen Sie zu den Frauen? Vergessen sie, nicht Ihre Peitsche!"

"Are you going to see women? Forget them, but don't forget your whip!"

Just joking. Welcome to Textkit!

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by mwh »

A transmissional query. I see that in a few MSS (the earliest D, 5th cent.) verses 34-35 appear not here but after our v.40 at the end of the chapter. That seems very odd. Did the lines fall out by accident (but I see no mechanical reason for their omission) and get put back in the wrong place, or what? They’re hardly likely to have been deliberately excised. There must be a ton of literature on this, none of which I’m familiar with. But variable placement can be an indication of interpolation, and if we restore what I assume from the verse numbers to be the older punctuation of 33, then 36 follows on very comfortably, and makes particularly good sense of εἰς ὑμᾶς μονους there, after the ἐν πάσαις of 33.

There are obvious internal grounds for suspicion too. As jeidsath pointed out, they’re far from definitive by themselves, but the manuscript evidence may give them some support. The earliest evidence for the verses’ presence in their accepted position is seems to be P46 (reportedly c.200; I haven’t checked the dating, nor whether there’s now more papyrus evidence). The I Tim. passage doesn't look to me as if necessarily implies their existence. (Maybe it was the I Tim. author who added them to I Cor.?!)

On balance, I reckon it’s probably just a freak accident in D etc. (Are those MSS transmissionally related? I don’t remember and I don’t have my Metzger with me. I guess they must be.) But if it’s not, I may have been doing Paul an injustice. Still, I don’t like people claiming to have a direct line to God.

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2292
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by Paul Derouda »

What is this Metzger book you're referring to? It seems to be something important...

Markos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2966
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by Markos »

mwh wrote:There are obvious internal grounds for suspicion too.
ἀσπάζομαί σε.

Paul had many female co-workers, and there is
Gal. 3:28:οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ελλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ: πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.
which contrasts dramatically with the daily Rabbinic prayer where one thanks God for not having made him a slave, a gentile, or a woman. And would Paul write: καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει? Paul uses the OT to point to Christ, not as a basis for Christian behavior. (He even has to come up with another reason why Christians should not use prostitutes.) But the καί may be ascensive here. (Sorry for the meta-language, Michael.)
mwh wrote:I may have been doing Paul an injustice.

I happen to think that Paul wrote both the Pastorals and these lines. But no one disputes that he wrote
1 Cor 11:5:πᾶσα δὲ γυνὴ προσευχομένη ἢ προφητεύουσα ἀκατακαλύπτῳ τῇ κεφαλῇ καταισχύνει τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτῆς: ἓν γάρ ἐστιν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ τῇ ἐξυρημένῃ.
which, to the extent that it is remotely cognate to the I.S.I.L tradition of entering a village and forcing men at gun-point to veil their wives and daughters, is even more noxious. All of which is to say that Paul's social and pastoral advice did not always live up to his theological ideals. Nothing we do with the Greek can change that.
Still, I don’t like people claiming to have a direct line to God.
Sometimes, I can't even get His service. :)

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by mwh »

Paul Derouda wrote:What is this Metzger book you're referring to? It seems to be something important...
Bruce Metzger, Wiki:
“Central to his scholarly contribution to New Testament studies is his trilogy: The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (1964; 2nd ed., 1968; 3d enlarged ed., 1992); The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations (1977); The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (1987).”
(There’s a 4th ed. of the first of these in which Bart Ehrman played a significant part—a bete noire to many Christians, especially the Word of God folks. It came as a shock to him to discover that—quelle surprise!, quelle horreur!—the text has manuscript variation. You wouldn't believe the furore. Tune in, but not for more than 5 minutes or you'll go mad. Give us back our [[eleven days]] Textus Receptus!)

But the one I had in mind is (I think) his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Explains textual decisions made in his (+ others’) edition. Committee work, interesting.

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2292
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by Paul Derouda »

Thanks, mwh!

Sorry, I'm veering seriously off topic. I did some googling... Bart Ehrman apparently explains (some) miracles in the NT by claiming that Jesus' followers had hallucinations. I don't know anything about the subject, but my first impression is that that's not much better than textual criticism resorting to divine inspiration. How about Achilles in the first book of the Iliad, when Athena appears to him and prevents him from killing Agamemnon? Was he having a psychotic episode? No, actually he had a brain tumor, as visual hallucinations, as opposed to auditory ones, point to an organic rather than a psychiatric etiology...

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by jeidsath »

Sorry, I've been meaning to contribute to this thread, but I've been traveling and yesterday κακῶς πυρέττω.
I reckon it’s probably just a freak accident in D etc.
Could be. Note first, that since this is Paul, it isn't Codex Bezae (D), but Claromontanus (D), and F and G, etc. If something only appears in Bezae (*cough* Mark 1:41), that can be chocked up to general weirdness, but Claromontanus is much more respectable. In fact here's the page in question. Notice the ΓΥΝΑΙΚΑΙΣΥΜΩΝ -- how's that for making the audience clear?

Image

It's the same arrangement in the Latin on the other side. I wonder if the ΤΑΙΣΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΙΣ might have confused the manuscript tradition at some point? In our standard text, notice how close it is to the same in verse 34.

Now these versus do not much sound like Paul of the early epistles. Male religious leadership was not a Western tradition, it was an Eastern/Jewish tradition. And if Paul said anything, he said "Don't enforce Jewish norms on the Western church." And contra-mwh -- who has already backed away from his original statement -- if you removed this verse, you'd have a hard time making the case for misogyny based on just the non-Pastoral Pauline epistles. The opposite, if anything. Female apostles and deaconesses, oh my.

It sounds much more like Paul of the Pastorals, and I do find it strange to see it here, especially in the context. But talking about the manuscript evidence in this case is just reading tealeaves. It's earlier than our manuscripts. What else can we say?
Maybe it was the I Tim. author who added them to I Cor.?!
In fact you could make a case for it. The pastorals had to be late enough that Paul was famous, but not so late that they would be rejected as non-Pauline (the earliest cannoneers had no problem with the pastorals). So why not blame the editor of the first edition of Paul's collected epistles for both?

EDIT: Corrected above to "no problem with the pastorals." Added "of Paul's collected epistles" for clarity.

Now, it's not 100% the case that the pastorals are intended to mislead people. They could well have been compiled by a man who was sincere in thinking that this was the sort of thing that the Paul that he knew would have said. And the pastorals were perhaps similar to things Paul did say in no longer extant epistles (by that time). There is plenty of room for inspiration if you want it. There is no need to choose between textual fundamentalism or the highway, like both the fundamentalists and the Ehrmans* of the world would have it.

* By the way, couldn't the college crowd have chosen a better atheist NT scholar to latch on to than Ehrman? There are some great ones that I could recommend.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by mwh »

KaikaiSimon wrote: If we delete the verses we end up with:
31 δύνασθε γὰρ καθ᾽ ἕνα πάντες προφητεύειν, ἵνα πάντες μανθάνωσιν καὶ πάντες παρακαλῶνται,
32 καὶ πνεύματα προφητῶν προφήταις ὑποτάσσεται·
33 οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἀκαταστασίας ὁ θεὸς ἀλλὰ εἰρήνης.
36 ἢ ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθεν, ἢ εἰς ὑμᾶς μόνους κατήντησεν;
I do not see a logical connection between verse 33 and verse 36.
You’re forgetting 33b, which closes 33 (repunctuated).

Your post only showed up after the responses above this one. There’s sometimes a delay for new posters.

— Paul D. Not the miracles (Lazarus, water>wine, etc.) but the post-crucifixn sightings? What would your explanation be, discounting brain tumors all round?

— Jeidsath, many thanks. Hope you’re now recovered. You know much more about these things than I do, and it’s nice to see the manuscript page. I’m surprised (alla Ehrman?) just how much textual discrepancy there is there. The displacement is still a puzzle. Your εκκλησιαις suggestion would be compelling if των αγιων were absent. Is it in D? (I don’t have N-A, only USB.) If by any chance it’s not, then all is explained.

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by jeidsath »

I am mostly recovered, thank you.

This link is the preceeding page in the viewer. But here is the relevant section:

Image

There is τῶν αγίων on its own line (the accent markings are from a friendly 10th century corrector). Too bad for my theory.

It's interesting to note how much more sense 36 makes directly following 33. Of course, that leads to the most orthodox (and probably best) explanation for the re-ordering seen in D. The D-tradition scribe thought that Paul's parenthetical statement (34, 35) might be confusing and moved it. And the fact that Paul would write a confusing parenthetical needs no explanation.
You know much more about these things than I do
Not at all. Almost all of what I know from this article from The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism. (And from a Metzger book that I read a while back).
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by mwh »

For the saut du meme au meme idea to work, all we need is a text (a) without των αγιων at the end of 33 and (b) with λαλειν preceding not following εκκλησιαις (or εκκλησιαι) at end of 36. (b) is apparently the standard word order, and (a) if not attested is probably not necessary anyway. The omission was caught and added in the lower margin, and at next copying ended up after 40. Nothing out of the ordinary. So now we have a mechanical explanation to put alongside the deliberate reordering one.

— So this is not just “a few MSS” but the so-called Western text-type we’re talking about. Does it show signs of textual reorganization? I must say that that idea doesn’t seem too plausible to me, but I'm very ignorant.

Markos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2966
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by Markos »

Paul Derouda wrote:... Bart Ehrman apparently explains (some) miracles in the NT by claiming that Jesus' followers had hallucinations.
jeidsath wrote:...couldn't the college crowd have chosen a better atheist NT scholar to latch on to than Ehrman? There are some great ones that I could recommend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3kQlzOi27M
The Go-Go's wrote:Can you hear them?
They talk about us
Telling lies
Well that's no surprise...

...Pay no mind to what they say
It doesn't matter anyway
Our lips are sealed.

There's a weapon
We must use
In our defense:
Silence.
Not that Markos uses that weapon as often as he should. :)

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by jeidsath »

So this is not just “a few MSS” but the so-called Western text-type we’re talking about. Does it show signs of textual reorganization?
Well, either the Alexandrian/Byzantine text-type or Western text-type is reordered right here. Take your pick of which sounds more plausible:

1) The Western text-type is original, and Alexandrian/Byzantine text-type suffered from a mechanical failure in copying, reordering these verses.

2) The Alexandrian/Byzantine text-type is original, and someone in the Western text-type tradition made an editorial decision to rearrange the verses to make more sense.

I couldn't tell you which of those is better.

Of course, if we want to postulate a third -- original -- tradition that doesn't include verses 34, 35, we could tell another story.

3) Verses 34, 35 were inserted into the the Alexandrian/Byzantine text-type in their current form. At some point they migrated to the Western text-type for the usual reasons, and were re-ordered in the process.

But without any evidence, it doesn't sound plausible to me.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by mwh »

You’re ignoring the possibility that the verses were inadvertently omitted from some manuscript or other and restored in the wrong place (at some point before D), to become the “Western” tradition. Given the εκκλησιαι(ς) repeat to which you drew attention, isn’t that the most likely, at least in transmissional terms? Of course, it doesn’t exclude your 3).
EDIT When I say it doesn’t exclude your 3), I mean it doesn’t exclude its being a very early interpolation—throughout the tradition. No need to restrict it to Alex-Byz. I agree that doesn't sound too plausible.

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by jeidsath »

I think I get what you're saying, but -- knowing very little about textual transmission, as I do -- I would have assumed that restoring skipped verses is an unlikely time to get text reordering?

...

But now that I think about it, corrections like that would not show up (primarily) when new copies were being prepared. Instead, corrections would go in as marginalia. (I'm thinking of the many corrected manuscripts that I've seen.) And it is up to the next copyist down the line to place the correction into the text "where it makes sense." Which would easily explain this instance, with the Western Text being the later "makes sense" version.

And, of course, that would be evidence for the existence of manuscripts, somewhere at some time, that didn't have these verses.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by mwh »

Yes the way I envision the possible course of events is that the verses were mistakenly skipped, as the scribe's eye slipped from 33 εκκλησιαις to 35 εκκλησιαις, but the omission was caught, whether by the scribe himself or by a corrector, and the skipped verses thereupon added in the lower margin. There are lots of examples of this sort of thing in papyri as well as later MSS. At the next copying of the manuscript the verses were reincorporated into the text but understandably in the wrong place.

This implies that their position as 34-35 is the original one (whether interpolated or not—now a quite different question). And it’s far and away the earliest attested, and widely diffused.

As I see it, there may never have a manuscript from which the verses were actually absent. There was just the interval—perhaps no more than a minute or two, perhaps much longer—between their falling out and their being restored to the margin in some individual MS.

That makes the copy of that particular MS the archetype of the Western text.

How about it?

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by jeidsath »

Yes, I think that seems likely. That the manuscript has εκκλησιαις instead of εκκλησιαι is suggestive too.

Also, I've been reading a bit on the history of Pentecostalism and am beginning to comprehend how 34, 35 might fit in with the rest of chapter 14.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2292
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by Paul Derouda »

This is very interesting, thanks folks!
mwh wrote:— So this is not just “a few MSS” but the so-called Western text-type we’re talking about. Does it show signs of textual reorganization? I must say that that idea doesn’t seem too plausible to me, but I'm very ignorant.
What do you mean here exactly by "signs of textual reorganization"?

There seems to be some confusion between Ε and ΑΙ in the manuscript, the sounds having merged. ΓΥΝΑΙΚΑΙΣΥΜΩΝ obviously stands for γυναῖκες ὑμῶν. How about ΟΥΓΑΡΕΠΙΤΡΕΠΕΤΕΑΥΤΑΙΣΛΑΛΕΙΝ, are we supposed to read ἐπιτρέπεται?
mwh wrote:— Paul D. Not the miracles (Lazarus, water>wine, etc.) but the post-crucifixn sightings? What would your explanation be, discounting brain tumors all round?
Yes, I meant the post-crucifixion sightings. There's a risk that I'm seriously misrepresenting Ehrman, since I've only read that blog text, but my point is that we don't really need a "rational" explanation, no more than we do for the Iliad passage. Ehrman's explanation looks like a very facile euhemerism to me. There's no way we can say 2000 years later how they came up with those stories originally (unless one believes they actually happened, and in that case I can only respect one's religious convictions). Sure, people see all sort of things when they're half asleep (I've seen a "ghost" myself once standing near my bed, not unlike those in Homer...), but these post-crucifixion sightings are nothing like that, they happened in full day and plain daylight (and to many people) – in today's world I'd say it's time for a brain scan, and double quick!

KaikaiSimon
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 8:21 pm

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by KaikaiSimon »

Is there any certainty about v. 33b - where does it belong? I think it is needless to say verses are a later addition, not necessarily marking where a sentence ends. Theoretically, it could be either:
(a) ὡς ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν ἁγίων αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις σιγάτωσαν

or:
(b) οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἀκαταστασίας ὁ θεὸς ἀλλὰ εἰρήνης ὡς ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις

I think option (a) sounds more natural. Why? Paul uses ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης many times, but never limits being ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης to ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. God is a God of peace, in or outside the churches of the saints. Calling him the God of peace like in all churches of the saints sounds strange to my ears.
On the other hand, saying: "As in all churches of the saints, the women in the assembly should not speak... or has the word of God come to you alone?" sounds perfectly natural.

Maybe finding manuscript evidence for the original function of v. 33b would help. If 33b belongs to 34-35, rather than 33a, 33b-35 probably is authentic and belongs there. Because taking 33b-35 out leaves us with 33a followed by 36, which sounds a bit odd.

KaikaiSimon
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 8:21 pm

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by KaikaiSimon »

Philipp B. Payne has done some rather interesting research on text critical markings in Vaticanus B:

http://www.pbpayne.com/wp-content/uploa ... mages2.pdf

Not that I am a big fan of the man, but perhaps he is right and the "distigme obelos" points to the scribe, who wrote Vaticanus B, being aware of manuscripts, where v. 34-35 are ommitted.

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2292
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by Paul Derouda »

KaikaiSimon wrote:Philipp B. Payne has done some rather interesting research on text critical markings in Vaticanus B:

http://www.pbpayne.com/wp-content/uploa ... mages2.pdf

Not that I am a big fan of the man, but perhaps he is right and the "distigme obelos" points to the scribe, who wrote Vaticanus B, being aware of manuscripts, where v. 34-35 are ommitted.
Or maybe it just shows that the scribe was aware that in some manuscripts 34-35 were placed after 40?

KaikaiSimon
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 8:21 pm

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by KaikaiSimon »

Paul Derouda wrote: Or maybe it just shows that the scribe was aware that in some manuscripts 34-35 were placed after 40?
Possibly. Payne, I think, would say that there are no textcritical marks (distigmai, two dots) after v. 40. On the other hand, these textcritical marks usually appear in the same line, where the author seems to have been aware of the existence of another reading. In order to indicate the existence of two versions, the author would have needed to write the verses at both locations and then add textcritical marks at both locations. But perhaps he considered this to be redundant and was satisfied with simply indicating, that some manuscripts omit the verses after v. 33. It is hard to tell, since 1Cor 14:34-35 with its relocation of a verse is a special case.

To my knowledge, Payne´s hypothesis has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed paper, neither has any textcritical scholar critically approached his work. I am still not sure about what I should think.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by mwh »

If Payne is right about the 2nd-hand double dots and their significance, then that’s evidence of contact, direct or indirect, between post-scriptum Vat.B and a Western-type text. Nothing more than that, and even that’s uncertain, since on the evidence presented it may be simply be a matter of registering textual variation between MSS, not necessarily with a Western one. Manuscript collation is a frequent practice, though normally it leaves more definite traces.

33b. Originally the text was written continuous—no chapters or verses, they weren't introduced until middle ages or later for verses—and punctuation was haphazard, sparse or nonexistent, not part of the tradition. So there’d be no real indication of whether “33b” was meant to go with what precedes or with what follows. ο γενονεν at Jn.1:3(-4) is an analogous case—much theological dispute about that. To judge from the verse numeration, 33b was taken as the end of 33. The image provided by jeidsath (formatted as if for liturgal reading?) is ambivalent, the differential punctuation (high stop major vs. low stop minor) being a much later addition along with the diacritics. The given punctuation has no authority. An editor has to decide for her/himself.

ε/αι a very common confusion (phonetic collapse from 4th-3rd cent BC), especially pronounced in this MS. A token of grammatical illiteracy on the part of the copyist and/or his predecessor. I’m paticularly struck by the reduction of επερωτατωσαν in 35 to επερω, completely unintelligible unless the reader already knew the text. The corresponding υποτασσεσθωσαν impera. in 34 has become υποτασσεσθαι inf. (a much easier form) in parallel with λαλειν; but σιγατωσαν remains intact, however baffling the form might be. In these bilingual MSS (Latin on facing page) the Latin doesn’t always reflect the same text as the Greek, so maybe the Greek had ceased to matter so much for practical purposes.

A follow-up question. If the Western text-type is the result of an accident here, how many other distinctively Western readings are also the result of accident? Prima facie this case diminishes whatever authority the Western text is suppposed to have.

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by jeidsath »

Pics or it didn't happen.

1 Cor 14:34-39 in Vaticanus.

Image

Sample editorial marks from two columns over. 1 Cor 15:12-17.

Image

Isn't it easier just to start your own religion? In your new religion, woman could have power as real priestesses instead of as fake priests. Look up the Textkit Pythia thread for ideas. Or even better, watch 300. Much more impressive stuff, in my opinion. Was all over the Western world before this Jesus fellow and his movement came along. Exactly the sort of thing that had Paul shaking in his boots at the end of 1 Cor 14. But maybe real female power is too scary?

We're really only in this mess in the first place because Luther closed all the monasteries before giving thought to the fact that this meant eliminating almost all roles for women in the church.

EDIT: Are Payne's images coming from a different manuscript?
Last edited by jeidsath on Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by mwh »

Instead of books read boots.

Diff. MS? Apparently so, though the lineation is identical, and the cancellation of μου.

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by jeidsath »

Corrected to boots.

When it reopens next week, I could head over to the Bancroft Library and take a look at their color facsimile.

It's somewhat cheaper than purchasing it. (I don't think that my wife would "remain silent" if I were to order that.)
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2292
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by Paul Derouda »

Thanks for the images, again. That was nice reading.

Couple of questions: Do you know why some upsilons and one iota have two dots over them? And why are there three dots over μου in 39? The word is bracketed in NA27, can it be a textcritical sign?
jeidsath wrote:.
* By the way, couldn't the college crowd have chosen a better atheist NT scholar to latch on to than Ehrman? There are some great ones that I could recommend.
Please do!

$10000 is a lot for a facsimile!

KaikaiSimon
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 8:21 pm

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by KaikaiSimon »

Payne´s images are from the original codex.

mwh, it is not just the two dots, but the combination of the dots with a long line (obelos, together distigmai obelos), which makes Payne think that the author/editor was aware of an omission of the verses in some manuscripts. He supports this by showing other examples, where the obelos-distigmai apparently marks omission, e. g. John 7:53ff.

basically he claims:
two dots = awareness of alternative readings
short line = paragraphos
two dots + long line (obelos) = awareness of omission in other MSS

Examples of these symbols can be viewed here:
http://www.pbpayne.com/wp-content/uploa ... mages2.pdf

KaikaiSimon
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 8:21 pm

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by KaikaiSimon »

jeidsath wrote: Isn't it easier just to start your own religion?
I am happy with both outcomes: omission is fine, Pauline is fine. If God thinks women should be quiet in church and inspired Paul to write these verses, so be it. If a later clown without apostolic authority added them, they have no meaning whatsoever. I am entirely open to both, even though the first option would be challenging. But so are many things in the Christian life. And challenge is not always bad.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by mwh »

Thanks Kaikai. Got it.

His earlier piece on distigmai here:
http://www.pbpayne.com/wp-content/uploa ... 99_226.pdf
See esp. p.217. (Dodgy argument re interpolation.) Canart in postscript raises question of what practical purpose they could have served.

He reprised it in his book, and responded in lengthy and minute detail to an unfavorable review of it.

What is it with these NT scholars? I think jeidsath and I should co-author an article—and then a book—and then live off the ensuing controversy—on the origin of the so-called Western text-type, claiming unprecedented importance and originality for our work. To maximize publicity we’d argue for its total worthlessness (alternatively, for its overwhelming superiority). Incidentally are there any good grounds for textually affiliating the wretched cod.Bezae with the magnificent Claromontanus? We could argue (seriously) that they represent completely different traditions. It’s time someone upturned all these antiquated text-type assignations and started afresh. We need a paradigm shift, to bring NT text-crit into line with mainstream text-crit which papyri have revolutionized.

Someone else identified the distigmai as the work of de Sepulveda (16th-cent. biblical scholar and would-be enslaver of Amerindians), marking up differences from the Erasmian text. This is much more plausible on the face of it, but Payne marshals palaeographical evidence against it.

See http://www.pbpayne.com/?cat=3
posts of Aug.23 and Mar.17 2010

Paul D — Calligraphic MSS—as this one is most emphatically is!— put double dots over word-initial υ and ι. It’s sometimes called a trema. The dots over μου are cancellation dots, another standard convention.

$10,000, a steal. How much do you think the original would cost? If ever its sex abuse payouts impoverish the Vatican—fat chance of that—maybe we’ll find out.

I shall now disappear for the next two weeks, possibly longer.

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by jeidsath »

$10,000, a steal. How much do you think the original would cost? If ever its sex abuse payouts impoverish the Vatican—fat chance of that—maybe we’ll find out.
I'm more interested in the complete works of Menander that they keep in the Pope's secret reading room.

@Paul, re: NT scholar recommendations. What subjects are you interested in?
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1259
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by C. S. Bartholomew »

Paul Derouda wrote:Thanks for the images, again. That was nice reading.

Couple of questions: Do you know why some upsilons and one iota have two dots over them? And why are there three dots over μου in 39? The word is bracketed in NA27, can it be a textcritical sign?
jeidsath wrote:.
* By the way, couldn't the college crowd have chosen a better atheist NT scholar to latch on to than Ehrman? There are some great ones that I could recommend.
Please do!
Paul,
You might enjoy Bart Ehrman's spiritual mentor Adolf von Harnack aka Carl Gustav Adolf von Harnack (7 May 1851 – 10 June 1930). Ehrman also leans on Walter Bauer but not nearly as often as Harnack. The more recent secular NT scholars are not very exciting; Funk, Crossan, Gerd Theißen … these are all 20th century guys. The last 25 years I can't help you with much. Just look at a bibliography in commentary by someone like Craig S. Keener and you will find all the recent guys. Keener's multi-volume commentary on Acts would be a good place to start.
C. Stirling Bartholomew

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2292
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by Paul Derouda »

Von Harnack looks interesting. Apparently an important thesis of his is the influence of Hellenistic philosophy on Christian thought. I think that's just the sort of thing that interests me. What makes me a bit unsure is how old it is. It's not that I think that it can't be worth reading — I do read some 19th century stuff on Homer and find it valuable, but for Homer I think I can make some sort of informed judgement as to what is out-dated and what isn't; for NT scholarship, I don't have a clue. So maybe what I need is just some sort of good, reliable, uncontroversial introduction.

Joel, I don't have anything very specific in mind except what I say above and what I said in the Halloween thread. I just thought you had something very specific in mind to recommend...

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by jeidsath »

Two better historical Jesus scholars would be E.P. Sanders and Mark Goodacre.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by Andrew Chapman »

mwh wrote:36 follows on very comfortably, and makes particularly good sense of εἰς ὑμᾶς μονους there, after the ἐν πάσαις of 33.
(26)Τί οὖν ἐστιν, ἀδελφοί; ὅταν συνέρχησθε, ἕκαστος ψαλμὸν ἔχει, διδαχὴν ἔχει, ἀποκάλυψιν ἔχει, γλῶσσαν ἔχει, ἑρμηνείαν ἔχει· πάντα πρὸς οἰκοδομὴν γινέσθω. (27) εἴτε γλώσσῃ τις λαλεῖ, κατὰ δύο ἢ τὸ πλεῖστον τρεῖς καὶ ἀνὰ μέρος, καὶ εἷς διερμηνευέτω· (28) ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ᾖ διερμηνευτής, σιγάτω ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἑαυτῷ δὲ λαλείτω καὶ τῷ θεῷ. (29) προφῆται δὲ δύο ἢ τρεῖς λαλείτωσαν καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι διακρινέτωσαν· (30) ἐὰν δὲ ἄλλῳ ἀποκαλυφθῇ καθημένῳ, ὁ πρῶτος σιγάτω. (31) δύνασθε γὰρ καθ’ ἕνα πάντες προφητεύειν, ἵνα πάντες μανθάνωσιν καὶ πάντες παρακαλῶνται. (32) καὶ πνεύματα προφητῶν προφήταις ὑποτάσσεται, (33) οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἀκαταστασίας ὁ θεὸς ἀλλ’ εἰρήνης[ ] Ὡς ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν ἁγίων [.] (36) ἢ ἀφ’ ὑμῶν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθεν, ἢ εἰς ὑμᾶς μόνους κατήντησεν; [NA28, except that I have moved the full stop to the end of 33.]

D A Carson (Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood http://cdn.desiringgod.org/pdf/books_bbmw/bbmw.pdf at p.140 of this pdf) quotes Thayer, ἤ, §1.c as saying that one usage of the conjunction is:
before a sentence contrary to the one just preceding, to indicate that if one be denied or refuted the other must stand:
citing Matt 20.15, Rom 3.29, 1 Cor 9.6, 1 Cor 10.22, 1 Cor 14.26, 2 Cor 11.7, eg:

Rom 3.28 λογιζόμεθα γὰρ δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου. 29 ἢ Ἰουδαίων ὁ θεὸς μόνον; οὐχὶ καὶ ἐθνῶν; ναὶ καὶ ἐθνῶν,

2 Possibilities: A) a man is justified without works of the law; B) God is God of the Jews only.

B is what we ordinarily call a rhetorical question. We answer 'no', and thus confirm A.

1 Cor 9.6 4 μὴ οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν φαγεῖν καὶ πεῖν; 5 μὴ οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα περιάγειν ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ Κηφᾶς; 6 ἢ μόνος ἐγὼ καὶ Βαρναβᾶς οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν μὴ ἐργάζεσθαι;

A) we have authority to eat and drink (without working)
B) Barnabas and I only do not have authority to eat and drink without working

B seems inequitable, so A is strengthened.

We do this all the time. 'Come to the park with us. Or are you going to sit there glued to the computer all day?'

With verses 34-5 in the text, then we have this same type of rhetorical device:

A) women should be silent in the churches
B) the word of God came to the Corinthians only.

B can't be right, so it must be A. Without verses 34-5, it seems to me somewhat harder (not impossible) to find a definite point that the rhetorical question comes in as a counterpart to. Clearly it's not that God is a God of peace. Perhaps it could be that the spirit of the prophets are subject to the prophets. I suppose they could have had some sort of doctrine of spontaneity, which would be opposed to Paul's instructions about self-control and orderliness in verses 27-30. But it seems unlikely to me that there would be some sort of clear doctrinal difference about things like this. For example, that the Corinthians say that a dozen or more people can prophesy in one meeting, whereas all the other churches limit it to two or three (verse 29). But then, with that example, one would expect verse 36 straight after verse 29.

I can sort of see how it could work, but the tone doesn't feel right to me. I think it's because it comes after εἰρήνης, which seems to produce a sort of resolution before he, as I see it, begins to speak about women in the church. Any thoughts? Andrew

KaikaiSimon
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 8:21 pm

Re: ἤ in 1Corinthians 14:36

Post by KaikaiSimon »

For those of you who are still interested in the omission question (v. 34-35), I just stumbled across this article:

http://jgrchj.net/volume10/JGRChJ10-4_Shack.pdf

The author, ironically a woman, attempts to prove that Payne is wrong and that the verses were in the original letter. I have not read it yet, and I am curious what I says. Is a woman going to destroy Payne´s feminist hopes? Strange world that we live in.

Post Reply