The Textual Reliability of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 by Charlie Albright and Nikolay Sayapin

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 are inserted after verse 33 in the Nestle-Aland27 New Testament. There are, however, a few manuscripts that place the verses after verse 40. Because of the transposition of the verse some have reasoned that these verses are not authentic to the original autograph.1 The verses were a scribal interpolation that made its ways from the margins of the text to where it currently resides. Thus, two issues have to be discusses in this paper. The first is this, should the verses be understood as original to the autograph? And secondly, if so what is the proper placement of the verses. Since the first question is dealing with issues that pertain to scribal actions it will be discussed in the internal evidence section. The second question will be answered from the cumulating of all the evidence and answers made throughout this paper. The authors of this paper will argue for the both the authenticity and NA27s placement of the debated section. Both external and internal evidence will be examined and presented for this conclusion. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE WITNESSES FOR EACH READING For txt reading : P46 a A B Y 0243. 33. 81. 104. 365. 1175. 1241s. 1739. 1881. 2464 For placement after verse 40 : D F G ar b vgms; Abrosiaster2 DATE AND CHARACTER OF EACH READING

1 1

Gordon D Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians. The New International, Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1987), 699-700; Arnold Bittlinger, Gifts and Graces: A Commentary on 1 Corinthians 12-1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans), 110-111; Conzelmann, Hans, 1 Corinthians, (Philadelphia, PN: Fortress Press, 1975), 246; C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1968), 332-333. Though, it should noted that Barrett does not hold this understanding of the verses as being certain. Philip B. Payne would argue that the passage under discussion is omitted in Codex Fuldensis. The the text of 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is found at the very bottom of the manuscript page. Hence, the scribe knew that it was not original and placed it there. Philip B. Payne, Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.34-5, New Testament Studies 44.2 (1995): 240-262. Curt Niccum charges Payne with building such a case for the omission with speculation and not hard evidence. See his article from a full rebuttal, Curt Niccum, The Voice of the Manuscripts On the Silence of Women: The External Evidence for 1 Cor 14.34-5, New Testament Studies 43.2 (1997): 242-255. Metzger brings up the reading in the Codex but says that the meaning is ambiguous. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed, (New York, NY: United Bibles Societies, 1998), 499-500. Anthony Thiselton overviews the debate and affirms that Niccums presentation of the evidence seems overwhelmingly convincing, Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000), 1149.
2

The support from the Greek for the variant reading comes from Western witnesses D, F, and G. These manuscripts are consistently cited witnesses of the first order. The support for the variant reading also comes from individual Latin manuscripts. The earliest manuscript containing the later placement is Dp. This is the 6th century Codex Claromontanus (sometimes label Dp or D2). It is distinguished from the 5th century Codex Bezae which only contains the Gospels and Acts. It is from the Western order. This means that the scribes would take liberties to smooth out rough passages. Although, in Dp, the difference of the Western types are not so striking as those in the Gospels and Acts of Codex Bezae.3 Even still, practice of the Western text cast doubts about the authenticity of Dp rendering. For Greenlee writes, most scholars find that upon examination of individual readings those with only Western support generally do not commend themselves upon principles of internal evidence.4 Another piece of evidence for the variant reading comes from a single Latin translation d on the recto pages of the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis. Metzger explains its worth, Since d agrees occasionally with readings of k and of a when all other authorities differ, it witnesses to a text that was current no later than the first half of the third century.5 Though this seems impressive on the outset, other scholars would argue that the Latin translation is not an independent witness but very much dependant on the Greek copy that stands beside it.6 Finally, In B, even though it has the verses placed in the txt position there is a siglum which could mean that the scribe thought it was out of place or even an earlier interpolation. But J. Edward Miller has pointed out that such a signal does not point to a textual criticism issue but to section changes.7 With the txt reading comes a much more thorough list of substantial witness. The greatest evidence for the txt reading comes from P46 which has a date around the early second century.8 P46 is also proto-Alexandrian9 which has A (Codex Alexandrinus) following its witness to the txt reading. Though A is untrustworthy in other areas this would show that its witness with this particular section is good.
3

Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York, NY: Oxford, 2005), 74.
4

J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, rev. ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 85.
5

Metzger and Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament, 103.

6

Evidence so strong that Metzger changed his views on it. Bruce Metzager, The Early Versions of the New Testament : Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), 318.
7

J. Edward Miller, Some Observations on the Text-Critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14.34-35, Journal of the Study of the New Testament 26.2 (2003): 217-236. But Panyes response to Miller should be consulted as well. Philip B. Panye, the Text-Critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14.34-35: A Response to J. Edward Miller, Journal of the Study of the New Testament 27.1 (2004): 105-112. Though, Even Payne with concede that the mark by the text does not necessarily point to the scribe marking the verses as questionable.
8

Philip W. Comfort and David P Barrett ed, The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 196.
9

Ibid, 198.

With the other Codexes most of the early Uncials attest to the txt rendering of the verses. The strongest of these voices are a and B which both date to the fourth century and are part of the Alexandrian family of witnesses. Both of these are Codexes are considered to be some of the most reliable witnesses.10 When Minuscules are weighted in the txt reading is very well attested. MS 81which is one of the most important minuscules attests to the txt reading. Also cursives 33 and 1739 speak to it as well. MS 33 one of the most reliable Minuscules known and about MS 1739 Metzger notes that it was probably copied from a fourth century manuscript.11 From all major witness view it is clear that the txt has the greatest amount of evidence. It is backed by the vast amount of substantial and reliable witnesses. Whereas the variant has only one independent witness whos textual tradition renders is questionable. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION The txt reading is supported by the most important and earliest manuscripts. Thus Alef (Codex Sinaiticus) is dated to the IV century. This manuscript is given a position of primacy among the list of New Testament manuscripts.12 This is one of a few uncials that contain the whole of the New Testament.13 Codex Alexandrinus is another important witness that bears the reading of the text. It has been written by two or three scribes in the fifth century, contained the Septuagint with the Psalms of Solomon the New Testament and 1 and 2 Clement.14 The text of Codex Alexandrinus is Byzantine in the Gospels and Alexandrian in the Paulina Epistles.15 Codex Vaticanus also has the reading of the text. This manuscript is dated to IV century. It contains nearly whole of the New Testament. This is one of the most important uncials manuscripts and has the Alexandrian text.16 The Alexandrian text was circulated in the earliest stages of the church and is more valuable and reliable. It was widespread in the Asia Minor until the time the Western text has become more prevalent. Curt Niccum states that additional witnesses (according to UBS4) like the patristic testimony of Origen, Chrystostom, and Theodoret; the Syriac, Coptic Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian, and Slavonic versions geographically covered the entire Mediterranean
1 10

Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, 81.

1 11

Metzger and Ehrman, 91.

1 12

Bruce M. Metzger, Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 4th edition (New York, Oxford University Press, 2005), 62 Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. (Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1989), 78 D.C. Parker, An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts. (New York, Cambridge University Press, 2008), 72 William Henry Paine Hatch, The Principal Uncial Manuscripts of the New Testament. (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1939), plates XVII-XIX
16 15 14 13

Ibid., Plate XIV

region and date from perhaps first century.17 Niccum also states that numerous Latin witnesses which circulated at the same time as those having the verses transposed and which cover a much broader geographical territory attest the traditional order.18 The variant reading has the support of D F G ar b and vgms. All of these manuscripts are from Byzantine family. Only D F and G are in Greek. Some critics say that F and G were copied from a single Greek manuscript which means that there are only two Greek witnesses to the variant reading (F/G and D).19 Moreover these two agree together against the Alexandrian text type in so many ways (six times departing from the Nestle-Aland 26th edition within our two verses, for example) that the theory of s single archetype of these two Greek texts called Z is well established.20 Given this information concerning Greek witnesses to the variant reading it can be said that geographical distribution of the variant reading was neither widespread nor important. In fact Niccum points out that the transposition occurs in only a few, closely related MSS from northern Italy spread abroad in the Middle Ages by Irish monastics.21 GENEALOGICAL SOLIDARITY The txt reading has a great solidarity with earliest manuscripts. Thus the most important witnesses Alef and B can trace their history to a second century p46 witness. P46 is called by some a Proto-Alexandrian text, and contains most Pauline epistle including 1Cor 14:34-35.22 Codex Alexandrinus in the epistles has solidarity with Alef and B. The txt reading has also genealogical solidarity with Western type witnesses as 1241, and with mixed witnesses of Alexandrian and Western texts as 33. Ninth century Codex Anthous Laurae that has the txt reading akin to Alef, and Alef in its turn as was mentioned above traces its history back to p46.23 Thus, it can be concluded that the txt reading has a strong genealogical solidarity. The variant reading however does not have such strong genealogical solidarity. As was mentioned above two of the three Greek manuscripts (F,G) were probably copied from a single Greek manuscript and cannot be traced back to any of the early manuscripts. Both witnesses F/G, and D are bilingual. Niccum argues as follows only two Greek MSS attest the transposition apart from bilingual tradition, 88 from twelfth century, and 915 from the
1 17

New Testament Studies An International Journal, vol. XLIII, 1997 ed. C.M. Tuckett. Curt Niccum The Voice of the Manuscripts on the Silence of Women: the External Evidence for 1Cor. 14:34-5, 253-254
18

Ibid.

Antoinette Clark Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Pauls Rhetoric. (Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1990), 149
20

19

Ibid. Ibid.

21 2 22

Philip W. Comfort, Early Manuscripts & Modern Translations of the New Testament. (Wheaton: IL, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. 1990), 52.
23

Metzger, Ehrman, 85

thirteenth.24 All other witnesses are Latin text and however old they are, are still depended upon early Greek manuscripts. And genealogy of Greek manuscripts as was proved in this paper testifies to the presence of 1Cor 14:34-35. CONCLUSION OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE After examining the text it seems that external evidence strongly points to the presence of 1Cor 14:34-35 in the text, and not only its presence, but its placement after verse 33. The best manuscripts support the txt reading. Geographical distribution also gives a strong impression that the txt reading is a correct one. Genealogically the txt reading has solidarity with the most of the manuscripts, many of which are extremely important. Therefore it is concluded that the external evidence strongly supports the txt reading. Even though the external evidence is on the side of the txt reading, it is alone is not sufficient, therefore we now turn to consider the internal evidence. INTERNAL EVIDENCE TRANSCRIPTIONAL PROBABILITY The two issues raised at the beginning of this paper have to be both distinguished and related. For even though they are two different issues one builds off the other. First, let the movement of the verses be discussed and then the issue of interpolation will be discussed. Unintentional actions causing the movement of the verses. There is the possibility that phrase could have been dropped due to haplography.25 Since the word ekklsia bookends these verses the scribe could have skipped down in copying, leaving out the verses. After completing the section he would realize the error he made and compensate by writing the verses after v. 40. Though this might be hard to old to with such a long section, there can be a possibility for it. Intentional movement because of attempted harmonization. Wire brings up another theory that the movement could have come due to the tendencies in the Old Latin and bilingual texts to harmonize for clarity. The copyists could have waited till the end of the section to put the txt reading so not to interrupt the discourse on prophecy.26 Intentional movement based on logical smoothness. Another theory is that the scribe was trying to help Pauls flow of thought. Whereas this does not aid the variant moving to the txt position, it does give a pretty good answer to why the verses would move from the txt position to the variant position. Commentators note the abruptness of this passage to the flow of thought.27 It
2 24

Curt Niccum The Voice of the Manuscripts on the Silence of Women: the External Evidence for 1Cor. 14:34-5, 251
2 25

Antoinette Clark Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction Through Pauls Rhetoric (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1990), 151.
2 26

Ibid., 152
27

is possible that the scribe saw this abruptness and decided to aid Paul in moving the verses to end of the flow of thoughtafter verse 40. Intentional movement because of ideological bias. Another theory presented by Wire is of a supposed ideology that bulked when coming to Pauls admonition for women to keep silence.28 They then put it at the end in hopes to make a point. This is not that farfetched of a theory when one considers the different debates throughout the second century about womens correct Christian witness. Fee objects to all the presented theories on two grounds: (1) This kind of movement of large sections are unknown in the Biblical manuscripts.29 (2) It is modern thinking that would believe that verses 34-35 do not cohere with the logical flow of thought found in this section.30 Fee goes on from this and argues that we must then understand the verses as an interpolation. An excellent rebuttal to Fees first objection comes from J. M. Ross.31 He documents six occurrences (including 1 Cor 14:34-35) where one or more verse are inserted in different places in different manuscripts. His summary remarks on the study, if an additional sentence occurs at different places in different manuscripts, this is a sign not of inauthenticity but rather there was uncertainty as to where they belonged.32 Thus, Fees objection that such a thing does not exist is false. What about the second objection? Fees second objection leads us straight into the interpolation question. Is it better to go with the best theory to why it moved or drop the verses altogether? Scribes inserted it from an early marginal gloss. Fee uses Bengels rule, which states that the form that best explains where the other options came from, leads him to believe that the verses in question were put into the text from a gloss in the margins of an early text.33 For him, this makes better sense to why there verses moved. Several things can be said in response to this. Fee is charged with misusing Bengals rule. By form of text Bengel intended attested textual variation, not conjectural emendation.34
Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 701; He uses this fact to argue for the interpolation. David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2003), 675. Verlyn D. Verbrugge, 1 Corinthians, The Expositors Bible Commentary, rev. ed. ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 387; Craig Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 279.
2 28

Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets, 152.

2 29

Though, he does confess that we have such a movement with the adulterious woman text. But brushes it aside by saying that one would have to have substantial evidence to say that the same thing is happening with 1 Cor. 14:34-35. Fee, 700.
3 30

Ibid., 700. He references Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenious, and John of Damascus. Though I find it interesting that on the next page (701) Fee will say that deleting the verses makes the logical flow more acceptable in the section.
3 31

J. M. Ross, Floating Words: Their Significance for Textual Criticism, New Testament Studies 38 (1992): 153-156.
3 32

Ibid., 154.
3 33

Fee, 699.
3 34

Niccum, The Voice of the Manuscripts on the Silence of Women, 243.

And thus displacement is no argument for interpolation.35 Ross points out the problem with Fees idea, While it could have been easy for different copyists to have independently added a word which they thought necessary to complete the sense, it is most unlikely that more than one copyist would independently devise a whole sentence in identical words as an addition to the text.36 Also a problem to this argument is the nature of glosses. Glosses tend to explain or clarify the text, not introduce major problems into the flow of the text,37 and also introduce verses that create an apparent conflict with chapter 11.38 And finally Ross points out If interpolated, the interpolation must have been made very early, almost before any copies had been made of the epistle.39 Summary of Transcriptional Evidence. On the bases of the evidence it is extremely unlikely that the scribes inserted a marginal gloss. Therefore, the reason for the movement is asked in the understanding that the text is original. And with that being the case it is the evidence in this section points to the txt rendering as the correct one. There is no theorized reason known that would have the scribes inserting it after v. 33. After v. 33 is the hardest placement with the variant reading being one that makes the reading of the section flow thought wise. Therefore the evidence supports the txt reading. INTRINSIC EVIDENCE As mentioned before these verses in the txt position seems to be an abrupt thought to the main stream of the thought. The section before the verse under question talk about the need for orderly worship regarding tongue speaking and prophecy then section after them return to the topic of prophets and doing things in an orderly way. It seems strange that Paul would break from this theme to give a command to women right in the middle of it. Though, this does not detract from its credibility. As Witherington observes, In textual criticism the more difficult reading is usually assumed to be the original.40 So it is not the case that since the txt is harder that the variant is more plausible. To the contrary, the opposite is true. It makes sense that some scribes would move it down to after v. 40 Yet, it should be mentioned that it is not impossible to read the text as it is in the txt reading. The main theme of the end of the chapter is on orderly worship. Apparently not only is the uncontrolled of tongues and prophecies are disrupting things but the unsubmissiveness of the women is bring disorder to the church as well. So right before the concluding words, where Paul

3 35

Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1995), 288.
3 36

Ross, Floating Words, 153.

3 37

Carroll D. Osburn, The interpretation of 1 Cor. 14:34-35, Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, Vol 1. Ed. Carroll D. Osburn (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1995), 222.
3 38

Ibid., 222.
3 39

Ross, 155.
4 40

Ben Witherington III, Women in the Earliest Churches (Cambridge, Great Britain: University Press, 1988), 92.

would tell them that true prophets agree with him, he confronts the unsubmissivness of the women. Thus, from the above evidence the txt reading gains further weight. It is the harder reading thus more prone to be the original. Yet, it can still be read in the context.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Commentaries Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Harpers New Testament Commentaries. New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1968. Blomberg, Craig. 1 Corinthians. The New International Version Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994. Bittlinger, Arnold. Gifts and Graces: A Commentary on 1 Corinthians 12-14. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1967. Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1987. Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2003. Hans, Conzelmann. 1 Corinthains. Philadelphia, PN: Fortress Press, 1975. Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000. Verbrugge, D. Verbrugge. 1 Corinthians, The Expositors Bible Commentary, rev. ed. ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008. Witherington III, Ben. Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1995. Books Aland, Kurt and Aland, Barbara. The Text of the New Testament: An introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. Trans Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1987. Comfort, Philip W. New Testament Text and Translation Commentary. Carol Stream, Ill: Tyndale House, 2008. __________. Early Manuscripts & Modern Translations of the New Testament. Wheaton: IL, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. 1990.

Comfort, Philip W. and Barrett, David P. ed. The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999. Greenlee, J. Harold. Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism. rev. ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Hatch, William Henry Paine. The Principal Uncial Manuscripts of the New Testament. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1939. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. New York, NY: United Bibles Societies, 1998. __________. The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977. M. Metzger, Bruce and Ehrman, Bart D. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. New York, NY: Oxford, 2005 Parker, D.C. An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts. New York, Cambridge University Press, 2008. Wire, Antoinette Clark. The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction Through Pauls Rhetoric. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1990. Witherington III, Ben. Women in the Earliest Churches. Cambridge, Great Britain: University Press, 1988. Articles Miller, J. Edward Some Observations on the Text-Critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14.34-35, Journal of the Study of the New Testament 26.2 (2003): 217-236. Niccum, Curt. The Voice of the Manuscripts On the Silence of Women: The External Evidence for 1 Cor 14.34-5, New Testament Studies 43.2 (1997): 242-255. Osburn, Carroll D. The interpretation of 1 Cor. 14:34-35, Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, Vol 1. Edited by Carroll D. Osburn. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1995. Payne, Philip B. Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.34-5, New Testament Studies 44.2 (1995): 240-262. ________, the Text-Critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14.34-35: A Response to J. Edward Miller, Journal of the Study of the New Testament 27.1 (2004): 105-112.

Ross, J. M. Floating Words: Their Significance for Textual Criticism, New Testament Studies 38 (1992): 153-156.