(Edited thanks to a much-appreciated comment from Dennis Threadgill. Deleted text is shown by strikethrough. New text is shown by an underscore. The point of the post was not to disprove Patrick’s position but to demonstrate that there is no “liberalism” in those who, contrary to my own and Patrick’s views, reject 1 Cor 14:33-34 as part of Paul’s original text.)
Isn’t it obvious that churches grow largely because of the work of their female members?
I have no interest in re-arguing the role of women case from top to bottom. We did that here some time ago in the Buried Talents series. But I do think that it’s worthwhile to reflect a bit on Patrick Mead’s recent post regarding 1 Cor 14:34-35.
Here’s the text in question:
(1Co 14:34-35 ESV) 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
Patrick explains,
While that passage exists with minor variance in wording in all ancient manuscripts we have found so far, it often occurs in a different place within that chapter, as if it were a later tradition being worked into the text (as was the story of the adulterous woman in John 8). In fact, take a moment to pick up your Bible and read First Corinthians 14 and leave out vv.34,35. It flows much better, doesn’t it? The thought isn’t broken up and Paul gets to finish his point. These reasons, among others, are why so many people who spend their lives studying these manuscripts believe Paul didn’t write those two verses.
In a later post, Patrick clarifies his position —
And we shouldn’t be afraid of looking at how those scriptures got into the text. I happen to think that they are legitimately a part of scripture but I am in the minority in that regard (I think). The two problematic verses in First Corinthians 14:34-35 appear in every ancient manuscript of which I am aware but they do not always occur in the same place in the text. That raises the question of whether or not it was in the original. Some are certain that it is a gloss, a note in the margin that got moved into the body of the text.
I disagree with Patrick when it comes to whether that 1 Cor 14:34-35 should be considered as part of the original text. I can easily see merit in both positions. He may well be right. Even though I agree with Patrick that women aren’t compelled to be silent in the assembly by 1 Cor 14, I would argue (and have argued) the case differently.
I agree with Patrick that 1 Cor 14:34-35 should be considered a part of the original text. However, those who take the opposite view aren’t “liberals” or unworthy of fair consideration. Some very conservative scholars who are experts in textual criticism reject these verses as unlikely to have been in the original.
Textual criticism
We, of course, don’t have any of the original texts written by the apostles. We only have copies. In fact, we only have copies of copies of copies …
And these texts often disagree with each other. Usually, the disagreements are trivial. The texts were copied by hand, sometimes by scribes with a weak knowledge of Greek. Sometimes a word or a letter is skipped or repeated by accident. Sometimes the scribe concludes that the text he is copying from is mistaken, and so he “corrects” it by changing it, unwittingly corrupting the text.
And there are variations that actually affect the translation but not materially, such as saying “Christ Jesus” rather than “Jesus Christ.” And there are just a few variations that are truly material.
The passage regarding the woman taken in adultery was likely not part of the original Gospel of John. The ending of Mark is much disputed, because it doesn’t appear in the oldest manuscripts. And Acts 8:37 is omitted by nearly all modern translations for the same reason.
We have the good fortune of living in an age when we have access to manuscripts much older that the manuscripts known to the KJV translators.
A “codex” is a book, as opposed to a scroll or single piece of paper, and the oldest manuscripts of complete or nearly complete New Testaments we have were produced as codices around the time of Constantine (early 4th Century). Of course, some codices include only a portion of the New Testament (or only a portion has been preserved). The discovery of these ancient codices in the last two centuries dramatically improved our ability to discern the original manuscript, because they are so much closer to the time of the apostles than nearly all of what we had before and because the three earliest codices were obviously prepared with the greatest of care.
And the oldest codices include 1 Cor 14:34-35 where modern translations show it (the same as the KJV translators, as it turns out). However, those verses are relocated to the end of the chapter in Codex Bezae (or “Codex D”), which contains many additions to the text not found in earlier codices or other sources. Whoever assembled this codex appears to have accumulated a great many questionable additions and omissions into the copy, perhaps in an abundance of caution (sound familiar?).
Many more-recent manuscripts are copies of Codex Bezae, and so they don’t add much weight to the evidence of Bezae.
Now with that all-too-brief introduction to textual criticism (the hallowed task of discerning the original texts written by the apostles), let’s see what the commentators say.
In favor of excluding the verses
Real problems for Pauline authorship lie with the phrase “even as the Law says.” First, when Paul elsewhere appeals to “the Law,” he always cites the text (e.g., 9:8; 14:21), usually to support a point he himself is making. Nowhere else does he appeal to the Law in this absolute way as binding on Christian behavior. More difficult yet is the fact that the Law does not say any such thing. Gen. 3:16 is often appealed to, but that text does not say what is here argued. If that were the case, then one must admit that Paul is appealing not to the written Torah itself but to an oral understanding of Torah such as is found in rabbinic Judaism. A similar usage is reflected in Josephus, who says, “The woman, says the Law, is in all things inferior to the man. Let her accordingly be submissive.” This usage suggests that the provenance of the glossator was Jewish Christianity. Under any view this is difficult to reconcile with Paul.
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 707.
The New International Commentary series is hugely influential and highly respected. And Fee is an expert in textual criticism. The fact that Gordon Fee argues for exclusion has required that nearly all later scholarly commentaries address the question.
Here in 1 Cor 14:34-36 we are probably faced with a later insertion of a text whose posture is at odds not only with Paul’s relationship with women in other churches but also with what Paul has said about women earlier in 1 Corinthians. It will be helpful to review evidence on both sides.
J. Paul Sampley, The New Interpreter’s Bible : Acts – First Corinthians (Volume 10).
Like the New International Commentary series, The New Interpreter’s Bible has established itself as among the most scholarly and respected commentary series. Sampley provides, by far, the most thorough and lengthy discussion of the two sides I have found — far too much material for me to quote here.
In favor of including the verses
Some of the verses in this section (vv. 34–35) were felt by some early copyists to be out of place at this point in the letter and so were transposed to the end of the chapter. A more drastic approach taken by some recent commentators is to regard these verses as spurious and unworthy of comment. Though the exact meaning of these verses is difficult to determine, neither expedient has much to commend it. In fact it seems that the guiding thread which prompted these comments by Paul about women was the same theme developed in the preceding verses addressed to those gifted in tongues and prophecy. The church members needed to exercise self-control on occasion, a self-control expressed by silence (vv. 28, 30, 34) in order that the assembly might be characterized by peace.
David K. Lowery, “1 Corinthians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 540–541.
The Bezan codex (D) and related Western MSS [manuscripts] put these vv. at the end of the chapter. Some suggest that this evidences a marginal gloss that got into the text at various places (Craig, in loc.) but there is no good evidence for this. The better MSS have the vv. as we read them.
W. Harold Mare, “1 Corinthians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through Galatians, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 277.
Some scholars have argued that vv. 34–35 should be excised from the text (principally G. D. Fee, First Corinthians [NICNT], 697–710; P. B. Payne, “Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.34-5, ” NTS 41 [1995]: 240-262). This is because the Western witnesses (D F G ar b vgms Ambst) [Codex D is the Bezae Codex] have these verses after v. 40, while the rest of the tradition retains them here. There are no MSS that omit the verses. Why, then, would some scholars wish to excise the verses? Because they believe that this best explains how they could end up in two different locations, that is to say, that the verses got into the text by way of a very early gloss added in the margin. Most scribes put the gloss after v. 33; others, not knowing where they should go, put them at the end of the chapter. … Although it is not our intention to interact with proponents of the shorter text in any detail here, a couple of points ought to be made. (1) Since these verses occur in all witnesses to 1 Corinthians, to argue that they are not original means that they must have crept into the text at the earliest stage of transmission. How early? Earlier than when the pericope adulterae (John 7:53–8:11) made its way into the text (late 2nd, early 3rd century?), earlier than the longer ending of Mark (16:9–20) was produced (early 2nd century?), and earlier than even “in Ephesus” was added to Eph 1:1 (upon reception of the letter by the first church to which it came, the church at Ephesus) – because in these other, similar places, the earliest witnesses do not add the words. This text thus stands as remarkable, unique. Indeed, since all the witnesses have the words, the evidence points to them as having been inserted into the original document. Who would have done such a thing? And, further, why would scribes have regarded it as original since it was obviously added in the margin? This leads to our second point. (2) Following a suggestion made by E. E. Ellis (“The Silenced Wives of Corinth (I Cor. 14:34–5),” New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis, 213–20 [the suggestion comes at the end of the article, almost as an afterthought]), it is likely that Paul himself added the words in the margin. Since it was so much material to add, Paul could have squelched any suspicions by indicating that the words were his (e.g., by adding his name or some other means [cf. 2 Thess 3:17]). This way no scribe would think that the material was inauthentic. (Incidentally, this is unlike the textual problem at Rom 5:1, for there only one letter was at stake; hence, scribes would easily have thought that the “text” reading was original. And Paul would hardly be expected to add his signature for one letter.) (3) What then is to account for the uniform Western tradition of having the verses at the end of the chapter? Our conjecture (and that is all it is) is that the scribe of the Western Vorlage could no longer read where the verses were to be added (any marginal arrows or other directional device could have been smudged), but, recognizing that this was part of the original text, felt compelled to put it somewhere. The least offensive place would have been at the end of the material on church conduct (end of chapter 14), before the instructions about the resurrection began. Although there were no chapter divisions in the earliest period of copying, scribes could still detect thought breaks (note the usage in the earliest papyri). (4) The very location of the verses in the Western tradition argues strongly that Paul both authored vv. 34–35 and that they were originally part of the margin of the text. Otherwise, one has a difficulty explaining why no scribe seemed to have hinted that these verses might be inauthentic (the scribal sigla of codex B, as noticed by Payne, can be interpreted otherwise than as an indication of inauthenticity [cf. J. E. Miller, “Some Observations on the Text-Critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14.34-35, ” JSNT 26 [2003]: 217-36.). There are apparently no MSS that have an asterisk or obelisk in the margin. Yet in other places in the NT where scribes doubted the authenticity of the clauses before them, they often noted their protest with an asterisk or obelisk. We are thus compelled to regard the words as original, and as belonging where they are in the text above.
Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006), 1 Co 14:35.
In addition, Ben Witherington III argues for inclusion of the verses in Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians
No position
Lenski mentions the controversy but declines to take a position in his commentary on 1 Corinthians.
Conclusion
The exclusion is supported by some very solid, conservative scholars writing in the most respected commentary series. Therefore, the notion that arguing for exclusion makes someone liberal or unworthy of a fair hearing contradicts the facts.
It’s not as though Patrick routinely rejects as uninspired all passages inconvenient for his views or that there’s no solid scholarship behind his views. There is no basis to accuse him of denying inspiration. Rather, if you want to prove Patrick in error, you have to argue based on the textual evidence.
On the hand, there are certainly solid reasons to disagree with Patrick as to what the evidence really says. And I think the argument in favor of female equality does not require the rejection of these verses, just careful exegesis using a sound, biblical hermeneutic.
I agree that the passage is problematic textually. But I disagree with the idea that it somehow doesn’t fit the context, or that the flow is better without that passage. While Paul could certainly use some editing at times, the style of this “interruption” seems very Pauline. And the thoughts about being silent and in subjection have already been expressed concerning prophets and tongue speakers; it’s a logical time to address another source of interruptions in Corinth.
Overall I have long advocated the canonical approach of the late Brevard Childs of Yale which takes the text as it is without regard to questions of authorship, dating and transmission of the text through the centuries. I once heard Walter Brueggemann say that the alternative is to convince the church today to agree to a new or “improved” canon of Scripture which is of course impossible. As intriguing a possibility as Mead’s suggestion is, where would it stop? With Paul especially I think we sometimes have to scratch our heads and agree with the writer of 1 Peter that our brother Paul has written some things that are hard to understand. A huge benefit of the canonical approach is that it allows theological conservatives and liberals to communicate with each other about Scripture without getting lost in interminable debates about the historicity, authorship, dating and reliability of the text.
Tertullian and Cyprian both regarded this passage as scripture. I doubt that in the 21st century we have better information on that question than they did.
Not long ago, Al Maxey wrote a commentary on this passage, reflecting on the suggestion by author Lee Grady on the use of quotations marks in Greek (lack thereof) and how the Greek language denotes a quote from someone else. It was a thought provoking piece. What if Paul was quoting from the letter or report he obviously received about the Corinthian church in verses 34-35 and then addressed it in verse 36? That would be far more consistent with Paul’s acknowledgement of Phoebe, Priscilla, and his instructions regarding women prophesying and singing, etc. It was in his Reflections… #592
I suspect that I hold an unpopular view: that if the integrity of God’s word was important as inspired, it was equally important as canonized. So I believe His hand was in that as well, and the scripture we have tells the story He wishes to tell in the manner, order, and quality that He desires it to be told.
So these two verses, to me, are included to illustrate that when people aren’t spiritually mature and can’t gather to worship in selfless grace, then “law” must be temporarily imposed – instruction in listening and showing grace until it becomes character. These verses are correctives for a given situation, about which we are told enough to know that the situation no longer exists as such – at least in most churches! People aren’t competing during the worship itself to be heard; women aren’t interrupting to ask questions. Things are pretty much done decently and in order.
The shame was not in their gender, but in unbecoming behavior during gathered worship.
If the same misbehavior took place today, the same instruction would be needed. And if it were being committed or instigated by men, it would need to be addressed to men. It is equally shameful for men to selfishly prattle on in worship.
There appears to be an underlying assumption here which we have not bothered to work out. That is the nature of the “inspiration” that we ascribe to the scriptures. If John 8 was added to this text long after John’s death, does that make its inspiration questionable? Is inspiration like a kitchen match, that is, once struck, it only burns until it runs out and can never flame again? Or is it like a candle, re-lit again and again by the same Spirit? If a later writer tacked Mark 16 onto an earlier text, does that suggest this addition was not inspired by the Holy Spirit? We seem to believe that when Mark picked up his quill and put it away, that closed the window of revelation– a window not open to whoever penned that last portion. If we find out that John’s gospel was not really penned by John personally but was the recollection of his oral recounts written by others– perhaps decades after John died– then is it not inspired? We appear to attribute inspiration to writers much as we attribute magical powers to The Thirteen– that is, that inspiration was the province of the writer, not what was written. We do this to such an extent that we swallow obvious contradictions, such as calling I Cor 7 entirely “inspired” when Paul plainly says at least part of it is not.
And this idea of closing the canon for the simple reason that we no longer have the sort of spiritual discernment that the Galatian church or Athanasius or the council of Hippo must have had is very troubling. Why would we take counsel on the canon from people whose position is that they cannot discern between what is from God and what is not?
Patrick’s series is eight parts so far. I count 35 pages. http://www.travelingmead.net/
I think you might have jumped the gun on his “conclusions”. He does not state that this is not part of the text. He says that is is … and should be.
He sets out the beliefs of others as to the merits of the text. I believe what you quote as his conclusion, is not.
In part 5 – All Women or “Those” Women? We start to look at Ephesus…
December 4, 2013 , he says, “And we shouldn’t be afraid of looking at how those scriptures got into the text. I happen to think that they are legitimately a part of scripture but I am in the minority in that regard (I think).”
Thanks for all you do.
Dennis
Gary-
Glad to see that I’m not the only person that still had one of Brevard Childs’ books on my shelf (Biblical Theology in Crisis). As I recall it is a difficult read, but worthwhile. I think Childs is greatly underrated as one of the 20th century’s great theologians. You are absolutely correct that we cannot allow ourselves to get lost in endless debate about the reliability of canon. I have a couple very good friends who are pastors/Thd’s, and they would gladly spend hours discussing this very subject rather than getting their hands dirty caring for their flocks. I would never suggest that we should not have the conversation, but just that I am attracted to the simpler notions regarding our faith. In this case, the simple notion is that I can read the bible that is on my desk and accept it as authoritative. I don’t need a theologian, a preacher or an expert in ancient texts; just me and my bible.
Charles, I may be reading between the lines, and forgive me for any misrepresentation but it appears that you may believe continuing revelation is on ongoing ministry. I may be wrong in that, but I would like to share my experience with a “fivefold ministry.” A friend of mine, former church of Christ, now attends such a church and he invited me to attend. The Apostle, my friend assured me, would slay me in the Spirit. Also I was certain to see signs and wonders and mighty works which are the signs of an Apostle. Without going into much detail, I did not observe any signs or mighty works, but I was certainly left wondering. The place was pure chaos; shouting, screams, convulsions. Perhaps most telling was the time of prophecy, when one prophetess shared God’s revelation to her on a particular political issue. She was immediately followed by another prophetess who shared God’s revelation to her in exactly the opposite direction. If I have made any unfair assumptions, please forgive me. It’s just that I haven’t shared that story in years and thought I would share it here.
Of the scholars quoted above, I am most familiar with Gordon Fee. Dr. Fee is an anomaly in that he comes from a thorough going charismatic church background–complete with every anti-intellectual feature imaginable, and yet, is a strong academic. He has a marvelous book on the Holy Spirit, God’s Empowering Presence, produced How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth, and a book by book summary of all 66 canonical books. His teaching lectures on New Testament Theology are valuable. Dr. Fee’s lifetime church experiences have involved female Teachers and Evangelists. His commentary has been thoroughly pillaged respecting his remarks re: the textual validity of 1 Corinthians 14.
Jay, Codex Bezae only includes parts of the gospels and Acts. Codex D in Paul’s epistles is a different manuscript from about a century later. You are not by any means the first to make that mistake. Otherwise, the article is good.
If it is, there is no doubt it is not being obeyed today. Conversely, if it isn’t what difference does it make?
Changing the subject, forgive me please.
Anyone been watching to series on the Byzantine Empire, and seeing all the beautiful
monuments and buildings in the capital Constantinople (now Instanbul)?
Interesting they show so much of Jesus with only Matthew Mark, Luke and John who wrote the gospels in almost all their artwork scattered in that city and in other cities also.
Wonder why they didn’t at least include Peter or Paul?
Jim,
I’m not sure I follow you. I’m looking at the Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum (which I bought many, many years ago at your suggestion). On p. 14, Bezae is shown as Codex D. I’ve also checked a few Internet resources, and I can’t find any reference to a Codex D other than Bezae.
On the other hand, you are certainly right that Bezae includes only the Gospels and Acts (and a fragment of 3 John). I can see how my post would have led to a different conclusion. Thanks for the correction.
Dennis,
Thanks! I’ve corrected the post accordingly, and greatly appreciate your pointing out Patrick’s later post so that I could do so.
Keith, I’m right there with you. If it is debatable what text constitutes the inspired scripture, then we’re in quite a pickle. Where can we turn for definitive answers about our faith if not to the scriptures? I don’t think our Father left us having to wonder about such things.
The canon was not settled until well after the church began on Pentecost. Now just how the canon came to be would be interesting to study.
Philip Payne’s book One in Christ does a great job of showing how this passage was not part of the original letter Paul wrote. I found that book to be an excellent resource on relooking the role of women.
Jay, if you ever get time, I would be interested in whatever book review you could do on Zealot by Reza Aslan. It has a lot of good background information on the political environment of Jesus’ day and some interesting points/facts(?) that appear to contradict the Gospels and Paul that critics of the book don’t seem to be addressing that you would probably have good insight on.
Martin, the early church was rife with things which were not correct, ranging from ordinary prejudice and pride and presumption to the most rank heresy. Still happens. I’m sorry you had a troubling experience with these folks, and I don’t offer any excuse for foolishness or immaturity or error in the name of “fivefold ministry”. But a room full of errors does not disprove anything. It’s rather like a teacher getting thirty spelling tests back with the word “surprise” misspelled. What does that mean? It means nobody in that class can spell “surprise”. It does not mean we should call Noah Webster’s work into question. My experience with the ministry of apostles and prophets has been pretty much exactly the opposite of what you describe. It has been a revelation and a blessing and a source of spiritual encouragement and life to me for over 25 years.
I think Charles makes some good points. I admit to not having worked out a consistent view of inspiration as he notes. Still working on it. Our heritage basically rules out any inspiration post 1st century. And the type of inspiration allowed is ascribed to a magically perfect text of the autographs which no one will ever see. Origen complained circa 200 CE about the negligence of people who copied the writings then in circulation. So the problem of achieving a reliable, faithful text was known even in those early days. Yet, it was the fourth century before the canon was closed and people who made the decision on which books and which versions are not very much like us. Athanasius was the first to give us the list of canonical NT books identical to what we now have (~367 CE). On the one hand I admire him for having endured persecution and several exiles. On the other hand, he returned the favor, using goons and physical intimidation to promote his goals. From that point on, the destruction commenced of other Christian literature he viewed as heretical.
So if subsequent scholarship proves or lends a high credibility that certain passages are altered or inserted or have different authorship, then so be it. It is up to us to figure out how best to interpret the Christian message for our times to the best of our ability using scripture and being inspired by what other Christians wrote and how they have acted over the full course of the last 2000 years.
I’m surprising Nestle-Aland don’t just take it out. They already took out “for thing is the kingdom the power and the glory” from the Lord’s Prayer,and Jesus’ words on the cross “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do,” no to mention “If you believe, you may.”
And as for portions of the Pauline epistles, some codices (quite a few early ones) end Romans in chapter 14. And there are few that are codices of the Pauline epistles but only include 9 epistles rather than 14. So once we start down this road, where does it end?
The pastorals have been declared deutero-Pauline by Protestant scholars under the assumption that Romans-Galatians is the authentic Paul. But if the pastorals were assumed to be the authentic Paul, wouldn’t they then cast out Romans-Galatians as deutero-Pauline? Its all a matter of your starting assumptions.
@Alabama John, in response to your comments about Constantinople, “Wonder why they didn’t at least include Peter or Paul?” We are very Paul centric today, but the ancient church, particularly the Greek-speaking side, was very centered on the gospels. Paul only survives in about 700 Greek manuscripts, while the Four Gospels are preserved in something like 2361. I got the numbers from David Trobisch’s “First Edition of the New Testament.” The gospels were more highly prized, more copies were made, and if a common person owned any book of the Bible it would be the Four Gospel book. (Remember, the New Testament was a multivolume work back then. Originally 4 volumes: Gospels, Paul, Acts-General-epistles, Revelation.)
Being overly Paul centered is responsible for almost every significant problem Churches of Christ have had throughout our history. The legalistic tendency has caused us to try to make Paul’s letters into a new and improved Law for the church. That’s quite an irony given that Paul was the supreme opponent of the first legalists, the Judaizers. Jim Woodroof began calling Churches of Christ to be Gospels- centered decades ago now but the Pauline fixation and distortion continues.
Thanks David. many lessons can be learned from history that the Bible doesn’t address. Always facinating to see the various pictures in gold in many churches around the world done way back then. Interesting to talk to Jews that had kin that were copiers of the Torah onto scroles and their thinking.
Gary, your post is right on. We sure need to study the ones written other than mainly Paul. The Bible is supposed to be the Good News after all isn’t it.
Amazing the results you get when explaining it to the lost as Good News rather than condemning al throughout history to hell but a very, very few.
David,
You are confusing textual criticism with so-called “higher criticism.”
The effort to correct textual errors (textual criticism) goes back long before the KJV. The early Christians noticed that manuscripts differed from each others, and very early copyists sometimes noted in the margin that a passage was doubtful because not contained in some older manuscripts. The Jews also dealt with the same problems in the OT centuries before the KJV.
When the KJV translators began their work, they had manuscripts that differed from each other. They had no choice but to decide which readings are most likely to reflect the original.
Over time, as more and more and older and older manuscripts were found, Christian scholars — very conservative scholars — developed principles regarding how to decide.
That these decisions must be made is not controversial. And the principles developed by textual critics have been shown sound because as older texts were discovered, the older text usually reflected the conclusions of the textual critics.
“Higher criticism” is a much less principled area of study. Higher criticism seeks to determine the true canon — a very legitimate effort going back to the second century.
Martin Luther questioned several NT books. Protestants rejected the Apocrypha while the Catholics accepted the Apocrypha.
However, in the last couple of centuries, many scholars have questions the authenticity of many of Paul’s epistles among others. But there is no scholarly consensus on these conclusions and no principled method for making these decisions. And NT Wright, among many other top-flight scholars, have challenged their methods and motives. Scholarship is heading in a better direction these days.
And so I have no complaint with anyone who questions much of contemporary higher criticism. I find the current efforts to often be specious sophistry.
But textual criticism is not only unavoidable, it’s proven over the years to make good predictions of what the older manuscripts say. Obviously, given the many manuscripts that we now have, there will be disagreements among scholars as to what text is authentic, but there are surprisingly few disagreements that an English reader would even notice in his translation.
Obviously, there is no reason at all to assume that the KJV had the right text. Those translators didn’t even use the oldest texts that were then available! And when we later found manuscripts that were many centuries older, it only makes good sense to conclude that the oldest texts were likely to have fewer errors.
Patrick Mead has just posted a clarification on his opinion:
[Deleted full text of Patrick’s post. Please go to Patrick’s blog to read.]
http://www.travelingmead.net/uncategorized/another-look-at-a-problematic-passage-1st-cor-143435/
Dennis,
I very much appreciate you pointing this out to me and to the readers, but as a matter of policy, I don’t allow the cutting and pasting entire articles.
I’m well aware of what textual criticism is, Jay. I’ve recently been comparing the Robinson-Piermont Byzantine Majority Text to the TR in fact, so I’m well aware of little differences between texts. But its a pretty big leap to argue that just because some manuscripts move the verses from their usual place to the end of the chapter means they are interpolations. I’ve yet to see an English translation that removes the two verses in Romans 16 that are actually found in Romans 14 in most manuscripts. Why? No doctrinal axe to grind. And where are the English translations that drop Romans 15-16 altogether because certain 9-epistle Pauline collections ended Romans with chapter 14? Nowhere. Why? No doctrine they want to remove is in there. Here there is a doctrinal axe to grind. And they verses moving around is probably itself a result of that axe. Some liberal scribes who weren’t allowed to remove them moved them to the end of the chapter to cast doubt on them. What has that to do with us? In the end, women preachers is a sort of barrier. Once you allow it, you know that next you’ll be hiring a Liturgical Dance team. Its the point after which all hell breaks loose. Because if you can convince yourself to deny two direct statements of the apostle Paul to the same effect but in two different epistles, then you can convince yourself to do any and everything absurd in the assembly.
Also on Textual Criticism, I would note that there are multiple schools of thought. The main two being the Majority Text approach and the eclectic critical type approach. The Majority Text approach obviously says that whatever the majority of manuscripts say, that’s the text of the NT. This is the approach followed by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont. They’ve released their 2005 edition into public domain. The other approach is basically the “eventually make the Bible say whatever we want by continuing to look for divergent manuscripts in the trash dumps of Egypt until we find the readings we want or are able to forge them.” This is the approach in Nestle-Aland/UBS. Yet even Nestle-Aland haven’t been so bold as to remove these two verses yet, although they’ve removed plenty of things that are in the majority of manuscripts.
Its funny how the critical text types pay lipservice to the idea of number of manuscripts. They complain that the Textus Receptus was based on only handful of manuscripts, Erasmus’ first edition on 8, Stephanus 1550 on 15. But how many is the Nestle-Aland text really based on? Not all of them. Only the Majority Text is based on a high number! Because only the Majority Text follows the majority. Nestle-Aland just picks and chooses from a handful of unreliable Alexandrian manuscripts and keeps hopping between them. In the end, the Nestle-Aland text is not based on any more manuscripts than Erasmus’ first edition was!!!!!! Just instead of 8 Byzantine manuscripts, its based on a handful of Alexandrian ones. And yes still, even they so far have not removed these two verses.
David, separate and apart from manuscript considerations, why would women preachers and liturgical dance in the assembly be absurd? If an element or activity in the assembly is edifying for the congregation who’s to say it is absurd?
Jay said “Obviously, there is no reason at all to assume that the KJV had the right text. Those translators didn’t even use the oldest texts that were then available! And when we later found manuscripts that were many centuries older, it only makes good sense to conclude that the oldest texts were likely to have fewer errors.”
I have been accused of not knowing what “textual criticism” is because if I did I might change my mind. Well be as that may.
Jay’s statement above absoluty shows his disbelief in a Holy Ghost inspired flawless bible written by inspired writer, and inspired translaters. Who would say you can translate a flawless document from a flawed original, no one in their right mental state would say that.
Those who are fixated on the “earliest manuscripts” often ignore the older evidence in the 2nd and 3rd century church writers. Those writers counted 1 Cor 14:34 as inspired scripture — not to mention the long ending of Mark 16 and other passages some “experts” love to doubt. Maybe its just a blind spot for them. I won’t assume it’s dishonesty or bias. But it is irrational. There is no manuscript older than Irenaeus, Tertulian, Cyprian, etc. None. When the oldest available evidence proves a passage was accepted as scripture, and a later manuscript omits the passage, it’s the later manuscript that is questionable.
Does this thinking also apply to us older churches of Christ members? LOL
70 inspired writers picked what is in the KJV. How many inspired accepted what went into the newer versions?
If you don’t believe those 70 were inspired, name which was, or is, so we can only study their version of the Bible?
If you find errors in all of them, then either you are smarter than any others or agree with Jay as more and more do.
David B,
Who are you arguing against? I said in the post that I disagree with deletion of the verses. Patrick Mead has said the same thing.
AJ said: “70 inspired writers picked what is in the KJV.”
Er, what? I read the introduction to the KJV by the people who assembled it and find no mention of inspiration in the selection process. Moses did not decide what went in the KJV. Neither did Paul. The one clear thing about the NT canon is that it did not take its present form until after every single author was dead. From Athanasius to the Council of Hippo, and even afterward, people who assembled and approved the canon for the church were not the authors.
I think AJ may have been thinking of the 70 translators of the Septuagint.
Thank you Gary, I was. My error, but am glad to know both you and Larry are reading my posts!
In truth the uninspired king might of had influence on the KJV. Political pressure is effective.
Example: Civil War had an influence on the Bible from the north and South. Still does as you see which one I capitalized as we were taught was correct in grammar school. On that all the denominations down here agreed. That in itself was refreshing.
There I go again, I meant Charles.
My previous church had both women preachers (and elders) and liturgical dance. And hell didn’t break loose.. all that happened is that more people were edified by divergent teaching and expressions of faith.
Wendy, is this the same dance the daughter of the said Herodias came in, and danced, and pleased Herod and them that sat with him, on Herod’s birthday.(and was rewarded with John’s head on a platter)
How many times is it mentioned that either God, or his Son Jesus sat and watched such a dance, and was pleased as Herod and friends were. I am not familiar with those passages, or this type of worship. Oh by the way Wendy, Hell hasn’t broken loose yet.
Question for you Laymond. Have you ever put yourself in Wendy’s position to experience what she is talking about and rub shoulders with these people and see how they came to their conclusions or are you just quick to pass judgment?
Adam, some find it much easier to condemn than to open their minds and hearts to the possibility that their traditions are not the only permissible ones…
Question for Adam, Adam do you without question accept any, or all pagan worship as being worship worthy of God? I have questions unless this worship is offered to pagan gods, then I have NO questions.
Oh, in answer to Adam’s question, No I have never placed myself or my family in a position, like Wendy describes, and don’t intend to on purpose.
I’m happy to be edified by women when I have the opportunity. A Methodist friend co-taught a Sunday evening class with a woman several years ago and at his request I attended and enjoyed it very much. And though I’ve never experienced it and don’t know anything about it, I cannot say out of hand that liturgical dance could not build up the body of Christ in some way. It would depend on how it is done. Thanks for speaking up on this Wendy.
Laymond,
You don’t know my personal beliefs on this but you are already trying to peg me where you think I belong in your mind. Even Jesus and the apostles put themselves in positions that were “unacceptable” to the religious of their day but they didn’t lose their faith . I challenge you to enter a “discussion” on this with the understanding that people, like you, don’t come to their decisions lightly. However, the nature of your comments is entertaining and makes it fun to come back to. Hopefully you understand that the way you approach this does nothing to convince anyone of your position. Talk to us like adults and brothers and sisters in Christ and we can then listen to what is on your heart. Some here just might be smarter than you realize.
Adam, read both questions, yours to me, then mine to you. Which is the more condescending .?
“It is up to us to figure out how best to interpret the Christian message for our times to the best of our ability using scripture and being inspired by what other Christians wrote and how they have acted over the full course of the last 2000 years.”
OTOH, Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would take what is His and make it known to us.
Charles, I recognize my having some difficulties in understanding the nature of the Holy Spirit. My particular CofC upbringing was apprehensive about the possibility of things getting out of hand and people interpreting their desires and emotions incorrectly, ascribing them to the Holy Spirit, and, as a consequence, affirming, believing, and doing things that are not doctrinally correct. That perspective or bias is still inside me and I can see how that it leads some to a rationalism that eventually develops into skepticism and atheism, like former CofC people, Michael Shermer and John Loftus. I need help on this,
Steve, I sympathize. While in the CoC, I found a few people who would theorize about the Holy Spirit, but there was simply no one I could talk to who had any more experience in hearing from Him than I did at the time. It was like taking sex-education class in a Catholic school, where your information comes from either a celibate priest, or from the other fourteen-year-olds in the class who are just as full of misinformation as you are. Nobody there is willing to admit that he simply has no experience at all upon which to base his views. It’s a recipe for ignorance at best and unbelief at worst. When we cannot discern between soul and spirit, we cannot help but constantly misjudge what is going on around us. I find it interesting that we have internalized this fear of “getting it wrong” because of emotional involvement, not realizing that neither doctrinal error nor “emotionalism” are things of the spirit. OTOH, we DO trust our intellect, and don’t fear it leading us astray– in spite of the historic evidence that it has often done so– but we fear that very same result from seeking the Spirit. I think we forget that listening to and trusting our own wisdom instead of depending upon the Holy Spirit is pretty much the definition of being “carnally minded”.
I was blessed to be introduced over 25 years ago to believers who were already walking after the Spirit. They were subject to mistakes and growing pains just like the rest of us, but they had a far superior Source of guidance. Their fellowship was crucial to my learning to hear from the Spirit. OTOH, one who has a fledgling belief and understanding of such things can find that little light snuffed out very quickly and thoroughly by those who know nothing of it.
Thanks for your testimony Charles. I appreciate what you said.
Pingback: Women in the church: Silence is golden? | Tim Archer's Kitchen of Half-Baked Thoughts