INTRODUCTION

This thesis developed from an understanding that 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is an interpolation. Based on this affirmation, chapter one investigates both the meaning of vv. 34-35 within the context of Paul’s first extant letter to the Corinthians, and the original message of chapter fourteen without vv. 34-35. Chapter one also offers the most compelling reasons why a scribe would choose chapter fourteen as the place to insert an interpolation against women’s speech in the church. Finally, I examine the parallels between 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Tim. 2:9-15. Chapter two summarizes the argument that 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is an interpolation. In this chapter, first I investigate the issue of interpolation in ancient literature. Then, I present the arguments based on internal evidences that are both for and against the interpolation of 1 Cor. 14:34-35. Next, I provide a section on external evidences supporting a case of interpolation of vv. 34-35. In this final section we will investigate scribal awareness of multiple readings in Codex Vaticanus, Fuldensis and Ms. 88, which can be observed in some sigla left by the copyists of these texts. Chapter three examines the identity of the author(s) and the date of composition for both the interpolation in Corinthians and the Pastoral Epistles. Chapter three provides a survey on the role of women in the churches under Paul’s personal supervision. It also examines the ancient view of the role of women in the Greco-Roman society and how it impacted the deutero-Pauline understanding. Next, I present the most important issues behind the debate concerning the role of women between the deutero-Pauline school (represented especially by the Pastoral Epistles) and the Pauline tradition represented by the Acts of Paul. Finally, I investigate the canonization of the Taceat Mulier dogma. Chapter ONE
The Origin of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

This chapter presents an introduction to Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. For our purpose it is important to understand the background of the letter, the theories of composition and unity of the letter, and Paul’s agenda in writing the letter. This background will assist us to better understand the nature and meaning of vv. 34-35. Building on Richard Hays’ commentary to 1 Corinthians this chapter presents an interpretation of chapter fourteen taking into consideration the omission of vv. 34-35. Hays points out that the interpretation of chapter 14 makes perfect sense without verses 34-35.[1] This chapter also provides an interpretation of vv. 34-35 from the point of view that these verses were interpolated into the text. Chapter one offers, in addition, the most compelling reasons why an editor would choose chapter fourteen of Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians in order to insert an interpolation against women’s speech in the church. In other words, what kind of language and theme was present in chapter fourteen which made it the ideal place for the interpolation of vv. 34-35 in the eyes of the editor? Finally, chapter one examines the parallels between 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Tim. 2:9-15. Although the context of both letters is different, scholars have demonstrated the existence of significant similarities between the two texts. Scholars have specially noted similarities in vocabulary and tone. Chapter one establishes the ground for discussion of the text-critical problem of 1 Cor. 14:34-35 which is investigated in more depth in chapter two.

An Introduction to 1 Corinthians Early Christians accepted 1 Corinthians as being one of the most influential writings of Paul. In some early collections of Paul’s letters it was considered the first letter, only later to be edged out by Romans.[2] Historically, it has gained universal appeal and unquestionable importance. In the Muratorian Canon the two epistles to the Corinthians stand at the head of the Pauline epistles.[3] First Corinthians is among Paul’s longest letters. It was written to the church in the largest and most important city in Greece at the time.[4] The epistles are important because of what they tell us about the difficulties encountered by one of the most important churches planted by Paul. Many of the difficulties that Paul is addressing in the letter are related to questions of authority and leadership. The history of interpretation of this letter conveys the understanding that uncertainties about the leadership at Corinth had produced a situation in which the “church was in danger of dissolving into competing factions based on personalities, some of whom were teaching false doctrine as well.”[5] Although early Christian commentaries do not explicitly affirm that a centralized leadership and hierarchy was the solution to the Corinthians’ problems, this suggestion was certainly in their scope as we can observe in the later Pastoral Epistles. However, to be clear this alternative is definitely not presented as a possibility in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. Udo Schnelle notes that Paul founded the church in Corinth after his work in Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, and Athens in the year 50. He arrived in Corinth alone (cf. Acts 18:5), but was soon joined by Silas and Timothy. Paul remained there about a year and a half (Acts 18:11); thus Corinth became a center of the Pauline missionary work alongside Ephesus.[6] Paul was also joined later by two Jews, Aquila and his wife Priscilla, with whom Paul apparently became close friends and worked as tentmaker (cf. Acts 18:3).[7] Scholars generally agree that the correspondence with the Corinthians occurred around ca. 55 CE.[8] Richard Oster notes that Paul was actually not far from Corinth when he wrote 1 Corinthians.[9] The letter of 1 Corinthians was sent by Paul and Sosthenes from Ephesus to the congregation of believers in the city of Corinth. This is in contrast to 2 Corinthians, which was written not only to believers in Corinth but also to believers in the province of Achaia, of which Corinth was the capital (2 Cor. 1:1).[10] Studies have shown that the boat trip from Athens to Ephesus lasted only four to five days.[11] This being the case, we can infer some sort of communication being held between the Corinthians and Paul. Oster argues that Paul’s information about the several problems at Corinth with which he deals in the letter “did not come from firsthand knowledge of his own nor through inspiration.” According to Oster, most of the issues with which he dealt in the letter came likely from two distinct human sources. First, the information and problems treated in 1 Cor. 1-6 came from those from the house of Chloe.[12] Chloe’s people were presumably members of the household headed by a woman named Chloe.[13] A second major source for Paul’s information is mentioned in 1 Cor. 7:1. The Corinthians themselves should receive credit for the broad outline of what was discussed and treated in 1 Corinthians.[14] The letter clearly conveys the Corinthians’ contribution to the content and structure of the epistle.[15] The subject addressed in 1 Corinthians arose, as Raymond Collins suggests, “directly from the lives of that first generation Christian community, most of whom had been believers no more than 48 months.”[16] This is an important point when considering the subject of 1 Cor. 14:34-35. The exchange of information between Paul and the Christians in Corinth provided that the letter would become rooted in the concrete here and now of its particular historical situation.[17] Oster summarizes, There is general agreement that the letter is organized around the cluster of problems which Paul is striving to remedy by his apostolic instruction. The letter is basically a series of smaller units of thought each of which seems to be directed to a particular aberration in the beliefs and/or practices of the Corinthians. Paul’s style in the letter is to acknowledge the existence of a sin or problem, address the sin or problem, and then move on to the next one.[18]

Many scholars have argued that 1 Corinthians as we know it is the work of an editor who compiled the text from pieces of other letters that Paul supposedly had written to Corinth. An early proponent of this theory was Johannes Weiss in 1910.[19] He argued that canonical 1 Corinthians is the work of an editor who compiled the text from pieces of three different letters Paul had written to Corinth. He also suggested that in assembling the canonical letter the anonymous editor would have added a few explanatory and transitional elements that gave the new “letter” a more general or catholic character (cf. 1 Cor. 1:2; 4:17; 7:17; 10:29-30; 11:11-12, 16; 14:34-35). Throughout the last century scholarship has developed several options concerning the origin of canonical 1 Corinthians.[20] Oster notes that 1 Cor. 5:9 (“I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people”) makes it clear “that the letter of 1 Corinthians is not Paul’s first written communication with the church at Corinth since he here refers to a previous letter he had already sent them and which they apparently misunderstood (5:9-11).”[21] Thus, is 1 Corinthians a composite document of this previous letter with later letter(s) sent by Paul? Raising a similar question, Hays asks: “When we read this text are we really reading a single letter, or has it been artificially constructed by an editor who has pieced together excerpts from more than one letter of Paul?”[22] Answering his own question, Hays concludes that 1 Corinthians should be considered one single letter written by Paul in one occasion. On the other hand, some literary critics cast doubt upon the originality of the letter as it stands. Collins avers that we can be sure that at any given point there were at least four letters to the Corinthians (cf. 1 Cor. 5:9; 2 Cor. 2:3-4, 9), but we have only two.[23] Some note the loose constructions and the existence of some breaks and joints.[24] Nevertheless, Hans Conzelmann, opposing the fragmentary hypothesis, contends that these breaks and joints can be explained “by pause in dictation” and that possibly and even likely “the composition of the letter was spread over a certain period of time.”[25] Most scholars seem to agree with Gordon Fee “when he points out that many of the problems at Corinth are explicitly traced by Paul to the converts’ pagan heritage.”[26] Supporting this argument, Oster suggests that “even those issues not explicitly traced to pagan heritage by Paul can be best understood by seeing them against the backdrop of Greco-Roman rather than Jewish mores and values.”[27] This background will help us proceed in the interpretation of 1 Cor. 14:34-35.

The Meaning of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Taking into consideration that “meaning emerges from rhetorical and contextual usage,”[28] we will attempt to interpret vv. 34-35 within the flow of chapter 14. Barrett points out that v. 34 “seems more wooden, less flexible, and to take less account of the renewal of the created order in Christ,” which Paul, in the preceding verses is providing the arguments for. Barret proposes that “this may be because we have here the work of a Deutero-Pauline writer (such as the author of 1 Timothy), or because Paul is here refraining from discussion and stating a practical conclusive without giving reasons and qualifications.”[29] Barrett avers that one cannot make a convincing case that “to speak” in v. 34 (λαλειν) refers to “chatter,” although it is an acceptable rendering in Classical Greek. If this is the case, then “Paul should wish to stem an outburst of feminine loquacity.”[30] Barret also notes that in the New Testament, and in Paul, “the verb normally does not have this meaning and is used throughout chapter fourteen (verses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 18, 19, 21, 23, 27, 28, 29, 39) in the sense of inspired speech.” Barrett acknowledges that it is not impossible but simply unlikely that “Paul should now use it in a new sense (promptly reverting to the old in verse 39).”[31] Dealing with the claim “that sigao in 14:34 must be understood as an absolute prohibition, and that any attempt to qualify the word contextually is an example of special pleading,” Hull replies, “I cannot follow this reasoning, since sigao has already been nuanced in v. 28 to apply to a particular situation in which one must not speak.”[32] Moreover, when λαλειν is present the context suggests that sigao means that one must not speak. Finally, when considering the translation of sigao by the New International Version (NIV) committee, Oster remarks, It is lamentable that the NIV translation masks the fact that in all three instances (14:28, 30, 34) the apostle uses the same verb (sigato) to command quietness from those threatening orderliness. This verb is once rendered “keep quiet” (14:28), once “should stop” (14:30), and once “remain silent” (14:34). Notwithstanding the peculiar slant of the NIV, the intent of Paul’s imperative is to have the tongue speakers cease speaking in tongues until they can do it in an acceptable manner (i.e., no more than three; sequentially, intelligibly, and in the case of the women, at home).[33]

On v. 35 where it states that if women want to learn, let them inquire of their own husbands at home, Collins argues, The exhortation expresses patriarchal authority within the household, not only insofar as reference is made to the women’s own husbands (tou.j ivdi,ouj a;ndraj) but also insofar as the conduct that is enjoined (questioning instead of speaking) expresses dependence and subservience. In the Hellenistic world one of the responsibilities of husbands was the instruction of their wives.[34]

In making the option of including vv. 34-35 right before Paul’s threat of exclusion, the author of the interpolation reveals his objective of extending the threat over to women and men who decide to disobey the “silence” command. When, in reality, the strong sanctions are meant only for those who, as Hays proposes, “have persistently set themselves up as too high and mighty to listen to Paul or to concern themselves with the problems and weaknesses of other Christians at Corinth.”[35] In addition, as vv. 34-35 stands, v. 36 is meant to “underline the ‘ecumenical’ validity of the interpolation.”[36] Hays rejects the interpretation that tries to avoid the contradiction between chapters 11 and 14 by reading verses 33b-36 as Paul’s quotation of the Corinthians’ position. According to the theory, “it is the Corinthians who want to silence women, and Paul quotes their opinion in order to reject it.”[37] In response, Hays points out the following problems with this theory, “There is no indication in the text that Paul is quoting anything (unlike 7:1) or that the Corinthians held such views about women; furthermore, the other Corinthian views cited by Paul are always short slogans, not extended didactic arguments.” Thus, Hays correctly dismisses this view as “farfetched in the extreme.”[38] The interpretation of canonical vv. 34-35 is straightforward. Indeed, these verses must be explained in light of the context. This thesis proposes that during Paul’s time, although the context in the Greco-Roman society was already in place (which in this case it would allow for the composition of these verses), Paul did not choose to accommodate to the social norms of his time concerning the role of women. As it is, Hays’ interpretation fits best in the scenario, he writes, Ostensibly women, along with those who have the gift of tongues but no interpreter and prophets who must remain quite while someone who has a revelation speaks (14:28, 30), are a third category of people who are to be silent in the Christian assembly (evn tai/j evkklhsi,aij, in the plural)…. Unlike Paul’s directives to prophets and those who have the gift of tongues no conditions are stipulated as to when silence is desired. The injunction appears to have a general import, underscored by the explanation that follows: “for it is not permitted for them to speak…for it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”[39]

According to vv. 34-35, for those women who host a Christian assembly (evkklhsi,α) in their house, one would suppose that they needed to wait until the meeting is over, so that they can speak, and if they have any questions, they need to wait until everyone has left in order to ask their husbands. The discussion of this matter is somewhat complicated by the issue of social location. As we have seen, three times Paul speaks about the assembly (vv. 33, 34, 35). He also mentions a common practice; a rule that would forbid women’s speaking in the assembly and observes that for a woman to speak in public is shameful. Collins’ study shows that Christian assemblies took place on a rather small scale. In ca. 55 CE, they occurred in the homes of Christians, “at home, and particularly in Greco-Roman society, women took a more active role than they did in public civic life.”[40] Having this scenario in mind where women naturally had a participative and influential role, and adding to that Paul’s positive reaction toward women in ministry, as it can be attested by the several occasions women were involved in ministry under his sanction, one can only expect a house church with active women. As a result, by the early second century when the church began to assume a more institutionalized shape, it saw the need to define particular functions and appoint individual roles of authority.[41] During this transition from an apostolic church to a post-apostolic one something needed to be said concerning women’s role in the church. In a patriarchal society around the turn of the first century, while Paul’s letters began to be collected and the Pastoral letters written, Deutero-Paul was compelled to take a stand reactionary to Paul’s teaching concerning women. Under this understanding, “vv. 34-35 are an expression of the social and ecclesial discipline represented by such [deutero] NT passages as Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 2:11-15; and 1 Pet. 3:1-6.”[42]

The Meaning of 1 Corinthians 14 Omitting vv. 34-35 If, in fact, vv. 34-35 are an interpolation, then what did Paul have in mind with 1 Cor. 14:32-33, 36-38 as one reads the immediate verses preceding and following vv.34-35 as a sequence. Hay argues that the paragraphing in the NRSV obscures the structure of the discourse. In order to see how the logic of the argument flows, one must read the text with the interpolation of verses 34-35 deleted, as seen below: And the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets, for God is a God not of disorder but of peace. (As in all the churches of the saints….Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?) Anyone who claims to be a prophet, or to have spiritual powers, must acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. Anyone who does not recognize this is not to be recognized. (1 Corinthians 14:32-33, 36-38 NRSV)

Hays provides an insightful interpretation of these verses in sequence and without the interpolation. He says that in vv. 26-33, “Paul sketches a picture of a free-flowing community gathering under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in which ‘each one’ contributes something to the mix.”[43] Here, nothing is said of a leader to preside over the meeting. Hays writes, Apparently Paul expects all the members to follow the promptings of the Spirit, taking turns in offering their gifts for the benefit of the assembly, deferring to one another (vv. 29-30) and learning from one another. The meeting will include singing, teaching (probably exposition of Scripture), revelatory utterances (prophecy and its cognates, cf. v. 6), and praise to God in tongues with interpretation…Paul’s concern here, as elsewhere throughout chapter 14, is that all things in this Spirit-led assembly should be done for building up the community (v. 26).[44]

As seen later in the following verses, in order to facilitate good order, Paul determines some ground rules. Hays lays out these directions as follows: “One of the most intriguing aspects of Paul’s directives is that the other members of the church (not just the other ‘prophets’) are told to judge (diakrinein; cf. 11:31) the prophetic words that are spoken in the assembly, exercising spiritual discernment about whether these words really are authentic words from God.”[45] The stress that Paul is making here, according to Hays, is that “the gifts are for the service of the community, not the community for the gifts.”[46] The one who prophesies does not therefore become exalted to a spiritual plane beyond the other members. Since all have the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3, 13) “all are able to participate in the spiritual reception and assessment of the proferred prophetic word.”[47] The other extraordinary feature of Paul’s worship guidelines is his encouragement to all members of the church to try their hands at prophesying: “For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and be encouraged” (1 Cor. 14:31; cf. 14:1, 5).[48] In this scenario, according to Hays, Paul is not giving permission but acknowledging a power given to all by the one Spirit. As always, he stresses that this power is given for the benefit of others in the community. The overall picture that emerges from these instructions is of a church in which the Spirit is palpably present, flowing freely in the communal worship through the complementary gifts of different members…. Paul’s vision for Christian worship… is more like a complex but graceful dance, or a beautiful anthem sung in counterpoint.[49]

Hays then interprets the excerpt above as if Paul had been “rhetorically anticipating that the Corinthians might protest the directives of verses 26-33. ‘But Paul,’ they might say, ‘these guidelines will cramp our style and squelch the freedom of our worship; indeed, important revelations from God may be silenced if we follow your rules.’”[50] According to Hays, Paul saying “as in all the churches of the saints…” is Paul’s way of “defusing this objection by pointing to the practice of other Christian communities whose worship conforms to more orderly norms.” And Paul’s irony in the following “Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?” according to Hays is Paul replying with “withering sarcasm,” “Oh really?... Perhaps you are the only ones who really have heard the word of God?”[51] Having explained the theological reasons for his directives for the past three chapters (12:1-14:33), Paul points to the example of the other churches and then bluntly asserts his own apostolic authority in verses 37-38. Furthermore, Hays adds, “anyone who defies these teachings by refusing to recognize Paul’s authority in this matter will suffer the consequences.” Hays suggests that verse 38 “should be understood as a ‘sentence of holy law,’ announcing God’s eschatological punishment on those who reject the word of God.” Hays prefers the New English Bible (NEB) translation of 1 Cor. 14:38 which in his opinion captures the sense of Paul’s compact saying: “if he does not acknowledge this, God does not acknowledge him.”[52] Finally, Paul pushes back to insure that his limiting commands are not exaggerated. This is how he states it in his final words of chapter 14: “So, my friend, be eager to prophesy (cf. vv. 1, 5, 31), and do not forbid speaking in tongues (vv. 5, 26-27); but all things should be done decently and in order (vv. 39-40).” Hays makes an important point that Paul’s request for order is not for order’s sake. “The order that he desires to see in the Corinthians’ assembly allows for great flexibility and for the diverse and unpredictable spiritual contribution of all the members of the body of Christ. Order is necessary only to constrain self-indulgent abuses and to create an atmosphere in which the gifts of all can work together to build up the community in love.”[53] After attempting to get closer to the subject present in the mind of Paul when he wrote this section (considering the possibility that he did not write vv. 34-35), it becomes extremely complex to visualize a scenario that is able to accommodate the command of silence toward women. It becomes notably unlikely that Paul was introducing a vision of universal participation (even if one wants to stress the order exhortation) under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and, at the same time, excluding women’s active participation in the church. Again, one might want to argue that this command falls under the orderliness that Paul is imposing and that women happen to be part of the occurrences of disorder (akatastasis), and thus the request to have them to be silenced. However, Paul does not ask anyone to stop prophesying or speaking in tongues. Rather he guides them on how to proceed with the use of the gifts respecting the order that the Spirit is delivering them. In order to make the point even stronger, Paul reminds the Corinthians that “the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets” (v.32). Fee remarks that, “The character of one’s deity is reflected in the character of one’s worship.”[54] If Paul is indeed making a point of whole participation in the assembly as he clearly is, then it really does not make any sense to hinder women from participating in public worship. Paul’s address in chapter 14 makes clear Paul’s “vision of Christian worship in which the gifts of the Spirit are given to all members of the church, men and women alike, for the building up of the community.”[55] Hays avers that the “few New Testament texts that seek to silence women (such as 1 Cor. 14:34-35, and 1 Tim. 2:11-15) should not be allowed to override this vision.” In fact, as Hays points out, “we must be faithfully attentive to Paul’s wider vision of men and women as full partners in the work of ministry.”[56] Hays mentions five objectives from Paul in writing chapter 14: First, “members of the church [should] worship collaboratively in a way that builds up the community through the participation of each member.” Second, “Paul seeks to discipline the use of spiritual gifts not just by focusing on the attitude of the speaker but also by insisting on the substantive content of the message conveyed through the gifts.” Thus one should here “focus on the message rather than the medium.” Third, “Paul nowhere seeks to solve the problem of order in the Corinthian worship service by telling his reader to stick to the liturgy or to follow the leadership of the priest or preacher.” In fact the letter as a whole suggests that there was no established authority structure at all within the Corinthian church: no bishops, presbyters, and deacons; no mediating structure between the apostle and the church in Corinth. This contrasts with the more institutionalized church depicted in the Pastoral Epistles. In chapter 14, Hays sees Paul depicting a meeting “in which all the members wait together on the moving of the Spirit, and all take responsibility for discerning what God is saying to them.” Fourth, Paul urges the Corinthians to welcome the Spirit. He warns them with “cautionary words” and places some “disciplinary restrictions.” Nevertheless, Paul encourages the Corinthians to be “eager” to practice the gifts emphasizing again not the gift itself but the building up of the community. Fifth, Hays notes Paul’s sketch of the outsider’s encounter with Christian worship in 14:23-25 as “more than passing interest.” In these verses Hays argues that Paul is bringing about the issue of evangelism in the Christian assembly where the visiting outsider is reproved and called to account by all, “and hears the secrets of the heart disclosed through Christian prophesy.”[57]

Establishing the Place for an Interpolation This section will examine the potential reasons that led a scribe to choose chapter 14 of Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians as the best place for the interpolation of vv. 34-35. In sum, we have two questions, why did the interpolator choose 1 Corinthians to add this gloss? Why chapter 14? As a matter of fact, 1 Corinthians and Romans not only were written within a relatively close timeframe, but also are similar in certain sections. For instance, scholars have noticed that certain statements in 1 Corinthians are thoroughly practical, whereas their parallels in Romans are more thematic.[58] Paul’s letter to the Corinthians was acknowledged among the patristic interpreters as being a practical letter. Therefore, considering the importance of this epistle to the early church, its practical character, and its authoritative value among other Christian writings, if one were to choose a letter that would enforce a certain teaching “from Paul,” concerning a more pragmatic matter, then the first epistle to the Corinthians would certainly be the best one to insert a gloss. Inside the letter to the Corinthians, the follow up of occurrences of two sigaō in a text that is arguing for order in the worship seems to be the most appropriate location.[59] Why did the editor of Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians decide to insert verses 34-35 following this list of exhortations? We can only surmise that it was a fitting location. The vocabulary was already available in the preceding text, the style was present and the motif of orderliness in the assembly was appropriate for the objectives of the editor. However, Fee points out that verses 34-35 have nothing to do with tongues, prophecy, or the Spirit and simply demand of women “unqualified silence” in the churches.[60] Hays argues that the best explanation for this passage to be present in its canonical location “is that the passage is a gloss, inserted in the text at this point because of the catchword connection to Paul’s instruction to prophets to ‘be silent’ under certain circumstances (v.30) and because of Paul’s appeal to the general practice of ‘all the churches of the saints’ in verse 33.” Finally, Hays avers that “Paul never told women to be silent in churches: this order is the work of a subsequent Christian generation.” [61] The teaching of 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is the work of a later hand that sought to squelch women’s public role in the church for reasons that will be discussed in chapter three. It can be said, indeed, that the same internal evidences presented by Collins as “substantial internal arguments that confirm the Pauline character of the text,” can very well explain why an interpolator chose that particular pericope in the letter of Paul to make his point.[62]

The Connection between 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:9-15 In an investigation of 1 Cor. 14:34-35, Conzelmann states that “in this regulation we have a reflection of the bourgeois consolidation of the church, roughly on the level of the Pastoral Epistles: it binds itself to the general custom.”[63] In response to the theory that 1 Cor. 14:34-35 has been influenced by 1 Tim. 2:11-12, Hull replies that “the ideological association is much stronger than the terminological one, and prima facie there is no more reason to judge 1 Cor. 14 dependent on 1 Tim. 2 than to see 1 Cor. 14 as a source of 1 Tim. 2.”[64] Scholars who argue for the Pauline authorship of 1 Cor. 14:34-35, often argue a connection between vv. 34-35 and 1 Tim. 2:9-15. They point out the similar tone and language of these two passages. As a result, these scholars suggest that 1 Tim. 2:9-15 corroborates what “Paul” said in 1 Cor. 14:34-35, and argue that this prove Pauline authorship of vv. 34-35 on the basis of 1 Tim. 2:9-15. If vv. 34-35 were inspired by 1 Tim. 2:9-15, then one could argue that in an early copy of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, during the process of collection and edition of Paul’s letters and around the time of composition of the Pastorals (ca. 100 CE), vv. 34-35 were inserted into the text in a fitting section of a most important text for the early church.[65] Contra Hull, Hays sees a striking similarity between 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Tim. 2:11-12. He notes that both command women to “learn in silence and submission.”[66] Paul Elingworth and Howard Hatton, however, argue that “the similarity of language between verses 34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is not striking, and that there are several points of contact… between verses 34-35 and the wider context.”[67] With Hays, it is difficult not to see the similarity between 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Tim. 2:11-12. One could concur with Elingworth and Hatton that the context of chapter 14 in 1 Corinthians is different from the chapter 2 in 1 Timothy. However, the meaning and the parallel is present in the exhortation regardless of the wider context. Philip Payne also sees a parallel between 1 Tim. 2:13-14 and 1 Cor. 14:34-35. He notes that the reference to the law reflects 1 Tim. 2:13-14’s quotation from the accounts of creation and fall in Genesis which arguably builds on 1 Cor. 14:34-35. Maqei/n parallels the same verb in 1 Tim 2:11. Aivscro.n gunaiki. reflects the repeated concern in 1 Tim. 2:9-15 for women to avoid shameful things (1 Tim. 2:9, 12) but to do what is fitting for women (1 Tim. 2:10) of propriety (1 Tim. 2:15). Both are set in the context of rules for church worship.”[68] Fee claims that these verses contain common linguistic features: the use of the plural “in the churches,” the appeal to the law in the absolute sense without quoting or referring to a specific passage, and the appeal to shame as a general cultural matter (as opposed to shaming the spouse [1 Cor. 11:5]).[69] Likewise, Collins notes that “to permit,” which he calls a divine passive, assumes an authoritative decision. He also points out 1 Cor. 16:7 as Paul’s only other use of the verb evpitre,pw (to permit).[70] In 1 Tim. 2:12 a similar directive is set forth (dida,skein gunaiki. ouvk evpitre,pw). Garland notes an un-Pauline rabbinic formula in the phrase “it is not permitted” (ouv evpitre,pεσθαι) and attributes the insistence on silence, subjection, and the appeal to the law to a conservative Jewish bias.[71] Conzelmann, on the other hand, sees it as part of an argument for the existence of “peculiarities of linguistic usage, and of thought.”[72] William Beardslee also sees a close parallel between 14:33b-36 in 1 Tim. 2:11-12, which, he argues, provides the model of usage for these words. For example, he notes that the passive voice, “they are not permitted to speak” (1 Cor. 14:34), “is more suitable in a church rule than in a direct statement by Paul.” In addition he notes that it is atypical for Paul to appeal to “the law.”[73] In other words, most scholars see a connection. Beardslee notices that the Pastorals refer to Old Testament scriptures as well as to later Jewish writings, which reflects the Jewish roots of the community. He also points out, however, that their roots are Greco-Roman (Ephesus and Crete). He observes that “the epistles not only quote from Greek literature but they employ Greco-Roman hortatory strategies and devices that were taught in the schools and exercised in public and private life.” In addition, he notes that “the Pastorals incorporate Greco-Roman moral teachings and presume the applicability of prevailing social-cultural values to life in the Christian households and house churches.”[74] In this sense, we might see the hand of the author of the Pastorals in 1 Cor. 14:35 when he writes that “it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” This also explains the positioning of the hortatory command in vv. 34-35 immediately after v. 33b; “As in all the churches of the saints,” which again communicates the expected social order and convention. Fiore argues that attention to the Greco-Roman background of the teaching material of the letters “reveals that the principal purpose of the Pastorals is not to teach but to exhort.” His study also points out that “reference to the tactics of the paraenetic literature of their day reveals that the Pastorals, like other paraenetic works, presume knowledge and acceptance of commonly held beliefs and practices and do not elaborate on them. Rather, they remind readers of the need to uphold these in the face of those who do not.”[75] Here again we see this methodology also applied in 1 Cor. 14:34-35. 1 Cor. 14:34-35 relates to the known situation of the church at the end of the first century or the beginning of the second.[76] Both 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Tim. 2:9-15 are evidences of a second or third generation of Christians attempting to restrain a rising feminist movement (cf. also 1 Tim 5:11-15); meanwhile, reconciling via Paul’s authority the taceat mulier[77] text in 1 Cor. 14 with 1 Tim. 2. Hays concludes, “such directives assume a later historical situation in which there was a conscious effort to restrict the roles played by women in the first-generation Pauline churches.”[78] Beardslee also takes the position that the passage that forbids women to speak was not written by Paul, but was added later. He argues that the “style and language are similar to what we read in writing from a slightly later time in the church, when fixed rules had come to replace the flexibility of the early days.”[79] In a similar tone, Barrett also argues that vv. 34-35 should be taken as a unit that was not an original part of the epistle, but added as a marginal note based on 1 Tim. 2, which then later was inserted by copyists at different points.

Conclusion The history of the transmission of the letters to the Corinthians certainly endured a process of collection which involved a certain degree of editing. During this early process of transmission, vv. 34-35 were inserted as a gloss in a manuscript. I have also addressed some scenarios concerning the placement of vv. 34-35. In sum, when a scribe copying the manuscript found the gloss in the margins, he basically faced two options. The first option was to simply add the gloss in the end of the chapter. The second option was to attempt to find a more appropriate location for the gloss, one that would be a more convincingly Pauline reading of the text and would not interrupt the argument. It is also possible that the original writer of the gloss made it clear where to insert it. The origin of composition of 1 Cor. 14:34-35 can be traced to 1 Tim. 2:9-15. In sum, there is great similarity in semantics and tone between the two texts. However, in order to establish a closer affinity between both texts it is necessary still to establish de facto that 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is an interpolation (Chapter 2) and that 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy is the fabrication of a deutero-Pauline writer (Chapter 3). The interpretation of 1 Cor 14:34-35 is straightforward, and as Hays points out the interpretation of chapter 14 makes perfect sense without verses 34-35. Garland offers the solution (which he acknowledges as a rather radical one) of adding a footnote to any translation explaining that whether this portion of the text was written by Paul or another, it is a hurtful attempt to eliminate “one half of the Christian people from public church life in teaching and preaching.”[80] On the other hand, it would be interesting to see some advances in the dialogue in a way that would involve more people willing to engage and find a better solution to this problem.
Chapter Two
The Text-Critical Problem of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Interpolation is common in ancient texts. It is clearly present in biblical literature and classical writings. Interpolation is the insertion of words, phrases or even a whole pericope into a manuscript. Regardless of intention or motivation, it is to be expected that some scribes would make emendations and adjustments to the text they were copying. One simply needs to see the apparatus of Nestle Aland 27th edition to see that this is the case. By definition, however, these practices are not interpolations. This chapter will summarize the argument that 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is an interpolation; that is, that these two verses comprise text not present in a scribe’s exemplar which was inserted into a new copy, thus perpetuating an altered reading of the original text. In this chapter, I first investigate the issue of interpolation in ancient literature. Then I present the internal evidence both in favor and against the interpolation of 1 Cor. 14:34-35. For as long as scholars have been debating vv. 34-35, those in opposition to the interpolation theory dismiss the issue arguing that there is simply no extant manuscript that provides a reading without these verses.[81] Therefore, a section on external evidences supporting a case of interpolation in 1 Cor. 14:34-35 will be provided. In this final section I examine how some sigla left by scribes on manuscripts witness to this passage, focusing on the work of Philip B. Payne who has brought new light to this issue. Particularly, I will examine how Payne deals with scribal sigla in Codex Vaticanus, Codex Fuldensis and Ms. 88.

Interpolations in Ancient Texts William O. Walker, in his essay “Interpolations in the Pauline Letters,” demonstrates that interpolation is widely attested among classical, Hellenistic, Jewish and Christian literature. Walker provides examples of interpolation in letters of philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, and Seneca. He suggests that the examples of heavy editions and additions being done by Epicurus’ followers (who seemed to be adapting the master’s text to a later situation) “may well provide a precedent for the presence of interpolation in the letters of Paul, which can be seen as letters of exhortation in which a teacher seeks to guide and mold the character of disciples.”[82] Christians were also introducing interpolations “into Jewish writings that they regarded as in some manner deficient, defective, or less ‘Christian’ than might be desired.” Christians were even adding to and editing manuscripts of the Septuagint.[83] One classical example of Christian interpolation in Jewish literature is found in The Antiquities of the Jews written by Flavius Josephus (ca. 94 CE): Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such man as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again at the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him, And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. [84]

Scholars generally agree that this passage was added later by Christians who wanted to create a historical record for Jesus’ story. F. F. Bruce argues that there are particular expressions which only a Christian would seriously use, and Josephus was not a Christian.[85] In fact, Josephus was a Jewish historian, most likely a Pharisee. For example, Bruce calls attention to the clause “if it be lawful to call him a man,” which in his opinion seems to be a “safeguard inserted by some sensitively orthodox Christian to remind readers of the truth that Jesus was divine and human.”[86] In addition, the sentence “He was the Christ” would be a straightforward confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah. Similarly, we would have expected Josephus to use similar tone when he records the trial and execution of James the brother of Jesus, which he clearly does not. So, says Josephus: “He convened a judicial session of the Sanhedrin and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ – James by name – and some others, whom he charged with breaking the law and handed over to be stoned to death.”[87] Moreover, we know that Josephus recognized the Messiah in the Roman Emperor Vespasian.[88] This is not surprising, for the Jewish people had acknowledged the great King of Persia, Cyrus, as a messiah, after they felt they had been liberated by him from Babylonian captivity in 538 BCE.[89] In like manner, Walker is inclined to consider that the reverse was happening as well. Some Christian leaders in the church were complaining that “heretics” were both inserting and deleting material from their texts, and, interestingly, that Marcion was removing “numerous alleged interpolations from the Gospel of Luke and the letters of Paul.”[90] Finally, the New Testament contains recognized examples of interpolation; the two most prominent examples are the several endings of Mark and the pericope of the adulteress in John 7:53-8:11.[91] In light of this widespread evidence, one can easily draw the conclusion on a priori grounds that the Pauline letters and other New Testament writings, as we now have them, are products of their Sitz im Leben and likely contain at least some interpolations. As controversial as this practice may seem to modern readers, it would not necessarily be seen as forgery in ancient times.[92] One scenario for the creation of an interpolation begins with a scribe who writes a gloss in the margin of a manuscript; a later copyist then chooses to incorporate the marginal note in the text itself. As this text is used by later copyists, the interpolation remains perpetually present. What were the factors leading the copyist to choose one reading over the other? What do we know about scribal practices and tendencies that could elucidate this issue? Would the scribe find a via media to conflate both readings in the final product? Could the scribe have redacted one of the readings? Would a scribe mark for the reader a reading of questionable antiquity? What clues did the copyist leave us? Can we safely assume that an interpolation has a better chance of being perpetuated than being omitted?[93] L.E. Keck and V.P. Furnish, in their book The Pauline Letters, provide a plausible historical understanding of the collection of the Pauline writings which well explains the account of interpolation in the biblical text: “The individual Pauline letters are available to us not as separate documents but only as parts of a collection that was assembled, preserved, and transmitted by the early church under the name of Paul… This collection … represents not only an expanded Paul and an abbreviated Paul, but also an edited Paul.”[94] Evidence exists that the collecting of Paul’s letters began by A.D. 96, when Clement of Rome wrote his epistle to the Corinthians, in which he shows knowledge of 1 Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians and Philemon: “Even before the last decade of the first century, churches had probably begun to exchange Paul’s letters.”[95] Perhaps it was in the midst of such development that one can account for the formation of post-Pauline literature as well as the presence of interpolated texts as already mentioned here. As the local ecclesia collected these writings and reproduced them for new emerging groups of Christians some readings came to be preferred and, therefore, more likely to be perpetuated in the history of transmission.

Delineating the Text-Critical Problem First of all, it is necessary to determine which verses belong to the argument of interpolation. Witherington follows a long line of scholars who sees v.33b (“as in all the churches of the saints”) as part of the instruction concerning women.[96] Conzelmann, like Witherington, treats verses 33b-36 as unit; however, he sees it as an interpolation.[97] Fee, on the other hand, ascertains correctly that v. 33b should be regarded as the concluding words to the instructions accompanying it in the preceding verses on order in the assembly.[98] Hays, like Fee, rightly avers that “there is, however, no justification for this arbitrary division of the text,” since “the ancient manuscript evidence suggests that it is only verses 34-35 whose authenticity is suspected.”[99] As a result, this theory has influenced the paragraphing found in many English translations. The Nestle-Aland twenty-seventh edition correctly sets apart only vv. 34-35.[100] Thus, the debate about the authenticity of these words should be focused on verses 34-35 alone. It must be admitted that no extant manuscript lacks vv. 34-35. Some manuscripts, mostly the Western Tradition of texts, however, do locate the material after 14:40, the final verse of the chapter. Walker raises the crucial question: “Is it possible that a passage appearing in all of the surviving manuscripts might nevertheless be a non-Pauline interpolation?”[101] If indeed it is possible, then Ross is correct when he affirms that the interpolation would have had to occur very early to explain this phenomenon.[102] Hurtado expresses the common opinion in textual criticism that, whether the goal is to trace the history of the transmission of a text or reconstruct an edition of a text as precisely as possible to its original, scholars most often hold a preference for early manuscripts.[103] However, some later manuscripts may help us better understand the frequently-consulted earlier manuscripts (perhaps even the original text). Scribes left some signs in the text, which give us a glimpse of their texts’ sources. Eldon Epp and Gordon Fee aver that the analysis of manuscript evidence is “largely an exercise in historical-critical imagination.” When examining the scribe of P75, they remark that it is the work of a “scribe who is carefully preserving his original text.”[104] Does this mean that the scribe was not aware of other readings or that he simply made better choices among the readings at his disposal? In our particular case, when the scribes of Vaticanus, Fuldensis and ms.88 marked their final products with sigla or glosses it shows that they were being careful enough to let the reader know, in some cases, of variant readings. Thus, we need also to pay attention to later texts that give us a glimpse of earlier non-extant manuscripts. After briefly reviewing the internal evidence that has been raised by recent scholarship, this paper will present what new light based on external evidence has been shed on the argument for interpolation of 1 Cor. 14:34-35. Special attention will be placed on intentional signs left by some copyists. It has been suggested that these signs were left to indicate they were working from more than one manuscript, some containing and others not containing vv. 34-35.

Internal Evidence Most of the arguments for interpolation which are based on internal evidence will, in sum, remark that the “un-Pauline character of the appeal to the law (v. 34), the contradiction implied with Paul’s position with regard to the woman in marriage, and the fact that the argument as to what is shameful (v. 35) is quite out of line with the rest of the chapter, all point to non-Pauline authorship for this section.”[105] Indeed, many scholars who argue for deutero-Pauline authorship point out that the implied semantics used in the text are clearly foreign to Paul. These scholars seem to have a special problem with the phrase “the law says.” Collins, for example, argues that Paul generally expresses a somewhat negative view of the law (o` no,moj; cf. 1 Cor. 15:56), and when he wants to develop a scriptural argument he cites the pertinent passages of Scripture (cf. 1 Cor. 9:9; 14:21), instead of pointing to a general reference under the category of “the law.”[106] Likewise, Hays also argues here that the “unqualified appeal to ‘the law’ as requiring women’s subordination (v. 34b.) is – to say the least – uncharacteristic of Paul’s way of appealing to Scripture as a source of behavioral norms.”[107] Against the authenticity of 1 Cor. 14:34-35, Collins also sees the idea of the subjection of women expressed in 14:34 going against Paul’s view of women as his coworkers (Phil. 4:2-3; Rom. 16:1-5) and Paul’s idea that the Christian is not enslaved to anyone (cf. 1 Cor. 6:12)”[108] Conzelmann points out that “this self-contained section upsets the context: it interrupts the theme of prophecy and spoils the flow of thought.”[109] Fee contends that these verses interrupt the structure of Paul’s argument, which seems adequately concluded at vv. 32-33.[110] Garland argues that there are more intrinsic evidences for the original absence of 14:34-35 from the text, than arguments supporting its originality. “Removing these verses from the text solves the problem of its apparent contradiction with 11:5, since the topic of women’s silence in the church also does not seem to fit the context, which refers to controlling manifestations of the Spirit in worship.”[111] All things considered, Hays concludes that this passage is best explained as a gloss introduced into the text by the second- or third-generation Pauline interpreters who compiled the Pastoral Epistles. [112] Curt Niccum points out that these studies of the internal evidence have not gone unchallenged.[113] Contra these points mentioned above, Hull responds that one could argue that all of these reasons are “grounds why an astute copyist might have removed the offending verses. At least they make us wonder why anyone would have added material so unsuited to its context, and why none of the ancient commentators was bothered by it.”[114] Hull replies to the arguments introduced by scholars who, on internal grounds, have tried to prove the interpolation hypothesis of 1 Cor. 14:34-35. Hull’s concern with the methodology of “how one describes, or sets up, the textual problem,”[115] particularly for the passage under discussion, sounds an important message of how unbiased text-critics must be when dealing with controversial issues, such as this one which places at stake the Pauline view of the role of women in the church. Like Fee, who takes internal evidence as a starting point for his analysis of 1 Cor. 14:34-35, Hull begins his internal evidence study with Bengel’s “summary text-critical criterion: ‘Choose the reading that best explains the origin of the other(s).’”[116] Hull then investigates both the immediate and the broader context in which these two verses arise, giving careful attention to the style, vocabulary, and syntax of the passage. As a result, Hull conjectures that the Pauline taceat mulier was never part of the original text, but rather arose as a marginal gloss on chapter 14, and was later inserted into the text at two different places.[117] It should be noted that Hull reaches this conjecture by considering the internal evidences. Payne, to be discussed below, acknowledges the internal evidences, but he resorts to external evidences in order to strengthen the case of interpolation, which has traditionally been considered a weak case on external grounds. Concerning the scholars who deny that this passage is from Paul, Hull notices that for over 100 years such scholars have based their arguments “on the assertion that it [1 Cor. 14:34-35] clashes with 11:5, where it is assumed that women will pray and prophesy in the Christian assembly.”[118] Hull observes that another point mentioned by these is that if Paul was an egalitarian as affirmed by some “could he have written 1 Cor. 11:3-16, which contains a fairly heavy dose of conventional hierarchical language?”[119] Hull notes that some scholars will side differently on this issue. Some have preferred to see Paul as a “radical egalitarian, but that a common reactionary tradition to Paul’s liberal views had been inserted by a later editor.”[120] In Hull’s examination of such work he alerts us to the simple fact that for these, “the text has been drawn into a large debate concerning egalitarianism versus subordinationism and related matters arising from contemporary ecclesiological and social issues.”[121] Moreover, Hull goes beyond to say that “theories about the composition history of the epistles, or even about their redaction, are of minimal value for the text-critical task, except insofar as they may be based on external evidence.”[122] This is why Payne’s work can make a case on internal grounds more convincing based on manuscript witnesses. Finally, Hull provides some insightful questions, which summarize well the internal evidence task: One of the real dilemmas the text critic faces in the attempt to reconstruct the text of this passage is the question of what kinds of internal evidence may fairly be brought to bear on the problem. In considering context, are we to take into account the whole of Paul’s theology? Ideally, yes, but scholars are far from reaching a consensus on this. How much weight do we give to Paul’s “coherence” and how much to his “contingency?” What factors influence one’s judgment on Pauline vocabulary and style? Is the role of amanuenses in ancient letter-writing a relevant factor or only a convenient “escape clause” for people who are unwilling to make hard decisions? How does one determine vocabulary usage?[123]

The conjecture that Paul might not have written these verses is, indeed, a rather “hard decision” to face. However, the unwillingness to face this possibility creates a bias that can blind an interpreter to the argument to be considered. The questions brought up above will contribute to a more sober approach to the text-critical problem being examined here. Therefore, we will move forward to the section that discusses external evidences, but we will keep in mind Hull’s remarks.

Manuscript Witnesses In commentaries and other studies of 1 Corinthians, one is reminded that 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is present in all extant manuscripts of 1 Corinthians. Scholars have regularly reiterated that vv. 34-35 are placed after verse 40 in D F G a b vgms Ambrosiaster and Sedulius Scotus, either to strengthen the argument for interpolation or to weaken it.[124] They often notice that the displacement occurs in only a single manuscript tradition, namely the Western.[125] Those against the theory often aver that this transposition is not enough to build an argument suggesting a case of interpolation for verses 34-35.[126] On behalf of the interpolation argument, some argue that “such ‘movement’ of a passage from one location to another within the text is often an indication of the weak hold that it has on the claim that it belongs to the text.”[127] They also remark that vv. 34-35 are seen as a distinct paragraph by manuscripts P46 B א A D.[128] In addition, Payne notices that this liberty of rearranging the argument of Scripture is so rare that “we do not even have a single parallel example of a scribe rearranging the sequence of an original text of any of the NT letters to make it more logical.”[129] However, in contrast to the Western tradition, P46 B א A Ψ 33 38 mg Vulgate Old Syriac and the Byzantine manuscript tradition read these verses in their canonical location.[130] Metzger notes that “In Codex Fuldensis they [vv. 34-35] were inserted by Victor of Capua in the margin after ver. 33, without, however, removing them from their place farther down.” Metzger suggests that this alteration represents the scribal attempt “to find a more appropriate location in the context for Paul’s directive concerning women.”[131] It is interesting to note how recent studies on this passage might have influenced the editors of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament on the classification of vv. 34-35. Thiselton, in his commentary on the Greek text of 1 Corinthians, is one of a few scholars to point out how the UBS changed its comments on vv. 34-35 from “some degree of doubt” (UBS 3rd ed.) to “the text is almost certain” (4th ed.).[132] Still, Thiselton is hesitant to follow UBS’ understanding of this text and argues for its originality heavily based on how “very early” traditions read these verses in their normal, accepted place. Fee, on the other hand, places weight on the textual variants to indicate a different purpose. He sees vv. 34-35 as “a very early marginal gloss that was subsequently placed in the text at two different places,” and that these verses were “not part of the original.”[133] Thus, he concludes that this variant displacement “may not be shunted aside.”[134] Wire notes the “fact that 14:34-35 show about twice as many word reversals and other small variants as other verses in the context.”[135] However, still Wire supports the text as Pauline. Still as part of the supporting arguments for interpolation of 1 Cor. 14:34-35 based on external witnesses of this text, Payne notes that no citation of 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is made by any of the Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr (ca. 165 CE), or Athenagoras (ca. 177 CE), even though he cites both 14:32 and 14:37. Irenaeus (ca. 200 CE), the orthodox bishop of Lyon, even though he knew the epistle of 1 Corinthians well and was a resolute adversary of Marcus, whom he opposed harshly for having women playing a preeminent role in his community, quotes several verses in Corinthians, but never mentions 1 Cor. 14:34-35.[136] The Shepherd of Hermas (second century CE), Tatian (post 172 CE), Clement of Alexandria (pre 215 CE, even though he cites 1 Cor. 14:6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 20), Caius (ca. 217 CE), and Hippolytus (ca. 235 CE) talked about the role of women, but they never cited or quoted vv. 34-35. Payne also notes that Clement of Alexandria does not cite vv. 34-35 even though he discusses the behavior of women in church, where he states, “Women and men are to go to church decently attired, with natural step, embracing silence… for this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled.”[137] Thus, since Clement calls both men and women without distinction to silence in church, then it is possible to infer that he did not know 1 Cor. 14:34-35. The only exception seems to come from a citation made by Tertullian, who for a time was a Montanist (ca. 160-240 CE, writing from Carthage in North Africa,), “whose knowledge of these verses produces remarks in sharp contrast to Clement’s.”[138] As verse-by-verse comments on the letter, in commentaries and sermons, grow more common in the third century, we begin to see these verses being witnessed in the earliest series of homilies, by Origen of Alexandria (ca.185-ca. 254), which are extant only in fragments.[139] Origen, apparently the first to comment on 1 Cor. 14:34-35 in a homily, basically shares the patriarchal view of women common to his culture and time. Conjecturing about the first appearance of vv. 34-35 in a manuscript, Payne proposes that most probably “someone added 1 Cor. 14:34-35 in the margin of an individual copy of 1 Corinthians prior to the creation of the first codex of Paul’s letters.… subsequent scribes copying this ms. would have inserted the marginal verses into the text either after v. 33 or after v. 40.”[140] We will expand on this hypothesis when we focus on Payne’s examination of the manuscripts under discussion in this chapter. Hull when assessing the external evidence for 1 Cor. 14:34-35, states, “In terms of gross variation, the external evidence attests only two forms of the text (each of which has its own internal variations). Moreover, these two forms of the text do not differ significantly in content but only in placement.” Then he observes that in Western witnesses “these instructions follow v. 40, which means that the phrase, ‘as in all the churches of the saints’ (33b) is followed directly by the rhetorical questions of v. 36, ‘or did the word of God go out from you alone, or was it received by you alone?’” [141] Having surveyed the manuscript witnesses for this passage, we will now see how Payne deals with the traces left by the scribes of Vaticanus, Fuldensis and ms. 88, and how he accounts for the proposed interpolation in vv. 34-35. After reading Payne's articles, Hull became convinced that a copyist of Codex B knew of textual variation at 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and probably was aware that one or more witnesses did not include these verses. Hays, more recently, also builds on Payne’s articles when considering the interpolation of vv. 34-35, and concludes that these verses were not originally part of the letter that Paul wrote. He entertains the possibility that the scribes who transmitted the text in the centuries following Paul introduced alterations or additions at one or more points of the letter.[142] As a reaction to Niccum’s response in 1997 to Payne’s article written in 1995 (“Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor. 14:34-35.”), Thiselton states, “Both articles are impressive, but Niccum’s seems overwhelmingly convincing.”[143] After Niccum’s article, Payne wrote a response in 1998, “Ms. 88 as Evidence for a Text without 1 Cor. 14:34-35,” and in 2000, “The originality of Text-Critical Symbols in Codex Vaticanus,” which thoroughly debunked any doubt Niccum’s article was attempting to cast over Payne’s work. Then, in 2004, Payne wrote “The Text-Critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35” as a response to J. Edward Miller who had written an article (on the grounds of the doctrine of inerrancy of scripture) as an attempt to disprove Payne’s theories. Payne’s reply contra Miller’s argument clearly silenced him. Since Payne’s response to both Niccum and Miller, no scholar in the field has written contra Payne.

Scribal Use of Symbols in Codex Vaticanus Page 1747, column A, of Codex Vaticanus displays two horizontal dots on the left margin next to the end of 1 Cor. 14:33, and a small horizontal line in the left margin of the text between the first letter of v. 34 and the first letter of the preceding line. The two dots have been placed in the margin slightly above the horizontal bar. Payne was the first to interpret these dots. He argues that these distigmai are text-critical sigla indicating the scribe’s awareness of variant readings. Payne also notes that the scribe distinguishes vv. 34-35 as a separate paragraph.[144] Initially, Payne called these sigla “umlauts.” After he coordinated an extended discussion with many scholars in New Testament Textual Criticism, Textual Criticism of the Classics, and Codicology, they came to agreement that the best word for what he had been calling umlaut is distigme (singular, meaning two dots in Greek, according to Payne, “based on terminology used by ancient and modern textual critics, the final ‘e’ represents an eta and so its last syllable is pronounced like ‘may’”) and distigmai (plural).[145] They agreed that distigme and distigmai should not be italicized or put in quotes. Payne discovered a pattern in Codex Vaticanus that where a distigme occurs by an interpolation the bar extends noticeably farther into the margin toward the distigme than typical bars used to represent paragraphs or section breaks, called paragraphoi. For instance, Payne notes that the 75 bars in 1 Corinthians on average extend 2 mm into the margin. But the bar by the last line of 1 Cor 14:33 extends 3 mm into the margin, associating it more closely with the distigme, as do several other bars with a distigme, such as at the end of Luke 1:28 (where other manuscripts add the interpolation, “blessed are you among women”). Payne points out that when a bar is used as a text-critical symbol, it is typically called an obelos. Consequently, he calls these combinations of distigme and bar distigme-obelos symbols. Payne argues that in instances where the bar extends significantly more than usual into the margin toward a distigme and where the siglum is appropriately located to signify an interpolation or other significant variant it makes best sense to call it a distigme-obelos. Comparing the verses in Vaticanus followed by a distigme-obelos with NA26, Payne observed that in 23 of the 27 occurrences of this siglum found in Vaticanus the NA26 editors have identified a text-critical problem. He also notes that Tischendorf identified textual variants occurring on every one of the 27 distigmai-obelos lines.[146] Moreover, Payne points out that in 10 of these 23, one is able to note an “unusual gap” in the text as evidence of the position of the text-critical problem (this is not the case with 1 Cor. 14:34-35). He concludes that these gaps provide evidence that the original scribe of Vaticanus included these distigme-obelos, because he was “aware of the precise position of these text-critical variants.”[147] In particular, Vaticanus has a distigme-obelos following 1 Cor 14:33, which is next to the line immediately preceding the text in question, and the obelos marks the interface between the established text and the text in question. Payne notes that in 1 Cor. 14:34-35 the obelos “separates v. 33 from v. 34, where it would naturally be put to indicate awareness of a textual problem regarding vv. 34-5.”[148] The fact that NA26 notes a textual-critical problem occurring in vv. 34-5 leads Payne to conclude that this distigme-obelos is an “indicator of awareness of a textual problem with vv. 34-5 on the part of the original scribe of Vaticanus.”[149] In two famous acknowledged interpolations, Mark 16:8 and John 7:53-8:11, Payne notes that in addition to the presence of the distigme-obelos following a similar pattern to 1 Cor. 14:34-35, the scribe of Vaticanus leaves one and a third blank columns (page 1303, columns B and C) standing where the longer ending of Mark would otherwise occur.[150] In the case of John 7:53-8:11 (page 1361, column C), the text is also omitted in Vaticanus and separated by a distigme-obelos following the end of John 7:52.[151] In the table below, Payne provides data about all twenty-seven of these lines having a distigme-obelos in Vaticanus and checks for coincidental variants. Data is also gathered for the subsequent twenty lines after each distigme-obelos . This comparison reveals whether there are any variants in these unmarked lines as well. In the table he also gives the total number of matches between distigme-obelos verses in Vaticanus and corresponding variant readings in NA26. Out of the twenty-seven distigme-obelos in Vaticanus, twenty-three have variant readings in NA26. However, when the next twenty lines are compared, the average number of variants found in NA26 decreases to nine point five, where the highest is fourteen and the lowest five NA26 variants.[152] Payne analyzes the results and concludes that the correlation between lines with distigmai-obelos and recognized textual variants is statistically significant, showing that Vaticanus’ distigmai-obelos “signify awareness of textual variants.”[153] Even limiting our knowledge of the text to the variants listed in the NA26, we are aware of variants which occur in 85% of the lines that were noted in Vaticanus as having textual variations.
Table of Textual Variants in Vaticanus lines with a distigme-obelos[154] [pic]

Concerning the nature of these variants, within the twenty-three distigmai-obelos lines which have a textual variant listed in the NA26, “17 contain textual omissions either by Vaticanus (15) or by other manuscripts (2), and 12 contain changes in the form of words or substitute words where Vaticanus differs from other manuscripts.”[155] Thus, Payne concludes that the distigme-obelos occurs predominantly in instances of word omissions and secondarily in instances of word variations. He also notes that in none of the occurrences of distigme-obelos do we see a mere word-order variant. Most often the variants are omitted words. Thus, Payne affirms that the distigme-obelos highlight significant textual differences.[156] Payne also notes that there are some distigmai separated by bars (or obelos) in the text in Vaticanus. Ten out of twelve cases of separated distigmai-obelos also correspond to NA26 variations. Eight cases are omissions in Vaticanus, five cases contain a “significant gap in the text at precisely the point of the variant,”[157] three other manuscripts add text to it,[158] and two other manuscripts substitute a different word.[159] Payne also notes that “the most striking of these separated distigme-obelos omissions in Vaticanus is the pericope of the woman taken in adultery, John 7:53-8:11,” where “the bar separating John 7:52 from 8:12 has differing pigmentation from the vertical bar that was apparently added later as a section marker.”[160] Payne’s work, more than dealing with a specific text-critical problem in Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians, gives us a glimpse of the historical situation of the scribe in a time when textual criticism was being practiced empirically yet unaware of the techniques and tools used by scholars today.[161] Nonetheless, confronting similar issues that modern textual critics face, ancient scribes had to decide which text should be copied. Conjecturing about the text-critical function of the sigla in Vaticanus, Payne suggests that the distigmai marking the location of textual variants throughout the manuscript “prove that the scribe had access to more than one manuscript,” and “chose to copy one particular manuscript because it appeared to be old or because of its reputation as preserving an ancient or more original form of the text.”[162] It could be that the scribe of Vaticanus just had a Vorlage with these diacritics. Either way, since the diacritics correspond with significant variant noted in NA26, the fact is that these scribes were aware of variant readings and attempted to preserve the best reading. Payne argues that at least one of the manuscripts which the scribe of Vaticanus had at hand omitted vv. 34-35, rather than placing vv. 34-35 after v. 40 as does the Western tradition. Christian Amphoux argues that the distigmai indicate variant passages which are Latin rather than Greek, “and that they exercised an influence on the revision of the Latin version which became the Vulgate of the Gospels.”[163] Amphoux’s article is limited to the Gospel of Mark. However, if what Amphoux is saying is true for Mark, could it be true for 1 Cor. 14:34-35? In other words, could the distigme-obelos by 1 Cor. 14:33 denote a Western variant rather than an interpolation? Payne argues that if this is the case, then there should also have been a distigme after 14:40, but there is not one. Thus, he concludes, the distigme at the end of v. 33 is far less likely to represent the western dislocation than a text that omitted 1 Cor. 14:34-35.[164] Of course, the scribe also had one or more manuscripts that included vv. 34-35, but the scribe signals his judgment that there is a problem with these verses. The conclusion is that although the scribe could have been aware of a manuscript containing the transposition of vv. 34-35 in the end of the chapter, the distigme-obelos in the end of v. 33 denotes a text that did not contain vv. 34-35. In short, it is plausible to affirm the following: First, these distigme-obelos were placed in Vaticanus by the hand of the original copyist. Second, this scribe was working from manuscripts with differences and, therefore, during the reproduction process he had to make decisions on which texts to use. Third, the scribe of Vaticanus often used the distigme-obelos to identify text omitted by some but not all manuscripts at his disposal. These conclusions gain even greater significance considering that the exemplars of Vaticanus are “not the re-wrought, worked over manuscripts of the second century, but such as retained in an eminent degree the text which had come to that century from the hands of the original writers.”[165] Payne presented an article at the New Testament Textual Criticism Seminar at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Boston on Nov. 22, 2008 some new conclusions based on some further research he has done most recently. Previously, Payne had concluded as a result of examination of fifty-one distigmai that they all matched with the original ink of Codex Vaticanus. After further research, Payne realized that mirror-impressions of distigmai on facing pages demonstrate that distigmai were added after the binding of the codex, at least provisionally. Some mirror impressions of original-ink distigmai are followed on the same page by distigmai without mirror impressions. This indicates that the scribe of Vaticanus systematically compared it to other manuscripts one by one. Comparison to multiple manuscripts explains the diversity of manuscript traditions represented by the variants in these fifty-one lines having original-ink distigmai. Payne argues that the discovery of these forty additional distigmai matching the original ink of Codex Vaticanus confirms the validity of the four key implications for textual criticism noted with the discovery of the first eleven apricot-color distigmai and builds on them. First, it confirms that the scribe of Codex Vaticanus was aware of textual variants and believed them to be sufficiently important to note. Second, it supports the view that the scribe of Vaticanus desired to preserve the most original form of the text possible. Third, these distigmai provide windows into the history of the text before Vaticanus even for passages for which no early papyri have survived. Twenty of the fifty-one original-ink-color distigmai are in passages that occur in no early papyri.[166] Fourth, most important of all, according to Payne, the high proportion of known textual variants in lines with distigmai compared to lines without distigmai provides a statistical basis for concluding that the majority of the variants that were available to the scribe of Vaticanus have survived in extant manuscripts. The significance of this discovery is enhanced by the diversity of textual traditions represented in the surviving variants where original-ink distigmai occur. It is also enhanced by the demonstrable antiquity of the text(s) on which Vaticanus is based, as evidenced by its close correlation with P75.[167]

Codex Fuldensis as Evidence for Interpolation Payne’s work on the Vulgate manuscript Codex Fuldensis is the most compelling interpretation of the scribe’s activities concerning 1 Cor. 14:34-35. Codex Fuldensis is “the earliest dated manuscript of the New Testament that … was personally edited by one of the eminent scholars of the early church.”[168] Payne points out that “Victor was a remarkable scholar, the author of several commentaries of the OT and NT.”[169] In addition, he quotes Daniell who notes that “the whole manuscript was carefully revised and corrected by Victor” in the 6th century.[170] Finally, he turns to Nestle, who calls it “one of the oldest and most valuable manuscripts of the Vulgate.”[171] Payne argues that “Bishop Victor ordered the rewriting of 1 Cor. 14:34-40 in the margins of Codex Fuldensis with vv.34-5 omitted.”[172] What exactly is happening in 1 Cor. 14:34-35 in Fuldensis, which is the largest single block of text in the margin anywhere in this codex? First, we note in the body the canonical order of the text. Second, we observe a gloss in the bottom margin containing vv. 36-40; third, note a symbol “‘hə” at the end of v. 33, which according to Payne “shows where to begin reading the text in the bottom margin, just as it always does in its eight other occurrences in Fuldensis.”[173] In other words, the siglum tells us to read vv. 36-40 from the margin of the text after v. 33 where the siglum is adjacent. Payne concludes that the marginal note is not a scribal error; in other words the gloss of vv. 36-40 is intended to replace a text, not merely insert one. In arguing for this precise terminology, Payne contends that “it would not make sense that Victor intended to indicate that 14:36-40 should be read both before and after vv. 34-5.”[174] In addition, it would be counter-productive to have a scribe writing a gloss in the margin of the page to replace itself in the body of the text. Moreover, “no other ms. inserts 36-40 both after v. 33 and after v. 35.” Finally, “the gloss replaces ordine in v. 40 with ordinem.” Payne argues that this is an intentional correction to bring Fuldensis into conformity with the standard Vulgate text.[175] Hence, the gloss should be seen as a replacement, not an insertion. Payne points out that the alternative view of insertion would have a rather complex function. If this gloss is not replacing vv. 34-40, but rather replacing only vv. 36-40, then this gloss would have to not only indicate the replacement of vv. 36-40, but also the repositioning of this replacement text prior to v. 34. It would be much harder for the reader to follow the text if the replacement text were read as an insertion that did not replace all of the rest of this chapter.[176] One would expect that Victor would choose the easiest way he could think of to communicate to the reader the variants he had at his disposal. Payne writes, According to this reading of the gloss as replacement text, Victor has left the reader a simple trail to follow. The ‘hə’ symbol tells the reader to read the text at the bottom of the page. Then the reader can easily find the right place to continue because the words just read coincide with the last words in the chapter. The point to continue reading is clearly marked with a large Roman numeral in the margin indicating the beginning of chapter 15.[177]

There are also Roman numerals demarcating sections in Fuldensis. There is a Roman numeral at the beginning of v. 34 and at the beginning of 15:1. This leads us to the conclusion that the block of text from vv. 34-40 is identified as a single section. Hence, Payne argues that “the sign ‘hə’ shows that the marginal gloss must begin at the start of that section, and the end of the gloss coincides exactly with the end of that section.”[178] That being the case, the gloss should be seen as a replacement for that whole section, namely vv. 34-40. Although Victor chose to print in the body of his manuscript the sequence of verses known to him by the Vulgate, “we must assume that Victor had sufficient evidence to convince him that the Vulgate text was wrong at 1 Cor. 14:34-5. Otherwise there would have been no point in his ordering the rewriting of the entirety of 14:36-40.”[179] Payne believes that Victor “found such a manuscript of 1 Corinthians that was copied from an individual copy of this letter that antedated the collection of Paul’s letters into a corpus.”[180] Payne reports a conversation with Metzger. Payne says that Metzger reconsidered his position after Payne had showed him a copy of the Fuldensis text, replying to Payne that “he had never seen the actual text before and that his statement in the Textual Commentary on the NT is in error.”[181] Furthermore, he adds that Metzger (after seeing the handwriting in the bottom margin) concurred that, It appears to be virtually identical to that of the original scribe…. That probably Victor ordered the text to be written into the margin by the original scribe whom he had commissioned to write the Codex … [and] agreed that a scribe would have to have a good reason and proper authorization to rewrite that much text.[182]

Finally, Payne says that “Metzger agreed that the most natural explanation is that Victor ordered the rewriting of the text of 1 Cor. 14:36-40 to replace all of vv. 34-40 in the text above and that this implies that Victor believed that 34-5 was an interpolation.”[183] Metzger’s comment in the second edition of his A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament published in 1994 corrects his earlier assumption: The evidence of the sixth-century Codex Fuldensis is ambiguous. The Latin text of 1 Cor 14 runs onward throughout the chapter to ver. 40. Following ver. 33 is a scribal siglum that directs the reader to a note standing in the lower margin of the page. This note provides the text of verses 36 through 40. Does the scribe, without actually deleting verses 34-35 from the text, intend the liturgist to omit them when reading the lesson?[184]

Ms. 88 as Evidence for Interpolation A. C. Wire in an article in 1990, remarks that “a review of the 88 text [12th century] of 1 Corinthians shows that it seldom parallels ‘Western’ readings except where they also appear in the eighth-to-ninth-century manuscript Ψ and go on to become the majority reading.”[185] Thus Payne concludes that “since the majority reading does not put vv. 34-35 after v. 40, we must conclude that 88 is another non-Western manuscript supporting this variant position.”[186] This is another example of a manuscript providing evidence for the interpolation of 1 Cor. 14:34-35. Payne notes four distinguishing characteristics in ms. 88.[187] “(1) 1 Cor.14:36 follows immediately after 14:33. (2) 1 Cor. 14:34-35 follows 14:40. (3) 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is a distinctive unit separated from v. 40 by a double slash on the base line in the space normally occupied by letters.”[188] A punctuation dot at the end of v. 35 closes the section even though more letters could have been written in the same line. Finally, Payne observes that “(4) there is a corresponding but smaller double slash above the last letter of 14:33… [and] another larger double slash, at the same level as the Greek letters on the last line of v. 33, is in the right margin where it is easy to see.” [189] Payne conjectures that the double slash was squeezed between the lines at the end of v. 33 “because there was no room for it on the base line [where it would be normal for him to place them] since he had already begun to write v. 36.”[190] Thus, Payne makes the conclusion that the scribe “did not realize that 14:34-35 was missing until sometime after he started to write v. 36.”[191] Payne provides a convincing interpretation for the scribal activity in ms. 88: The scribe believed vv. 34-5 should be read after v.33. The position of the double slash on the base line before vv. 34-5 demonstrates that he was intentionally setting vv. 34-5 apart when he wrote it. The large double slash in the margin after v.33 clearly identifies the line where he believed vv. 34-5 should be inserted. The small raised double slash at the end of v. 33 marks the specific point on that line where he wanted vv. 34-5 to be inserted.[192]

In answer to the question why, then, did the scribe write v. 36 after v. 33, Payne suggests the use by the scribe of a manuscript deriving from a non-Western [Greek] manuscript without vv. 34-35. According to him, it neither makes sense that “the scribe inadvertently skipped over vv. 34-5 and only later noticed his error, [nor does] it makes sense that the scribe intentionally skipped over the same text.”[193] Payne’s whole assumption is that the scribe “copied this order from a manuscript with v. 36 after v. 33 before realizing that this was not the usual order of the text.”[194] Payne discards the hypothesis that ms. 88 was copied from a Western text, stating that 88 “is not a Western text and does not exhibit the usual pattern of readings of a Western text.”[195] Another important piece of evidence is that “there is no Greek manuscript written after the ninth century besides 88 that has 1 Cor. 14:34-5 after v. 40,” which means that it was rather unlikely that the scribe of ms. 88 had a Western text available to him.[196] Thus, Payne ponders the possibility that the scribe could have used a non-Western Greek manuscript which had vv. 34-35 after v. 40. The problem is that, as he points out, “no non-Western Greek manuscript supporting this position is known. Not even ms. 88 supports this reading, since the double slashes on the base line before vv. 34-35 and their corresponding double slashes after v. 33 show that its scribe intended these verses to be read after v. 33.”[197] Garland is aware of Philip Payne’s essays; however, he still considers the textual evidence weak support for the interpolation theory. He argues that “it need not mean that the text did not originally belong and was added later at two different places. It could indicate that a scribe moved it to what he thought was a better place that did not interrupt the perceived context.”[198] Considering that argument, Fee replies that such action questions the transcriptional probability of moving the text as a “radical rewriting of Paul’s argument” and not a simple transposition. In addition, Fee notes that there is no historical precedent for this in Paul’s letters and suggests that one must explain why this arrangement would have occurred if it were simply a moving of the text.[199] Payne’s conclusion, namely, that ms. 88 was probably copied from a Greek manuscript which did not have 1 Cor. 14:34-5 is a more plausible explanation that provides “additional external support for the thesis that vv. 34-5 were not in the original text of 1 Cor. 14.”[200]

Conclusion Strong internal and external arguments for a case of interpolation of 1 Cor. 14:34-35 have been summarized. It is safe to aver that Hull’s affirmation that “the so-called taceat mulier was never part of the original text, but arose as a marginal gloss on chap.14, and was later inserted into the text at two different places,” is a reasonable solution for this text-critical problem.[201] Payne also states that “someone added 1 Cor. 14:34-35 in the margin of an individual copy of 1 Corinthians prior to the creation of the first codex of Paul’s letters…. [and then] subsequent scribes copying this manuscript would have inserted the marginal verses into the text either after v. 33 or after v. 40.” Payne surmises that this was the case perhaps because the scribe assumed incorrectly that vv. 34-35 had inadvertently been omitted and so was in the margin.[202] On internal grounds it is important to remember that 1 Cor. 14:34-35 clashes with 1 Cor. 11:5, where it is assumed that women will pray and prophesy in the Christian assembly. Those who are against the argument for interpolation have traditionally disregarded the internal evidence due to the absence of manuscript witnesses. However, Payne’s research has provided the missing link to the hypothesis of interpolation of vv. 34-35. Payne draws three conclusions that make a case of interpolation on internal grounds even stronger: first, from Payne’s examination of Codex Fuldensis, we learn that the gloss written by the scribe replaces vv. 34-40 providing an example of a text omitting vv. 34-35. Second, Payne concludes that the distigme-obelos by the end of v. 33, signaled by the original scribe of Vaticanus, had the intention to let the reader know that he was working with dissimilar texts that did not have simply word-order variants, but rather actual omissions. Finally, Payne’s conclusion from his analysis of ms. 88, that this manuscript was probably copied from a Greek manuscript which did not have 1 Cor. 14:34-35, provides an even more compelling argument for the hypothesis of interpolation. I concur with Payne that the “only adequate explanation for the entire Western tradition having vv. 34-35 at the end of the chapter is that these verses were not in the original text.”[203] In the end, although Payne does not absolutely show us a manuscript that does not contain vv. 34-35, he has convincingly demonstrated that some ancient scribes did know such a manuscript.[204] The two text-critical criteria of transcriptional and intrinsic probability combine to cast considerable doubt on their authenticity. Payne’s confirmation that the copyist was aware of (a) manuscript(s) lacking vv. 34-35, confirm the theory of a deutero-Pauline hand introducing the taceat mulear dogma. On a final conjecturing note, perhaps it is safe to aver that Paul did indeed promote women’s vocal participation in corporate worship, but the leadership of the church in a later stage, when it had become more hierarchical in thought and structure, allowed for the assimilation of texts reactionary to Paul’s liberal views concerning the roles of women in the church. Chapter three will expand on this hypothesis. As we have seen in chapter one, it is rather evident the theological (or “ideological”) similarity between 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Tim. 2:9-15 where “women have to be reassigned to the roles traditional in their culture.”[205] If indeed the Pastoral Letters are post-Pauline productions, then it becomes more evident that around the turn of the second century the church was becoming more hierarchical and harmonized with the local patriarchal culture. Chapter three provides deeper examination on this issue. Finally, I believe Payne has replied positively to Hull’s 1990 appeal: There is no lack of studies which construe the internal evidence of this passage in such fashion as to fit conflicting hypotheses. What we lack is evidence which proves. Or perhaps what we need are more carefully-nuanced criteria than we now have, to lead us out of the methodological wilderness in which modern textual criticism seems often to be wandering.[206]

The available sources which give us a glimpse of scribal tendencies and activities within the text have been carefully analyzed and, indeed, give new light on this textual problem. This understanding should not be polemicized simply because it is part of a canonical text with almost two thousand years of tradition. Were we analyzing a possible interpolation in Homer, scholarship would be more unbiased and detached, and so it should be the academic approach toward this text.
Chapter 3
The Author(s) of 1 Cor. 14:34-35 AND THE PASTORALS

The authorship of the Pastorals might be considered a complicated issue by some. We live in a time of copyright laws, and it simply does not cross our minds to write under someone else’s name. The letters clearly claim to have been written by Paul, although the possibility that the author has used Paul’s name as a pseudonym should not trouble us. “Far from such a practice being considered deceitful or dishonest, it was regarded in ancient times as a way of honoring a great figure of the past to write a work in his name.”[207] Two thousand years later, it is easy for me to state that in the case of our interpolation and 1 Tim. 2:9-15, the author(s) simply misunderstood Paul and did a disfavor to the church in including these verses in our canon. However, we need to better understand the scenario from which he was writing, and the type of adversaries he was facing. We need to also come closer to his Sitz im Leben and learn more about his worldview. The Bible is a diverse collection of ancient letters and writings that is too complex for us to place any hasty judgment upon. Thus, we need to get as close as possible to the turn of the first century as we can. Why just a few generations later did this voice win the debate and make the canon? And why did the leadership of the church feel compelled to silence women? The arguments presented in this chapter will show that a great part of the answer to these questions can be observed in the development of hierarchy introduced in the Pastorals and the growing syncretism between the church and the Greco-Roman patriarchal world. It is important to realize that the social location of the believers exerts its own influence on the crafting of the New Testament corpus. Mark Harding highlights scholarly myopia in the methodological approach concerning research on the Pastoral Epistles which, according to him, is content merely to contrast the Pastorals with the undisputed letters, or trace the manner in which Pauline tradition is brought to speech, or defend the authenticity of the letters as though the addressees lived in a vacuum. Social context did play a crucial part in determining the manner in which the early writers addressed the churches….The Pastorals emerge as fully contingent attempts to address believers located in the Greco-Roman urban landscape.[208]

With this thought in mind we proceed with the identification of the author(s) of 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Tim. 2:9-15.

Under the Authority of an Apostle The author(s) who wrote under the pseudonym of Paul had no motivations to deceive or entertain their audience. The content of the letters at least point to this understanding. In particular cases, it could have been the case that the readers were aware of the true identity of the writer(s). Kee contends that “their only intention was to preserve the true Apostolic Tradition as they saw it at a time of great confusion, and for this purpose they used a current literary device that enabled them to give their message the strongest backing possible.” They were convinced that they wrote in the way the Apostle himself would have written, were he in their place. In addition, “It was his message that they wanted to proclaim in their situation.”[209] Donelson contends that the second century was a period in which competing views about Christian life were heavily at stake among Christian communities. His survey demonstrates how frequently the names of apostles and other great figures of the apostolic era were invoked as the authorities behind the views adopted in the extant documents. “In the early church, writers looked to the apostolic era for guidance and vindication as they rose to meet the challenge of defending the faith against the teaching of ‘heretics’.”[210] Donelson notices that, nevertheless, “no one ever seems to have accepted a document as religiously and philosophically prescriptive which was known to be forged.”[211] Adding another point of view to this debate, Donelson argues that the maintenance of the apostolic faith in the church justified deceiving it because of the great need for the “good lie.”[212] If they wanted to be successful in winning the debate by claiming apostolic tradition, then they needed to create the illusion that their work was genuine. Donelson argues that on this ground, one can explain the existence of the personal address in the Pastorals, which although was a bold strategy, was by no means unprecedented in ancient literature, designed to put more weight on claim of authority of the literary production.[213] The early leaders of both orthodoxy and heterodoxy used pseudepigrapha with the purpose of defining and establishing the boundaries of their particular faith. In the case of the Pastorals, Donelson suggests that Paul was being reclaimed for the “orthodox” offensive against the “heretics.”[214] In addition, Donelson argues for an integral relationship between apostolic doctrine and apostolic authorship. He mentions Tertullian and Eusebius, both of whom testified to the rejection of literature primarily because of the doctrinal unorthodoxy they are discovered to contain.[215] The Pastorals on the other hand, were regarded as genuine from the time they began to be cited as Pauline – that is, from Irenaeus on – because they were persuasive at the level of their teaching and apostolic claim. Above all, as Harding points out, “the frequency of citations in Irenaeus and Tertullian demonstrates, they were supremely useful in combating the Marcionites and Gnostic ‘Heretics,’ for whom Paul was the apostle par excellence.”[216] In a different way, more or less in the same direction as in Colossians and Ephesians, the Pauline tradition still finds some reminiscent in the Pastoral Epistles. According to Bultmann, it is “making a place for itself within the framework of bourgeois living.” He adds that there one can hear “echoes of some Pauline ideas,” however, “other important concepts of Paul’s theology have either disappeared or have lost their old meaning.” Moreover, Bultmann affirms that the “Christianity of the pastorals is a somewhat faded Paulinism.”[217] We now present the most important arguments for and against Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles.[218] Those who defend the position that the pastorals are original writings from Paul argue that, first, these letters do not need to be fitted into the period covered by Acts because Acts did not record Paul’s death, thus one can extend the chronology of Paul’s life as we know it from Acts and work a hypothesis under the premise of a second imprisonment.[219] Developing this hypothesis, Spicq argues that Paul was released from the imprisonment of Acts 28 for further missionary work in Spain. He returned to the east afterwards, then was arrested, endured a second trial and finally was executed in Rome in the last year or two of Nero’s reign. In sum, Paul would have written these letters during a second Roman imprisonment.[220] Second, “prior to Paul’s death, the congregations had grown, and needed leadership and were becoming more settled, with needs for permanent organization (Acts 13:14; 1 Cor. 5:1-5; 1 Thess. 5:12),” as a result, the need for ordering ministry was needed. Harding ponders that “the ecclesiology of the church and its hierarchical ordering is an entirely expected development, given Paul’s apostolic oversight of his churches. That oversight is now being passed on to Timothy and Titus.”[221] Luke Timothy Johnson argues that the structure of the church in the Pastorals is closer to that evidenced in the Pauline churches and the diaspora synagogue than to Ignatius.[222] Third, the problem of so many hapax legomena in the Pastorals can be explainable by the argument that “these were the only three letters directly addressed to long-term associates who did not need to be instructed on elementary teachings.”[223] This argument suggests that subject matter and addressee shape the choice of words, and that in fact Paul at this point in his life was a much older man than when he wrote Thessalonians and Galatians. Spicq observes that the Pastorals are private communications to trusted individuals resembling the treatises associated with Isocrates and the Letters of Seneca to Lucilius. Thus, the Pastorals form a unique genre within the Pauline corpus.[224] Furthermore, some point out that “the method of arguing against authenticity on the basis of statistics is inadequate.”[225] Spicq, contra Harrison, shows that there are a significant proportion of the hapax legomena found in the Pastorals that are in fact found in the Septuagint, and in Philo (ca. 40 CE) whom Paul also may have read.[226] In addition, he adds that “the vocabulary anomalies may be due to a secretary to whom Paul allowed a certain liberty of expression.”[227] In sum, the differences are due to two factors: the letters had a different addressee and subject matter than the other Pauline letters and the author was by this time considerably older and more immersed in Latin and Greco-Roman idioms. Finally, one could argue that this is a common trend among writers whom we can follow their work from a younger to an older literary production. For example, one can look at Plato, Shakespeare, and Goethe, to cite a few, who similarly went through major literary and stylistic shifts in their mature period. Fourth argument is the reappearance of familiar Pauline stylistic patterns in the Pastorals. For instance, the same salutations and similar style of sentence constructions. Arguing this point, Towner adds, grammatical violations that intensify energy (I 1:3-5, 10:12; Titus 1:1-3); the compound words, lists, and maxims (I 2:1-2; 3:2-4; 4:1-3; 5:12-13; 6:4-5; II 3:1-5; 4:7; Titus 1:8-10); the same Hebraisms, military, and athletic metaphors; Paul’s habit of repeating and playing upon a word recurs (I 1:18, 6:5-6; II 2:9, 3:4, 17), as well as his habit of leaving sentences unfinished.[228]

Towner also avers that the differences between the Pastorals and the rest of the Pauline corpus can thus be explained on the ground that in the Pastorals we hear Paul himself speaking, writing in his own name without the mediation of secretaries and co-authors.[229] Fifth, the final argument is the more obvious one, namely that if not Paul, then the “surrogate had to be blatantly fabricating” the intimate and personal details of the letter. For example, as when he instructed Timothy to “bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the book, and above all the parchments (II 4:13).”[230] Some defenders of Pauline authorship contend that “the integrity of the canon and the authority of scripture would be subverted by the presence of pseudepigrapha in the Bible.”[231] However, this should not be seen as the case. After all, as we have stated before, pseudepigrapha was not understood in the first century CE in the same way as we perceive it in the twenty-first century CE. Pseudepigrapha was common practice in ancient times not necessarily seen as an infringement of one’s intellectual property or a deceitful and dishonest practice. These are all modern concepts foreign to the authors of the biblical writings. It still remains true that our New Testament canon (and Old Testament) does contain books which are not written by the author under whose authority they have been accepted by the Church. Moreover, at the end of the day, as MacDonald convincingly argues, usage is the most significant criterion of canonicity.[232] And it is mainly this criterion (I will expand on this point later) that helps the Pastoral Epistles make the cut into the biblical corpus. On the other side of the debate, several modern critics have presented convincing arguments against Paul’s authorship of the Pastorals. First, some argue that these letters do not fit easily into the Chronology of the book of Acts, nor finds a place in the career of Paul as we know if from the rest of the letters of the Pauline corpus or from independent historical sources. Others note that 1 Clement 5:7 (ca. 95 CE) speaks of Paul having been martyred once he had reached “the limits of the west,” which for Clement, according to Schnelle, could have well meant Rome.[233] Second, the complexity of church organization seems later than the death of Paul. Although it is plausible that Paul witnessed some hierarchical development and even helped implement it during his own time period (cf. Phil. 1:1, which talks about overseers and deacons), the organization of the churches depicted in the Pastoral Epistles does not match the character of that encountered in the undisputed letters.[234] In the undisputed letters, the exercise of gifts of leadership, edification, and other ministries are all inspired by the one Spirit (Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 12:4-11). However, in the pastorals, the pastor knows a spiritual gift for congregational ministry (1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6) restricted to males who exercise leadership (1 Tim. 2:12; 3:2, 4; Titus 1:9). “Ecclesiastical life has come to be centered on official ministers-the bishop, presbyters, and deacons. It would not be improper to perceive in the Pastorals the beginnings of an ordained ministry and lay acceptance of and submission to that ministry.”[235] The Pastorals also testify to a growing institutionalization in the Pauline churches after the death of the apostle. It is argued that the Pauline communities were entirely governed by the Spirit and were wholly charismatic in their organization and ministry in contrast to the concern for hierarchy and order evident in the Pastorals. MacDonald observes this progress within a threefold cumulative development of institutionalization in the Pauline corpus corresponding to the span of the three generations addressed. These three stages are: 1) community - building institutionalization – evident in the undisputed Pauline letters; 2) community - stabilizing institutionalization – evident in Colossians and Ephesians; 3) community - protecting institutionalization – evident in the Pastorals.[236]

Fiore has also contributed here, showing that the church order material (1 Tim. 3:1-16; 4:6-6:2, 11:16, 20a; Titus 1:5-9; 2:1-10) consists of “qualifications rather than duties, and present paradigms of behavior and attitude rather than definitions of proper thought and required action,” therefore, the church, according to these sections, is well along in its development as a structured community.[237] Third, it is argued that the forms of Gnosticism that the letters were combating did not appear in mature form until after Paul’s death. In other words, the teaching of the false teachers is not compatible with that of Paul’s opponents in the undisputed letters.[238] Assuming the Pastorals to be addressing real situations, the opponents appear to belong to a second-century Gnostic group.[239] The addressees are to maintain and affirm (I Timothy) or establish (Titus) structures that will protect the faithful from the inroads of false teachers in the present and the future. [240] Furthermore, according to Beker, the Pastor is not at all concerned to enter into dialogue with the false teachers. He prefers to engage in confrontation and defamation from a distance. He issues decrees to his addressees, urging them to guard the “deposit” (1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:14) and to choose those who will likewise protect it and pass it on to faithful successors (2 Tim. 2:2).[241] After the Nag Hammadi corpus was discovered in 1945, much has been learned about the Gnostics, especially Valentinus and his followers.[242] We know that for these Paul was considered to be “the” apostle, and not only they knew and used the Pauline letters, but also it is clear how influential Pauline letters were to the Gnostics. The extreme rarity of the Valentinians use of the Pastorals contrasts with the frequency of their citations of the other letters of the corpus (Hebrews included). [243] Indeed the list of the letters that seems to be regarded as authoritative is co-extensive with the collection extant in P46 – the Pastorals, Philemon, and 2 Thessalonians are not cited.[244] Pagels avers that the Pastorals were written ca. 100-110 CE to counteract heretical tendencies and to enlist Paul as an organizer of ecclesiastical communities.[245] Bauer argues that the Pastorals were written to counter the use of Paul and his letters by false teachers and to rehabilitate him for the “orthodox,” few of whom were prepared to cite him before Irenaeus.[246] Fiore notes that “one consistent characteristic of the false teaching is its Jewish (Titus 1:10) and, in particular, Pharisaic connections.”[247] The author of the Pastoral Epistles exhibits knowledge of Jewish legal and apocryphal traditions (e.g., Jannes and Jambres at 2 Tim. 3:8), and makes clear opposition against them in their letter. Schnelle argues that “from the perspective of the history of religion, the doctrine opposed by the Pastoral Letters must thus be described as an early form of Christian Gnosticism that has incorporated some Jewish elements without having its basic content determined by them.”[248] Fourth, there are some noticeable vocabulary and style differences from Paul’s undisputed letters.[249] “The letters are replete with words, phrases, and grammatical constructions not found in the New Testament, let alone the Pauline corpus.” In addition, there are words and word groups distinctive to Paul that are not found at all in the Pastorals. Holtzmann also found evidence in the letters for the lack of particles common to the undisputed letters that are marks of the apostle’s dialogical style.[250] P.N. Harrison enhanced the strength of the linguistic argument. He counted the hapax legomena in the letters. He notices that sixty-one appear in the apostolic fathers (ca. 95-145 CE) and the apologists (ca. 140-170 CE), while a further 32 appear in the apologists alone. The remaining 82 are not found in either corpus but in contemporary writers. Some of these 82 are words also found in earlier Greek writers.[251] Ergo, Harrison concludes that the author of the pastorals speaks “the language of the Apostolic Fathers and Apologists.”[252] Many scholars counter that hapax legomena are an inadequate criterion for determining authorship.[253] These agree that “the use of such words may be attributed to circumstantial or accidental differences.”[254] However, Harrison makes a convincing argument that the language of the author of the Pastorals has moved well beyond the cultural milieu of Paul.[255] Schnelle also observes that “the apostle’s own linguistic features are also found in letters we know were dictated to a secretary (cf. Rom 16:22), so the problem of the linguistic peculiarities of the Pastorals is not set aside by the secretary hypothesis.”[256] Fifth, some have thought that certain doctrines in the Pastorals are inconsistent with the other Pauline epistles.[257] For instance, the imminence of the parousia is less urgent; faith has become synonymous with the regula fide, and the ecclesiology is quite different than the other letters. “The ecclesiology of the letters has more in common with what is encountered in the Ignatian correspondence, ca. 110 CE, than the house-churches of the Pauline mission…. One finds in the Pastorals its own distinctive theological ethos.”[258] Beker examines the post-Pauline letters, the Pastoral Epistles included, and he argues that the Pastorals signal their non-Pauline authorship in two ways. The author of the Pastorals does not articulate Paul’s apocalyptic interpretation of the significance of the Christ event.[259] In addition, the radical expectation of an imminent end with Paul’s profound assessment of what it means in the present to be “in Christ” is missing in the Pastorals. Beker notices that in the Pastorals, the Pauline heritage will alone secure the addressees in the faith that has been delivered to them and will ensure the salvation of those who submit to its prescriptions (2 Tim. 2:2).[260]Another distinct feature is their view of faith as knowledge of the truth, which according to Fiore is a Greco-Roman idea of the salvific effects of knowledge and the actions that flows from it.[261] Sixth, Fiore best introduces another inconsistency in the Pastorals concerning the argument that “childbearing by women within their own households, one of the wifely duties, will counter the temptation to be deceived / seduced and will lead to women’s salvation.”[262] Then, he indicates how this idea confronts Paul’s views of marriage and salvation. Concerning marriage he notes that Paul saw it as being one’s gift (1 Cor. 7:7), and a necessity for some to avoid immorality (1 Cor. 7:2, 9). It comes with duties (1 Cor. 7:3), but not necessarily to produce children. Regarding salvation, Paul saw it as given freely by God through Christ (Rom. 3:21-26, and compare 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 3:5). Fiore, notes that this view goes in direct opposition to what we know from the undisputed letters of Paul. He writes, After characterizing women as inherently subordinate and gullible or open to seduction, and as insignificant and unreliable, removed from a public role in the church, the author of the letter had to assure women of a place of significance and holiness. This place for them was the home, in the fulfillment of socially expected domestic duties.[263]

Schnelle argues that “the image of women conveyed by the Pastorals in contrast to Paul’s letters, is not a model that assumes collegial participation and partnership, but is characterized by exhortations to subordination (cf. 1 Tim. 2:9-15; 5:14).”[264] Here we see the parallel with 1 Cor. 14:34-35. Seventh, Fiore in his analysis of classic literature observes what he calls the “rhetorical exercise of the chreia,” which is basically a framework the rhetorician uses in the development of a theme.[265] Here, according to Fiore, the following elements are typical: “(1) encomium of the author of the saying or chreia; (2) paraphrase or restatement of the saying; (3) argument from the opposite side; (4) justification of proof; (5) historical example (personal); (6) analogy from nature; (7) testimony of the ancients; (8) epilogue.”[266] When Fiore searches for this formula in the undisputed Pauline letters, he notes that 1 Thessalonians and Galatians use a variety of hortatory devices, including antithesis, comparisons, prescription, and appeal to scriptural authority, however, Fiore notes that “in each they lack the broad range of such devices employed in the Pastoral Epistles and the Greco-Roman popular philosophical works…Only 2 Thessalonians employs the pattern of devices (statement, proof, restatement, command, example, authority, negative example, and concluding commands) in a concise hortatory section.”[267] While there is still some discussion about the unity of the Pastorals, some affirm that everything seems to favor the assumption that in their present form they are the work of one person.[268] “We probably have to think of a church leader of the third generation who communicates rules for the order of the Church and its ministry in an epistolary setting.”[269] Along these lines, Schnelle argue that “the pastorals are intended to overcome and internal crisis in the church caused by false teaching, to implement appropriate official structures in circumstances that had changed and to secure the continuing influence of the apostle Paul in the whole church.”[270] Scholars have also developed a Fragmentary Hypotheses. Some seem to have adhered to this hypothesis because they could not accept the personalia present in the letters to have been later fabrication, so they argue that these verses are genuine Pauline fragments.[271] For Patrick Miller the Pastorals are not the work of a single author but emanate from a school of Pauline disciples committed to the training of pastors. He claims precedence from the books of Jeremiah, Isaiah, many of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Didache, Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians, and the Epistle to Diognetus as examples of literary corpuses all reaching their final form in a similar manner. In the case of the Pastorals he claims that the process may have taken 100 years. Miller avers that the letters read “like a Hellenistic moral handbook.”[272] Why Timothy and Titus? Because as young as the author presents them, “they are the prototypes of the ‘younger generation’ which needs help and guidance and for which his Church order is intended.”[273] Schnelle notes that “1 Timothy is addressed to Paul’s closest co-worker,” who in fact was probably converted by Paul. Timothy is also seen as co-sender with Paul in some of the letters and as taking the place of Barnabas in the Pauline missionary program. With this in the background, Schnelle argues that Timothy was a likely name for a “fictive addressee.”[274] In the Pastorals “the image of the Apostle Paul serves as the basic point of reference. Paul is not only claimed as the covering authority of the epistles, but, according to the author, offers himself as the true model for the ministry of the Church at all times.”[275] The author also tries to set Paul as the “central authority in the Church,” and Timothy and Titus “as his assistants assigned to the task of establishing and supervising the ministry in churches of a large area…. They are the ideal of a more or less centralized local ministry which is at best just starting to be organized.”[276] Kee concludes that “with the Pastoral Epistles we are still in the middle of the transition, even though the later outcome is already in sight.”[277] Most likely, as Schnelle describes, “the author of the Pastorals was an unknown member of the Pauline school… who was probably an educated Hellenistic (Jewish) Christian who lived in a city of Asia Minor and had in view the churches of his own area.”[278] In carrying out the aim of providing exhortation to their listeners, the Pastorals “employ the full range of hortatory devices as taught in the rhetorical schools and put to use in the literary exhortation letters by other real or pseudonymous authors of their day….The list of vices, virtues and household duties are conventional values and expectations of the day”[279] “If not by Paul, they were written by one who thought of himself as an absolutely loyal follower of Paul, thoroughly steeped in Paul’s language and spirit.”[280] C. F. D. Moule confesses serious doubts about the Pauline authorship of the letters (due to vocabulary, style and theology), yet in order to account for the convincingly Pauline character of the personalia and the Pastoral’s affinities with Lukan style and thought, Moule argues that Luke wrote all three letters at Paul’s request and before Paul’s death (note 2 Tim. 4:11).[281] On the other hand, Harding argues that this issue could be explained in other ways. He sees Luke-Acts and the Pastorals as roughly contemporaneous writings; therefore, their perspectives are informed by similar Christian traditions and influenced by the same Hellenistic milieu.[282] In Paul’s name, the Pastor seeks the audience’s unqualified endorsement of his vision of ecclesiastical life, which the Pastor knows will only come as long as the audience recognizes and assents to the Pauline authority he brings to speech in his letters. Harding contends, “that the audience, and, in time, the early church, was disposed to accept the letters as Paul’s is the proof that the Pastor succeeded in creating rapport that was essential for the audience’s assent to his articulation of the Pauline legacy,”[283] without which “the Pastorals would have been consigned to posterity as doubtful forgeries of no canonical worth.”[284] In addition, the reason that the content of these letters were useful against the teachings of those who came to be perceived as “heretics” also contributed to the acceptance and later canonization of these letters.

Dates and Early Witnesses of the Pastoral Epistles The Pastorals are present in the Muratorian Fragment (ca. 200 CE).[285] Eusebius (ca. 265-340 CE) stated that the Epistles were universally received in ancient ecumenical Christianity.[286] Marcion (ca. 140 CE) did omit the Pastorals from his canon. Some have argued that Marcion’s omission cannot weigh significantly to the theory that this is not Paul’s original letter, since he was rather “prone to cut what he did not like.”[287] Blackburn notes that Tertullian (ca. 160-225 CE) considered Marcion’s opposition to the Pastorals to be a curious novelty. He adds that “Marcion could hardly have been comfortable with 1 Timothy 1:8 or 6:20 or 2 Timothy 3:16. Later Marcionites included the pastorals in their canons.”[288] Some have suggested that Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians (ca. 120-140 CE) might contain possible allusions to 1 and 2 Timothy. [289] Writing ca. 180 CE, Athenagoras and Theophilus both cite 1 Tim. 2:1-2 and allude to other passages in the letters. Their contemporary, Irenaeus, writing at around the same time, cites each of the letters, referring to Paul as their author for the first time in extant sources.[290] P46 (ca. 200 CE) does not contain 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, and the three Pastorals. Metzger believes that “the Pastoral Epistles were probably never included in the codex, for there does not appear to be room for them on the leaves missing at the end.”[291] Consequently, some will argue that the Pastorals during this period are only slowly gaining recognition. While many scholars draw attention to the lateness of their appearance in early Christian literature when compared to the other ten letters of the Pauline corpus, others note that the early fathers, beginning with Irenaeus, “unfailingly acknowledge them as Pauline.”[292] On the other hand, Schnelle’s survey on the extra-canonical writings demonstrates that 1 Clement (written ca. 96 CE in Rome), and the letters of Ignatius (written ca. 110 CE in Asia Minor) were not aware of the Pastorals.[293] Hahneman writes: “No certain evidence of acquaintance with the Pastorals is extant before the third quarter of the second century, but from that time onwards the epistles are cited more regularly,” and “Irenaeus is the earliest witness to make allusion to all the Pastorals.”[294] If our conclusion from the last section is correct, then clearly these letters come from a later period and, therefore, the epistles “are of no assistance in our reconstruction of the life and work of Paul, with the possible exception of authentic fragments of a letter or letters of Paul which may be included in the Pastorals.”[295] The Pastorals offer a glimpse of Christian worship in its formative period. Some argue that the Pastorals are a “third generation” correspondence. The second generation was represented by Timothy’s mother, Eunice, and the first by his grandmother Lois.[296] Concerning the dates of composition of the Pastoral Epistles, some scholars have suggested the middle of the second century.[297] They argue these dates based on the characteristics of the false teachers condemned in the pastorals. [298] Others have suggested ca.130-150 CE.[299] Bernard, on the other hand, argues for a date in the early 2nd century CE, saying that if these letters are not “genuine relics of the apostolic age, they must have been forged in St. Paul’s name and accepted on St. Paul’s authority all over the Christian world, within fifty years of St. Paul’s death.”[300] Schnelle points out the concern of the Letters to Timothy with the church situation in Ephesus, thus he argues for its origination there. Based on Rev. 2:1-6, a text produced around the end of the first century CE, and the fact that the city was an important center for early Christians and the location of a Pauline school, Schnelle argues for the internal connection between the first collection of Paul’s letters and the composition of the Pastorals taking place in Ephesus. He proposes that the Pastorals were written around the turn of the first century CE.[301] Schnelle suggests that in terms of “both Chronology and content, the opposing teaching stands closest to the statement of Revelation about false teachings in the churches of Asia Minor (cf. Rev 2:6, 14, 15, 20, 24).”[302] Finally, he also observes that “the early forms of Christian Gnosticism, the type of false teaching opposed by the Pastorals, points to the period around ca. 100 CE.”[303] In Fiore’s attempt to affirm a date for the Pastorals, he first examines the different official functions described in 1 Timothy and Titus and the qualifications required of the candidates for office. According to him, this information suggests “a later stage of development than that in the undisputed Pauline letters… closer to that of the church in 1 Clement or the letters of Ignatius.”[304] Fiore next notes that the position of Timothy and Titus as apostolic delegates over local church communities points to a second generation, post-apostolic supervisory system (ca. 80-90 CE for the Pastoral Epistles). Here he observes some peculiarities. First, the Pastorals have officialized authority position through the imposition of hands (cf. 2 Tim 1:6; 1 Tim 4:14). Second, this practice is the responsibility of the collected body of presbyters. Third, one of the qualifications required for office is that the candidate be not a “new convert” (cf. 1 Tim 3:6). Fiore concludes based on these later developments that time has moved on from Paul’s first organization of house church communities.[305] Nevertheless, Fiore also takes into account the earlier developmental stage observed in the Pastorals when compared to the “clear authority, liturgical priority, or consistency in titles and hierarchy” that are found attached to the offices in 1 Clement (ca. 96-97 CE) and Ignatius (ca. 110-115 CE).[306] Schnelle also notices that the Pastorals display a structure of church offices as in an earlier stage when compared to Ignatius and Polycarp, which he dates them between 110 CE and 130 CE. Therefore, Schnelle sees the Pastorals belonging within the process of the Formation of the Pauline corpus.[307] Fiore remarks that the “ecclesiastical development in Asia Minor has not yet traveled to church communities farther west.”[308] Thus, having considered these “historical observations on the development of ecclesiastical structures,” Fiore avers that the Pastoral Epistles should be located around ca. 80-90 CE.[309] I posit that the Pastorals were the fabrication of a deutero-Pauline school that fabricated these letters around the turn of the 1st cent. CE, namely ca. 100 CE. It is important not to overlook the fact that Paul delegated and required at times overseeing assistance. For instance, Paul leaves Aquila and Priscilla in Ephesus at the end of his second missionary journey. However, as we have shown in the last section, the language, form, context and content presented in the Pastorals assume a still early developmental stage concerning church order, but that already is distant from Paul’s own time period.

The Role of Women in the Early Christian Movement Scholars have observed that the available biblical evidence indicates that women played an important active role in preaching, teaching, and prophesying in the early Pauline communities: for example, Phoebe (Rom 16:1-2), Prisca (Rom 16:3-4; cf. Acts 18:18-28, who is called a “deacon”), Junia (Rom 16:7), and Euodia and Syntyche (Phil 4:2-3).[310] Paul in these passages clearly shows support to the leadership role of women in ministry. Hays’ inquiry is pertinent, “if Paul’s aim was to suppress women, why did he send Phoebe as his emissary to the Roman churches?”[311] In fact, why was he even giving ears to the news brought forth from those from the house of Chloe (a woman and one of his major sources for his composition of 1 Corinthians)? Those who have argued that the speech restriction of 14:34-35 applies only to married women, who have husbands to instruct them at home, and thus unmarried women are allowed to pray and prophesy in the assembly (as an attempt to explain 11:2-16), “overlook the evidence that married women such as Prisca did in fact exercise leadership roles in the Pauline churches.”[312] One can hardly understand the tough hortatory direction against the teaching of women in 1 Tim. 2:11-15, unless it was a command given to suppress ideas that permitted, if not encouraged, women’s teaching in the assemblies. As we have seen already, the church structure in Paul’s time, with its charismatic framework, allowed for woman to prophesy. This and other leadership roles assumed by women seem not to have been unusual. For instance, Luke knows a Caesarean tradition of the four unmarried daughters of Philip who “prophesied” (Acts 21:9) and presents Aquila and Priscilla as both engaged in missionary work (Acts 18:26). Paul, who regarded man and women as one “in Christ” (Gal 3:28; cf. I Cor 11:12) seems to indicate that he could visualize women “praying and prophesying” in the Corinthian service (I Cor 11:5).[313]

Now in the case of 1 Cor. 14:34-35, had this command been given by Paul, then this rule would have been no axiom, but stated with the purpose to counter a specific development in Corinth. However, and in fact, women played an important role in the Corinthian church with Paul’s agreement and blessing. When considering the role of women in the early Christian movement, one needs to turn to the experience of women among Gnostic-Christian groups as well. “There can be no question that in many Gnostic-Christian groups the role of women was most important.”[314] Women appear in many Gnostic writings as recipients of special revelation, and in the Gnosticizing Acts of Paul, the apostle is claimed as endorsing this tendency when his convert Thecla is pictured as teacher and preacher (Chapters 37, 39, 41, 43). This is how Kee understands this theme in the Acts of Paul: This Acts also indicates that the public role of women in Gnosticism was matched by a general appeal of Gnostic teaching of women, and the warning in 2 Tim. 3:6-7 demonstrates that the author of the Pastoral Epistles also fears its destructive influence on weak women…. Both features, the encratitic attitude (i.e., abstinence from sexual relations) and the prominence of women in the “false teaching,” would fit well the picture of Gnostics.[315]

Margaret MacDonald has considered second-century non-Christian observations as well as biblical and early Christian texts relevant to the role of the women in the church. From her study of writers such as Pliny, Galen, and Celsus, she concludes that there is good evidence of women taking leadership roles. Moreover, she notices that unlike the Pastorals, Paul does not limit the choices to remain unmarried to older widows of a certain economic status who have raised children (cf. 1 Tim. 5:9-10). The Pastorals, on the other hand, bear witness to a time when criticism of the potential of celibate women to bring shame on the community results in the prescription that the private world of the believers “visibly conform to public standards” common to the Greco-Roman world.[316] This discussion leads us to one conclusion, women played a relevant and important role in the Christian assemblies and this reality was beginning to be seen as subversive in the mind of those concerned with the Greco-Roman culture.
The Ancient View of the Role of Women and the Deutero-Pauline Bias The Roman world was anything but homogeneous in regard to its attitudes toward women. Not only were there differing attitudes among individuals toward women in the Greco-Roman setting, but the views vary depending whether women were being characterized from the perspective of Roman law, ancient medicine and gynecology, Greco-Roman religious mores, ancient social institutions, etc… The complexity of this situation is heightened by the fact that Greek culture and Roman culture did not always express the same views on these matters.[317]

This is how the Roman author Cornelius Nepos deals with perceptions of acceptable behavior of women in certain public activities: Many actions are seemly according to our [i.e., Roman] code which the Greeks looks upon as shameful… What Roman would blush to take his wife to a dinner party? What matron does not frequent the front rooms of her dwelling and show herself in public?” Matters are “very different in Greece, for there a woman is not admitted to a dinner-party, unless relatives only are present. She keeps to the more retired part of the house called “the women’s apartment,” to which no man has access who is not near of kin.[318]

Claude Vatin researched several second- and first-century marriage contracts, and he noticed that these provide evidence of the duties incumbent upon a wife in the Hellenistic world (first among these duties was that a wife should be subject to her husband).[319] Concerning the command in v. 34 let them be subject (u`potasse,sqwsan), Collins, then, convincingly argues that the subjection of a woman to her husband is enjoined by the late -first-century deutero-Pauline texts (Eph 5:22-24; Col 3:18; 1 Tim 2:11-15; 1 Pet 3:1-6).[320] Another example of Greco-Roman influence is the statement for it is shameful. Collins notes that marriage contracts of the second and first pre-Christian centuries would contain certain clauses stipulating the social expectation concerning the role of the wife. These clauses would assure that the wife did not do anything that would shame her husband.[321] These are among the major evidences which demonstrate that in the Mediterranean culture shame and honor were one of the most important social values. The deutero-Pauline texts under scrutiny here also testify to this sentiment. Both 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Tim. 2:9-15 are better understood under the light of the social circumstances of late-first-century Christian communities in a time when these sought to achieve social acceptance. According to Fiore, “individuals in the community as well as the community in its entirety are also expected to model ideal belief and behavior to those outside the community and thereby win their esteem for the community’s members and its belief system.”[322] In the deutero-Pauline and later New Testament letters in which the household code (Haustafel) is articulated, Christian writers adapt the content in exhortation address to their communities.[323] These authors fear that the traditional hierarchical ordering of the household, and the state, be subverted by any failure on the part of the subordinate members to fully uphold the conventions and expectations of their social position.[324] Commenting on v. 11 of 1 Timothy 2, Fiore explores some corresponding excerpts from Greco-Roman writers who express similar attitude towards women. For instance, Fiore cites Philo (ca. 25 BCE – ca. 50 CE) who in one of his writings urged a life of seclusion at home, not meddling as a busybody, but surrounded by quiet, and in prayer. He also looks into Plutarch (ca. 45 – 125 CE) who urges women to keep silence in public, and to speak only to or through their husbands, who are to share their learning with them at home. In conclusion, Fiore avers that in its attitude toward women “the letter [the Pastorals] echoes the bias and concerns of the larger society.”[325] Therefore, Fiore concludes that the exhortations found in this chapter to both man (on peacefulness) and women (on domesticity and silence) “coincide with the opinion in the larger society from which the Pastorals hope to gain approval, or at least to avoid condemnation.”[326] On a monograph devoted to the Greco-Roman background of the household code (Haustafel), David Balch notes the longstanding Roman sensitivity to the potential for the subversion of the household posed by the participation of women and slaves in oriental cults. Balch argues that the Roman ruling classes, as guardians of the social order, would have been particularly sensitive to any charge brought against Christians with respect to undermining household conventions.[327] Considering the fact that Christians met in their houses for worship, then with some historical imagination one should not be surprised to see how some women were exercising great influence in the day-to-day life of the Christian community (at least in a time prior to the enforcement of the deutero-Pauline taceat mulier). As hospitality was being practiced in the house churches, women were the ones who probably took care of the details concerning the purchasing and preparing of, for example, the bread and wine for the celebration of Eucharist. They must have been the ones who had the house in proper order following the social expectations of hospitality, and in accordance to what was required for the meetings. As we have argued, we can also be certain of their influence over the leadership of what was happening inside their houses during these meetings. Adding the influence of Paul’s liberating teachings it is also likely that some felt the liberty to exercise their right of expressing not only their gifts of hospitality, but also other gifts involving speech in public. The fact that the Pastorals and the interpolation of 1 Cor. 14:34-35 are attempting to silence these women confirms precisely this hypothesis. It is also presumed that visitors were often present in these house church meetings. We are to expect that these visitors were observing the meetings and later telling others in the community what their impressions were. It is highly possible that these visitors saw men as well as women speaking in public. It is possible that a visitor would have seen enough in a meeting that would make him believe that the whole assembly was going in the opposite direction of the social expectations of the time toward the position of women in society. During this transition period (from Paul’s liberating teachings to a more advanced accommodation to the social expectations of the time), many believers were not direct recipients of Paul’s message, but rather recipients of Paul’s second or third generations of interpreters. It is possible that these would not place emphasis on Paul’s teaching on egalitarian relationships. It is easy to see how the tensions with the Greco-Roman culture must have been increasing and causing many problems for the local churches. Therefore, it is safe to affirm that the easiest route towards unleashing such tensions was to enter into conformity to the socially accepted norms of the Greco-Roman culture about the role of women in society. Some have argued that this preoccupation by the part of the deutero-Pauline writers is due to a diminishing eschatological expectation in the churches. However, Balch convincingly argues that this is rather a response to actual or potential criticism on the part of outsiders who expected that all members of society accept Roman social-political customs.[328] David Verner also argues that the church is being accused of subverting the political structures of the state and agrees with Balch’s assessments of the sensibilities of the Roman ruling class toward unrest in the household.[329] In a more recent study involving archeological data and literary sources for the social environment of the Greco-Roman household, Balch and Osiek confirm the traditional scholarly understanding of the patriarchal structure of the ideal household, namely one of perceived inferiority of women, children, and slaves. The widespread belief was that women were unable to control their sexual passions, thereby potentially plunging the entire household in shame and dishonor; therefore, it was necessary to teach that women be “controlled, enclosed and guarded” as far as possible.[330] Balch and Osiek argue that the presence of the Haustafeln in the deutero-Pauline letters, including the Pastorals, represents acculturation on the part of the writers to the prevailing patriarchal social conventions of the cities and towns of the empire.[331] These codes are a sign of the time when the “emancipist and fraternal tendencies existing in somewhat uneasy tension in the earlier Pauline churches in which some women did host house churches” will no longer be a viable possibility.[332] Verner argues that the author of the Pastorals sets forth a “coherent concept of the church as the household of God.” Further in his study, Verner observes that the leadership framework of the churches (as perceived by the Pastorals) is clearly restricted to the ranks of senior, well-to-do, though well qualified, (male) householders. Their rule over the church household is analogous to their rule over their family households. The married women, on the other hand, are exhorted to cultivate the virtues of domesticity and modesty, and to aspire to the sober position of the typical Roman matron.[333] Verner argues that the Pastorals stress the necessity of subscribing to the social values of urban Greco-Roman society. The leadership of the church, God’s household, Verner writes, “shared the same aristocratic social aspirations in the smaller sphere.”[334] On a final note, these words from Harding translate well the sentiment toward the issue of cultural adaptation discussed in this section: The Pastoral epistles testify to the urgent need to stabilize community life in light of severe challenges to its Pauline identity posed by false teachers and criticism of deviant behavior in the community from those outside it…. These leaders are drawn exclusively from the ranks of well-to-do male householders who are socially respectable, conform to the ethical criteria affirmed by the Greco-Roman urban elites, and manifest the teaching aptitude required for leadership in the church. Only by preserving the values and order of the Greco-Roman household could the church, as the “household” of God, hope to embrace the empire.[335]

The Role of Women according to Deutero-Paul and the Acts of Paul The Pastoral Epistles provide the point of view of only one side of the debate which was occurring around the turn of the first century between the various traditions of Christianity in its early developmental stage. It is important to understand that the background of Greco-Roman-Judaic culture was highly influential in the discussions, and as Kee contends, “our epistles are impressive evidence of the extent to which this beginning orthodoxy felt free to assimilate concepts of its religious surroundings.”[336] Thus, it is clear how the Jewish-Hellenistic background played an important role in the fabrication of 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Tim. 2:9-15. We see, therefore, the role of women gaining a new understanding in the deutero-Paul Christian communities. A careful read of the Pastorals shows the development from a rather loose organization to a more structured form of ecclesiastical order in the Pastoral Epistles, which formed the grounds for the creation of a hierarchy of offices with an order of “bishop” as head of the local congregation (“monarchical episcopacy”). The author of the Pastorals felt the need of a more structured pattern of organization in order to effectively quench the heretics. “The ministry in the Church became in the first place the guardian of tradition, legitimized by a special ordination, and thus was at the same time a guarantee of the effectiveness of all salutary activity in the Church.”[337] It is within this scenario and in the midst of such discussions concerning structure that the Christian community began to assign a different role to women. In the Pastoral Epistles “very little is said about the range of duties for Bishops, deacons, presbyters, widows, and about their relationship to each other. The church order only lists the prerequisites for the office,” mostly in the form of moral standards. It is assumed that the author only conceives of the male figure in holding such positions, which again clashes with Paul’s apparent understanding of women as deacons and apostle among other roles.[338] Thus, in the leadership of the Church as presented in the Pastorals “the bishop (or the bishops) is a member of the presbytery, which, as a patriarchal body, was composed of an honored group of older Christians and of others who, regardless of age [but not gender], were honored on account of their office.”[339] Women in Paul’s churches, however, headed household churches, some with their husbands.[340] In addition to these women, others performed a wide range of tasks for which Paul acknowledges them.[341] Fiore understands from the reading of 1 Tim. 2:12 (considering also what we know about the early developmental stages of church institutionalization) that those being called “to learn in silence and with full submission” are potentially women who were assuming official positions, and likely teaching in the house church meetings. Therefore, the reservation of the work of bishop / presbyter to men (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9), indicates the author’s view of excluding women from the work of teaching and the exercise of authority over men.[342] Fiore adds, The act receives so clear a prohibition that one is led to understand that women in the Ephesian church were teaching, most likely in consequence of the equality they derived from Paul’s baptismal teaching (Gal. 3:28). Similarly, Paul presumes equal access to spiritual gifts. Thus 1 Corinthians 12 speaks of the availability without gender distinction of Spirit gifts, one of which is “teacher” (1 Cor. 12:29).[343]

It becomes clear then that the letter is trying to reverse a practice common among women. Women appear to have played prominent roles in Paul’s churches as house-church heads, assistants, and prophets. In this section of 1 Timothy the author introduces a change. The author uses two scriptural arguments to substantiate his position: first, the priority of the creation of Adam, which claims men’s social priority in the structure of authority according to God’s plan; and second, the priority of Eve who by being deceived into transgressing God’s design opens the precedence to his notion of “woman’s falling grasp of the truth, susceptibility to false teacher’s blandishments, and consequent unsuitability to teach publicly.”[344] One of the reasons for the inclusion of this teaching in the Pauline letters is due to the high profile of women in the Pauline churches, who seem to have led some to adopt positions that appeared extreme to others. Fiore argues that the emancipatory “neither male nor female” of Gal. 3:28 might have led some women to see no need to procreate, or even to marry (1 Cor. 7:28, 36) or to stay married (1 Cor. 7:5, 10-11). The false teachers’ extreme asceticism (1 Tim. 4:3) and over-spiritualized eschatology (2 Tim. 2:18) would abet these emancipatory orientations.[345] There were also other early Christian communities – chiefly Marcionite, Gnostic, and Montanist – in which celibate women ministered with equal authority and status with men (perhaps influenced by Paul’s egalitarian teachings). The late-second-century Acts of Paul best gives us a glimpse of what was going on in these communities. Scholars have considered Acts of Paul a possible actualization of the Pauline tradition which sanctions women’s access to positions of leadership in the church.[346] Many scholars agree that “the Acts and the Pastorals represent ways in which early Christian communities remembered Paul.”[347] Dennis MacDonald observes that we cannot assume that the Pastorals along with the other New Testament deutero-Pauline letters and the Acts of the Apostles were the only bearers of the legacy of Paul in the post-Pauline era.[348] One needs only to observe how outraged was Tertullian that some women were appealing to the Acts of Paul as justification for presuming to teach and to baptize.[349] Reinforcing the idea of a Pauline tradition backing Acts of Paul, Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza argues that much of the NT apocrypha was widely regarded as canonical in sections of the early church.[350] The Acts of Paul exalts particularly the practices (e.g., asceticism, emancipation from a wife’s role, chastity, realized resurrection) against which the Pastorals are reacting. Fiore suggests that “this text offers a possible glimpse into the nature of the disruption in the community over the true development and application of the Pauline tradition.”[351] As an attempt to contain this disruption, the Pastoral Epistles were written with a social strategy frame that sought to restore the equilibrium of the church in the eyes of the larger community. This social strategy focused on bringing “the behavior of church members into line with the expectations of Greco-Roman society and in keeping with Pauline tradition,” as far as their understanding of that tradition goes.[352] In comparing 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (any teaching by women in the congregation is forbidden, followed by a devastatingly powerful argument against their presumption) with Acts of Paul, Verner perceives a clear contrast between the “emancipist” Acts of Paul and the Pastorals, observing that the author of the later condemns the rejection of marriage and forbids women a congregational teaching ministry. On the other hand, the Acts upholds the rejection of marriage and promotes a teaching ministry for women.[353] D. MacDonald also proposes a substantial relationship between the Acts of Paul and the Pastoral Epistles. He argues that the Pastor in part wrote the letters to counter the image of Paul presented by women who disseminated oral traditions and legends about Paul, such as those found in the Acts of Paul. These would remember Paul, as one who ordained women to preach and teach, and who sanctioned a liberating and continent lifestyle despite the opposition of the social expectations women were expected to fulfill. Whether or not the writer of the Pastorals had a manuscript of Acts of Paul in his possession, he not only knew these traditions, but one item in his agenda was to silence these women and their stories.[354] The Pastorals “presented Paul as a social conservative, a political quiescent and a submissive martyr. Whereas the women followed an ascetic, celibate lifestyle and presumed to teach in the congregation, even to prophesy, the Pastorals vilify them as liars who are attending to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons (1 Tim 4:1).[355] Going against asceticism, the Pastor insists that creation is inherently good (1 Tim. 4:4); marriage is not to be forbidden; childbearing is the means of salvation for women (1 Tim. 2:15); women are to be forbidden to teach in the congregation (1 Tim. 2:12); Presbyter/bishops are to be married, male householders (1 Tim. 3:2, 4; Titus 1:6); the widows (who are also threatening to the male oriented leadership in the new establishment in development) have their roles limited and their enrollment in the order abridged (1 Tim. 5:9), and their teaching restricted to younger women.[356] Overall, her role is narrowed to the inculcation of domestic virtues and the need to render submission to one’s husband (cf. Titus 2:3b-5).[357] Why are widows brought under the attention of the institutionalized leadership of the churches? Scholarship has drawn elucidating conclusions from the examination of 1 Tim. 5:3-16. This text also contributes to our understanding of women’s role in the early church. We know that “widows” in this text also includes unmarried virgins.[358] One of the aims of this pericope on widows in Timothy 5 is to regulate what seems to be a distinct grouping in many early church communities, including the churches of the Pastorals. Harding notes that the Pastor affirms their lifestyle while exhorting younger widows to marry, and “any presumption in the part of these women to preach and teach in the congregation is totally curtailed.”[359] Bassler rightly concludes that in the Pastorals a “potentially objectionable force [i.e., the ‘widows’] has been tamed.”[360] Harding again notices that the support for “real” widows, which can be a burden for the church (see 1 Tim. 5:16b), is relegated to “believing women” (v.16a).[361] Stevan Davies surmises that Acts of Paul was written by literate members of these communities in order to keep alive the celibate and semi-clerical lifestyle as an authentic expression of the apostolic faith.[362] Along the same lines, Margaret MacDonald suggests that Acts of Paul is a testimony to the continued attraction of the tradition that associated celibacy and renunciation of marriage with the ministry of Paul.[363] The tradition represented in Acts of Paul was perceived as subversive by many early fathers and, therefore, lost the debate and did not make it into the canon. Contrary to the later view in the deutero-Pauline letters, Christianity began as an egalitarian movement, where the apostle Paul sanctioned equality of men and women (see Gal. 3:28) and preferred celibacy to the married condition (see 1 Cor. 7:8-9, 25-28).[364] The Pastoral epistles, on the other hand, are part of the early post-Pauline attempts to re-inculcate social expectations in congregations that kept alive something of the egalitarian Spirit to be seen operating in the churches Paul founded.

Canonizing the “Taceat Mulier” Wilken points out that “the time was fast approaching, however, when oral tradition would be complemented by written documents. But not replaced!” Wilken observes that, at the end of the second century, Irenaeus’ concept of apostolic tradition was still in terms of persons first, books second. Wilken notes that as an attempt to sort out what was considered orthodox from what is not, “the apostolic writings, the Christian scriptures, required a framework of interpretation, a canopy of beliefs and practices to envelop the texts.”[365] In other words, both the texts and the oral tradition were being scrutinized in accordance to the agreed hermeneutical “rule of faith,” but also taking into consideration what the rest of the scripture had to say about it. As my professor Dr. Blowers has put it, there is an “organizing principle” or perhaps a privileged “Canon-within-the canon” for the Christian Bible as a whole, such as integrates its diverse parts and holds the keys to its interpretation. Blowers suggests that an “organizing principle” of this type is already being worked out in the NT itself, though the more famous attempts to articulate such a rule belong to the 2nd and 3rd centuries.[366] Thus, for example, if one side of the debate (in the search for what is “orthodox”) based its argument on some proof text, the other side would confront the argument on the basis of the “rule of faith,” or the so called “organizing principle.” A famous example cited by Wilken is the debate over the revelation of the Son to the Father in the fourth century. Arius “had called attention to the word ‘therefore’ in Phil. 2:9, ‘Therefore God has highly exalted him [Christ] and bestowed on him the name which is above every name.’ In his view the ‘therefore’ implied that the Son had ‘become’ God and was not God from eternity.” In reply, Athanasius showed that this was an idiosyncratic and “private” interpretation contrary to the “Church’s sense of the Scripture” handed on orally and expressed in other texts in the New Testament, for example, John 1:1, “and the Word was God,” or Hebrews 1:6, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” For good measure he points out that three verses earlier St. Paul had said that Christ, who was “in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” (Phil 2:6).[367]

Hull notices that the canonical discussion followed a criteria of apostolicity, orthodoxy, and antiquity in a somewhat “circular fashion.” In other words, a work was considered “apostolic” if it abided by the understood “rule of faith;” and a work was regarded “orthodox” if one could make an argument proving that it was apostolic, abiding by the “rule of faith” handed down by the apostles. Hull avers that obviously time played an important role for that matter as well. Therefore, if any given writing under the canonical discussion of the time was proved to be around for a long time (as far back to the apostolic tradition), then universal acceptance would be more likely.[368] In sum, if indeed the criteria for the formation of the canon were apostolicity, regula fidei, and use and acknowledgement in all churches, the Pastorals managed to succeed under all these criteria and become authoritative in the church.[369] Moreover, it is important to note that the circumstance and nature of the debate also helped the early church acknowledgement of the Pastorals as a powerful voice against “false teaching.” During the second half of the second century CE, in the beginning of the development of orthodoxy, several leaders of the church were involved in the debate against Gnostic groups. Although the Pastorals were not possibly directly addressing the Montanists nor the Marcionites, but rather an earlier form of Christian Gnosticism with a Judaic component, the simple reason that it was a useful source against both groups certainly helped its acceptance among members of the early church.[370] With this in mind, we need to investigate how 1 Cor. 14:34-35 made the canon. Had Paul not “written” about the role of women in the church in one of his earlier epistles (e.g. 1 Cor. 14:34-35), it is possible that 1 Tim. 2:9-15 would have placed the authorship of the letter into question. It is possible that early Christians would have found this text in Timothy dissonant from the rest of Paul’s earlier correspondences. However, if a similar voice could be heard echoing from one of Paul’s first widely acknowledged letters, then 1 Tim. 2:9-15 would be simply ratifying what had already been said by Paul. My hypothesis is that 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is the “organizing principle” created to foster the acceptance of 1 Tim. 2:9-15. However, if the question is concerning the origin of vv. 34-35, then I surmise that it can be traced to the same author(s) (or school) that wrote 1 Tim. 2:9-15. Wilken points out that the early patristic writers were interpreting “Scripture by Scripture, an axiom accepted by all early Christian writers.” He concludes that “the context of understanding was formed by the Bible as a whole.”[371] We can see the hand of Deutero-Paul not only creating a precedent text in 1 Cor. 14:34-35 for his teachings in 1 Tim. 2:9-15, but also alongside 1 Tim. 2:9-15 developing his own organizational principle upon which to base his taceat mulier command in the public meetings (whether intentionally and consciously or not). As we have argued before, the motive was to help the church conform to her Sitz im Leben. Schnelle suggests a connection between the first collections of Pauline letters and the Pastorals, “because the Pastorals probably originated at the same time and were presented to the public in the form of a three-member letter corpus.”[372] It is said that the collection of the Corpus Paulinum took shape in Corinth; others suggest that Ephesus was the center for the collection, and that “Ephesians is a compilation from the other epistles, made with the intention of forming an introduction to the published collection.”[373] What seems to be more certain is that the letters of Paul were the original nucleus around which the canon began to form.[374] Therefore, all evidence leads us to conclude that the author of both the interpolation of vv. 34-35 and the Pastorals was a member of the Pauline school who wrote and circulated the letters in the course of a new edition of the previous corpus of the Pauline letters.[375] In conjecturing how the Pastorals attained authority in Asia Minor almost forty years after the death of Paul (according to Schnelle’s calculations), he argues that since the letters were addressed to private individuals, “they could have emerged from the private sphere and become public only very late.” He then notes that traditions like the one found in Hebrews 13:23 (Timothy was released from Roman imprisonment and continued his missionary work), and other similar personal traditions about Timothy (and Titus) provided the “temporal leeway,” considering that the “Pastorals were not composed and published until after the (real or supposed) deaths of their (fictive) addressees.”[376] According to Schnelle, “deuteropaulinism” serves to testify to an origin of the Pauline Corpus in “successive stages.”[377] Schnelle observes that initially there were only small local collections, “which were then formed into larger units.” He argues that the “supplementation of the Pauline corpus by the Pastorals served as a catalyst.” Finally, he poses that glosses such as 1 Cor. 14:34-35 are evidence of a “process of collection and to some extent of re-editing of the Pauline letters.”[378] He also argues that 1 Corinthians and Romans were the primary Pauline sources for 1 Timothy.[379] While the author(s) of the Pastoral Epistles was recontextualizing and using these earlier Pauline sources in order to address problems in his community, he did not have a Pauline precedent for silencing and placing women in subordination. Hence, I conclude that the gloss was placed in a copy of a 1 Corinthians manuscript belonging to the author of the Pastorals around the time of composition of the first letter to Timothy, namely ca. 100 CE,[380] with the purpose of providing a Pauline authoritative teaching concerning the role of women in the local church, which as it has been already argued would relieve the tensions with the local Greco-Roman culture, and place the community’s doctrine in better conformity with the Sitz im Leben.[381]

Conclusion Luke Timothy Johnson expresses the view that each of the letters, 2 Timothy especially, could have been written by Paul. While the letters cannot be fitted into the chronology of Paul’s life as we know it, we must also confess that there are gaps in our knowledge of his career in which the situations alluded to in the letter could have occurred. The style of the Pastorals evidences a mixture of Pauline and non-Pauline elements, the vocabulary of 2 Timothy being closest to the other undisputed Paulines. Nevertheless, the Pastoral Epistles reveal enough differences and peculiarities in the presentation of the material to support the view that they are pseudonymous. The highlight of the uniqueness being the Pastorals understanding of the role of women, “accommodations to a situation of a more developed church structure and a more complex relationship with the larger society.”[382] The Pastorals are a most important witness of two ways in which the church tried to find her own identity over against what the epistles called false teachings: first, “the appeal to a new concept of tradition,” which still required the blessing of the Apostles (or else the Apostle Paul would not have needed to be used pseudonymously); second, “the development of an established ecclesiastical ministry.”[383] For instance, in 1 Cor. 14, the Apostle Paul seeks to resolve the tumultuous problems concerning prophesy and tongues in the Corinthian congregation by suggesting the implementation of order. He does not require the appointment of a local leader to take care of the situation. He proposes and consistently prefers a more horizontal structure where all can prophesy (cf. 1 Cor. 14:31) and all are called to judge the prophecy (cf. 1 Cor. 14:29). Nevertheless, “according to the Pastoral Epistles, the preservation and correct transmission of the true faith is a task of the ministry of the Church…. If the Church was to be the ‘pillar and bulwark of truth’ (I Tim. 3:15), it could fulfill this role only through an ordered and legitimized ecclesiastical office.”[384] The early church discussion concerning the role of women in the Christian assemblies found its ethos in the midst of this development, and there is no question that the Greco-Roman culture influenced the direction they took. The Pastoral Epistles represent the consent of a segment of early Christianity who saw in these documents an exemplar of the Apostolic Tradition and therefore a valid source to be used on the debate against what was then regarded as “false doctrines.” As we know, the Pastorals won the debate and, therefore, made the cut into our canon. This does not mean that the Pastorals represent the purest form of Apostolic (or for that matter, Pauline) theology, even if it was possible to clearly establish one. The fabrication of 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Tim. 2:9-15 by Deutero-Paul informs us, quite significantly, that at least in this instance, Deutero-Paul misappropriates Paul. This chapter has summarized the main arguments concerning Pauline authorship of the Pastorals. The challenges posed by the defenders have raised the level of the discussion. As a result, scholars such as Kee, Young, Froehlich, Donelson, Fiore and Schnelle have taken up the challenge and shed new light on the debate. In sum, we conclude that the Pastorals belong to early second-century attempts to legitimize the author’s defense of the apostolic faith for the protection of churches faced by “heterodox” teaching and to rehabilitate the apostle among the “orthodox.” However, there is little confidence that the author(s) of the Epistles has understood “the distinctive message of the apostle,” at least what concerns Paul’s understanding of the role of women in the church.[385] Donelson avers that the Pastor is defending “a man he knows mostly by reputation and legend.”[386] No doubt that the Pastoral Epistles, in many instances, represent and echo Pauline theology. However, the question of the extent to which the author has brought Paul’s message to speech in regard to the role of women in the church is an example of his fallible attempt and misappropriation of Paul’s teaching on this subject. Fiore writes, “The regulations restricting women to domestic roles are influenced by cultural and traditional biases…. Thus a lesson here is to be careful to discern the degree to which our position on issues of the day might be skewed by cultural biases.”[387] This chapter concludes that vv. 34-35 were placed in a 1 Corinthians manuscript by the author of the Pastorals around the time of composition of the first letter to Timothy, namely ca. 100 CE, with the purpose of providing a Pauline authoritative precedent concerning the role of women in the local church.
CONCLUSION

So “why do we give top priority to the two ‘woman be silent’ passages?”[388] On what ground can one make the point that these two texts take precedence over all the other pertinent evidence in the New Testament? Bassler raises these interesting questions, How can women like Euodia and Syntyche (Phil. 4:2-3), Prisca (Rom. 16:3; 1 Cor 16:19), Mary (Rom 16:6), Junia (Rom 16:7) and Tryphaena and Tryphosa (Rom 16:12) function as co-workers in the churches if they cannot speak in those churches? How can Phoebe fulfill her role of deacon (Rom 16:1-2) if she cannot speak out in the assembly? How can a woman like Nympha, who is influential enough to host a house church (Col 4:15), have been required to remain silent in her own home (cf. also Prisca, the wife of Aquila, 16:19)?[389]

In addition, when examining the situation of 1 Cor. 14:34-35, Garland asks, “what status does a text have that may not be original but is represented in every extant manuscript?”[390] These are questions that this thesis did not focus on, but that are nevertheless of considerable importance. Here we have concentrated on the text-critical problem found in chapter 14 of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, and we have concluded that we have enough evidences (both internal and external) to call vv. 34-35 an interpolation. We also traced the fabrication of this interpolation in connection with the Pastoral Epistles. I argued that the author(s) of the Pastorals was at some level responsible for the interpolation of 1 Cor. 14:34-35, which occurred at around ca. 100 CE, during the process of collection and edition of Paul’s letters. Until Payne’s works dealing with external evidences had been published, the argument based on internal evidences did not convince many in the field who place greater weight on manuscript witness than on internal analysis of the text. Since verses 34-35 along with 1 Tim. 2:9-15 will likely continue in our Bibles no matter which way scholars will lean on this matter, at the end of the day the practical question is not whether Paul did or did not write them, but how they are interpreted and applied. Perhaps this is the subject of a future chapter. As Maria Pascuzzi correctly suggests, “responsible interpretation requires that these verses be considered in view of Paul’s larger vision of church as the union of all men and women using their gifts and talents to advance the gospel of Jesus Christ.”[391] When negotiating our way between texts of Scripture that appear contradictory, my New Testament Professor, Robert F. Hull, observes, Confronted with a text that assumes that women may pray or prophesy in the assembly, so long as their heads are properly covered (1 Cor. 11:5), and one that requires women to be silent in the assembly (1 Cor. 14:34), we have a problem…. It is frequently said that the NT forbids women preachers, based on 1 Tim. 2:11-12. At the same time 1 Tim. 2:9, which prescribes modest adornment for women and excludes braided hair and the wearing of gold, pearls and costly attire, is summarily ignored.[392]

Finally, it is important also to remember in these final remarks that Paul’s undisputed letters and the Pastorals addressed particular problems and issues pertaining to their day. In addition, these compositions are based on interpretation of what they considered to be scripture in their context. With this correct understanding, we should be able to better judge the relevancy of these texts considering our own time. We know for a fact that women have achieved all levels of authority in our society. Hence, the church ought to sanction women’s right of exercising leadership in the church.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aland, Kurt, Barbara Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, C. M. Martini, and B. M. Metzger, eds. The Greek New Testament. 4th revised edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft/United Bible Societies, 1994.

________, M. Black, C. M. Martini, and B. M. Metzger, A. Wikgren, eds. The Greek New Testament. 3rd edition. New York: United Bible Societies, 1975.

Amphoux, Christian, “Codex Vaticanus B: Les points diacritiques des marges de Marc,” JTS 58 (2007), 440-66.

Aune, David E. The New Testament in its Literary Environment. Library of Early Christianity. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1987.

Balch, David L. Let Wives be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter. SBLMS 26. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981.

________, and Carolyn Osiek. Families in the New Testament World: Household and House Churches. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1997.

Barr, David. New Testament History: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1995.

Barrett, C.K. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Harper's New Testament commentaries. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1968.

Bartchy, Scott. “Power, Submission, and Sexual Identity among the Early Christians.” In Essays on New Testament Christianity. Edited by C. Robert Wetzel, 50-80. Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing, 1978.

Bassler, Jouette M. “The Widow’s Tale: A Fresh Look at 1 Tim 5:3-16.” JBL 103 (1983): 23-41.

Bauer, Walter. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1971.

Beardslee, William A. First Corinthians. A Commentary for Today. St. Louis, Missouri: Chalice Press, 1994.

Beker, J. Christian. Heirs of Paul: Paul’s Legacy in the New Testament and in the Church Today. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1991.

Bernard, J. H. The Pastoral Epistles. The Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges 14. Cambridge, UK: The University Press, 1899.

Blackburn, Edwin. Marcion and His Influence. London, UK: SPCK, 1948.

Brandon, Samuel G. F. “Testimonium Flavianum,” in History Today 19 (1969): 438.

Bray, Gerald, and Thomas C. Oden. 1 - 2 Corinthians. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament. Chicago, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1999.

Bremmer, Jan N. The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla. Kampen, Netherlands, NL: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1996.

Bromiley, Geoffrey W. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995.

Bruce, F. F. Jesus & Christian Origins outside the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974.

Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament. Translator Kendrick Grobel. New York, NY: Scribner’s, 1965.

Casson, Lionel. Travel in the Ancient World. Toronto, ON: Hakkert, 1974.

Charlesworth, James H. “Reflections on the SNTS Pseudepigrapha Seminar at Duke on the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs.” NTS 23 (1977): 296-304.

Collins, Raymond F. 1 Corinthians. Sacra Pagina. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1999.

Comfort, P. W., and D. P. Barrett. The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001.

Conzelmann, Hans. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Translated by James W. Leitch. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975.

Davies, Stevan L. The Revolt of the Widows: The Social World of the Apocryphal Acts. Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1980.

Deferrari, Roy J. The Fathers of the Church. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1964.

Dibelius, M., and H. Conzelmann. The Pastoral Epistles. Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Translators Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro. Editor Helmut Koester. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1972.

Donelson, Lewis. Pseudepigrapha and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles. Tubingen, DE: Mohr, 1986.

Ehrman, Bart. The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1998.

________, Bart D. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Elingworth, Paul, and Howard Hatton. A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians. New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1985.

Ellis, E.E. The Silenced Wives of Corinth (1 Cor. 14:34-35). Edited by E.J. Epp and G.D. Fee. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981.

Epp, Eldon J. “The Papyrus Manuscripts of the New Testament.” In The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, edited by Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, 3-21. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995.

________, Eldon Jay and Gordon D. Fee. Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993.

Fee, Gordon. D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.

________, Gordon. D. God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Ferguson, Everett. “Canon Muratori: Date and Provenance.” Studia Patristica XVIII (1982): 677-83.

Fiore, Benjamin. The Pastoral Epistles: First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus. Sacra Pagina. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2007.

Fiorenza, Elizabeth Schussler. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. New York, NY: Crossroads, 1983.

________, Elizabeth Schussler. Word, Spirit and Power: Women in Early Christian Communities. Women of Spirit. Edited by Rosemary Radford Ruether and Eleanor McLaughlin. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1979.

Fossum, Jarl and Philip Munoa. Jesus and the Gospels. Belmont, state: Wadsworth Publishing, 2003.

Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003.

Grant, Robert M. Heresy and Criticism: The Search for Authenticity in Early Christian Literature. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993.

Gregory, Caspar René. Canon and Text of the NT. Edinburgh, UK: T. & T. Clark, 1907.

Hahneman, Geoffrey Mark, The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon. Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1992.

Hanson, R. P. C. “The Provenance of the Interpolation in the Western Text of Acts and Acts Itself,” NTS 12 (1965-1966): 211-20.

Hanson, A. T. The Pastoral Epistles. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982.

Harding, Mark. What Are They Saying About The Pastoral Epistles? New York, NY: Paulist Press, 2001.

Harrison, P.N. The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1921.

Hays, Richard B. First Corinthians. Interpretation. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1997.

Hoffmann, Joseph. Marcion: On the Restitution of Christianity. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984.

Holladay, Carl. The First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians. The Living Word Commentary 8 Abilene, Texas: A.C.U Press, 1984.

Hull, Robert F., Jr. “1 Cor 14:34-35 and the Text-Critical Task: Pleading the Cause of the Documents,” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, 1990.

________, Robert F., Jr. “The Bible Only? Too Many (Cracked) Eggs in One Basket,” Stone-Campbell Journal 5, no. 1 (Spring, 2002).

________, Robert F., Jr. “Review of Muratorian Fragment.” by Hahneman, in JECS 3 (1995): 89-91.

Hurd, John C. The Origin of 1 Corinthians. New York: Seabury Press, 1965.

Hurtado, Larry W. The Earliest Christian Artifacts. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. Letters to Paul’s Delegates: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996.

Josephus, Flavius. The Antiquities of the Jews. Translated by William Whiston. New York, NY: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1800.

Kannaday, Wayne C. Apologetic Discourse and the Scribal Tradition. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004.

Keck, L. E., and V.P. Furnish. The Pauline Letters: Interpreting Biblical Texts. Nashville: Abingdon, 1984.

Kee, Howard Clark, Frankling W. Young, and Karlfried Froehlich. Understanding the New Testament. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc, 1966.

Kenny, Anthony. A Stylometric Study of the New Testament. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1986.

Kilgallen, John J. First Corinthians: An Introduction and Study Guide. New York: Paulist Press, 1987.

King, Karen. Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000.

Kistemaker, Simon J. New Testament Commentary: 1 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993.

Kovacs, Judith. 1 Corinthians: Interpreted by Early Christian Commentators. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005.

MacDonald, Dennis R. The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1983.

MacDonald, Lee M. The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995.

MacDonald, Margaret. Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion: The Power of the Hysterical Woman. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Machen, John Gresham. The Origen of Paul’s Religion, The James Sprunt lectures delivered at Union theological seminary in Virginia. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970.

Mays, James, Patrick D. Miller, and Paul J. Achtemeier. First and Second Timothy and Titus. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1989.

Metzger, Bruce M. “Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudoepigrapha,” JBL 91 (1972): 3-24.

________, Bruce M., and Bart Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Translation, Corruption, and Restoration. 4th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2005.

________, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. New York: United Bible Societies, 1971.

________, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. 6th printing. New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 2005.

Miller, J. Edward. “Some Observations on the Text Critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.” JSNT 26 (2003): 217-236.

Moule, C. F. D. “The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles.” BJRL 47 (1965): 430-452.

Munro, Winsome. Authority in Peter and Paul: The Identification of a Pastoral Stratum in the Pauline Corpus and 1 Peter. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

Nepos, Cornelius. Great General of Foreign Nations. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960.

Nestle, Eberhard. Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. Oxford, UK: Williams and Norgate, 1901.

________, Eberhard, Erwin Nestle and Kurt Aland, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 27th edition. Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993.

Neumann, Kenneth. The Authenticity of the Pauline Epistles in the Light of Stylostatistical Analysis. SBLDS 120. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990.

Niccum, Curt. “The Voice of the Manuscripts on The Silence of Women: The External Evidence for 1 Cor 14:34-5.” NTS 43 (1997): 242-55.

Orosius. Hist. Contra Pag .7.6.51f. Translated by Roy J. Deferrari. The Fathers of the Church 50. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1964.

Oster, Richard E., Jr. 1 Corinthians. The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company, 1995.

Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis in the Pauline Letters. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1975.

Pascuzzi Maria. First and Second Corinthians. Collegeville, MI: Liturgical Press, 2005.

Payne, Philip. B. “Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14:34-35.” NTS 41 (1995): 240-262.

________, Philip B. “Ms. 88 as Evidence for a Text without 1 Cor. 14:34-35.” NTS 44 (1998): 152-158.

________, Philip B. “The Text-Critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: A Response to J. Edward Miller.” JSNT 27 (2004): 105-112.

________, Philip B. Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul's Letters (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), 2009.

________, Philip B. and Paul Canart. “The originality of Text-Critical Symbols in Codex Vaticanus.” Novum Testamentum XLII (2000): 105-113.

________, Philip B. and Paul Canart. “Distigmai Matching the Original Ink of Codex Vaticanus: Do they Mark the Location of Textual Variants?” In Le manuscrit B de la Bible (Vaticanus graecus 1209): Introduction au fac-similé, Actes du Colloque de Genève (11 juin 2001), Contributions supplémentaires, edited by Patrick Andrist, 199-225. Lausanne, Switzerland: Éditions du Zèbre, 2009.

Pelikan, Jaroslav. Whose Bible Is It? A History of the Scripture through the Ages. New York: Viking, 2005.

Porter, C. L. “Papyrus Bodmer XV (P 75) and the text of Codex Vaticanus,” JBL 81 (1962): 363-76

Quinn, Jerome D. The Last Volume of Luke: The Relation of Luke Acts and the Pastoral Epistles. Perspective on Luke-Acts. Editor Charles Talbert. Macon, GA: Mercer, 1978.

________, Jerome D., P46 – The Pauline Canon? CBQ 36 (1974): 379-85.

Ramsaran, Rollin. Paul’s Use of Rhetorical Maxims in 1 Corinthians 1-10 . Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press, 1996.

Roberts, A., and J. Donaldson. Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Volue 9. Edinburgh, UK: T & T Clark, 1989.

Ross, J. M. “Floating Words: Their Significance for Textual Criticism,” NTS 38 (1992): 153-156.

Ruef, John. Paul’s First Letter to Corinth. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1977.

Schnelle, Udo. The History and Theology of The New Testament Writings. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998.

Smith, W. and H. Wace. A Dictionary of Christian Biography. London, UK: John Murray, 1887.

Spicq, Ceslaus. Les Épîtres Pastorales. Paris, FR: Gabalda, 1969.

Sundberg, Albert. “Canon Muratori: A Fourth Century-List.” HTR 66 (1973): 1-41.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eermans Publishing Company, 2000.

Thurston, Bonnie. The Widows: A Women’s Ministry in the Early Church. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1989.

Tischendorff, C. Novum Testamentum Graece, 8th ed. Vol. 3. Leipzig, DE: Giesecke & Devrient, 1869-94.

Towner, Philip H. 1-2 Timothy & Titus. IVP New Testament Commentary Series Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994.

Trapp, Michael. Greek and Latin Letters: An Anthology with Translations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Vatin, Claude. Recherches sut le Mariage et la Condition de la Femme Mariée à L’Époque Hellénistique. Paris, FR: de Boccard, 1970.

Verheyden, J. “The Canon Muratori: A Matter of Dispute,” in The Biblical Canons. Edited by J.-M. Auwers and H. J. De Jong. Louvain, Belgium: Louvain University Press, 2003.

Verner, David C. The Household of God: The Social World of the Pastoral Epistles. SBLDS, 71. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983.

Walker, William O. Interpolations in the Pauline Letter. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 213. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.

________, William O. “Interpolations in the Pauline Letters.” In The Pauline Canon, edited by Stanley E. Porter, 189-236. Boston: Brill, 2004.

Weiss, Johannes. Der erste Korintherbrief. Meyer Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910.

Wilson, Stephen. Luke and the Pastoral Epistles. London, UK: SPCK, 1979.

Wire, A. C. The Corinthian Women Prophets. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990.

Witherington, Ben. Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Social-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1995.

-----------------------

[1] Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians, Interpretation (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1997), 248.

[2] Carl Holladay, The First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians, The Living Word Commentary 8 (Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 1984), 7. Cf. Simon J. Kistemaker, 1 Corinthians, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), 24.

[3] Hans Conzelmann, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, trans. James W. Leitch (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1975), 2. Some scholars posit an earlier date for the Muratorian Canon (ca. 170 CE), others ascertain a later date ca. 200 CE. Cf. Benjamin Fiore, The Pastoral Epistles: First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus, Sacra Pagina (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2007), 8. Many scholars consider the Muratorian Fragment to be the earliest example of a New Testament canon list, representing the state of the canon in Rome around 190-200 CE. Cf. Robert F. Hull, Jr., “The Bible Only? Too Many (Cracked) Eggs in One Basket,” Stone-Campbell Journal 5, no. 1 (Spring, 2002): 10, n.25. Hull considers the work of Geoffrey Mark Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1992), “a serious case” that has been made for redating the Muratorianum to the 4th century.

[4] Cf. Gerald Lewis Bray and Thomas C. Oden, 1 - 2 Corinthians, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament 7 (Chicago, IL: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1999), xvii.

[5] Bray and Oden, xvii-xviii.

[6] Udo Schnelle, The History and Theology of The New Testament Writings (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998), 55. Cf. also Richard E. Oster, Jr., 1 Corinthians, The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company, 1995), 14-15. Oster argues that Acts indicates that Paul’s work at Corinth took place while Gallio was the proconsul of Achia (Acts 18:12). This Roman official, who was the brother of the Roman philosopher Seneca (Nero’s Tutor) put Paul’s work at Corinth and his appearance before Gallio in the early 50s. Cf. also Conzelmann, 13; Orosius, Hist. Contra Pag .7.6.51f, tr. Roy J. Deferrari, “The Fathers of the Church,” 50 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1964), 297. Conzelmann avers that thanks to an inscription on the famous Gallio stone in Delphi, we can pose a fairly exact date for Paul’s sojourn to Corinth. Conzelmann suggests that Gallio entered on office in the spring of 51, and for Paul’s visit he suggests the period between 50/52. “In addition, a further orientation point is provided by the mention of Aquila and Priscilla. According to Acts 18:2 this couple had come from Corinth shortly before the arrival of Paul; they had been expelled from the city by an edict of Claudius against the Jews….This edict is confirmed by Suetonius….[and] Orosius dates it A.D. 49.”

[7] Cf. John J. Kilgallen, First Corinthians: An Introduction and Study Guide (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1987), 11.

[8] Acts 18:11 indicates that Paul worked in Corinth for 18 months; this means that Paul’s correspondence in 1 Corinthians would have occurred circa 55 CE. Cf. Bray and Oden, xvii, who note that they cannot have been written before 49-51 CE, when Paul was in Corinth, and it seems most likely that they should be dated at some point between 52 CE and 56 CE, with the second epistle coming a year or so after the first.

[9] Cf. Oster, 15. He writes, “1 Corinthians 16:8 points decisively to a site on the eastern side of the Aegean Sea, in Ephesus, on the western coast of the Roman province of Asia.”

[10] Oster, 13.

[11] Lionel Casson, Travel in the Ancient World (Toronto, ON: Hakkert, 1974), 151.

[12] Oster, 18. First Corinthians 1:11 states that “some from Chloe’s household have informed me [Paul] that there are quarrels among you.” The wording of 1 Cor. 5:1 “It is actually reported” points probably to additional information in 1 Cor. 5-6 which was also supplied by those from Chloe’s house.

[13] Hays, 5.

[14] Cf. Oster, 18; Oster writes, “One ought not overlook the fact that Paul’s treatment of the Corinthians’ problems is a treatment of the problems as communicated to him through an unnamed informant of one of the women members of the congregation and through a letter sent to Paul which already had, regardless of its tone, an agenda for which Paul was not responsible.” Cf. also John C. Hurd, The Origin of 1 Corinthians (New York, NY: Seabury Press, 1965); and Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 266-67. Paul writes, “Now for the matters you wrote about.” Numerous modern interpreters believe that this Corinthian document informed Paul not only about the issue discussed in 1 Cor 7:1ff, but also the matters discussed at 8:1ff (now about food sacrificed to idols, 12:1ff (now about spiritual gifts), and 16:1ff (now about the collection for God’s people).

[15] Oster, 18-19.

[16] Raymond F Collins, 1 Corinthians, Sacra Pagina (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1999), 11.

[17] Judith Kovacs, 1 Corinthians: Interpreted by Early Christian Commentators, ed. Robert Louis Wilken (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005), xxii.

[18] Oster, 17.

[19] Johannes Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief. Meyer Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoec & Ruprecht, 1910).

[20] Cf. Collins, 12. He lists the most important fragmentary hypothesis proposed by scholars in the twentieth century.

[21] Oster, 13.

[22] Hays, 9, argues that “the canonical 2 Corinthians, for example, is almost certainly a composite product of the latter sort. In the case of 1 Corinthians, however, there are good reasons to think that the text printed in our New Testament represents substantially what Paul wrote to the Corinthians on a single occasion.”

[23] For a survey on the history of scholarship concerning editions in 1 Corinthians see Collins, 11-14. Collins argues that “harsh transitions often serve as textual indications that a text is a composite document.” Then, he suggests a number of such connections found in 1 Cor. (6:12-13; 8:13-9:1; 9:23-24;10:22-23).

[24] Cf. Schnelle, 62-66, Schnelle argues that the document is composed of more than one letter.

[25] Conzelmann, 12. He notes that some scholars have suggested that the different parts of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians may have been written over a span of fifteen years. Collins also notes that “the length of the letter is in any case such that it would have taken the Apostle some time to dictate.” He adds that “it is not impossible that people arriving from Corinth would have provided Paul with additional information about the Christian community there and led him to extend his earlier letter.”

[26] Oster, 23, Fee, 14.

[27] Oster, 23.

[28] Ibid., 22.

[29] C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Black’s New Testament Commentaries (New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers, 1968), 330-32.

[30] Barrett, 330.

[31] Barrett, 332.

[32] Robert F. Hull Jr., “1 Cor 14:34-35 and the Text-Critical Task: Pleading the Cause of the Documents” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, New Orleans, LA, November 17th, 1990), 12.

[33] Oster, 349.

[34] Collins, 522. Collins draws from Xenophon, Oeconomicus 7.4-9.19.

[35] Hays, 244.

[36] Conzelmann, 246, n. 56, brings the reader’s attention to Lietzmann, who suggests Paul’s authorship for vv. 34-35, and argues here that “apparently the active participation was defended from the Corinthians’ side as a custom of their own.”

[37] Hays, 247. Cf. also Collins, 517, who sees these verses as representing “a conservative argument that Paul rebuts by means of the double rhetorical question in v. 36. To demand the silence of women in the Christian assembly is to claim for oneself a monopoly on the word of God. Such a monopoly no one can claim.”

[38] Hays, 248. Cf. also David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 667. He agrees with Hays that “compared with other so-called quotations of Corinthian positions, this one is overly long, and Paul does not clearly counter it.”

[39] Hays, 248. Cf. also Garland, 665. He raises a pertinent question, “Does Paul countermand Joel’s prophecy that the Spirit will be poured out on both men and women so that they will prophesy (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:18; cf. 21:9)?”

[40] Collins, 513

[41] Chapter three will discuss details about this development in greater depth. For now, it is important to depict this scenario, in order to let the reader understand the background under which I am analyzing vv. 34-35.

[42] Collins, 515.

[43] Hays, 241.

[44] Ibid.

[45] Ibid., 242.

[46] Ibid.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Hays, 242.

[49] Ibid., 243.

[50] Ibid.

[51] Ibid.

[52] Hays, 243.

[53] Ibid., 245.

[54] Fee, 697.

[55] Hays, 249.

[56] Ibid.

[57] Hays, 249-51.

[58] Conzelmann, 5. He draws attention to 1 Cor. 1:18ff; 8-10; 12; 15:19, 44-49 to Rom. 1:18; 14:1-15:6; 12:3ff; 5:12ff respectively.

[59] Cf. Schnelle, 66. He argues that the gloss is introduced here because of the “point of contact” with the word siga,w (to be silent seen in 1 Cor 14:28, 30). Cf. also Fee, 280. Fee conjectures that vv. 34-35 were inserted in the text because of their “catchword relation to silence.”

[60] Fee, 280.

[61] Hays, 245.

[62] Collins, 515. Collins notes six key expressions occurring in 1 Corinthians in an immediately adjacent or similar context: “to be silent” (siga,tw) in 14:28, 30; “to be subject” (u`pota,ssetai) in 14:32 (cf. 15:27-28 [6x]; 16:16); “the law says” (o` no,moj le,gei) in 9:8; “to learn” (manqa,nwsin) in 14:31 (cf. 4:6); “their own husbands” (i;dion a;ndra) in 7:2 (in the singular); “shameful” (aivscro.n) in 11:6.

[63] Conzelmann, 246.

[64] Hull, “The Text-Critical Task,” 12.

[65] In chapter three I explain how I arrive at this date.

[66] Hays, 247.

[67] Paul Elingworth and Howard Hatton, A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, Helps for Translators (New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1985), 285.

[68] Philip B. Payne, “Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and in 1 Cor 14:34-35,” NTS 41 (1995): 248.

[69] Fee, 279.

[70] Collins, 521. evpitre,yw here is indeed a very strong word and it is used in a rather different context in its only undisputed Pauline use of the term, namely in 1 Cor 16:7. There it has the purpose of making explicit the implications of bou,lomai.

[71] Garland, 666-67, argues, however, that there is no evidence “that a significant Jewish element was imposing conservative synagogue traditions on the church s gatherings. Garland also critiques those who attribute this command to a misogynistic Judaism.

[72] Conzelmann, 246. In n.ment was imposing conservative synagogue traditions on the church’s gatherings.” Garland also critiques those who attribute this command to a misogynistic Judaism.
[73] Conzelmann, 246. In n.53, Conzelmann argues that the word “evpitre,pεσθαι, ‘be permitted,’ is found in this sense only in 1 Tim 2:12.” Conzelmann also points to Weiss’ work which suggests that “The passive points back to an already valid regulation, such as we find in 1 Tim 2:12.” Cf. also Payne, Fuldensis, 248, who argues for striking similarity of meaning and style between both texts.

[74] William A. Beardslee, First Corinthians, A Commentary for Today (St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 1994), 139-40.

[75] Fiore, 6.

[76] Fiore, 7.

[77] For external evidence, please see in chapter three the section called “The Ancient View of the Role of Women and the Deutero-Pauline Bias.”

[78] “Let women be silent.” Cf. Hull, “The Text-Critical Task,” 12.

[79] Hays, 247. Cf. also Schnelle, 65-66, who argues along Hays lines that it is probably the case that in the course of the transmission process glosses were introduced into 1 Corinthians, and thus the “content of this text corresponds to the tendency of the Pastoral Letters to subordinate women completely to men (Cf. 1 Tim. 2:11-15).”

[80] Beardslee, 139-40.

[81] Garland, 666.

[82] Cf. E.E. Ellis, The Silenced Wives of Corinth (1 Cor. 14:34-35), ed. E.J. Epp and G.D. Fee (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), 220. Ellis, when compelled to make a text-critical decision on 1 Cor. 14:34-35, argues that if no manuscript lacks these verses then the textual critic has no grounds to regard them a post-Pauline interpolation. Cf. also Witherington, 288. He also argues that “displacement is no argument for interpolation.”

[83] Cf. William O. Walker Jr., “Interpolations in the Pauline Letters,” in The Pauline Canon, ed. Stanley E. Porter (Boston, MA: Brill, 2004), 203. Walker also shows studies which have identified interpolations in Homer, Orpheus, Musaeus, Hippocrates, Aristophanes, Euripides, and Thucydides.

[84] Walker, 200.

[85] Cf. Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, trans. William Whiston (New York, NY: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1800), 200.

[86] F. F. Bruce, Jesus & Christian Origins outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974), 38.

[87] Bruce, 38.

[88] Cf. Flavius Josephus, 596.

[89] Cf. F. F. Bruce, 215; Samuel G. F. Brandon, “Testimonium Flavianum,” in History Today 19 (1969): 438; and John Gresham Machen, The Origen of Paul’s Religion, The James Sprunt lectures delivered at Union theological seminary in Virginia (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970), 183.

[90] Cf. Isaiah 45:1.

[91] Walker, 200. Walker gives the example of Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth (ca. 160 CE), Irenaeus (late second century), and Rufinus who were making such complaints. For these, Walker cites Robert M. Grant, Heresy and Criticism: The Search for Authenticity in Early Christian Literature (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 16, and Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1971). Cf. also Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1993).

[92] See, e.g., Jarl Fossum and Philip Munoa, Jesus and the Gospels (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 2003), 95; and Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd Edition, 6th Printing (New York, NY: United Bible Society, 2005), 219-22.

[93] For some Christians the controversy concerning biblical interpolations might even increase because of the modern dogma of biblical inerrancy, a concept alien to early copyists. However, this subject is out of the scope of this paper.

[94] Walker draws the concept from James H. Charlesworth, “Reflections on the SNTS Pseudepigrapha Seminar at Duke on the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs,” NTS 23 (1977): 303. “An apparent interpolation might be a passage in which the redactor has failed to achieve the usual integration, transition or flow of thought, and interpolations are often made to documents which are redactional in character. Nevertheless, a distinction is clear, at least in principle: an interpolation is a discrete addition to the text while a redaction is the rewriting of a text in such a way as to incorporate new material.”

[95] L.E. Keck and V.P. Furnish, The Pauline Letters: Interpreting Biblical Texts (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1984), 50.

[96] Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 3:706.

[97] B. Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth: a Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 287.

[98] Conzelmann, 246.

[99] Fee, 697.

[100] Hays, 246. Cf. also Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eermans, 2000), 1148. He disagrees with Hays claiming that other writers in the field have more convincingly understood v. 33b as “the introductory principle for vv. 34-36.”

[101] From the Greek of Eberhard Nestle, Erwin Nestle, and Kurt Aland et al. (eds.) Novum Testamentum Graece, (Stüttgart, DE: Deutsche Bibelgesellshaft, 27th edn, 1993), 466, conventionally abbreviated as NA27.

[102] Walker, “Interpolations in the Pauline Letters,” 209.

[103] J. M. Ross, “Floating Words: Their Significance for Textual Criticism,” NTS 38 (1992):155.

[104] Larry W. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006), 15. See also Appendix 1 in Hurtado, Earliest Christian Artifacts, which contains information on manuscripts that can be dated ca. 300 CE or earlier.

[105] Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 260.

[106] John Ruef, Paul’s First Letter to Corinth (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1977), 115. See also Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 279-81; and Fee, First Epistle, 699.

[107] Collins, 515.

[108] Hays, 246-47.

[109] Collins, 516.

[110] Conzelmann, 246. Conzelmann notes a contradiction to 1 Cor. 11:2ff “even when chapters 11 and 14 are assigned to different letters.”

[111] Fee, First Epistle, 699.

[112] Garland, 675.

[113] Hays, 247. Cf. also Schnelle, 65-66, who argues along Hays lines that it is probably the case that in the course of the transmission process glosses were introduced into 1 Corinthians, and thus the “content of this text corresponds to the tendency of the Pastoral Letters to subordinate women completely to men (Cf. 1 Tim. 2:11-15).”

[114] Curt Niccum, “The Voice of the Manuscripts on the Silence of Women: The External Evidence for 1 Cor 14:34-5,” NTS 43 (1997): 243.

[115] Hull, “The Text-Critical Task,” 11.

[116] Ibid., 2.

[117] Hull, “The Text-Critical Task,” 3. Cf. also Fee, First Epistle, 699. Niccum, 243, explains that “Robert Hull, Jr., criticized Fee for misappropriating Bengel’s first principle,” and cites Hull’s paper presented at the 1990 SBL meeting which states that “by ‘form of text’ Bengel intended attested textual variation, not conjectural emendation.”

[118] Hull, “The Text-Critical Task,” 3.

[119] Ibid., 5.

[120] Ibid., 6.

[121] Hull cites W. O. Walker, “1 Cor. 11:2-16 and Paul’s View Regarding Women,” JBL 94 (1975): 94-110, as an example of an essay supporting this view, and quotes from this source the following verses as part of the suggestion of verses ‘inserted by a later editor’: “1 Cor. 11:3-16; 14:34-35; Col. 3:18-19; Eph 5:22-23; 1 Tim. 2:9-15; Titus 2:4-5; and 1 Pet 3:1-7.” Hull cites Winsome Munro, who according to him went even further then Walker in “detecting what she called a ‘pastoral stratum’ in the Paulines and 1 Peter that could be isolated in Romans, 1 Cor., Eph., Col., 1 Thess., 2 Thess., and 1 Peter and which owed its existence to the school or circle that produced the Pastoral Epistles.” Cf. Winsome Munro, Authority in Peter and Paul: The Identification of a Pastoral Stratum in the Pauline Corpus and 1 Peter (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 68-69.

[122] Hull, “The Text-Critical Task,” 6.

[123] Ibid., 8.

[124] Ibid., 12.

[125] Cf. Novum Testamentum Graece, 466. D stands for Claromontanus and it is a Greek-Latin manuscript belonging to the 6th century. Augiensis (F, 9th century) and Boernerianus (G, 9th century), also Greek-Latin bilingual manuscripts, place 14:34-35 after 14:40 so that 14:36 immediately follows 14:33. D F G are majuscules manuscripts; a and b are two Old Latin manuscripts; vgms is a single Vulgate Old Latin manuscript also known as Codex Fuldensis, which was copied for Bishop Victor at Capua (ca. A.D. 541-46) and corrected by him (this chapter has one section exclusively dedicated to this especial manuscript). Ambrosiaster (4th century) and Sedulius Scotus (9th century) are Latin Fathers.

[126] Cf. A. C. Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990), 149-52. Wire has noticed that F and G are so close to each other that it is widely agreed that they copied the same edited text. She adds that in practice only D and G remain as two witnesses, which in turn likely come from “a single common archetype.” Contra Wire cf. Payne, 251. Payne points out that “1 Cor 14:34-35 also follows v. 40 in the following non-Western texts: the 8th century AD Vulgate manuscript Reginensis and the Greek 12th century AD minuscule 88.” Payne, 240, suggests that “comparison of Western witnesses with the Greek text used by Hippolytus (AD 234) establishes the existence of the Western text by then. Most text critics date the beginnings of the Western text in the first half of the second century AD.” Cf. R. P. C. Hanson, “The Provenance of the Interpolation in the Western Text of Acts and Acts itself,” NTS 12 (1965-6): 211-20.

[127] Cf. Conzelmann, 246, n.54, although he argues for the interpolation of vv. 34-35, he states that “The transposition of vv. 34f to follow v. 40 in D G is of course no argument for the assumption of an interpolation; it is a secondary simplification.”

[128] Collins, 516. Cf. also Walker, Hays and Payne.

[129] Cf. Payne, 249. Payne suggests that “The Western family of texts must all have originated from a single Vorlage in codex form that had 1 Cor. 14:34-35 after v.40. Only where a portion of Paul’s letters was missing from a given collection would a scribe be likely to look for a separate exemplar to fill in the gap. A Western text used to fill in such a gap could explain the occurrences of vv. 34-35 after v. 40 in non-Western mss. 88 and Reginensis. ”

[130] Payne, 244-45. Cf. also Fee, First Epistle, 700. The doxology in Romans could arguably be an exception to this statement.

[131] P46 is a Chester Beaty Biblical Papyrus, ca. 200 CE, which contains 9 of Paul’s letters, and Hebrews but neither the Pastorals nor Philemon. Metzger believes that “the Pastoral Epistles were probably never included in the codex, for does not appear to be room for them on the leaves missing at the end.” Cf. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Translation, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2005), 54. “B” stands for Codex Vaticanus which is an Alexandrian text type from ca. mid 4th century CE. א stands for Codex Sinaiticus which is considered largely an Alexandrian text type. It is also the only extant complete uncial NT. “A” is the Codex Alexandrinus from the 5th century CE.

[132] Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 565. I am using the first edition here, but later I will use the second edition and provide a possible explanation for why Metzger might have changed his mind.

[133] Thiselton, 1148. Cf. UBS, Greek New Testament 4th rev. ed., 10, and UBS, Greek New Testamentt 3rd rev. ed., 10. Both editions give a “B” grade to vv. 34-35.

[134] Fee, First Epistle, 699. Cf. also Hays, 244. Hays is another scholar who suggests that vv. 34-35 appeared very early in ancient manuscripts as an addendum in the margins of chapter 14.

[135] Fee, First Epistle, 700.

[136] Wire, 150.

[137] Karen King, Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000), 335.

[138] A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, vol. 9 (Edinburgh, UK: T & T Clark, 1989), 290. We also see this comment from Clement: “the sister of Moses… was the prophet’s associate in commanding the host, being superior to all the women among the Hebrews who were in repute for their wisdom… It is not then possible that man or women can be conversant with anything whatever, without the advantage of education, and application, and training,” Cf. Roberts and Donaldson, 431-32.

[139] Payne, 248. Cf. Roberts and Donaldson, 677. “For how credible would it seem, that he who has not permitted a women even to learn with overboldness, should give a female the power of teaching and of baptizing! ‘Let them be silent,’ he says, ‘and at home consult their own husbands.’”

[140] Kovacs, xxiii.

[141] Walker, 249-50. Walker is one of few scholars to follow Payne’s arguments closely. He concurs with Payne and considers him as an “expert” who interpreted the siglum in Codex Vaticanus as being an “awareness of a textual variant.”

[142] Hull, “The Text-Critical Task,” 2-3. When mentioning the Western witnesses in this passage of 1 Cor 14:34-35, Hull cites (D F G 88 itar, d, e, f, g, Ambrosiaster Sedulius Scotus). In Payne’s article on m. 88 (which I will discuss later) it becomes well established that m. 88 is a non-Western witness of this reading.

[143] Hays, 9.

[144] Thiselton , 1149, n. 342.

[145] For full discussion of symbols as evidence for variants in Vaticanus see Payne, “Fuldensis,” 240-62. For an opposing view, however, see Niccum, 242-55. Note that Payne has already successfully replied to Niccum’s opposing arguments, and Niccum has not written on the subject since. Payne, 251, describes this line as “extending one character width into the text and protruding a similar amount into the left margin.”

[146] This information was given to me by Philip Payne in an e-mail on March 25, 2009. He told me that he is publishing an article which advances the argument presented here. This article is scheduled for publication this year as: Philip B. Payne and Paul Canart, “Distigmai Matching the Original Ink of Codex Vaticanus: Do they Mark the Location of Textual Variants?” in Le manuscrit B de la Bible (Vaticanus graecus 1209): Introduction au fac-similé, Actes du Colloque de Genève (11 juin 2001), Contributions supplémentaires, ed. Patrick Andrist (Lausanne, Switzerland: Éditions du Zèbre, 2009), 199-225. Also scheduled for publication in 2009 is the book Payne has been working on since 1973: Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul's Letters (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009).

[147] Payne, “Fuldensis,” 251. Cf. C. Tischendorff, Novum Testamentum Graece, 8th ed. (Leipzig, DE: Giesecke & Devrient, 1869-94).

[148] Ibid., 251.

[149] Ibid., 252.

[150] Payne, “Fuldensis,” 252. Payne uses NA26 because this was the edition available to him when he wrote this article.

[151] Ibid., 252.

[152] Ibid.

[153] Ibid., 253.

[154] Payne, “Fuldensis,” 254.

[155] Ibid., 253.

[156] Payne, “Fuldensis,” 254. Payne details his data as following: “there are 17 variants in 15 of these verses where Vaticanus has omitted a word or words that appear in the manuscript… there are seven instances … where other manuscripts have different words from those in Vaticanus. There are six instances … where other manuscripts have a single different word from Vaticanus. There is one instance … where other manuscripts have omitted a single word that occurs in Vaticanus.”

[157] Payne, “Fuldensis,” 254.

[158] Ibid., 256.

[159] Ibid. Payne cites Matt. 3:15-16; 9:13-14; Mark 2:16-17.

[160] Ibid., 257. Payne cites Acts 4:53-6; 9:30-31.

[161] Ibid.

[162] See Codex Vaticanus Graece 1209 for a scribal complaint which was placed on its margins beside the text of Hebrews 1:3. Metzger translates, "Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!" For more see Bruce M. Metzger and Bart Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Translation, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2005), 195-196.

[163] Payne, “Fuldensis,” 112.

[164] Christian Amphoux, “Codex Vaticanus B: Les points diacritiques des marges de Marc,” JTS 58 (2007), 440-66.

[165] Payne and Canart, “The originality,” 113.

[166] Payne, “Fuldensis,” 258. Here Payne is quoting from Caspar René Gregory, Canon and Text of the NT (Edinburgh, UK: T. & T. Clark, 1907), 347, and adds in his footnotes that Gregory indicates in his work that “his evaluation is shared by Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort.”

[167] Based on the index of NT passages in papyri in P. W. Comfort and D. P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001), 5-10.

[168] Cf. Payne, “Fuldensis,” 251, n. 38; and Payne and Canart, “The Originality,” 111-12. Metzger, Text, 40-41, dates P75 to ca. 175-225 CE. P75 (part of the Papyrus Bodmer) stands as an ancient and important witness to the textual tradition. Scholars have became mindful of the “unparallel excellence of the testimony shared by the pair of manuscripts, P75 and Codex Vaticanus (B), and frequently view it as representing the best type of third-century texts. Some scholars even regard P75 as the de facto exemplar of Vaticanus. Perhaps, though, the P75 – Vaticanus line of tradition is best understood as the quintessential representative of the ‘Alexandrian’ text, which, it should be recalled, bears characteristics of a highly polished, skillfully edited text.” Wayne C. Kannaday, Apologetic Discourse and the Scribal Tradition (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 92. Cf. also C. L. Porter, “Papyrus Bodmer XV (P 75) and the text of Codex Vaticanus,” JBL 81 (1962), 363-76; and Eldon J. Epp, “The Papyrus Manuscripts of the New Testament,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 3-21.

[169] Payne, “Fuldensis,” 241.

[170] Ibid.

[171] Payne, “Fuldensis,” 241. Cf. F.H. Blackburne Daniell, Victor, Bishop of Capua, Ed. W. Smith and H. Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography, 4 vols (London, UK: John Murray, 1887), 1.1126; Metzger, Text, 77.

[172] Payne, “Fuldensis,” 241. Cf. also Eberhard Nestle, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Oxford, UK: Williams and Norgate, 1901), 122.

[173] Payne, “Fuldensis,” 240.

[174] Ibid., 242.

[175] Ibid. Payne argues that technically speaking “one would expect a symbol for replacement text to be located by the text which it should replace. But on the view that the gloss replaces only vv. 36-40, the siglum for replacement text is not adjacent to the text that it is intended to replace.”

[176] Ibid.

[177] Payne, “Fuldensis,” 244. Payne adds: “In that case the reader would have to go first to the bottom margin to read the text, then back to the original siglum, and then continue reading until recognizing text that was duplicated in the margin. Since there is no mark at the end of v. 35 indicating where to continue reading, the reader would have to compare the text in the bottom margin to find both where the overlap began and where it ended. This would make it difficult for the reader to follow the flow of the text and, all in all, seems like an unnatural way to read the text.”

[178] Ibid.

[179] Ibid., 243.

[180] Payne, “Fuldensis,” 245.

[181] Ibid., 249.

[182] Ibid., 242.

[183] Ibid., 241. Payne mentions in his footnotes that this conversation was held at “AAR-SBL Meeting in late November, 1991 in Kansas City and in late November, 1992 in San Francisco.”

[184] Ibid. In addition to citing the AAR/SBL Annual meeting in 1991 and 1992, Payne mentions the event that Metzger reached this conclusion “when he read a draft of this study.”

[185] Metzger, “Textual Commentary,” 2nd ed., 499.

[186] Wire, 151. Manuscript Ψ of Agia Laura (Mount Athos) is a late Western ms. with some Alexandrian corrections not closely related genealogically. Note that Ψ reads vv. 34-35 in their canonical location. One can argue here that vv. 34-35 are part of the Alexandrian corrections.

[187] Payne, “Fuldensis,” 241.

[188] ms. 88 is a Greek twelfth century CE minuscule located at Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emmanuele III in Naples, Italy.

[189] Payne, “Ms. 88 as Evidence for a Text without 1 Cor. 14:34-35,” NTS 44 (1998): 152.

[190] Payne, “Ms. 88,” 152.

[191] Ibid.

[192] Ibid.

[193] Ibid., 153.

[194] Ibid.

[195] Ibid., 154.

[196] Payne, “Ms. 88,” 154. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 273-75, considers this manuscript an evidence of a pre-Vulgate Western text.

[197] Payne, “Ms. 88,” 154.

[198] Ibid., 155.

[199] Garland, 675.

[200] Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 275-79.

[201] Payne, “Ms. 88,” 156.

[202] Hull, “The Text-Critic Task,” 3.

[203] Walker, 229. Payne, “Fuldensis,” 250, points out that such practice (including text in the margin that had been omitted by mistake) was, after all, common among scribes. Payne argues concerning this possible scenario that “one scribe must have inserted vv. 34-35 after vv. 40 to create the exemplar (or Vorlage of the exemplar) for the collection(s) of Paul’s letters from which the Western text family descended. Another scribe (or scribes) must have put vv. 34-35 after vv. 33 to create the exemplar(s) (or Vorlage of the exemplars) for the collection(s) of Paul’s letters from which all the non-Western text families descended.”

[204] Payne, “Fuldensis,” 246.

[205] This chapter originated in an Emmanuel School of Religion seminar in textual criticism taught by Robert F. Hull. This sentence paraphrases Hull’s note in my conclusion, “Payne does not absolutely show us a manuscript that does not contain vv. 34-35, but he has satisfied me that some ancient scribes did know such a manuscript.”

[206] David Barr, An Introduction New Testament History, 2nd ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1995), 172.

[207] Hull, “The Text-Critical Task,” 12.

[208] Howard Clark Kee, Frankling W. Young and Karlfried Froehlich, Understanding the New Testament (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1966), 166.

[209] Mark Harding, What Are They Saying About The Pastoral Epistles? (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 2001), 65.

[210] Kee, Young and Froehlich, 235-36. Cf. also Harding, What are They Saying? 25. He builds on the work of Norbert Brox (Falsche Verfasserangaben, 1975) to explain the phenomenon of pseudonymity. He points out that not only is this a common phenomenon attested in Greco-Roman literary tradition, the Hebrew Bible, and the literature of early Judaism, but also, as it is expected, it is the case in the New Testament. He argues that many pseudepigraphers were motivated to attribute their works to the ancients by the overwhelming sense of respect for the venerable past. Metzger argues that if there is deception in the writing of the Pastorals it is justified on the ground that writing pseudonymously presented a sure way to defend the Pauline heritage in the face of false teaching. Cf. Metzger “Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudoepigrapha,” JBL 91 (1972): 3-24.

[211] Harding, 26.

[212] Lewis Donelson, Pseudepigrapha and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles, (Tubingen, DE: Mohr, 1986), 11.

[213] Donelson, 20.

[214] Donelson, 66.

[215] Donelson, 59-65. Cf. Christian Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1971), 226, and Joseph Hoffmann, Marcion: On the Restitution of Christianity (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984), 282-87.

[216] Donelson, 42-54, 55.

[217] Harding, What Are They Saying? 27.

[218] Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. Kendrick Grobel (New York, NY: Scribner’s, 1965), 183, 186.

[219] Here is a list of a few major authors who regard the Pastorals as Paul’s original writings, these are: Zahn (1906), Lock (1924), Schlatter (1936), Spicq (1947, 1969), Jeremias (1953), Simpson (1954). Hendriksen (1955), Guthrie (1954, 1974), Kelly (1963), Fee (1984), and L. T. Johnson. Contra Paul’s authorship of the pastorals, it is worth citing here C. Schmidt (1804), F. D. E. Schleiermacher (1807), J. G. Eichhorn (1812), De Wette (1826), Ferdinand Baur (1835), Renan (1873), Hans von Campenhausen (1963), Holtzmann (1880), Hoffmann (1984), Harrison (1921), Goodspeed (1937), Easton (1947), Fred Gealy (1955), Jurgen Roloff (1988), Lorenzo Oberlinner (1994), Yann Redalié (1994), Udo Schnelle (2005), Fiore (2007), Kee, Young and Froehlich (1966). Cf. also a careful and convincing study by P.N. Harrison, The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1921).[220]

[221] Cf. Kee, Young and Froehlich, 393-394. “The situations they are presupposed can only be accounted for in the life of Paul if we assume a further period of freedom and a second imprisonment after Paul’s first Roman imprisonment. But as the evidence for this second imprisonment rests almost exclusively on the Pastorals, we are moving in a circle.”

[222] Ceslaus Spicq, Les Épîtres Pastorales (Paris, FR: Gabalda, 1969), 114. According to Romans 15:23-24, 28, Paul has completed his work in the east (compare Acts 20:25, 38), and is intending to visit Spain.

[223] Harding, 21.

[224] Luke Timothy Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996), 18.

[225] James Mays, Patrick D. Miller, and Paul J. Achtemeier, First and Second Timothy and Titus (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1989), 11-12.

[226] Spicq, 38-39, 41-42.

[227] M. Dibelius and H Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Pastoral Epiestles, Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible, trans, Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro, ed. Helmut Koester (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1972), 12-13. Cf. also Anthony Kenny, A Stylometric Study of the New Testament (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1986). Kenny argues that the determination of what aspects of style are to be investigated and the assessment of the results are much indebted to subjectivity. He concludes that with the exception of Titus, there is reason to maintain the view that the remaining 12 letters are the work of a single, versatile author.

[228] Spicq, 199.

[229] Ibid. Spicq speculates that Luke might be responsible for some of the instances of alleged un-Pauline vocabulary and style of the letters.

[230] Cf. Philip H. Towner, 1-2 Timothy & Titus, IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994), 35.

[231] Towner, 35. Contra Towner, Harding argues that “the thought that the apostle’s voice might be more faithfully articulated in the Pastorals than in the other letters of the Pauline corpus raises profound and, quite frankly, disturbing questions for the concept and location of the essence of Paul’s thought.” Cf. Harding, 23.

[232] Mays, Miller, and Achtemeier, 14-15.

[233] Towner, 35.

[234] Lee M. MacDonald, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 248. He concludes that “the writings that were believed to have best conveyed the earliest Christian proclamation and that also met the growing needs of the local churches in the third and fourth centuries were the writings they [the fathers] selected for their sacred scriptures.”

[235] Cf. Schnelle, 328-32. Schnelle offers a very convincing chronological argument against Paul’s authorship of the Pastorals, although one cannot completely refute on chronological grounds the Pauline authorship since there are not enough evidences for that.

[236] Cf. Kee, Young and Froehlich, 166. They also argue that “the rather vague lines of responsibility that gave Paul so much difficulty in the administration of the churches during his lifetime have given way to quite carefully delineated classifications of ecclesiastical responsibility in the Pastorals.”

[237] Harding, 14.

[238] MacDonald, 249. Although this is too neat, some grade of ecclesiological development is being noticed in these letters.

[239] Fiore, 10. It is important to note that Acts 6 gives qualifications as well. In Acts 14:23 Paul appoints elders, and one must assume he considered their qualifications. However, in Acts, this subject is mentioned en passant as part of the narrative. In the Pastorals, on the other hand, the author presents the subject of qualification as a major point in his letter, as if time and circumstances had arisen and required a clearer position concerning these issues. My dates for the composition of Acts is ca. 85-90 CE. In a further section where I present the scholarly debate concerning the date of composition for the Pastoral Epistles, I conclude that they were written ca. 100 CE, hence, almost contemporary to Acts.

[240] Cf. Kee, Young and Froehlich, 394. They present the following argument based on language to determine the Gnostic character of the adversaries: “a reading of the Greek text reveals better than the English translation the importance of this sentence. The word for ‘knowledge’ is gnosis, and combination (literally) ‘pseudonymous gnosis’ is the very term which Irenaeus took over to characterize the whole Gnostic movement. Thus, it appears more than likely that the ‘false teaching’ the Pastorals have in mind is in fact some form of Gnosticism.”

[241] Contra this argument see Spicq, 114. Spicq contends that the false teachers are Jewish-Christian proto-Gnostics such as those Paul also encountered earlier in his ministry in his dealings with the Corinthian church (see 1 Cor. 4:18-20; 2 Cor. 10:4-5).

[242] Harding, 14.

[243] Cf. J. Christiaan Beker, Heirs of Paul: Paul’s Legacy in the New Testament and in the Church Today (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1991), 85.

[244] The Nag Hammadi library was found in codex form, dating back to the 2nd century CE.

[245] Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis in the Pauline Letters (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1975), 2.

[246] Pagels, 5.

[247] Ibid., 163.

[248] Bauer, 226.

[249] Fiore, 14.

[250] Schnelle, 342.

[251] Cf. Kee, Young and Froehlich, 166. They write, “In the case of these three disputed Pauline letters it seems that Pauline words are used with meanings quite different from those given them in Paul’s own works. In Paul’s undisputed writings, for example, ‘faith’ means trust in God, especially with reference to what God has promised or performed through Jesus Christ. In the Pastorals, on the other hand, ‘faith’ is a body of knowledge which is to be guarded and preserved intact (see 1 Tim. 3:9; II Tim. 1:11-13; Tit. 1:1).”

[252] As cited in Harding, 11-12.

[253] Harrison, 161-164.

[254] Harrison, 70. Cf. also Schnelle, 332. He notes that “the author made use of the elevated common language of his time and oriented his composition to Greek and Hellenistic-Jewish traditions and forms. He quotes saying from poetry (cf. Titus 1:12) and makes use of philosophical concepts (cf. 1 Tim. 6:6: auvtarkei,aj, self-sufficiency).”

[255] Cf. Kenneth Neumann, The Authenticity of the Pauline Epistles in the Light of Stylostatistical Analysis, SBLDS 120 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990), 24.

[256] Harding, 13.

[257] Cf. Kee, Young and Froehlich, 401. They also argue that “the author [of the Pastorals] presents his ‘sound doctrine’ in a language which often seems to be borrowed from popular Hellenistic-Jewish religiosity.” For instance, to cite a few, “he does not hesitate calling his faith ‘religion’ (1 Tim. 2:10; 4:7),” and using Hellenistic concepts such as “Epiphany” for Christ appearance among men (2 Tim. 1:10; Tit. 2:11; 3:4) like the epiphany of a Hellenistic god or of the emperor-god.

[258] Schnelle, 332.

[259] Mays, Miller, and Achtemeier, 11-12.

[260] Harding, 13-14.

[261] Cf. Beker, 85. He conjectures it is due to this lack of understanding that the author wishes to ensure that his addressees live according to the moral conventions of their day.

[262] Beker, 85.

[263] Fiore, 69.

[264] Fiore, 71. He adds that “domestic and maternal virtue thus counterbalances the precarious feminine grasp of the truth and anchors women in the hope of salvation. 1 Tim 5:6, and 11-13, like 2 Timothy 3:2-7 and Titus 2:5, documents the bias that women are easy victims of false teachers.”

[265] Fiore, 69. Some have seen this description of women’s way to salvation through childbirth as “heretical.” Cf. David L. Balch and Carolyn Osiek, Families in the New Testament World: Household and House Churches (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1997), 121-23.

[266] Cf. Schnelle, 331.

[267] Fiore, 16, Cf. also D. Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment Library of Early Christianity (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1987), 160. He notes that “by the first century BCE rhetoric had come to exert a strong influence on the composition of letters, particularly among the educated. Their letters functioned not only as means of communication but also as sophisticated instruments of persuasion.”

[268] Fiore, 17. Fiore explains that “this rhetorical exercise became the tool of moral philosophers, such as Seneca (ca. 4 BC – 65 CE) in his Epistle 104 and the author of the Socratic Epistles, in their effort to promote their moral perspective.” Origen also provides some examples of this form of discourse in some of his writings.

[269] Fiore, 18. It should be noted that 2 Thessalonians has been widely regarded as a deutero-Pauline text.

[270] Kee, Young and Froehlich, 393-94. They argue against the possibility that they might not have all been produced together by the same author(s), so they write: “The necessity of dealing with them as one block is based on the one hand upon the fact that in the early manuscripts and canon lists they always are present or missing together, and on the other hand upon their obvious similarity in vocabulary style, conceptuality, and general content.”

[271] Kee, Young and Froehlich, 394.

[272] Schnelle, 332.

[273] Cf. Harrison, 115-26. Cf. also Cf. Fiore, 66. Fiore notes that the phrase “I want” has an imperative force resting on Paul’s apostolic authority. This is precisely the point of the creation of the personalia in the Pastorals. It is also found in the legislative decree of Antiochus II quoted in Josephus as well as other official memoranda at the time.

[274] Mays, Miller, and Achtemeier, 11-12. They contend that these letters are composite documents derived from disparate, preformed material, including genuine Pauline fragments.

[275] Kee, Young and Froehlich, 405.

[276] Cf. Schnelle, 334.

[277] Kee, Young and Froehlich, 404.

[278] Cf. Fiore, 15. Fiore adds that “while the Pastoral Epistles tries to deal with the threat they pose, they also use the false teachers as examples that serve as a negative foil to the positive examples in the letters. As such they have a place in the repertory of hortatory devices used by the letter to promote fidelity to tradition through correct knowledge and action.”

[279] Kee, Young and Froehlich, 412.

[280] Schnelle, 332.

[281] Fiore, 13.

[282] Mays, Miller, and Achtemeier, 15.

[283] C. F. D. Moule, “The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles,” BJRL 47 (1965): 430-52. Cf. Stephen Wilson, Luke and the Pastoral Epistles (London, UK: SPCK, 1979), 4. He argues that the letters were written by Luke after the completion of Acts, incorporating “travel notes” which he saved during his travels collecting letters of Paul among the churches. He surmises that Luke used these notes “as a peg on which to hang his pseudonymous letters.” Wilson mounts a full-scale examination not only of certain affinities of vocabulary and style between Luke-Acts and the Pastorals but also with their similar ecclesiological and theological outlook. For instance, he notes that the term godliness (euvse,beia) occurs only in the Pastorals and Luke-Acts, and only the Pastorals and Luke-Acts know of overseers (evpi,skopoi) and presbyters (see Acts 20:28). Finally, he observes that Paul’s farewell speech in Acts 20:18-35 is very similar with the content of all three Pastorals, and that Luke’s portrait of Paul also bears comparison with the image of Paul in the Pastorals. Cf. also Quinn who explores the possibility that the Pastorals comprise the third volume projected by Luke, with Luke and Acts constituting the first two volumes. Jerome Quinn, The Last Volume of Luke: The Relation of Luke Acts and the Pastoral Epistles, Perspective on Luke-Acts, ed. Charles Talbert (Macon, GA: Mercer, 1978), 62-75.

[284] Harding, 17.

[285] Harding, 94.

[286] Donelson, 55.

[287] Cf. Jaroslav Pelikan, Whose Bible Is It? A History of the Scripture through the Ages (New York, NY: Viking, 2005), 115. Pelikan considers the Muratorian fragment the earliest extant list of New Testament writings. The fragment is so named because it was first published by Ludovico Muratori in 1740 from an early Medieval Latin manuscript that was based on earlier documents. According to Pelikan, “It contains the names of the books that were being read in the church at Rome in about 200 CE.” While majority opinion places the Muratorian Fragment in Rome toward the end of the second century, others assign it a provenance of Syria/Palestine around 325 CE. See Albert Sundberg, “Canon Muratori: A Fourth Century-List,” HTR 66 (1973): 1-41; Everett Ferguson, “Canon Muratori: Date and Provenance,” StPatr XVII (1982), 677-83; Geoffrey Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992); Robert F. Hull Jr., “Review of Muratorian Fragment,” by Hahneman, in JECS 3 (1995): 89-91.

[288] Cf. Edwin Blackburn, Marcion and His Influence (London, UK: SPCK, 1948), 52-53.

[289] Blackburn, 52-53.

[290] Blackburn, 52-53.

[291] Ibid.

[292] Harding, 9.

[293] Cf. Metzger, The Text, 54. Cf. J. D. Quinn, P46 – The Pauline Canon?, in CBQ 36 (1974): 379-85; and A. T. Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 11. They suggest that the omission of the Pastoral Epistles (and Philemon) was intentional and that P46 was composed as a collection of “public letters.” J. Verheyden argues that “material (as opposed to theological or reception history) factors may have played a role in the decision not to include the Pastoral Epistles as part of the codex. J. Verheyden, “The Canon Muratori: A Matter of Dispute,” in The Biblical Canons, Eds. J.-M. Auwers and H. J. DE Jonge (Louvain, Belgium: Louvain University Press, 2003), 520-21.

[294] Harding, 10.

[295] Schnelle, 352-53. Here, Schnelle provides a list of Pauline letters with verses that both 1 Clement and the letters of Ignatius seem to acknowledge.

[296] Hahneman, 117.

[297] Kee, Young and Froehlich, 166. About these fragments, Kee, Young and Froehlich pose that the closing lines of 2 Timothy are arguably authentic notes from Paul’s last days (2 Tim. 4:6, 10, 11, 17, 18).

[298] For a complete read of this discussion see Harding.

[299] Kee, Young and Froehlich, 166.

[300] Ibid., 394.

[301] Mays, Miller, and Achtemeier, 10.

[302] J. H. Bernard, The Pastoral Epistles, The Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges 14 (Cambridge, UK: The University Press, 1899), xxi.

[303] Schnelle, 333. Schnelle notes in his footnotes that the following scholars also place the Pastorals around 100 CE: Brox, Pastoralbriefe, 58; Roloff, I Timotheusbrief, 45-46; Merkel, Pastoralbriefe, 10; Hegermann, Ort, 47; Lindemann, Paulus im alstesten Christentum, 47.

[304] Schnelle, 342.

[305] Ibid., 333.

[306] Cf. Fiore, 19. Here Fiore examines the details of qualifications and responsibilities of “bishop /overseer, presbyter / elder, deacon / assistant, widow, as well as evangelist / admonitor, authoritative supervisor of all the Christians in Ephesus or on the island of Crete.”

[307] Fiore, 19.

[308] Ibid., 20.

[309] Schnelle, 333.

[310] Fiore, 20.

[311] Fiore, 20.

[312] For extended discussion of the evidence, see Schussler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York, NY: Crossroads, 1983), 160-84.

[313] Hays, 248.

[314] Hays, 247.

[315] Kee, Young and Froehlich, 396-97.

[316] Kee, Young and Froehlich, 397. Irenaeus says that Simon Magus always had with him a prostitute by the name of Helena, whom he called his first ennoia (mental conception).

[317] Kee, Young and Froehlich, 397. Cf. also Fiore, 15. In the case of abstinence from sexual relations, Fiore argues that the letter’s rejection of ascetical teachings is an example of “another anti-Pharisee tradition from the gospels.”

[318] Margaret MacDonald, Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion: The Power of the Hysterical Woman (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 152, 178.

[319] Oster, 14.

[320] Cornelius Nepos, Great General of Foreign Nations, in Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press, 1960), 369-71.

[321] Cf. Claude Vatin, Recherches sut le Mariage et la Condition de la Femme Mariée à L’Époque Hellénistique (Paris, FR: de Boccard, 1970), 200-01.

[322] Collins, 521. He notes that a fifth-century codex (A) adds a clarifying (oi-j avndra,sin), literally “to the men” (with the definite article but without an explanatory ivdi,oij; cf. v. 35) to Paul’s “let them be subject” (u`potasse,sqwsan).

[323] Collins, 522.

[324] Fiore, 6.

[325] Cf. Fiore, 66. For example, Fiore sees the teaching of submission as “behavior characteristically advanced in household codes.” In addition, it is this very practice that has been “violated by the false teachers (1 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:10; compare Titus 1:6).” The Pastor remedy in this case is clear, “they must be silenced” (Titus 1:11).

[326] Harding, 50.

[327] Cf. Fiore, 66. Fiore draws this data from Cato, Agriculture, 143. In Fiore study of the literature of the time concerning the role of women in society in general, he claims that “the home was the women’s domain and area of responsibility. They supervised domestic work arrangements, childbearing, and shopping, and were expected not to be away from home, even to visit neighbors.”

[328] Cf. Fiore, 66. For Philo see On The Special Laws, 2.225-27, 3.169-71, Decalogue, 165-67. For Plutarch see Conjugalia Praecepta, 142 D, 145C-E. Cf. also Aristotle, Politica, 1260a3; and Juvenal, Satirae, 6.206-74, 398-412; 434-56. Fiore also points out the following writers as expressing the Greco-Roman sentiments toward household order and the role of women: Arius Didymus (Octavian’s teacher), Epitome 149.5-8; Josephus, Against Apion, 2.199; Martial, Epigrammates, 8.12; Tacitus, Historiae 5.5; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates Romanae, 2.24.3; 2.26.1; 2.27.4; and finally Diodorus Siculus’ accusation that the Isis cult led women to think they should exercise authority over their husbands (1.271-72).

[329] David L. Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter, SBLMS 26 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), 106.

[330] Balch, 106.

[331] David C. Verner, The Household of God: The Social World of the Pastoral Epistles, SBLDS 71 (Chico: CA: Scholars Press, 1983), 76. He believes that the same anxieties were held in common throughout the empire because the traditional patriarchal structure of the household would have been considered integral in maintaining the good order of the whole society, and ultimately, the pax Romana itself.

[332] Balch and Osiek, 40.

[333] Balch and Osiek, 40.

[334] Harding, 51. He cites Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11), Prisca (with Aquila 1 Cor. 16:19; Rom. 16:5) and Nympha (Col. 4:15) who shouldered this responsibility. He also mentions other women who participated side-by-side with Paul in his mission (see Rom. 16:3, 6, 12; Phil. 4:2-3). He adds, “others prayed and prophesied (1 Cor. 11:5, 13) or fulfilled offices, even that of apostle (Junia [or Julia], Rom. 16:7). In Romans 16:1, Phoebe is termed a patron (prosta,tij) as well as a “deacon,” an office consonant with that of the two female slaves (termed ministrae) whom Pliny tortured in his interrogation of Christians in Bithynia ca. 110.” Cf. also Schussler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 169-175. She makes the point that in Romans 16:6, 12, Paul uses the same Greek verb, kopia,w, (meaning to work), of the woman who “work “ with him that he uses of his own enterprise of evangelizing and teaching. Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 16:16 Paul urges the addressees to be subject to every “co-worker and laborer” (kopiw/nti, cf. 1 Thess 5:12).

[335] Verner, 111.

[336] Ibid., 160.

[337] Harding, 62.

[338] Kee, Young and Froehlich, 401.

[339] Kee, Young and Froehlich, 402

[340] Ibid., 415. Although “when Paul speaks of Epaphras, Tychicus, or Timothy as his ‘deacons,’ the idea of ‘assistants’ certainly is in the foreground,” rather than an established ecclesiastical position as inferred in the Pastorals

[341] Ibid., 415

[342] Cf. Prisca and Aquila who taught Apollos, Acts 18:2, 18, 26, Rom. 16:3; 1 Cor. 16:9; 2 Tim. 4:19; Junia and Andronicus, Rom. 16:7; Lydia, Acts 16:4, 15, 40; Chloe, 1 Cor. 1:11; and Phoebe, Rom. 16:1-2. We can see by these references that women played an important role. See also Euodia and Syntyche, Phil. 4:2; Apphia, Philemon 2; Rom. 16:6, 12, 15; and prophesying 1 Cor. 11:5.

[343] Rom. 16:1-2, 6, 12, 15, and Phil. 4:2-3.

[344] Cf. Fiore, 16.

[345] Ibid., 67.

[346] Ibid., 70.

[347] Fiore, 67.

[348] Harding, 38. Cf. also Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Word, Spirit and Power: Women in Early Christian Communities, in Women of Spirit, eds. Rosemary Radford Ruether and Eleanor McLaughlin, (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1979), 29-70. She argues the following dates of the Acts of Paul: ca. 160-225 CE. Cf. also Bart Ehrman, The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 177. Ehrman point out that “there is some evidence to suggest, however, that narratives about Thecla were in circulation at a much earlier stage, possibly the beginning of the second century. Some scholars have maintained, in fact, that the Pastoral Epistles, which warn against women who spread “old wives’ tales” (1 Tim. 4:7) and who exercise authority over men and teach (see 1 Tim. 2:1-11), represent a reaction to views embodied here in the Acts of Pail and Thecla.” In addition, Ehrman argues that “whether or not this particular account of Thecla was composed by the beginning of the second century, it appears to incorporate Christian traditions popular then, as women in Christian communities began to recognize the value of an ascetic lifestyle, especially as it could bring liberation from the constraints of male-dominated marriages.”

[349] Harding, 42.

[350] Dennis R. MacDonald, The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1983), 98.

[351] Harding, 44. Cf also Jan N. Bremmer, The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla, (Kampen, Netherlands, NL: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1996), 153. Bremmer translated the excerption as follows: “But if certain Acts of Paul, which are falsely so named, claim the example of Thecla for allowing women to teach and to baptize, let men know that in Asia the presbyter who compiled that document, thinking to add of his own to Paul’s reputation, was found out, and though he professed he had done it for love of Paul, was deposed from his position.”

[352] Fiorenza, “Women in Early Christian Communities,” 29-70.

[353] Fiore, 67.

[354] Ibid.

[355] Verner, 178. Cf. also Fiore, 69. Fiore argues that “the Pastorals, in the instruction about women, restrain activities that threaten the social order and promote those that sustain it (note Titus 3:5). The household regulations here have broad implications, since the household is the microcosm of the whole state. The Pastorals, try to establish the Christian community clearly of the side of those who support rather than corrupt the social order, and they hope thereby to escape society’s condemnation.” In presenting this argument, Fiore notes Epictetus, who in criticizing the Epicureans expressed the commonly held view that marriage, childbearing, the household, and the political order are all related. Cf. Epictetus, Diatribe (Dissertationes), 3.7.19-20; Plato, Leges, 6.773B; Aristotle, Politica, 1260b.

[356] Dennis MacDonald, 14. According to how early I date the Pastorals (ca. 100 CE), I would have to say that the writer of the Pastorals did not have a manuscript of Acts of Paul. However, it is plausible that he was writing in opposition to early forms of the tradition that later composed the Acts of Paul.

[357] Harding, 41.

[358] Harding, 41.

[359] Dennis MacDonald, 73-77.

[360] Stevan L. Davies, The Revolt of the Widows: The Social World of the Apocryphal Acts (Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1980), 72.

[361] Harding, 39.

[362] Jouette M. Bassler, “The Widow’s Tale: A Fresh Look at 1 Tim 5:3-16,” JBL 103 (1983): 38. Cf. also Bonnie Thurston, The Widows: A Women’s Ministry in the Early Church (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1989), 107.

[363] Harding, 53. Harding avers that these women are “the very women from whose ranks the many entrepreneurial sponsors of the earlier mission of Paul would have come.”

[364] Davies, 30, 180. Cf also Harding, 39, and Bassler, 30. Bassler argue that this tradition “followed by the ‘widows’ amounted to a liberating choice of lifestyle. Although Paul does issue injunctions that express his desire for church order, the post-Pauline household codes (Haustafel), while retaining something of Paul’s notion of gender equality, place greater emphasis on the obedience and submission of subordinate members of the household, summoning them to reflect social convention.”

[365] Margaret MacDonald, Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion, 170.

[366] Bassler, 23-41. Cf. also Thurston, 39.

[367] Kovacs, xii.

[368] Dr. Paul Blowers comments were taken from a class that I took under him on the History of Biblical Interpretation in the Spring 2007.

[369] Kovacs, xiii.

[370] Hull, “The Bible Only?” 10. Cf. also Kee, Young and Froehlich, 69. They point out that, when considering the formation of the Muratorian Canon, it is important to highlight that “the criterion for acceptability of any book is its dependence directly, or by way of an intimate associate, on an apostle.” At the oral stage of the transmission of the tradition the criterion had been fidelity to the “rule of faith” and the kerygma, as well as correspondence to the Old Testament promises, now with regards to the transmission of written material, to these was added a third factor: apostolicity. It is no surprise to see the Pastorals highlighting and stressing so heavily on Paul’s authorship and authority.

[371] Cf. Schnelle, 358.

[372] Cf. Schnelle, 360. Schnelle provides convincing early evidences demonstrating that both Montanism and the Marcionites were not the factor which brought about the concentration of the Canon into a New Testament, but did certainly help accelerate the process of canon formation. This collection was a natural process that began after the death of the apostle with the clear purpose of guiding the church theologically to him.

[373] Kovacs, xiii.

[374] Schnelle, 332.

[375] See Conzelmann, 2. As supporters of this thesis, Conzelmann mentions Knox, Mitton and Goodspeed. Schnelle, 352, on the other hand, argues that Ephesus was most likely one of the first location of the collection Paul’s letters followed by Rome with perhaps some overlap of time. He sees this process of collection beginning with first smaller collections, then growing into larger collections about the turn of the first century.

[376] Kee, Young and Froehlich, 70.

[377] Cf. Schnelle, 332.

[378] Schnelle, 336.

[379] Cf. Schnelle, 349-64. He presents an interesting concise (yet detailed) study on the history of canon formation. He conjectures that “1-2 Corinthians, Romans, Galatians, Philippians, and Philemon were probably included from the very beginning,” see pg. 352.

[380] Ibid., 351. Schnelle also considers the following texts as evidence of this editing process: 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1; Rom. 7:25b; 16:25-27.

[381] Ibid., 340. Here, He notes that 1 Tim. 1:2 reflects 1 Cor. 4:17; 1 Tim 1:8-10a reflects Rom. 3:21, 28; 7:12; 1 Tim. 1:12-13 reflects 1 Cor. 7:25; 1 Tim. 1:20 reflects 1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 2:6-7 reflects Rom. 9:1; 1 Tim. 2:11-15 reflects 1 Cor. 14:33b-36; 1 Tim. 5:18 reflects 1 Cor. 9:8-14; and 1 Tim. 6:4-5 reflects Rom. 1:28-30. In contrast, however, Schnelle does not see Acts being used in 1 Timothy.

[382] I follow Schnelle’s dating of the Pastorals.

[383] Schnelle builds on Roloff, 1 Timotheusbrief, 377-78, when discussing about the Pastor use of his received tradition. In both Schnelle and Roloff’s investigation the author is not practicing a rigid principle of tradition, but rather an interpretation of what has been received in a way that both appropriates it and applies it to new situations.

[384] Cf. Fiore, 16.

[385] Kee, Young and Froehlich, 399.

[386] Ibid., 403.

[387] Harding, 27.

[388] Donelson, 60.

[389] Fiore, 71.

[390] Scott Bartchy, “Power, Submission, and Sexual Identity Among the Early Christians,” in Essays on New Testament Christianity, ed. C. Robert Wetzel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing, 1978), 56.

[391] See Bassler, 327-28; cf. Rowe, 43.

[392] Garland, 675.

[393] Maria Pascuzzi, First and Second Corinthians, New Collegeville Bible Commentary: New Testament 7 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2005), 82.

[394] Hull, “The Bible Only?” 21-22.