THREAD: Which Bible passage will be the next pericope adulterae, Mark 16:9-20, or Jesus sweating blood (texts most NT scholars consider late additions)?
I put my 💰 on 1 Cor 14:34-35 (where Paul says women must be silent in church).
Why? We already see ➡️ in that direction. 1/9
I put my 💰 on 1 Cor 14:34-35 (where Paul says women must be silent in church).
Why? We already see ➡️ in that direction. 1/9
Folks seldom realize there's a thorny TC problem in vv. 34-35.
First, Paul's teaching about women comes out of nowhere & seems to contradict 11:5 where Paul says women WOULD speak in church. And if you remove 14:34-35, the passage flows perfectly. That screams interpolation. 2/9
First, Paul's teaching about women comes out of nowhere & seems to contradict 11:5 where Paul says women WOULD speak in church. And if you remove 14:34-35, the passage flows perfectly. That screams interpolation. 2/9
TBH, the manuscript (MSS) support for vv. 34-35 is SOLID. Earliest & best MSS all have vv. 34-35 so any addition would be VERY early. BUT it's not bulletproof.
Early "Western" MSS put vv. 34-35 elsewhere & Vaticanus has markings *suggesting* the scribe doubted authenticity. 3/9
Early "Western" MSS put vv. 34-35 elsewhere & Vaticanus has markings *suggesting* the scribe doubted authenticity. 3/9
These factors together have led both *evangelical* scholars (e.g., Gordon Fee; Phil Payne) & non-evangelical scholars (e.g., Bart Ehrman) to argue vv. 34-35 are non-Pauline scribal interpolations.
But is that being reflected in mainstream Bibles?
It's starting to be. 4/9
But is that being reflected in mainstream Bibles?
It's starting to be. 4/9
We see an early move when the 1971 RSV was revised to the 1989 NRSV. Notice the RSV says nothing about vv. 34-35, but the NRSV now includes a footnote explaining ancient witnesses put vv. 34-35 elsewhere.
It's acknowledging the text isn't secure. There's doubt there. Now... 5/9
It's acknowledging the text isn't secure. There's doubt there. Now... 5/9
...evangelicals already didn't like the RSV/NRSV cuz they're "too liberal."
Do we see doubts about the authenticity of vv. 34-35 in evangelical Bibles? That would mean both evangelical scholars & their evangelical markets are opening to reconsidering vv. 34-35.
Look at NIV. 6/9
Do we see doubts about the authenticity of vv. 34-35 in evangelical Bibles? That would mean both evangelical scholars & their evangelical markets are opening to reconsidering vv. 34-35.
Look at NIV. 6/9
Left is 1984 NIV. Notice they connect vv. 33 & 34 like it flows. And no note of the TC problem for vv. 34-35.
Right is 2011 NIV (& TNIV). Notice NIV now makes vv. 34-35 its own paragraph separate from 33? Like they're signaling the verses stand alone. Plus now the footnote. 7/9
Right is 2011 NIV (& TNIV). Notice NIV now makes vv. 34-35 its own paragraph separate from 33? Like they're signaling the verses stand alone. Plus now the footnote. 7/9
What's next?
I reckon someday even evangelical Bibles will have 1 Cor 14:34-35 in brackets (like other passages scholars deem late additions).
DB Hart (not an evangelical, but a committed Christian) has already done this in his recent translation.
Will it change theology? 8/9
I reckon someday even evangelical Bibles will have 1 Cor 14:34-35 in brackets (like other passages scholars deem late additions).
DB Hart (not an evangelical, but a committed Christian) has already done this in his recent translation.
Will it change theology? 8/9
Probably not. It'll be one less slam-dunk, over-the-top patriarchy text.
But let's be honest. Even hardcore complementarians aren't taking these verses literally. These verses get cited to say women can't preach in church, but 1 Tim 2:11-15 is more popular for that anyway. 9/9
But let's be honest. Even hardcore complementarians aren't taking these verses literally. These verses get cited to say women can't preach in church, but 1 Tim 2:11-15 is more popular for that anyway. 9/9
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
