A Consideration of the Authenticity of the Pauline Admonition in I Corinthians 14 for Women to Keep Silent in the Church

A Consideration of the Authenticity of the

Pauline Admonition in I Corinthians 14 for

Women to Keep Silent in the Church

COURSE: Religion 516 “Studies in Paul”

Dr. Francis Fallon

Eleanor M. Cooley

November 27, 1978

INTRODUCTION

The verses under consideration in this paper are 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36.

33b "As in all the churches of the saints, 34The women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 36 What did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?"

This is a very controversial passage. The commentaries tell at times more about the disposition and attitude of the commentator than about the passage.

The International Critical Commentary takes a very traditional stand, but it does include a footnote that the Dutch School suspects that this passage might be an interpolation by a later hand. It also refers to Moffatt's Historical New Testament who indicates verses 34 and 35 should be either placed after verse 40 or treated as an interpolation.[i]

The Interpreter's Bible, which is next chronologically, notes that the passage corresponds exactly to I Tim 2:11-12, which is later, and that the author's appeal to the law is un-Pauline. Paul had insisted that Christ was the end of the obligation to the law (Rom 10:4). It is assumed in I Corn 11:2-16 that women will pray and prophecy in the church, though he did not remove all distinctions. The Interpreter's Bible speculates that Paul may have had the problem of women in the church at Corinth called to his attention by one of the men there and was dealing with a specific problem of questions during the service.[ii]

In Harper's Commentary, C. K. Barrett says that the verb lalein (to speak) may refer to uninspired speech as in classical Greek usage, which would increase the authenticity of the passage. However it is used in the sense of inspired speech throughout chapter 14 (2, 3, 4, .etc.). It is not impossible that Paul used it in this classical sense, but it is unlikely.[iii]

The Anchor Bible takes a more conservative viewpoint, observing that any transition between any combination of the verses is awkward. If 34 and 35 are moved then 33a and 33b would have to go together giving a different meaning.

The Anchor Bible writers want to leave the verses as they stand, understanding this as applying to wives who are embarrassing their husbands in the assembly. Paul allows women to pray and prophecy (11:5) but is interested in order, so he wants all the clamorous discussion cut out. The disgraceful aspect had to do with shame imposed on husbands. Most other disorders, they note, are caused by male members. In vs. 36 the whole church is included since the pronoun is modified by a masculine adjective. Thus the whole church is confronted by Paul's critique.[iv]

The Westminster Pelican Commentaries take the position that the un-Pauline character of an appeal to the law (vs. 34), the contradiction implied with Paul's position with regard to the women in marriage, and the fact that the argument as to what is shameful (Vs. 35), are all quite out of line with the rest of the chapter, which points to non-Pauline authorship for this section.[v]

Hans Conzelmann, unlike any of the others, sees 33b-36 as a self-contained section. The context is upset, and the contents are a contradiction of 11:2ff, where women are active. This contradiction remains even if chapters 11 and 14 are from different letters as Walter Schmithals proposes.[vi] There are, he says, peculiarities of linguistic usage. epitrepetai "be permitted" is found in this sense only in I Tim 2:12. The passive points back to an already valid regulation, note the absolute use. Vs. 37 does not link with 36, but with 33a, so this section should be regarded as an interpolation. In this regulation we have a reflection of the bourgeois consolidation of the church roughly on the level of the pastoral epistles. It bends itself to the general custom. Verse 37 continues vs. 33a, or in the present form of the text, returns to the subject: prophecy and its criteria.[vii]

TEXTUAL

The passage under discussion has more textual problems than is common in Paul's writings. In certain western texts of the 5th and later centuries, a number of Old Latin manuscripts, and the Armenian version, vs. 33b-35 are located after vs. 40. A number of scholars in the last century[viii] and currently,[ix] used this as evidence to see the verses in question as not part of the original manuscript. "The evidence of the change of place of order appears to be Latin and more precisely Old Latin. The change of order of the verses 34-35 originates from the Old Latin, or from the Greek model. It most certainly is of an ancient date.”[x] However, despite the popularity of this method of bypassing the problem, the textual evidence just cited seems insufficient. C. K. Barrett also takes this view, observing that no significant manuscripts remove vs. 34 and 35 but only move them. Early editors may have felt these verses were out of place.[xi]

Among a number of modern scholars the effort to discredit this passage as from the Apostle's hand appears to have more contemporary social motivation than textual. Robin Scroggs is a prime example of this tendency.[xii] Minor textual problems pertaining to gender in verse 36 and the absence of the words "for a woman to speak in church" in 3rd and 4th century manuscripts have encouraged other contemporary writers to produce new and interesting readings to explain away the passage.[xiii] However admittedly rough the textual history of this passage may be, the present manuscript and textual evidence does not permit us to throw out these verses.[xiv]

WORDING

It may well be in the area of wording and that of context that it will be the easiest to show a possible interpolation.

In I Corn 14:33b the clause "churches of the saints" is unique to this passage. Paul uses essentially the clauses "the church of God or "the church of Christ." The only similar citation by Paul is where he refers to twneqnvn "church of the gentiles”[xv] in Romans 16:4. The idea of the church of the saints (holy) does not appear again until the first vision of the Shepherd of Hermes which speaks of "the saintly (holy) church.[xvi] In 34b is found the phrase "for they are not permitted to speak". The word qputrpja (it is permitted) is used in this sense only twice in the New Testament, in this verse and in I Tim 2:12. According to Hans Conzelmann, the passive points back to an already valid regulation and has absolute use.[xvii] This is not a typical part of Paul's vocabulary in any sense. It occurs only one other place in a positive way.[xviii] It does, however, have common usage in Luke and Acts and, most notably, the Pastorals and the early Fathers.[xix]

In verse 34d occurs a very un-Pauline statement, the phrase "as even the law says." Paul makes reference to the law a great deal, usually in connection with our freedom from the Mosaic law as in Galatians, or to the new law such as "the law of Christ." The Old Testament is not regarded by Paul as binding law and does not have the weight which an appeal like this would have in Judaism. It (the law) is authoritative and should be respected only if it follows from obedience to Christ in faith.[xx] Most scholars indicate the law Paul is citing, if it is Paul and if the Torah is being cited, as Gen 3:16. The pronouncement to the women (and all women) that your "husband will rule over you" is cited as the source for Paul's statement in the I.C.C.,[xxi] the Anchor Bible,[xxii] the Oxford Annotated Bible,[xxiii] and, slightly less emphatically, Kittle.[xxiv] The latter sees the similar statement in I Tim 2:14 as clearly referring to Gen 3:16, but Kittel is a little less certain here in I Cor 14:34. Generally these scholars accept this passage as continuing the old law in this special case. The argument that the Christian is free from the yoke of the Mosaic law cannot be convincingly used because elsewhere the Apostle proclaims, for instance, that the decalogue has permanent importance as in Rom 13:8-10. Secondly, on occasion Paul uses the word law to define the entire scripture as understood as God's commandment.[xxv]

A. Feuillet believes that the reference to the law refers to Gen 2:18-24 instead of Gen 3:16, the more common opinion today. In Gen 2:18-24 the account of creation has the woman created after the man. His proof rests on the fact that the man was directed by God to name the animals as well as the first woman, who herself keeps still and receives the name given from the man. Hence the man, being the bearer of the word, names and describes and the woman is silent.[xxvi]

In a work pertaining to the literature of the rabbis on the law and the New Testament, Herman Strack and Paul Billerbeck indicate that referring this passage on law to Gen 3:16 should not be pressed as traditional morals are as words of the law (Torah). In the Talmud Meg 232 Bar the rabbis are quoted as saying that a woman should not read the law out loud because it would dishonor the community. No matter how respected, a woman could not be asked by a man to speak out on religion.[xxvii] Ber 24a quotes Rabbi Sammuel as saying “a woman's voice is a sexual enticement," hence indicating that it should not be heard in the synagogue.[xxviii] There is abundant evidence in the Talmudic literature to support the prohibitions in these verses if the author is referring to the oral tradition as the law rather than the Torah (Pentateuch).

In regard to verse 35, "If there is anything they desire to know let them ask their husbands at home," Strack and Billerbeck cite numerous rabbis, starting with Eliaezer (ca. 90) teaching that it was the father's responsibility to teach daughters and the husbands to teach their wives the law.[xxix]

The verb ask (eperwtatwsan) is unique in the genuine Pauline writings except for one quotation from Isaiah which appears in Rom 10:20. It is widespread in all the gospels because of the teaching material contained and also appears in the Shepherd of Hermes and II Clement.[xxx]

Verse 36, "What: did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?" is considered by Conzelmann[xxxi] and the paragraphing committee of the Revised Standard Version as being part of the whole thought beginning with Vs. 33b. All other commentators attempt to tie it in with the whole Corinthian church, possibly because they have not resolved the textual problem created by 33b-35 being moved around in various manuscripts.

Paul uses "reached" (cdtaneao) in this sense in only one other place, in I Cor 10 where he is discussing the coming of the end of the age.[xxxii]

CONTEXT

Most commentators feel that this passages context is one of its more glaring problems. The context is dealing with criteria for prophecy and the charismatic gifts. Hans Conzelmann points out that 33b-36 is a self-contained unit totally out of context. This means that 33a, "For God is not a God of confusion but of peace," connects with 37; "If anyone thinks that he is a prophet. etc."[xxxiii] Robin Scroggs holds this viewpoint as well.[xxxiv] However, most others want to see 33a linked up with 36: "What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?" In so doing vs. 36 applies to the whole church at Corinth (or at least to all the ecstatics). As I mentioned before, those who take this viewpoint may be influenced by the fact that vs. 34-35 are moved around in some Old Latin and other ancient manuscripts. By being influenced by textual considerations, the more determinative contextual problem is missed.

C. K. Barrett, dealing with the verb "to speak" (laletn), argues from the point of context that this refers to inspired speech, not just chatter. It would mean that Paul is thus changing the usage of laletn in the middle of a discussion on inspired speech to mean chatter, if Barrett is right. Paul uses laletn as inspired speech both before and after 33b-36 in this chapter. For him to use, uniquely, this verb in the 5th century B.C. classical usage in the middle of a contextually different usage and discussion seems very unlikely.[xxxv]

CONTRADICTION TO OTHER PAULINE PASSAGES

The idea of women being silent in church is in direct contradiction to Paul's statement in I Cor 11:2-16 where it is evident that women pray and Prophecy in the assembly. Paul may have had different levels of discourse in mind, Chapter 11 being inspired with this reference in 14 being mere chatter (see above).[xxxvi] However, the thought expressed in these verses represents more the thought behind I Tim 2:11ff and Eph 5:22 than of Paul's recognized writings. They sound more like the church arena manifested by the deutero-Pauline writings. Paul's attitude toward women was consistent. In I Corn 7 where he discusses marriage there is equality between men and women in the rights and privileges of marriage. Paul's most definitive statement is found in Gal 3:28 where he is probably drawing upon a baptismal formula in order to lay down a general principle. In it, among other differences transcended, is that of male and female. Thus the most primary division of God's creation is overcome. The terminology points directly back to Gen 1:27 and in the direction of man as the image of God beyond the division into male and female.[xxxvii] Therefore with his radical theology of grace, equality and freedom he could make no value judgments based on sexual differences for such an evaluation would cut at the heart of his claims for the eschatological community.[xxxviii]

CONTRADICTION TO THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE PAULINE CHURCHES

Not only are there contradictions to Paul's teaching about women, but there are contradictions to the attitude he seemed to have towards them. He greeted women right along with men in his letters, making no distinctions. Prisca is mentioned in the genuine Pauline corpus twice (I Corn 16:19; Rom 16:3), and is apparently considered the equal of her husband, Aquila. The fact that Paul was willing to take the word of "Chloes people" in I Cor 1:11 may indicate his respect for her. Paul calls Euodia and Syntyche his "fellow workers" in Phil 4:2-3 and makes no distinction between them and his male helpers. The most important reference as far as the genuine Pauline corpus is concerned is that of Phoebe in Rom 16:1. Paul calls her sister and deaconess, and more importantly she was the bearer of the letter, which was no small honor.[xxxix]

If we look at Acts we can see that many of his first converts were women. Lydia in Phillippi is one good example in Acts 16:14-15. After her conversion a church began meeting in her home. It was apparently a common practice for early Christian communities to be established in the homes of women (I Cor 1:11; Acts 16:14-15, 40; Acts 12:12; I Cor 16:19; Col 14:15)[xl]

In the undiscriminating preaching of Paul to both men and women, the influence of Euodias and Syntyche, Phoebe, and Prisca we have a glimpse of the new kind of status the Christian Church could afford to women, especially where the Jewish presence was not strong.[xli] However, as we shall see, this did not continue indefinitely.

WOMEN IN THE POST-PAULINE CHURCH

The Jewish attitude at the time of Paul gave women no right to divorce and very limited property rights. She was not allowed to go to school or learn Torah, not competent to give evidence in court so she could not defend herself. "It was only through motherhood that she could make any significant contribution and then only as the mother of sons.”[xlii] Obviously, Paul deviated a great deal from this attitude. However, by the time of the Pastorals (the eschaton not coming) the women were restricted greatly. They were considered, as is brought out in I Tim 2:15, to be saved by bearing children as in the Jewish faith rather than incorporation into Christ as Paul taught.[xliii]

There were several reasons for this besides the failure of the eschaton. One of the main reasons was Gnosticism. The Montinists were upsetting whole families with its doctrine that male and female were all alike and it could be to this heresy that II Tim 3:6 refers in speaking of "capturing weak women." Also Paul's genuine writing was present but had become frozen. His radical theology was overlooked. As a result the later epistles (pastorals, Peter) are almost a rerun of socially accepted relationships between men and women in the rabbinic communities of the pre-Christian era.[xliv]

Soon after the early Fathers, the Pastorals, etc. were being written the Jews were beginning to write down the oral law in the Talmud. As Previously pointed out in the section on wording, there are at least two references to women being silent: one because it causes sexual enticement,"[xlv] and the other concerning the fact women were not to teach or read the law.[xlvi] It appears that the church gradually moved back to the accepted patterns of the day by choosing to interpret Paul in this way.

CONCLUSION

I tend towards the opinion held by Conzelmann that the whole section of 33b-36 is an interpolation and is a self-contained unit. I feel that most of those who are leaving 36 connected to 33a are influenced by the textual evidence and that there is not sufficient evidence based on the text to support this view. Also, the transition from 33a "For God is not a God of confusion but of peace" moves easily into 37 "if anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual...etc." is smoother and maintains the train of thought that started at vs. 26. My main reason for believing this is an interpolation, though, has to do with the wording. The phrase "as in all the churches of the saints" is unique and I believe to be un-Pauline. It was not used again until the time of the Shepherd of Hermes. Also the un-Pauline reference to the law (which in my opinion refers to the oral law later recorded in the Talmud) and the strong contradiction to Paul's attitudes towards women is not like his genuine letters. All these tend to convince me that this is a later interpolation from around the time of the pastorals (100-130 CE).

The question is then why did someone feel they needed to interpolate this passage concerning women into First Corinthians? I have already discussed most of the reasons: the Gnostic heresies, a desire to keep the status quo, i.e. not to go against the norms of society, being the main ones. This regulation gives a reflection of the bourgeois consolidation of the church roughly on the level of the pastorals and thus bends itself to the general custom.[xlvii] Because Paul's authority as an apostle lent credence to this command, these verses had to be credited to Paul, thus the interpolation. This was done for the same reason that the pastorals were written as if from Paul, though we know they are not. These verses with their attitude toward women were penned to give Pauline authority to the later practice of the church.

BIBLIOGRPHY

ARTICLES

Endnotes

  1. A. Robertson, First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, (N. Y.: Charles Scribners Sons, 1916) 326 ↩
  2. The Interpreters Bible, (ed. by Geo. A. Butterick, et. al., Nashville: Abingdon--Cokesbury Press, 1951) Vol. X, 212 ↩
  3. C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, (Harpers New Testament Commentaries," ed. by Henry Chadwick, N. Y.: Harper and Row, 1968) 332 ↩
  4. Wm. F. Orr and James A. Walther, I Corinthians, A New Translation, ("The Anchor Bible N. Y,: Doubleday and Co., 1976) Vol. 32, 312 ↩
  5. John Ruef, Paul's First Letter to Corinth, ("Westminster Pelican Commentaries;" Philadelphia: Wesminster Press, 1977) 154-155 ↩
  6. Wayne A. Mecks, "The Image of the Andrgyne," History of Religions: An International Journal for the Comparative Historical Studies, 13, #3 (Feb., 1974) 201 ↩
  7. Hans Conzelmann, I Corinthians: a Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, (Trans. by James W. Leitch, Ed. by George W. MacRae, S.J., Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975) 246 ↩
  8. James Moffatt, The Historical New Testament, (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901) 627-628 ↩
  9. John Ruef, Paul's First Letter to Corinth, 155 ↩
  10. A. Feuillet, "La Dignité et le Role de la Femme d'aprés quel ques Textes Pauliniens: Comparaison avec l' Ancien Testament," New Testament Studies, 21 (Feb., 1975) 163 ↩
  11. C. K. Barrett, A Commentary. 332 ↩
  12. R. Scroggs, "Paul and the Eschatalogical Woman," Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 40 (Mar., 1972) 283-303 ↩
  13. Wm. F OFF, I Corinthians:, 312 ↩
  14. A. Feuillet, "La Dignité et le Rôle. 164 ↩
  15. Wm. F. Arndt and F. Wilber Gengrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: Univ. of Chiacgo press, 1952) 240 ↩
  16. J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, (ed. by J. R. Harmer, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1973) 165 ↩
  17. Hans Conzelmann, I Corinthians:, 246 ↩
  18. In I Corn 16:7 where Paul says "if the Lord Permits" his coming to them ↩
  19. Wm. F. Arndt, et. al., A Greek-English Lexicon, 303 ↩
  20. Gerhard Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (Trans. and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1972) Vol. IV, 1077 ↩
  21. A. Robertson, First Eoistle of St. Paul, 326 ↩
  22. Wm. F. Orr, I Corinthians:, 312 ↩
  23. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, RSV, (ed. by Herbert G. May and Bruce M. Metzger, N. Y.: Oxford Univ. Press, 1973) ↩
  24. Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary, 1077 ↩
  25. A. Feuillet, "La Dignite et le Kle.," 164 ↩
  26. A. Feuillet, "La Dignità et le Hole.," 165 ↩
  27. Herman L. Strack und Paul Billerbeck, Die Briefe Des Neuen Testaments und Die Offenbarung Johannis, ("Kommentor zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch München: Druck J. P. Himmer K. G., 1926) Vol. III, 467 ↩
  28. The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Zera in, (Trans and Ed. by Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, London: Soncino press, 1948) Berakoth 24a ↩
  29. Herman L. Strack, et. al., Die Briefe Des Neuen Testaments., 468 ↩
  30. Wm. F Arndt, et. al., A Greek-English Lexicon, 284-285 ↩
  31. Hans Conzelmann, I Corinthians:, 246 ↩
  32. Wm. F. Arndt, et. al., A Greek English Lexicon, 416 ↩
  33. Hans Conzelmann, I Corinthians:, 246 ↩
  34. R. Scroggs, "Paul and the Eschatalogical Woman," 283 ↩
  35. C. K. Barrett, A Commentary, 332 ↩
  36. John Ruef, Paul's First Letter to Corinth, 154 ↩
  37. Krister Stendahl, The Bible and the Role of Women, ("Facet Books Biblical Series, #15," Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966) 32 ↩
  38. R. Scroggs, "Paul and the Eschatalogical Woman, 11 284 ↩
  39. The Jerome Biblical Commentary, (Ed. by Raymond E. Brown, S. S., et. al., Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, inc., 1968) 330 ↩
  40. Rosemary Radford Ruether, ed., Religion and Sexism: Images of Women in the Jewish and Christian Traditions, (N. Y,: Simon and Schuster, 1974) 136 ↩
  41. R. Ruether, ed., Religion and Sexism, 136 ↩
  42. Ronald W. Graham, "Women in the Fauline Churches: a review Article!" Lexington Theological Quarterly, Vol 11, #1, (Jan., 1976) 312 ↩
  43. R. Ruether, Religion and Sexism, 136 ↩
  44. R. Ruether, Religion and Sexism, 136 ↩
  45. Babylonian Talmud, Ber 24a ↩
  46. Herman L. Strack, et. al., Die Briefe Des Neuen Testaments.. 467 ↩
  47. Hans Conzelmann, I Corinthians:, 246 ↩