Editorial dilemma: the interpolation of 1 Cor 14:34-35 in the western manuscripts of D, G and 88

Biblical Theology Bulletin, Summer, 2000 by D.W. Odell-Scott

I have suggested that those who transcribed the text into Byzantine characters and punctuation, marked the H in the archaic script which introduced verse 36 to be a particle [eta] and not an adverb [eta]. Had the editors read the archaic H (capitalized and free of breath and accent markings) to be the adverb [eta], which means "truly," innumerable grammatical and content problems would be posed from the start. The difficulty would have been how to reconcile the adverb [eta] which asserts the truth of verses 34 and 35 with the negative rhetorical questions of verse 36 which call for a negative answer (Odell-Scott 1987, 1989). It is my judgement that the editors of the western manuscripts D, G and 88 read verse 36 as a negative critique of the subordination and silencing of women, and understood the negative, critical power of the panicle H at the beginning of a negative interrogative sentence.

Restoration Hypothesis

If the editors of the western manuscripts read verses 34 and 35 as I have proposed in the egalitarian interpretation, then it is possible that they may have concluded that surely Paul would not have intended to criticize the silencing of women. So, they simply moved the verses which expressed their convictions regarding the status of women and placed them at the end of the chapter to safeguard their "integrity" and "authority." In other words, having fragmented the text, the editors pulled out the verse fragments which imitate orthodox western convictions with respect to the status of women, and relocate the verses after verse 40. Thus, the editors simultaneously protected a verse fragment that provided scriptural support for the silencing and subordination of women from the critique of verse 36, and associated the silencing of women in church and the subordination of women to men with Paul's call for decency and order in worship. This arranging of the verses by the editors thus serves to restore the assumed intent and content of the text which the editors expected the text to express.

A stronger hypothesis is that the editors of the western manuscripts read verses 34-36 as expressing Paul's direct critique and rejection of the silencing and subordination of women. Yet, the editors' interpolate verses 34 and 35, withdrawing them from the critical force of verse 36 and associating them with decency and order at verse 40, in order to insure that the page would not counter the "true" faith expressed in their own Christian institutional convictions and practices. Moving a few verses around, while it might be assessed to be an act of forgery, may have been unavoidable for the editors driven by the desire to make the texts of Christendom coherent with their own Christian convictions and practices.

The editors could have concluded that verses 34 and 35, standing before the critique of verse 36 misrepresented the "orthodox" Paul. If the text of 14:34-36 counters the "assumed" convictions of our hypothetical editors, then the editors, reading verses 34-36 as a critique of the subordination and silencing of women, might conclude that something is wrong. If the hypothetical editors read First Corinthians as a faith inspiring Christian text, then they may assume that the text will confirm their own convictions, values and practices. They read the text with an eye for those verses which will confirm their own beliefs and practices. Interpretations of the text which do not inspire or confirm the convictions, values and practices of the Christian faith as they understand it, might be assessed to be inconsequential. However, interpretations which conflict or directly contradict their Christian convictions, values and practices might be assessed to be unfaithful. If the editors were motivated to move verses 34 and 35 away from verse 36 and after verse 40 in order to shelter and enhance the subordination and silence of women, then it was their intent to produce editions which facilitated their own convictions. If they assumed that the scriptures could not, if properly read, counter their own faith, then any reading which might inspire or confirm convictions, values and practices contrary to their own, would be not simply improper, but given the status of First Corinthians and their concern for proper Christian belief, illegitimate.