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

It might be argued that the moving of the verse fragments by the editors of D, G and 88, were interpretative/editorial acts which served to clarify the author's intent. However, if we assume the egalitarian interpretation of verses 34-36, then the editorial activity of moving verses 34 and 35 to the end of verse 40 sought not to clarify the intention of the author of First Corinthians, but to manipulate the text so that the text presented the convictions which the editors' assumed were the intention of the author Paul. For the editors, Paul could not have intended to support women speaking in church. The assumed "intention" of the author is the readers'/editors' preconception of the proper reading of the text. In other words, the editors' conception of the "author's proper intention" would itself be a hypothetical act of speculation by a reader who seeks to make sense of the text or to make the text conform to expected or assumed cultural orthodox norms. The "author's intent" is the editors' conception of the proper reading of the text. Thus, the "clarification" of the proper intent of the text may itself be a manipulation whereby the text is brought into proper alignment with what is expected.

While the manipulation by the editors of D, G, and 88 from the common manuscripts is evident given the tracing of the lines in a different order from the common editions, the manipulation is not conspicuous given the common habits of reading the texts and the established assumptions regarding gender hierarchical valuation. It is not conspicuous because "the reading" which the realigned or restored text facilitated is the same as the established cultural reading of the verses under consideration. The established habit of reading the end of the fourteenth chapter of First Corinthians assumes the authority of verses 34 and 35, and either misreads the negative rhetorical questions of verse 36, or simply passes over the verse without comment. Christian institutional practices have established a manner of reading the text which withdraws the verse fragments (verses 34 and 35) from their textus in relation to verse 36, and employs the verses to substantiate established hermeneutical/institutional practice. Thus, traditional interpretations reads verses 34 and 35 as if they were a unit, unconnected to verse 36, and yet expressive of what is decent and in order (v 40). While the placement of verses 34 and 35 at the end of verse 40 in the western manuscripts D, G, and 88 is the exception to the rule with respect to the manuscript of the texts, the traditional reading of the final verses of chapter 14 assumes the disconnections, withdrawals and associations explicitly expressed in the manuscripts of D, G and 88.

The Shrewd Interpolator

In an earlier exchange, Murphy-O'Connor conceded that my reading of verse 36 was grammatically correct (Murphy-O'Connor, 91). However, he re-asserted that a post-Pauline editor inserted his own verses (verses 34 and 35) in the common text between 33/36. I judged Murphy-O'Connor's hypothetical post-Pauline interpolator of 14:34 and 35--who inserted his own verses regarding the silencing and subordination of women precisely before a twofold negative rhetorical question introduced with a negative particle which served to emphatically negate the inserted verses--to be inept (Odell-Scott 1987). Thus, Murphy-O'Connor's inept interpolator could not have chosen a worse location to place the verses which asserted that women were to be silent in the church and subordinate to their husbands. I argued then that Murphy-O'Connor's defense of the interpolation interpretation of 14:34 and 35 was unconvincing.