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

Were the manuscripts D, G, and 88 directly responsible for the common practice of interpreting 14:34-35 as Paul's position that women are to be silent in church, subordinate to their husbands, in fulfillment of the law, and in order to maintain decency and order? I do not think so. I suspect that the manuscripts were expressive of the social convictions of some Christian communities. And the editors sought to render the text in such a way that it would be consistent with what the editors expected to find in scripture.

Interpolation Assessment of 14:34-36 by the Editors of the Western Manuscripts D, G, and 88

Given that the editors of D, G and 88 assessed that the location of verses 34 and 35 were "misplaced" at 33/36, and that the verses "belonged" at the end of verse 40, I argue that the editors assessed the placement of verses 34 and 35 at 33/36 to be an interpolation for which the editors' sought a "correction". Their restoration of the text "corrected" the misplacement of verses 34 and 35 at 33/36 which, presumably may have been the work of an earlier editor of the epistle.

Both the earlier and modern versions of the interpolation hypothesis are preoccupied with the status of verses 34 and 35. The modern interpolation hypothesis argues that the content of 34 and 35 is not only inconsistent, but contradicts what Paul has elsewhere written about the status of women, their participation in public worship and the status of tradition and law. Therefore, verses 34 and 35 are not moved to an alternate location in the epistle, but are removed from the text. On my argument, the earlier interpolation interpretation by the editors of D, G and 88 assessed that it was the placement of verses 34 and 35 before verse 36, which was the problem. Unlike the modern interpolation hypothesis, the earlier hypothesis did not question whether verses 34 and 35 belonged in the epistle.

It is my contention that neither the implied earlier interpolation interpretation by the editors of D, G, and 88, nor the proponents and defenders of the modern interpolation hypothesis, address the significance of verse 36. For the editors of D, G and 88, once verses 34 and 35 were sheltered from verse 36 and associated with verse 40, their interpolation interpretative project was complete. And for those who propose and defend the modern interpolation hypothesis, once verses 34 and 35 were effectively "removed" there was nothing more to do with the text. For those who employed interpolation methods, it would seem that once the status of verses 34 and 35 was resolved to their specifications or for their purposes, there was nothing else to do with the text. And yet, despite the preoccupations by both parties for coherence, textual and conceptual, the subsequent incoherence of the local text after their "removal" of verses 34 and 35 between verses 33/36 is not addressed.

Conclusion

It is my conclusion that in seeking to shelter the convictions expressed in verses 34 and 35, the editors of the Western manuscripts D, G, and 88 deleted the verses from their common location at 33/36, and "copied" these few verses elsewhere. The editors shrewdly manipulated the text to serve their purposes which they no doubt took to be proper. In this case, the movement of verses 34 and 35 from their location at verses 33/36 and placing them after verse 40, served to reconstruct the textus to cohere with cultural orthodox convictions regarding women, and to erase the possibility of an improper reading of the text. I proposed that the editors of the western manuscripts D, G, and 88 assessed that Paul's apparent critique of the silence and subordination of women was not a viable possibility. I argued that in removing verses 34 and 35 from 33/36, the editors sought to (I) overcome the incoherence between proper Christian belief and practice regarding the status of women in church and a significant scriptural text which directly critiqued established practice, and (II) sought to restore the text by moving verses 34 and 35 to follow verse 40.