Bible Worship

[Zakuska]

1Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

<moved to follow verse 40>

1Co 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

1Co 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

1Co 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

1Co 14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

1Co 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

What impact does shifting the verses about have in your opinion?

Regards,

Mudcat

In my opinion, it reads more smoothy when placed after 40.

However I have already shown that older texts do not have the verse either in 34-35 or after 40. Here it is again.

Other manuscripts give evidence of an original text that omitted 1 Cor 14:34-35. These include Bishop Victor of Capua in A.D. 546 ordering the rewriting of the text after 1 Cor 14:33 through 1 Cor 14:40 to omit verses 34-35 in the bottom margin of Codex Fuldensis as argued in Philip B. Payne, "Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.34-5," NTS 41 (1995) 240-50 with a photograph of that entire page of Codex Fuldensis on p. 261. In every other instance where Bishop Victor corrected the text of Codex Fuldensis, surviving manuscripts support his rewriting of the text, and he is known for preserving the readings of ancient manuscripts.

According to this it was the fifth century.

[sethpayne]

Those 2 versions are just saying the same thing but differently.

Not really.

The KJV translation relies on the MT and the NRSV relives on the LXX.

Seth

[Mudcat]

In my opinion, it reads more smoothy when placed after 40.

However I have already shown that older texts do not have the verse either in 34-35 or after 40. Here it is again.

According to this it was the fifth century.

I agree, changing the wording improves the flow, but IMO doesn't change the ultimate outcome of the statement in any significant measure.

Bold mine. However Codex Sinaticus predates this manuscript you have noted, estimated circa 350, and not only has it verse 34-35 within it, but retains its position after verse 33. So I don't think your argument has weight, unless you can make a case against the date, authenticity or accuracy of Sinaticus.

1 Cor 14:34-35 from Codex Sinaticus Though it should be noted the text actually stops at verse 37.

Dunno if you have perused the Sinaticus site much, but its actually pretty neat.

[Zakuska]

I agree, changing the wording improves the flow, but IMO doesn't change the ultimate outcome of the statement in any significant measure.

Bold mine. However Codex Sinaticus predates this manuscript you have noted, estimated circa 350, and not only has it verse 34-35 within it, but retains its position after verse 33. So I don't think your argument has weight, unless you can make a case against the date, authenticity or accuracy of Sinaticus.

1 Cor 14:34-35 from Codex Sinaticus Though it should be noted the text actually stops at verse 37.

Dunno if you have perused the Sinaticus site much, but its actually pretty neat.

Hey great resource... thanks.

However oldest does not necessarily mean bestess. Codex Vaticanus dates to the 3rd century too.

Other manuscripts give evidence of an original text that omitted 1 Cor 14:34-35. These include Bishop Victor of Capua in A.D. 546 ordering the rewriting of the text after 1 Cor 14:33 through 1 Cor 14:40 to omit verses 34-35 in the bottom margin of Codex Fuldensis as argued in Philip B. Payne, "Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.34-5," NTS 41 (1995) 240-50 with a photograph of that entire page of Codex Fuldensis on p. 261. In every other instance where Bishop Victor corrected the text of Codex Fuldensis, surviving manuscripts support his rewriting of the text, and he is known for preserving the readings of ancient manuscripts.

Similarly, MS 88 was copied from a manuscript that did not have 1 Cor 14:34-35 following v. 33. Philip B. Payne, "MS. 88 as Evidence for a Text Without 1 Cor 14.34-5," NTS 44 (1998) 152-58, includes a full page photograph of this passage in MS 88 and a close-up photograph showing its details.

Codex Vaticanus's evidence that 1 Cor 14:34-35 is an interpolation is especially important for several reasons. Its distigme (mark of a textual variant) at the end of v. 33 with no corresponding distigme at the end of v. 40 is evidence of a textual variant that was not the Western displacement was written prior to Codex Vaticanus. The only other manuscript of 1 Corinthians earlier than Codex Vaticanus containing 1 Cor 14:34-35 is P46. By far the most likely candidate is a text that omitted verses 34-35. Furthermore, the unusually long obelus adjacent to the distigme at the end of 1 Cor 14:33 normally occurs in Codex Vaticanus at exactly the location of an extended interpolation. This further supports that the variant being noted here is the interpolation of 1 Cor 14:34-35. Since there are only one manuscript of 1 Cor 14:34-35 older than Codex Vaticanus, the manuscript whose variant reading is noted by the distigme at the end of 1 Cor 14:33 is one of, if not the earliest manuscript of this text of which we have any record.

The paper I will read at the ETS Annual Meeting at 8:30 AM, Thursday Nov. 19 in the Waterbury Ballroom on the 2nd floor of the Sheraton will establish with conclusive statistical evidence that the distigmai in Codex Vaticanus are marks of textual variants. It will show that 1 Cor 14:34-35 has all the standard hallmarks of an interpolation.

Since surviving manuscripts preserve textual variants in the vast majority of the original ink color distigme locations in Codex Vaticanus, these distigmai provide a statistical basis for concluding that the majority of the significant variants available to the scribe of Vaticanus have survived in extant manuscripts. This reinforces confidence in the reliability of the transmission of the NT text from the ancient manuscripts available to the scribe of Vaticanus until today. Thus, even though the distigmai in Codex Vaticanus may either add credibility to the originality of a passage, as in the case of John 7:53-8:11, or cast doubt on the originality of a passage, as in the case of 1 Cor 14:34-35, their overall impact is to affirm the reliability of the transmission of the NT text.

The distigmai marks (correctors makrs) in Codex Vaticanus show us the text was "interpolated there".

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Not really.

The KJV translation relies on the MT and the NRSV relives on the LXX.

Seth

Sarcasim is a hard thing to tell when it is given in an electronic format.

[USU78]

Oops

[Mudcat]

Hey great resource... thanks.

I too was pleasantly surprised with it. It's pretty cool, given the fact that you get full color scans of the original manuscript along with the transcription and so forth. Likewise I am a little displeased that Vaticanus doesn't have such related source.

However oldest does not necessarily mean bestess. Codex Vaticanus dates to the 3rd century too.

The distigmai marks (correctors makrs) in Codex Vaticanus show us the text was "interpolated there".

Well here we are again, at this word "interpolation". I don't have any available translation on the net of Vaticanus, yet the article you cited repeatedly links to the NIV version of 1 Cor 14, which maintains the order of 34-35 as 34 and 35.

I think the argument for addition to the text has failed and "interpolation" by moving it from past verse 40 to following verse 33 is what you are offering. Have I got that right?

If so, then from what I can gather you feel that it reads "more smoothly" after v. 40. And I say to that, so what? Doesn't really matter where you place, it seems to be an interjection by Paul. The only reason it would seem to read more smoothly is because it is an interjection. BTW's always seem to fit better at the end of a conversation, but don't always occur at the end of them.

It might fit better linguistically at the end... a parting shot on the point from Paul, so to speak. However, I have yet to see any good evidence from you that it should belong after v. 40.

[Stargazer]

Hey, nice discussion guys! I actually learned something from this thread, which is either a sad commentary on my state of knowledge, or a sad commentary on the quality of discourse here. It must be me, then.

[Zakuska]

I too was pleasantly surprised with it. It's pretty cool, given the fact that you get full color scans of the original manuscript along with the transcription and so forth. Likewise I am a little displeased that Vaticanus doesn't have such related source.

Well here we are again, at this word "interpolation". I don't have any available translation on the net of Vaticanus, yet the article you cited repeatedly links to the NIV version of 1 Cor 14, which maintains the order of 34-35 as 34 and 35.

I think the argument for addition to the text has failed and "interpolation" by moving it from past verse 40 to following verse 33 is what you are offering. Have I got that right?

If so, then from what I can gather you feel that it reads "more smoothly" after v. 40. And I say to that, so what? Doesn't really matter where you place, it seems to be an interjection by Paul. The only reason it would seem to read more smoothly is because it is an interjection. BTW's always seem to fit better at the end of a conversation, but don't always occur at the end of them.

It might fit better linguistically at the end... a parting shot on the point from Paul, so to speak. However, I have yet to see any good evidence from you that it should belong after v. 40.

You must not be reading the same article I am.

Codex Vaticanus's evidence that 1 Cor 14:34-35 is an interpolation is especially important for several reasons. Its distigme (mark of a textual variant) at the end of v. 33 with no corresponding distigme at the end of v. 40 is evidence of a textual variant that was not the Western displacement was written prior to Codex Vaticanus. The only other manuscript of 1 Corinthians earlier than Codex Vaticanus containing 1 Cor 14:34-35 is P46. By far the most likely candidate is a text that omitted verses 34-35. Furthermore, the unusually long obelus adjacent to the distigme at the end of 1 Cor 14:33 normally occurs in Codex Vaticanus at exactly the location of an extended interpolation. This further supports that the variant being noted here is the interpolation of 1 Cor 14:34-35. Since there are only one manuscript of 1 Cor 14:34-35 older than Codex Vaticanus, the manuscript whose variant reading is noted by the distigme at the end of 1 Cor 14:33 is one of, if not the earliest manuscript of this text of which we have any record.

The text is missing all together in both 34-35 and after 40, with only an astrisk/arrow mark at 34-35 and some text in a margin. To show other texts had the variant.

[Mudcat]

You must not be reading the same article I am.

The text is missing all together in both 34-35 and after 40, with only an astrisk/arrow mark at 34-35 and some text in a margin. To show other texts had the variant.

Well at this point, I am not sure what point you are arguing then. If Vaticanus omitted the text, then that simply means there was something that v.34-35 were omitted from Vaticanus and some sort of mark put in their place. The verses were extant in a Sinaiticus and in P(papyrus)46 which predates both.

If your point is that Vaticanus omitted these verses... well if they aren't in Vaticanus then I agree completely. But omission, is a bit distant from your previous position of a 10th century addition or your other stance of an interpolation.

I suppose I am at a loss for you are trying to say Zak. Could you clarify exactly what you are arguing? Because I don't think I am understanding what position you are taking.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Zakuska]

Well at this point, I am not sure what point you are arguing then. If Vaticanus omitted the text, then that simply means there was something that v.34-35 were omitted from Vaticanus and some sort of mark put in their place. The verses were extant in a Sinaiticus and in P(papyrus)46 which predates both.

If your point is that Vaticanus omitted these verses... well if they aren't in Vaticanus then I agree completely. But omission, is a bit distant from your previous position of a 10th century addition or your other stance of an interpolation.

I suppose I am at a loss for you are trying to say Zak. Could you clarify exactly what you are arguing? Because I don't think I am understanding what position you are taking.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

My original point was that it was a 10th century addition. On closer examination I have found that statement to be in error. I missremmebers some facts.

What we have found is that in the ancient manuscripts that date to approximatley the same time period, of 300 to 500. That the text in some is missing and in others it is extant in one of two places. In the ones that it is missing all together wether after 40 or in 33-34 there are marks in the text (We would call these footnotes in our modern Bible) showing that text had been excised or possibly added by the other manuscripts. We see this in the NIV all the time.

The question now becomes does an older text necessitaty an original reading?

If one can prove that one text came from another it does prove an original reading, because all we have to do is compare the two documents.

But lets say the Synaticus being older was copied from a document (Now non-extant) and that Vaticanus was also copied from this same non extant document and faithfully reporduced the original.

Now the question is how can we prove which document matches the original more precisely since we do not have the orginal that these two documents where produced from?

[Mudcat]

My original point was that it was a 10th century addition. On closer examination I have found that statement to be in error. I missremmebers some facts.

No bigee there, I can't remember my PIN number to my debit card on many occasions.

What we have found is that in the ancient manuscripts that date to approximatley the same time period, of 300 to 500. That the text in some is missing and in others it is extant in one of two places. In the ones that it is missing all together wether after 40 or in 33-34 there are marks in the text (We would call these footnotes in our modern Bible) showing that text had been excised or possibly added by the other manuscripts. We see this in the NIV all the time.

The question now becomes does an older text necessitaty an original reading?

Well that is a good question. I don't have the answer to that in some exact sense. IMO, the older should bear weight, especially if it is equally intact and so forth. However, there is a underlying principle of being accepted by the majority as well, that needs to be considered. I don't think arguments ad populum bear much weight outside a communal belief system (i.e. Christianity is true because there are more Christians than any other non-Christian faith), but I do think they are significant within such.

Say for example someone unearthed a copy of that missing letter of Paul's. Say it dated correctly and seemed quite consistent with the rest of his writings. Would all of Christendom embrace such a letter? I don't really know.

If one can prove that one text came from another it does prove an original reading, because all we have to do is compare the two documents.

But lets say the Synaticus being older was copied from a document (Now non-extant) and that Vaticanus was also copied from this same non extant document and faithfully reporduced the original.

Now the question is how can we prove which document matches the original more precisely since we do not have the orginal that these two documents where produced from?

Well I think P46 makes a fairly strong affirmation that v. 34-35 were used prior to either codex S or V. But you have a point in the fact that we don't have the originals. It could be said that P46 and Sinaiticus were corrupt and linked, however your cited article links P46 to Vaticanus, so you would have to alter position to make the point.

Likewise the same could be said for the BoM though. The originals, if they existed have been spirited away by an angel and IIRC, JS's translation of these manuscripts isn't fully extant either.

Though I do actually see your point, I don't know if the point has merits considering what I would term a very similar handicap of LDS in regards to their own texts.

Regards,

Mudcat

[Zakuska]

No bigee there, I can't remember my PIN number to my debit card on many occasions.

Well that is a good question. I don't have the answer to that in some exact sense. IMO, the older should bear weight, especially if it is equally intact and so forth. However, there is a underlying principle of being accepted by the majority as well, that needs to be considered. I don't think arguments ad populum bear much weight outside a communal belief system (i.e. Christianity is true because there are more Christians than any other non-Christian faith), but I do think they are significant within such.

Say for example someone unearthed a copy of that missing letter of Paul's. Say it dated correctly and seemed quite consistent with the rest of his writings. Would all of Christendom embrace such a letter? I don't really know.

Well I think P46 makes a fairly strong affirmation that v. 34-35 were used prior to either codex S or V. But you have a point in the fact that we don't have the originals. It could be said that P46 and Sinaiticus were corrupt and linked, however your cited article links P46 to Vaticanus, so you would have to alter position to make the point.

Likewise the same could be said for the BoM though. The originals, if they existed have been spirited away by an angel and IIRC, JS's translation of these manuscripts isn't fully extant either.

Though I do actually see your point, I don't know if the point has merits considering what I would term a very similar handicap of LDS in regards to their own texts.

Regards,

Mudcat

Ahhhh, we don't have to muddy up the waters with Moroni and Plates being spiritied away. We are talking about the Bible here.

I don't see how I would have to alter my point either because the article in question comes to the conclusion that it is not original. Mostly because a Bishop in 546 who was noted for his tenacity of preservation of original texts had it removed.

[Mudcat]

Ahhhh, we don't have to muddy up the waters with Moroni and Plates being spiritied away. We are talking about the Bible here.

Despite the rather obvious parallels. That is fine, no sense diverging from the point.

I don't see how I would have to alter my point either because the article in question comes to the conclusion that it is not original. Mostly because a Bishop in 546 who was noted for his tenacity of preservation of original texts had it removed.

See here is the thing. You have got this guy in 546 who had it chopped out, even though the verses were around in 2nd century and certainly continued to the third century in Sinaticus, not to mention the majority texts like Codex Alexandrinus (6th century).

So even though these verses did actually exist prior to the Bishop, you would have to put a lot of faith in his judgement that he was correct. Perhaps he had a preferrence to Vaticanus. Quite likely he did not have access to the same information we do.. dating or manuscripts and so forth.

I just don't see it as a very strong argument, but I am prepared to be convinced.