Patheos article: Is 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Authentic? No.

[Pergamum]

I need refutations to this article:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesusc...ans-1434-35-authentic-no/#KUDbVvBPTmfCpmSJ.24

"This summary of six groundbreaking discoveries from my New Testament Studies 63 (October, 2017) article about the oldest Bible in Greek, Codex Vaticanus, henceforth “Vaticanus,” dated AD 325–350, highlights their implications for the reliability of the transmission of the Greek New Testament and for the equal standing of man and woman..."

 

[Joshua]

Wax nose vs Providential preservation, and what not. (WCF 1.8, Matthew 5.18)

Has God preserved His Word, or will we perpetually in history be walking on eggshells awaiting the next revelation of the "oldest" texts and manuscripts, our confidence in the competent translations we have being forever questioned as to whether they are the Word of God, or not? Will the Lord continue to expose His church to committing historical blunders in the teaching wrong things about Him because we have the wrong Bibles?

I am not equipped to make the textual arguments and refutations and -for the most part- they will prove ineffective in proving anything to those bent on egalitarianizing, weakening, and emasculating the teaching of Scripture. But I will say this: I am confident in the promise of God to preserve His Word for His people, and seeing that preservation being guided, protected, and confirmed in history, such that His Church is protected from being overrun by the doctrine and commandments of men.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The claim is that there must/may have been a mss behind codex Vaticanus (of course, there was some mss from which it was copied) which lacked the vv in question.

This claim is based on interpretation of diacritical markings around the text itself.
There are other interpretations of those marks that do not demand this conclusion.

There is NO surviving mss found that actually LACKS the text of 1Cor.14:34-35.
There are SOME surviving mss that apparently have these vv in a different location/order as a result of transposition.

I'd call the proposed interpretation a textbook case of confirmation bias regarding the (scant) evidence. Accepting the proposal requires we must suppose, despite the rapid and diffuse geographical spread of the original text and ancient translations, that no original, faithful copy absent these vv has left any physical trace.

When the preponderance of evidence isn't on your side (of a predetermined conclusion), then you make the most of what you have/don't.

 

[py3ak]

The article gave reasons to believe that a distigme plus bar could certainly be used to indicate places where words were added in comparison to some other source. That might indicate Scribe B's critical judgment on the text, or it might indicate that the scribe is using this method to indicate the state of the materials in use in producing Vaticanus.

One can grant that Vaticanus reflects an early text, that Scribe B is careful and well-informed, and that such details should be taken seriously without accepting the paper's conclusion that therefore 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is a non-Pauline interpolation. If the marking does reflect Scribe B's judgment, that does not mean we are bound to accept it. In any case, some scribe found those words somewhere and faithfully copied them into Vaticanus.

It's unfortunate that due to the technicality of textual criticism, people wind up following the suggestions of experts, even though the line between what may be ascertained and (im)plausible suggestions is not clearly drawn. Thus one person who commented on the article above expressed relief over now knowing that these words were not Pauline. But in fact no such thing is known. What is known is that there's a distigme and a bar placed by these words in Vaticanus.

This surface issue, of course, also goes in hand with other subsurface issues. For instance, the idea that by excising these words from 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 we therefore get a consistent Paul, who lines up with Galatians 3:28, depends on certain other moves as well. It must be posited that there is tension between 1 Corinthians 11 and 14, which is not obvious to me. It involves interpreting Gal. 3:28 in a universalized way that neglects the actual context in which it occurs. It requires neglecting the opening vv. of 1 Cor. 11. And it requires denying the Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy, or at least of bits of ch.2 therein. That's a lot of reconstructive surgery to undertake in order to make sure Paul agrees with us....

 

[KeithW]

There is NO surviving mss found that actually LACKS the text of 1Cor.14:34-35.
There are SOME surviving mss that apparently have these vv in a different location/order as a result of transposition.

This can be confirmed at:
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php
Under "Options", set "View variant readings" to yes. Then near the top select 1 Corinthians as the book, and 14:34 as the verse, and click "View text".

 

[Dachaser]

This can be confirmed at:
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php
Under "Options", set "View variant readings" to yes. Then near the top select 1 Corinthians as the book, and 14:34 as the verse, and click "View text".

Seems to be much ado about nothing, for is the author trying to prove his case by putting his own viewpoints into the text?

 

[Silas22]

Lost me at Patheos.

 

[arapahoepark]

McKnight is rarely worth the time to read.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Payne's point #J in the link below identifies the agenda afoot, not to mention the poor exegesis underlying the effort:

https://www.pbpayne.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/1_Cor_14_Distigme_Obelos_images2.pdf

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Lost me at Patheos.

Indeed.