I saw this come up in Twitter today — Larry Hurtado’s comments on a recent study by Philip Payne concerning whether 1 Cor 14:34-35 were originally part of 1 Corinthians. His thoughts are concise and clear, so folks not into textual criticism can get something out of them immediately. Payne’s original article is accessible via a link on Hurtado’s page.
Here are Peter Gurry’s thoughts as well (Evangelical Textual Criticism blog) for good measure.
(And nice title, Peter!)
As a scholar and a father to a daughter… where do you land on all this? I loved Hurtado’s article but then read Gurry’s comment about the 7 out of 8 not being additions and now I’m right back where I started… trying to reconcile 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:12 with the rest of Paul’s teachings, Paul calling women apostles, and women sitting at the feet of Jesus, something only disciples/teachers in training would do. And if 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 has been an unoriginal addition for sometime, why is it still in the text? Newer translations delete verses all the time precisely because scholarly consensus says they are not original but later scribal additions. Our Bible study ran into two of these issues in the Gospel of Luke alone. ESV will just skip from say v.43 to v.45 and leave out v.44.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:12 would make an AWESOME podcast at the end of Hebrews. Just a thought.
Thank you for all your important work bringing the ivory tower down the lay masses! It is appreciated.
Given that Paul doesn’t condemn (and actually is fine with) women prophesying elsewhere, it’s likely there’s some specific contextual thing behind his comments here that we just don’t know about, and likely never will (because he doesn’t tell us).
I am a woman but unlike many, I don’t have time to be offended especially by the Word of God. 🙂 I always lean toward this possibility that there was an inside story that is not completely revealed in what we have on hand. Given that roughly 99% of the Bible gives us all we need to build our foundation of faith, I feel that perhaps the 1% is that mystery we will have the pleasure of learning from the Teacher directly in the classrooms of the New Eden. Dr Heiser thank you for all your hard work. Eyes wide opened here because of your obedience. ?
From Hurtado’s article: …”Paul refers to women praying and/or prophesying in church, requiring only that they have their heads suitably covered (likely with hair)…”
I take it Hurtado isn’t a ‘head testicle’ guy. 😉
“Copyists copied. They didn’t tend to make editorial changes. Readers might do so, but not copyists. ” (7th para, “As that agrees …” )
Does the term “readers” , as Hurtado uses it, mean a “reader” in a scriptorium where multiple copyist were producing multiple copys simultaneously?
To focus/blame/attribute changes on that “reader” seems a weak argument akin to the “Peabody and Sherman Wayback Machine Falacy”.