Thoughts on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and the Interpolation Hypothesis

I was reading through Gordon Fee's commentary on 1 Corinthians[1] and managed to make my way into a studded field of land mines and hand grenades when I broached the section on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Before I get into my thoughts on the matter (and I acknowledge I write from the standpoint of an egalitarian), I should just post the text and get on with it.

ACCORDING TO PAUL

According to BibleGateway (TNIV):

³⁴ Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. ³⁵ If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.^[a]

Footnotes:

1. 1 Corinthians 14:35 In some manuscripts these verses come after verse 40.

Kurt Willems, a blogger I enjoy very much (who is a fellow egalitarian), offers his response to this "seemingly" clear section of verses in what follows.

Kurt:

In this first Corinthian letter, Paul spent several chapters discussing orderly worship.  In the flow of the letter, this text seems out of place and what some scholars refer to as an interpolation.  It appears to be an appendix that was added by a second or third generation Pauline letter compiler. This means that it was not authentic to Paul, but was inserted by a scribe because of some pressing agenda that was facing a segment of the church.  Both Richard B. Hays and Gordon Fee believe that this is indeed the case.  [1] If interpolation is not viable and this is authentically Pauline, then there are several explanations; one of which seems to be plausible.  Clearly, in 11.2-16, Paul has already stated that women may pray and prophesy in church as long as their head is covered in appropriate cultural dress.  Therefore, it is proposed that in the ancient Middle East women and men would sit in separate parts of the gathering area.  Most likely, worship gatherings in Corinth would have been taught in the popular language of the day: Greek.  Unschooled women lacked education and were less likely to understand, as they were fluent in their own local ethnic dialects.  They could have become bored or had questions that caused them to talk loud amongst themselves until the minister would have had to say: “Women, be quiet!  Ask your husbands at home.”  Paul may have written this to promote order in the Corinthian context so that worship would be orderly.  In any case, it was not a prohibition on women in a general sense, but an occasional circumstance.[2] 

You can read the rest of the post and his series here. I don't find his reasons compelling, but I won't rule them out as impossible. Just highly unlikely. I will offer my thoughts on the interpretation of this text below.

For my part, I never was quite certain what to do with these verses. My initial response was to laugh and say Paul was contradicting himself again (given my annoyances with Paul initially when I started studying him). But this wouldn't do.

So I ventured into the bombed out realm of this terrain and discovered a few different hypotheses, none of which seemed to make sense entirely of the text. The refutation of a "false prophecy" seemed to initially solve some of the issues, but when I started listening to textual critics, I considered a different option. I still consider the "false prophecy denouncement" to be a possible option, but it still doesn't answer my questions.

A QUESTION ON INERRANCY

The reason I write this is because inerrancy is the first thing people think about when these sorts of issues are discussed. As of this current moment, I affirm the inerrancy of the original autographs of Scripture. However, if these verses (or any other verses) were not in the original autographs, then they are to be rejected.

DEFINITION

Simply, an interpolation is an addition to the text not originally written by the author.

SWINGING THE PENDULUM

The list of scholars who argue for the interpolation explanation is impressive. Seriously. Most text critics analyses of this passage have concluded that it is indeed an interpolation[2]. I will list a few:

Richard B. Hays[3]. E. Earle Ellis [4]. Eldon J. Epp [5]. Bart Ehrman and Bruce Metzger [6] [7].

So, just thinking about the likelihood of this interpretation is not without it's heavy hitters in support.

My (tentative) reasons:

One, they contradict Paul's affirmation of women of women elsewhere. People have tried to reinterpret those verses, but haven't been successful.

Two, as you can see with the footnote from BibleGateway, some manuscripts have the two verses at the end of the chapter, several verses away. The movement to verse 40 doesn't assuage any of the problems, introducing more issues into the text, both theologically and exegetically.

Three, in accordance with the nearly universal recognition of John 7:53-8:11 as an interpolation (an interpolation far longer than 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, which should silence comments about "length"), we see that both manuscripts contain varying locations of both texts. The movement or replacement of "texts" is a strong sign of an interpolation[8].

Four, I believe verses 1-25 are an affirmation of prophecy, and verses 26-40 are instructions for such principles and is of chiastic structure. The climactic moment is in verse 33, where Paul announces that God is "not a God of disorder, but of peace, as in all the congregations of the saints." Verses 34-35 do not reflect the arguments made in the previous chapters and interrupt the flow of the argument.

Five, most manuscripts have verses 34-35 as separate from 33.

Six, the phrase "just as the Law says" does not fit Paul's use of language as we cannot find any OT law that restricts the speech of women. Also, he speaks of Christ "redeeming us from the Law" (Galatians 3:13).

I'm still wading through this territory, but having read D.A. Carson and various other responses to the arguments made, I haven't been convinced. As the evidence stands, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is most likely an interpolation.

As I mentioned, if this text is not from Paul and wasn't in the original autographs, then it does not carry authority. It should not be used to establish doctrine nor should it be given a proper place in studying the Scriptures to determine the standing of women in ministry.

--Nick

Footnotes:

1. D.A. Carson, "New Testament Commentary Survey" pg94, recommends Fee's commentary as one of the best general commentaries on the epistle despite what Carson terms "extraordinary lapses" in Fee's treatment of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as an interpolation. I found Carson's response far from compelling.

2. For the long list, P.B. Payne, "Man and Woman, One in Christ" pgs226-227. Its all one footnote. Its an entire page long. Seriously.

3. Richard B. Hays, "The Moral Vision of the New Testament" pgs54-59 for footnotes. Also see "First Corinthians" pgs244-248.

4. E. Earle Ellis, "New Testament Textual Criticism, Its Significance For Exegesis" pgs213-220.

5. Eldon J. Epp, "Junia: The First Woman Apostle" pgs15-20.

6. Meztger and Ehrman, "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration" pgs288-290. Say what you will about Ehrman, but he is a studied textual critic and I consider him an authority on textual criticism.

7. See Payne, "Man and Woman, One in Christ" pg247 for Dr. Payne's conversation with Dr. Bruce Metzger. Dr. Metzger is in agreement with Dr. Payne on the likelihood that Bishop Victor of Capua (who commissioned the writings of Codex Fuldensis) regarded 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as an interpolation.

8. D.A. Carson, "The Gospel According to John" pg333. However, Carson unfortunately doesn't apply the same principle to 1 Corinthians 14.

Willems, "Why the 'Christian Life' isn't worth living"

As usual, Kurt manages to make me think. Thanks Kurt, now I'll be sitting up all night thinking about something that is really awesome. Jerk. 

Willems:

Compulsively, I would give a few bucks to homeless people as they asked. In my youth curriculum (while I served as a youth pastor), more of the emphasis moved toward Christian activism. That is not to say that I didn’t care about relational aspects of knowing God, but that justice (at times superficial forms there of) became a primary emphasis. As a result many areas became important in my personal life: signing every progressive petition that would lead to influencing the system for the poor, avoiding stores that are known for their social Darwinism, and purchasing anything I could find that is organic.

It would be safe to say that I went from conservative evangelical focuses to a progressive faith emphasis. Still holding to the essentials of the Christian theology, but believing that true discipleship meant doing certain things. It’s interesting to me looking back: at one end of the pendulum of my faith journey I tried to avoid things, and at the other end of the swing I tried to do things. Both attempts at living the Christian life miss the point of discipleship – completely!

Which begs the question: What’s the point?

I’m becoming convinced that both polarities of holiness miss the point. We aren’t supposed to live as though God is a cop, ready to bust us each time we sin. Neither does God call us to work ourselves so hard that we become void of spiritual vitality. In this sense, the Christian life isn’t worth living.

For the entire post, click HERE.

--Nick

Kurt Willems, "Purgatorial Conditionalism"

I found this to be quite interesting.

Willems/Patheos

As I’ve already stated, for some time the traditional view of hell contradicts the overall biblical witness. I resonate with Sharon Baker’s perspective in many ways, however with some nuances. I want to briefly describe two distinctions that I think complement her overall vision.

Distinction #1: Conditional Immortality

A presupposition of mine is the validity of what scholars call conditional immortality. Church Fathers such as Theophilus, Irenaus, and Justin Martyr argued this perspective.[1] Clark Pinnock states: “God created humans mortal with a capacity for life everlasting, but it is not their inherent possession.”[2] The idea that humans are innately immortal is foreign from biblical thought. Greek philosophy fuels this assumption.

Therefore, I am happy to agree with much of Baker’s emphasis on the final Judgment Day, but something needs to be explained. My view is that when a non-Christian dies (after taking into consideration the inclusive grace of Christ) that person is exactly that – dead. Remember, immortality is a free gift, so those who do not have it simply return to the dust. To experience “hell” is to die, be destroyed, or to perish. No one goes to a “place” called hell after death. They simply die awaiting Judgment Day.

When Christ returns, something that bothered me until recently was that it seems cruel that God would “wake up” non-Christians in a resurrection (Dan 12.2-3; John 5.28-29; Acts 24.15). Once they are dead, why shouldn’t they remain so? But, if we take into consideration what Baker argues, then it is possible to view the resurrection of the unrighteous as God’s final pursuit of those who have died without Christ. In this approach, raising the unrighteous is an act of mercy not villainy. The possibility arises that as some people pass through the fire of God’s love that they will choose reconciliation with God. For those who still resist, the metaphorical fires burn until nothing human remains. That is the hell of annihilation, the “second death.”

Distinction #2: The Destruction of Jerusalem

The second brief nuance has to do with Sharon Baker’s nearly complete disregard for the warnings of Gehenna from Jesus, which point toward the prophetic judgment of God. For instance, in Mark 13 (and parallels), Jesus tells his disciples that the Temple in Jerusalem will be destroyed during their own generation. God will judge (according to Jesus) the system fueled by nationalistic zealotry and oppressive religious practices that degrade the poor. I’ve written about the destruction of Jerusalem elsewhere, in case this is a new idea to you (Signs of the Times? – A Study of Mark 13).

This sort of wrath from God was eventually carried out by Rome when they destroyed the city and the Temple (70 CE). Many were killed and their bodies would have been burned in the fires of the Valley of Hinnom (remember: the word “hell” Gehenna literally transliterates from the Hebrew “Valley of Hinnom”). We have substantial evidence of this from Josephus, who tells us that they had to throw the dead bodies into valleys surrounding the city because they were so numerous.[3]

N.T. Wright articulates that impending destruction of the City is what Jesus’ Gehenna warnings have in view, and it is “only by extension, and with difficulty, that we can extrapolate from the many gospel sayings which articulate this urgent, immediate warning to the deeper question of a warning about what may happen after death itself.”[4] He adds:

Unless they turned back from their hopeless and rebellious dreams of establishing God’s kingdom in their own terms, not least through armed revolt against Rome, then the Roman juggernaut would do what large, greedy and ruthless empires have always done to smaller countries (not least in the Middle East) who resources they covet or whose strategic location they are anxious to guard. Rome would turn Jerusalem into a hideous, stinking extension of its own smoldering rubbish heap. When Jesus said ‘unless you repent, you will all likewise perish’, that is the primary meaning he had in mind…. [H]e was not concerned to give any fresh instruction on post-mortem judgment, apart from the strange hints that it was going to be dramatically and horribly anticipated in one particular way, in space-time history, within a generation (176-177).

Finally, Andrew Perriman offers “three horizons” for understanding the New Testament warnings often associated with a traditional “hell.” First, there is the horizon of the Jewish War, discussed above. By connecting imagery of Gehenna with the Old Testament motifs of the finality of death in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, Jesus warns that God’s wrath will come through “giving them over” to the natural consequences of their violent path – destruction by Rome. Second, the horizon is judgment that will come on the hostile pagan world. Jesus and those identified with him, will be vindicated over evil empires who act counter to the Kingdom purposes of God. They will be ultimately destroyed. Finally, at the resurrection there will be a final judgment, which will lead to the destruction of those who ultimately refuse relationship to God in Christ. This is the “second death” or hell.[5]

Purgatorial Conditionalism?

If I were to give language for my view, until I come up with something better, I call this “purgatorial conditionalism.”  This reflects that Judgment Day will be a time for all to enter the metaphorical fires of God’s love, that will burn up the bad and refine what is good.  For those who have not received the gift of immortality, there might be an opportunity to endure God’s loving wrath unto reconciliation with Christ.  For those who yet refuse, they will experience the second death.  This is because immortality is conditional upon reconciliation with God through Christ.  An eternal hell is a Greek construct but the possibility of not receiving salvation remains.  May we continue to share the Good News of Jesus so that none miss out on God renewed creation to come!

Recommended Resources:

Hell and Heaven in Narrative Perspective, by Andrew Perriman

Razing Hell, by Sharon Baker

Surprised by Hope, by NT Wright

Tormented by Flames, by Greg Boyd

Purgatory for Protestants?, by Greg Boyd

Love Wins, by Rob Bell (I like the broad vision of this book, but plan to follow-up this post with a blog about how I’d nuance Rob Bell’s perspective.)

Love Wins Companion, by Rob Bell

---

[1]. Alister E. McGrath, The Christian Theology Reader, 2nd ed. (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2001), 613.

[2]. Clark H. Pinnock, “The Conditional View,” in Four Views on Hell, ed. William Crockett (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1996), 148.

[3]. Andrew Perriman, Hell and Heaven in Narrative Perspective, e-book ed. (Online: www.postost.net, 2011), 452ff.

[4]. N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (New York: HarperOne, 2008), 176.

[5]. Perriman, Hell and Heaven in Narrative Perspective, 1133ff.