Here I publish a part of my research on the New Testament manuscripts. The evidence points to
the separation of v. 33b from v. 34 (contra NA28) in 1 Cor
14:33-35 and supports taking v. 33b with the preceding paragraph. This means
that based on the oldest manuscript evidence, a part of verse 33 (called also v. 33b) - "as in all the churches of the saints" is not connected to vv. 34-35 that forbids women from speaking in the church.
While you can check my article in the NTS, volume 63, number 3, July 2017 entitled "1 Cor 14.34-5 without 'in All the Churches of the Saints' (355-369 p.),
below you can read parts of my research:
This part will
consist of the analysis of the oldest Greek manuscripts and ancient Latin versions after setting discussion on paragraph marking as a scribal practice.
Paragraph marking and punctuation as a scribal practice
Scriptio
continua or scriptura continua is
a term used to describe the Greek text that has “no spaces between words or
sentences” and does not contain punctuation (“only sporadically”) - so Metzger.[2]
The view that there were no structural markers in the early manuscripts has
been challenged by several scholars, who point out that while the structural
markers are found even in the earliest papyri, previous scholarship simply has
not been focused on researching them. Adam Smith, for instance writes:
… various forms of unit delimitation do
occur in the earliest extant manuscripts, including the use of spacing
(inserted into otherwise continuous script), rudimentary punctuation, ekthesis (the projection of a character
into the left margin, often enlarged) and larger unit markers such as the paragraphus…[3]
Early manuscripts were written in scriptura continua,[4]
but the scribes, who were copying the New Testament, marked the beginning of a
new thought in one of the following ways:
1) a scribe
would leave a space between the words to mark the beginning of a new thought;[5]
2) a scribe would outdent a
new line which indicates a beginning of the new paragraph and would write the
first letter little larger than the rest;[6]
3) a scribe would draw a paragraphon (a bar/obelos) to separate
previous paragraph from that which follows;[7]
Charles E. Hill and Michael J. Kruger provide examples of the Greek
papyri and uncials where the “sense breaks” appear in order to assist the reader
to navigate through the scriptura
continua. These manuscripts are the following: “P. Egerton 2 (2nd cent.); P46
(2nd/3rd cent.); P. Dura inv. 24 (3rd cent.); P75 (3rd cent.);
P100 (3rd/4th cent.); P115 (3rd/4th cent.)” et al.[10]
Now we shall move to
the presentation of the external data for 1 Cor 14:33-35.
[1] It must be said that this discussion can be only brief and general,
because each scribe had his own habits.
[2] Bruce M. Metzger
and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New
Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration (11981.
Oxford University Press, 42005), 22.
[3] W. Andrew Smith, A Study
of the Gospels in Codex Alexandrinus: Codicology, Palaeography, and Scribal
Hands, NTTS 48 (Leiden: Brill, 2014).190.
[9] Philip
Comfort, Encountering the Manuscripts: An
Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism
(Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 53.
[10] Charles E.
Hill and Michael J. Kruger, “Introduction: In Search of the Earliest Text of
the New Testament”, pages 1-23 in The
Early Text of the New Testament, (ed. Charles Hill and Michael J. Kruger;
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 16, n. 69.
Text-Critical
Analysis of the place of v. 33b in Greek and Latin manuscripts
2.2.1 Greek manuscripts
Papyrus 123 (p123)
Codex Vaticanus
Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Alexandrinus
Codex Athous Lavrensis
Minuscule 88
Latin versions that transpose vv.
34-35 leaving v. 33b with v. 33a
Greek-Latin diglot codices – Claromontanus, Augiensis, Boernerianus
Codex Fuldensis (in the NTS article)
P. Chester Beatty II (Papyrus 46)
I will analyze 1 Cor 14:33-35 in P46 and
the preservation quality of the text. P46 that is dated ca 3rd
century[1]
is the oldest manuscript to contain 1 Cor 14:34-35. Despite its early age P46
has been described by Barbara Aland as an “inadequate copy of a good exemplar,”
which she assigned to the category of so-called “free” papyri according to the
scribal accuracy producing the manuscript.[2]
P46 was probably designed for reading,
i.e., for the public use, because it contains “about twenty-five – twenty-eight
lines per page,”[3]
which is almost twice as little as the papyri containing classical literature
would contain.
There is some damage at the bottom, but despite the
damage, it is possible to read most of v. 33a[4]
on f. 56v. It is possible to see also ως on f. 56v. Words των αγιων that lie on
the next line at the bottom of the right side of the page, can also be read. The
rest of the text of v. 33b is heavily damaged.
V. 34 continues on f. 57r.
Regarding the question of the connection between v. 33b
and v. 34, the following observations can be made: there are markings to
indicate the beginning of a new thought, visible in the manuscript facsimile. The
scribe of P46 does it by creating a space between the words or by drawing
long paragraphoi. There is also
another way of indicating the sentence and paragraph marking in P46,
namely slashes (reading or stop marks) above the line and before the next
thought. There are such slashes above the line before και, which introduces v. 32, before ου γαρ which introduces verse 33a, before ως in v. 33b, and even though verse 34 is hardly legible, it is
possible to see a slash after the words των
αγιων. In addition to this mark of a new thought, the phrase των αγιων also ends the line. Similar
type of a slash is inserted before v. 35, also before αισχρον and after εκκλησια, which ends verse 35.
P46 which contains 1 Cor 14:33-35 has a
sentence marking, which makes it highly improbably that v. 33b serves as an
introduction to v. 34. All the other parts that are marked with the slashes in
the range of verses 32-36 according to my personal observation correspond to
one finished thought.
V. 34 in the manuscript starts on a new line, but due
to the damage of P46 it requires a reconstruction of quite a few
words in order to read 1 Cor 14:33-34. Verse 35 has been preserved well on the upper
part of the next papyrus sheet.
[1] The appendix
of NA28 dates P46 ca. 200. LDAB Trismegistos dates P46
in a range between 150. – 250. C. E. The database of Münster University
has the data from the LDAB, but also the data from the Dublin Library (Chester
Beatty Library) and the Michigan (Ann Arbor) Library, both dating P46 as
the 3rd century manuscript. Stuart Pickering is convinced that P46
is rather a 3rd century codex. For Pickering’s argumentation see Stuart R. Pickering, “The
Dating of the Chester Beatty‐Michigan Codex of the Pauline
Epistles (P46),” pages 216-227 in Ancient
History in a Modern University, 2: Early
Christianity, Late Antiquity and Beyond (ed. T. W. Hillard, R. A. Kearsley,
et al., Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998), 220.
[2] Cf. Kurt Aland and
Barbara Aland, The
Text of the
New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and
Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, 112-113.
Papyrus 123 (p123)
P123 is a manuscript fragment or 3 small pieces of a papyrus containing
the text of 1 Cor 14:31-34 on one side and 1 Cor 15:3-6 on the other side. This
fragment has been discovered together with the Oxyrhynchus papyri and is
assigned to the fourth century Alexandrian text type manuscript,[1]
published in LXXII Oxyrhynchus Papyri in 2008.
J. David Thomas has
worked on the transliteration of P123, when it was discovered.[2]
Dirk Jongkind[3]
also reflects his layout of the text as observed from P.Oxy. 4844. Jongkind
points out that the only textual variant to discuss in the case of the P123
would be whether πνα in
P123 could be understood πνευμα vs. πνευματα.[4]
Yet NA27 and the recent NA28 both employ P123
as a witness to the singular of πνευμα, which in fact is not based on convincing
evidence.
Counting the possible letters on each line (again, with
the help of the NA28) suggests that vv. 34-35 did not form a
separate paragraph. Nevertheless, there is a space of perhaps one or two
letters that could have been left between v. 33b and v. 34. Taking into account
the data provided by J. D. Thomas, the second line would have contained 35
letters, the third line – 36 letters. The fourth line would be 33 letters long
(with αλλ’) or 34 letters long (with αλλα). The fifth line is presumably 34
letters long (where v. 34 starts) and the sixth line – 37 words long. Average
length of a line therefore could lie in a range between 33 – 37 letters. Fifth
line can hypothetically also allow for a space between the words, namely,
before the words αι γυναικες. I am speculating here, but it is not entirely
impossible, if we draw on a hypothesis. One can only speculate about ‘what’ and
‘what if’ in the case of P123. The fact is that there is not enough
data for the analysis because of the size of the papyrus fragment.
Codex Vaticanus
Vaticanus (B or 03) is a 4th century Greek manuscript,
containing an almost complete Greek Bible.[5]
B starts vv. 34-35 after v. 33 in a new paragraph (Figure 1). Vaticanus also
contains scribal sigla, which have raised a great interest and also some
debates among the textual critics, particularly about the meaning of the
bar-umlaut/distigme+obelos.
There is an interesting discussion between Philip B.
Payne and J. Edward Miller[7]
(and others) on the meaning of bar-umlaut or distigme+obelos in Vaticanus,
particularly in relation to 1 Cor 14:34-35. This discussion has pushed forward the entire analysis of the Vaticanus
sigla and textual variants. Here I will try to summarize the main points of
this discussion, because it concerns the paragraph question in 1 Cor 14:34 - 35.
Miller argues for the coincidence in places where B has
a bar and umlaut together, because the marks have got distinct functions.[8]
Bar, according to Miller, serves the paragraphus
function in B.[9]
Umlaut, on the other hand, identifies variant readings. Miller offers an opinion that the variant readings could be εγειρεται
and εγηγερται (John 7:52 – before Pericope Adulterae) and the addition of διδάσκω (1Cor 14:33b in the ‘Western’ text).[10]
Payne has mentioned several New
Testament examples that are marked with distigme and bar (obelos – according to
Payne), and which have been considered interpolations on the basis of the new
manuscript findings. Those according to Payne are Pericope Adulterae John 7:53 – 8:11, a phrase after Mat. 18:10,
phrase at the end of Luke 1:28, ending of Luke 14:24, a few words of Acts 2:47,
48 and 1 Cor 14:34, 35.[11]
These passages are marked with the bar that lies below the previous line and is
longer than an average bar, extending deeper into the margin of Vaticanus.
According to Payne, 5 of 6 of these phrases match interpolations, but the bars
that mark paragraphus are shorter.[12]
Payne reasons that in the places
where distigme is together with a
long obelos, and when external manuscript analysis points to an interpolation
of the particular text, the best explanation would be that distigmai and long obelos before 1 Cor 14:34, 35 point to the
interpolation of these two verses.
Payne’s argument stands and falls on
one premise – he presumes that the distigmai and obelos were penned by the
original scribe of Codex B. Curt Niccum (1997) argued against
Payne that distigmai in B were added by Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda in the sixteenth
century. Payne answered the critique in his “The Originality of Text-Critical Symbols in
Codex Vaticanus,”[13]
stating that the sigla in B belong to the hand of the scribe of the 4th
century.[14]
At the SBL International Meeting in 2009,[15]
Peter Head once again challenged Payne about the dating of the distigmai/umlaut
signs. Head’s conviction is that the distigmai in Codex B, which mark textual
variations, date to the sixteenth century, consequently, they were not written
by the B scribe, and they do not mark an interpolation. They rather belong to some
sort of unified system of the Middle-age sigla. Another reply of Payne is his
extensive article on “Distigme-Obelos Symbols in Codex Vaticanus B Marking
where Text was Added, including 1 Corinthians 14:34–35” (2013)[16],
where Payne argues that the sigla found in Vaticanus did exist as a scribal
practice in the 4th century. Payne mentions several examples to
illustrate his conviction. Concerning the arguments of Niccum that the origin
of sigla in Codex B goes back to Sepúlveda in the sixteenth century and not to
the original scribe of B, Payne declares that “Niccum’s thesis is incompatible
with too much data to warrant acceptance.”[17]
Whether B scribe was aware of a text without 1 Cor 14:34,
35 (Payne) or marked a variant in 33b and a paragraph (Miller) depends on the
meaning of the combination or the separation of bar-umlaut/distigme+obelos.
What can be certainly observed in the manuscript, is that verse 33b is
separated from the paragraph 34-35, even if we only suppose that the bar here
only identifies the paragraph and the umlaut/distigme point to the variant
reading of διδάσκω.
Codex Sinaiticus
Sinaiticus א) or 01) is a 4th century parchment manuscript. Metzger writes the following
observation on the paragraph marking in א: “the three scribes of codex
Sinaiticus indicated a new paragraph by placing the first letter so that it
extended slightly into the left-hand margin; the preceding line may or may not
be full”.[18]
As we may see below, vv. 34-35 in א begin with a new line, thus forming a
separate paragraph, independent of verse 33b (Figure 2).
Figure 2 Codex Sinaiticus, fragment of 1 Cor
14:33 – 35[19]
Sinaiticus, as we know, has been corrected several times. In the
parchment facsimile that we have, verses 34-35 are written as a new paragraph
with an Alpha of the article αἱ being emphasized as it is located much more to
the left side of the column than the other letters.
The paragraph of verses 34-35 ends with an Alpha too, which alone
occupies the whole line and accentuates verses 34-35 on the background of the
surrounding text. The scribe/s most likely considered
verse 33b to belong to the preceding paragraph. There is no thought break
between v. 33a and v. 33b.
Codex Alexandrinus
Alexandrinus (A or 02) is a 5th
century vellum Codex. Some breathing marks were definitely added by a later
hand, but the punctuation and paragraph marking seem to be done by the original
scribe.[20]
A has vv. 34-35 after v. 33. But there are a few comments that need to be made about
the paragraph marking in Alexandrinus. The scribe was not very much concerned
with the chapter division, which is not surprising, given, that the codex is
dated to the 5th century, but at least in 1 Corinthians the scribe
marked paragraphs in two different ways (with a few exceptions):[21]
1) With a big capital letter at the beginning of a line.
2) Leaving a space (of about 2-3
characters) in the middle of the line, indicating a start of a new thought. In
order for the paragraph to be noticed by the reader, the scribe wrote a capital
letter in the next line.[22]
This system – a space and a capital letter (not the initial letter) is quite
frequent in the text of 1Corinthians.[23]
We see in the Figure 3 that 1 Cor 14:6,
for instance, starts with a space on the line, but emphasizes Phi of the word ἀδελφοί
in the beginning of the next line in order to mark the new paragraph.
Codex A has the following punctuation in the pericope of 1 Cor 14:33-35:
v. 33a is preceded by a dot, v. 33b is preceded by a dot, v. 34 begins in the
middle of the line and is preceded by a dot, but in addition to that, there is
a space of 1-2 characters before αι γυναικες and
a capitalized Tau (in the article Tαις)
in the following line. Even though the page of the manuscript on the facsimile
is turned up in the corner, it is possible to notice that there is a part of a
capital letter Tau at the beginning of the following line (Figure 4).
Thus, we can speak
of a new paragraph starting with v. 34, not v. 33b. V. 34 in A has a unique
reading – αλλα υποτασσεσθωσαν τοις ανδρασιν καθως
και ο νομος λεγει, which also tends to interpret an otherwise abstract
subjection.
Vv. 34-35 correspond to the pattern
of the paragraph indication in 1 Corinthians; therefore even an economic scribe
of A has left a space between 33b and 34 and marked 34-35 as a paragraph separate
from v. 33b.
Codex Athous Lavrensis
Codex Athous Lavrensis (Ψ or 044) is a Greek parchment codex written in
ca. 8-9th century. The scribe of codex Lavrensis has indicated the
following spaces in the immediate context of v. 33b (Figure 5 on the next page):
there is a space before καὶ (in the beginning of v. 30) and a space before οὐ γάρ (v. 32). The Codex leaves a space before ὡς
(v. 33b). What is noteworthy, the manuscript has a capitalized Tau (in the
article of ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις; ταῖς as the last word in the line containing verse
33b). Αἱ γυναῖκες is written after a considerably larger space than the
previous (about two characters’ size), which is followed by a capitalized Tau,
that starts a new line (ekthesis). Both of these capitalizations point to an
indication of a new thought. Namely, v. 33b is considered by a scribe (or in
the Vorlage) as a separate sentence bearing an independent meaning. Further, v.
34 has been indicated by a scribe to start a new thought. Another space between
the words is before οὐ γάρ (in v. 34).
A substantially bigger space (about three characters long) introduces v.
35. Consequently, this is also considered by the scribe to be a new idea or
thought, therefore the scribe also capitalizes Theta (in θέλουσιν) on the line that
follows.
Image in the NTS article
In the pericope of vv. 26-36 there is a capitalization of
ἕκαστος (in v. 26), ταῖς (v. 34) and θέλουσιν (v.
35). The scribe has capitalized the first Tau in the word κατήντησεν, when
dividing it into two parts because of the lack of space on the line. The scribe
wrote the remaining part of the word right under the first part. With regard to
the connection of v. 33b to v. 34 Lavrensis also marks the beginning of the new
thought with v. 34 by employing spacing before αἱ γυναῖκες and by capitalizing
the first letter in the next line (ekthesis). The scribe(s) of Lavrensis
clearly did not connect v. 33b with v. 34.
[1] Digital
image of the manuscript available in the INTF database, see http://intf.uni-muenster. de/vmr/NTVMR/ListeHandschriften.php?ObjID=10123
[accessed October 17, 2014].
[2] According
to the discussion thread “P123
1 Cor 14 - 15, P.Oxy 4844” (Tuesday, Febr.
24, 2009) on the Evangelical Textual Criticism Blog, http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/ [Accessed on May 2, 2012] Jongkind asserts that J. David
Thomas is the author of the transliteration of the P123 at the Institut für
Neutestamentliche Textforschung in Münster. Transliteration
by J. David Thomas then
is as follows:
μα]ν̣θανωσιν
κ[αι παντες
παρ]α̣κ̣α̣λ̣ω̣ντ̣[αι
και] π̣να προ̣φητων̣ [προφηταις
υ]π̣ο̣τασσεται̣
ο̣υ γαρ εστι[ν α]κ̣ατασ[ιας ο θς
αλλ
ειρ]η̣νες ωc εν πασαις τα[ις] εκκ̣[λησιας
των
αγι]ω̣ν̣ α̣ι̣ γ̣υναικες εν [ταις εκκλησιαις
σιγατωσαν
ου γα]ρ̣ επιτρεπ̣[εται αυταις λαλειν
.θα̣ν̣ωσινκ̣[
[c. 4]ν.[ ... ]ν̣α̣προ̣φητω.[...
].τα̣σσετα̣[...].υ̣γαρε̣σ̣τ̣.[...].ατασ̣[...
].νησωσ̣[...]ε̣νπασαιστ.[...]ε̣κκ̣[...
] ... [... ]υ̣να̣ικεσεν̣[...
]ε̣πιτρεπ̣
[4] This remark of Jongkind is particularly important for the
discussion of the earliest reading of v. 32 (and v. 33a),
because of the omission of ὁ θεός in Latin and Syriac versions,
but also in the Marcion’s Apostolikon and in Ambrosiaster. Von Harnack defends
the idea that ὁ θεός is a later addition. This
hypothesis has exegetical implications not only for the reading of v. 33a, but also for the
exegesis of v. 33b. Royse writes that P123 reading of πνευμα in singular sides “with D F G K Ψ*
1241s pc” contra P46 @ A B and most witnesses.
[5] The scribe of B (Elliot thinks that there were two scribes who wrote
Codex Vaticanus), who wrote the New Testament, started a new paragraph on the
new line (but not always). See J. K. Elliot, New Testament Textual Criticism: The
Application of Thoroughgoing Principles: Essays on Manuscripts and Textual
Variation (NTS 137; ed. M.M. Mitchel and D.P.
Moessner et al.;Leiden: Brill, 2010), 68, n. 7.
[6] A fragment of the Vaticanus facsimile - Bibliorum sacrorum
graecorum Codex Vaticanus B: Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae Codex Vaticanus
Graecus 1209, page 1478 (Rome: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 1999). For better quality image accessed on http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr1209/1478
[accessed May 8, 2015].
[7] J. Edward Miller, “Some
Observations on the Text-Critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with
Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14.34-35*”, JSNT 26.2 (2003).
[8] Miller, “Some Observations ...”, 218.
[9] Ibid., 219-220.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical
and Theological Study of Paul's Letters (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009),
237 – 238.
[12] Payne, Man and Woman, 238.
[13] Philip B. Payne, “The Originality of Text-Critical Symbols in
Codex Vaticanus”, NT 42
(2000): 105–113.
[14] For a more
detailed discussion see Payne, “The
Originality of Text-Critical Symbols in Codex Vaticanus.”
[15] Peter M. Head, Critique of “The Marginalia of
Codex Vaticanus: Putting the Distigmai in Their Place” (paper presented at the
NT Textual Criticism Seminar of the SBL international meeting. New Orleans, La.
November 21).
[17] Philip B. Payne, “Distigme-Obelos Symbols in Codex Vaticanus
B Marking where Text was Added, including 1 Corinthians 14:34–35” (Payne
Loving Trust, 2013), 8.
[19] Sinaiticus fragment from the “Codex Sinaiticus Project” http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/ [accessed November
25, 2014].
[20] The number of A scribes vary from two (Milne, Skeat) to five
(Kenyon). See Metzger, Manuscripts
of the Greek Bible, 86.
[21] My
personal observation of the structural marking in codex A is confirmed by the
study of W. Andrew Smith in A Study of the Gospels in Codex Alexandrinus: Codicology,
Palaeography, and Scribal Hands, 204 -205.
[22] This is how Metzger explains this: “the
first letter of each paragraph, or, if the paragraph begins in the middle of a
line, the first letter of the first complete line in it […] is enlarged and
projects into the left-hand margin”. See Metzger, Manuscripts
of the Greek Bible, 86.
[23] About the exceptions:
1. In order
to separate a minor logical thought, like a sentence, the scribe leaves a dot,
which occupies about 1 character space. To my knowledge this system is common
in codices.
2. There
are some spaces in 1 Corinthians that look like a paragraph mark but there is
no capitalizing of the letter in the following line. These exceptions in 1 Corinthians
are very few, and here I will list them:
a) 1 Cor 3:5 τι ουν εστιν απολλως τι δε εστιν
παυλος;
b) 1 Cor. 5:6 ου καλον το καυχημα υμων;
c) 1 Cor. 6:9b αδικοι βασιλειαν θεου ου κληρονομησουσιν;
d) 1 Cor. 8:5 και γαρ ειπερ εισιν λεγομενοι θεοι
ειτε εν ουρανω ειτε επι γης ωσπερ εισιν θεοι πολλοι και κυριοι πολλοι.
The first 3 expressions, most probably, could be classified
as questions in a direct speech, whereas 1 Cor 8:5 does not seem to be a
question, but an interposition.
[24] Facsimile of the Codex
Alexandrinus. New Testament and Clementine Epistles (1879), Public Domain
Mark 1.0 (no copyright, public information), http://archive.org/stream/GA_02#page/n199/mode/1up
[accessed April 9, 2012].
[26] Manuscript accessed at “The New Testament Virtual Manuscript Room”
of the INTF, http://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/manuscript-workspace
[accessed November 14, 2014].
Minuscule 33 (in the NTS article); Minuscule 1739 and majuscule 0243 (in the NTS article)
Minuscule 88
Minuscule
88 (Ms 88) is late. It is a 12th century Greek manuscript which “is
not a Western text type manuscript”.[1]
The reason why Ms 88 draws attention of the text critics is because it reads
the paragraph of vv. 34-35 after v. 40 and after two slashes, which are placed
right on the line of the text before αι γυναικες.
P. B.
Payne discusses the slashes as the indicators for interpolation of 1 Cor 14:34,
35. Payne is convinced that Ms 88 testifies to the Vorlage, which did not have vv. 34-35.[2]
The sigla function also in Ms 88 depends on its
meaning, but in any case it is possible to observe that v. 33b in this
manuscript is unconnected to vv. 34-35, but precedes v. 36.
Miniscule 88 - Figure below
[1] Philip B.
Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An
Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul's Letters, 249. Payne says that since Ms 88
does not belong to the ‘Western text’, there are only two possible reasons why
it relocates vv. 34-35 to the end of the chapter 14: a) Ms 88 derives from the
manuscript, which contained vv. 34-35 at the end of the chapter, b) Ms 88 derives
from the manuscript, which did not have vv.34-35. See Ibid.
Latin versions that transpose vv.
34-35 leaving v. 33b with v. 33a
According
to G. Fee, “the entire Western tradition”[1] relocates vv. 34-35 to the end of 1 Cor 14:
“D F G 88*[2] a[3] b d, e,[4] f, g Ambrosiaster, Sedulius- Scotus”.[5] According to NA28 the relocation
occurs in D F G ar b vgmss, Ambst.
[2] As we see
G. Fee mentioned Ms 88 in his list of the Western text, but Payne (see footnote
above) disagrees. He stresses that Ms 88 does not represent the Western text.
[4] In fact e is the Latin part of the diglot
Sangermanensis (E or 0319). E has been formerly designated also as Dabs1.
Greek-Latin diglot codices – Claromontanus, Augiensis, Boernerianus
Claromontanus (D or 06) is a 6th
century bilingual Greek-Latin codex which reads vv. 34-35 after v. 40, that is,
at the end of the chapter (Figure 9, Appendix 2). Even though Claromontanus
relocates vv. 34-35 to the end of the chapter, it leaves v. 33b between v. 33a
and v. 36. The Latin part of D (06) reads v. 33b as follows - non enim est dissensionis Deus sed pacis
sicut in omnibus ecclesiis sanctorum.
Augiensis
(F or 010) is a 9th century bilingual Greek-Latin codex.[1] Augiensis dislocates verses 34-35
after verse 40 and ends 33b with doceo
and διδασκω accordingly.
Codex
Boernerianus (G or 012) is 9th century bilingual Greek-Latin codex,
which closely resembles codex Sangallensis (Delta), but is also similar to F
(010), which makes scholars to propose a common Vorlage of the first or second degree.
G perhaps was copied by Irish monks who
emigrated to Western Europe.[2] Some suggest that the Greek Vorlage of G was written in στίχοι.[3] The Latin text is for the most part that of the Vulgate but,
at times, it conforms to Greek text.[4] Every Latin word is written above
the Greek word in an interlinear manner (see Figure below). G text reads vv. 34-35 after the verse
40, just like Augiensis, and ends v. 33b with διδασκω, where doceo is
written above the Greek word. Verse 33b is preceded by v. 33a, and followed by
v. 36.
Often D, F and G are mentioned together since all three place 1 Cor
14:34 - 35 after verse 40. Yet there is a difference between D, on the one
hand, and F and G, on the other, in that D does not have doceo at the
end of 33b. Significant for our study is the fact that v. 33b is found between
v. 33a and v. 36 in all three versions, and has no syntactic connection to v.
34 whatsoever.
[1] Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, An
exact transcript of the Codex Augiensis: a Græco-Latin manuscript of S. Paul's Epistles, Cambridge:
Deighton, Bell and co., 1859, xxiii.
[2] Bruce Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An
Introduction to Greek Paleography (New York– Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 11981, 1991), 104.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
Codex Fuldensis (in the NTS article)
Text-Critical
Analysis of the place of v. 33b in Greek Editions and English New Testament Versions (in the NTS article)
Conclusion:
The text critical evidence points to the fact that the oldest Greek and
Latin manuscripts give no reason to connect v. 33b to vv. 34-35. Greek NT
editions that link v. 33b with 34 reflect exegetical decisions, as do English
NT versions. Consequently, the decision of the NA28 and UBS5
to write v. 33b as an introduction to vv. 34-35 is not based on external
evidence, but on exegetical considerations.
Aļesja Lavrinoviča (below is an excerpt from my Master Thesis of Advanced Studies in Theology at KU Leuven, Belgium).
