This is the only passage in the Bible that bans women from talking in church (aside from 1Tim 2:11-12, which was evidently a rebuke of the Ephesian Diana cult). (1)
Some have suggested that Paul was simply quoting Corinthian sentiments in order to argue against them. The writing method being alleged here is called “Quotation Refutation Device” (QRD). As evidence it is pointed out that the following verse (vs 36) states, “What?”, after which Paul asks (to paraphrase), “Do you think you have a monopoly on God’s word?” This rhetorical question is basically stating, “Give someone else a chance to speak!” This sounds as if it could be a QRD directed at the men of the ecclesia, answering “Women keep quiet” with “You men should give the women a chance to speak!” When Paul uses the exclamatory “What?” elsewhere (eg. 1Cor 6:16, 1Cor 6:19, 1Cor 11:22), it seems to follow his own words, not a quote. Conversely, in actual QRD use cases, the quote is clearly stated as such. A QRD pattern is difficult to establish here, so that this interpretation is not particularly compelling.
However, the order to give others a chance to be heard is still quite relevant to the context just before and after these two verses, because the subject seems to be about taking turns talking. “So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues [ie. simultaneously] ... will they not say that you are out of your mind?” (vs 23, NIV). “Two - or at the most three - should speak, one at a time” (vs 27, NIV). “And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop [speaking]” (vs 30, NIV) - to give someone else a chance to speak. The brethren are instructed to take turns prophesying “ one by one ” (vs 31). Why? “God is not the author of confusion” (vs 33, KJV). After Paul’s question, Paul is still on the same subject - “All things should be done in the right way, one after the other ” (vs 40, NLV ), or “in order” (2) (KJV). Paul is addressing a problem at Corinth wherein the brethren were all just drowning each other out. Therefore to find within this discourse a new requirement subjugating women seems dissonant and awkward.
We would not be alone in thinking these two verses are out of place. According to textual critics (experts in the study of ancient manuscripts), these two verses are actually “moved” to the end of the chapter in some manuscripts. What could account for this? One explanation could be that a scribe moved the two verses to the end of the chapter because they were considered a different subject which abruptly interrupted the flow. This view requires admission that the injunction about women is oddly placed.
A more probable explanation is that these two verses were residing in the margin of the original, and inserted inline by one scribe, while another scribe felt more inclined to append the verses. Indeed, one of the most important and most ancient NT (3) manuscripts, the Codex Vaticanus, features a “distigmai” (meaning “two dots”) marking this passage. According to some scholars, this umlaut marking signifies a marginal gloss. In his paper “Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Marking Added Text” (New 4 Testament Studies, Volume 63, Issue 4, available online at cambridge.org ), Philip B. Payne, Ph.D. New Testament Studies, a scholar in Biblical languages and the founder of Linguist’s Software, explains, “Transcriptional probability also argues that these verses’ differing locations result from a marginal gloss, not transposition.” He points out that in most cases where originals were found to be marginal notes, the Vaticanus manuscript had inserted the texts into the body. Payne also concludes, “Since manuscripts confirm the accuracy of every other one of scribe B's distigme-obelos text-critical judgements, one ought to assume that scribe B also had manuscript evidence that 1 Cor 14.34–5 is added text. Indeed, scribe B evidently had access to far more early NT manuscript text than survives today.”
If 1Cor 14:34-35 was originally a marginal gloss, what might that imply in regards to its authenticity? Does it sound feasible that an inspired author writing an epistle would forget and leave out some portion, only to remember to add it to the margin later?
These 2 verses have been questioned on other grounds as well. As articulated by scholar Bart Ehrman, "If they [women] were allowed to speak in chapter 11, how could they be told not to speak in chapter 14?". This question does carry a good amount of (5) force, since both contexts absolutely pertain to prophesying within the church. It seems outrageous to suggest that any text of scripture is spurious. It makes us squirm, but it is difficult to otherwise account for this discrepancy.
The earliest Greek manuscripts actually contain several discrepancies, many of them blatant with obvious Christological motivations. We could not accept such a bold claim (6) of tampering without a clear motive! Could we imagine any motive for someone to add an ordinance to subjugate women into Paul’s letter? (7)
An important clue is the appeal to “the law”. “But they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” What law? Josephus described “the laws that belong to our political state”, as distinct from “those laws which Moses left”. One such law is (8) quite relevant to this case. “But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex.”. Thus we are looking at a cultural context (9) wherein even the legal code characterized women as being too emotional and silly to render an objective account of any matter. Elsewhere Josephus says, “For, saith the Scripture, ‘A woman is inferior to her husband in all things.’ Let her, therefore, be obedient to him; not so, that he should abuse her, but that she may acknowledge her duty to her husband; for God hath given the authority to the husband.” Acts and (10) other books inform us concerning the prevalence of Judaizers within early Christianity. The culture was marked by a rather nasty disdain for women, especially within the priesthood. We find in the Talmud some of those oral traditions preserved - “Do not converse much with women, as this will ultimately lead you to unchastity.” “The most virtuous of women is a witch.” The following is still recited daily by all Orthodox Jewish men, “Praised be God that he has not created me a woman!”
As with some other aspects of Judaism, this sentiment seems to have been imported into Christianity, as seen in some of their early writings and apocrypha. “Every woman who becomes a man will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” “God does not stoop to look (11) upon what is feminine and of the flesh.” (Origen). “For the female sex is easily seduced, weak, and without much understanding. The devil seeks to vomit out this disorder through women.” (Epiphanius). Several other examples exist, but this is sufficient to establish a motive.
Footnotes
1 This paper only concerns the ecclesial practice of silencing women. It does not deal with the principle of ecclesial male leadership, which is a different subject.2 New Life Version.
3 This view was popularized after being posited by scholar Gordon Fee.
4 Recent investigations have verified that the Umlauts here were in the original Codex Vaticanus ink (4th century AD), though traced over later due to fading. (Payne, Philip B., “Originality of Text-Critical Symbols in Codex Vaticanus” 105-07).
5 “... Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered...” (1Cor 11:5, NIV).
6 For example, the majority of authoritative codices agree that it was “Jesus” who saved the people out of the land of Egypt in Jude 1:5. See Ehrman’s “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” for several other examples.
7 Our foundation statement says the Bible is infallible, except for errors of transcription and translation, but examples exist to the contrary, such as the Johannine Comma (1John 5:7-8), which was in the Bibles of our pioneers, yet even the Vatican has admitted it was added.
8 Antiquities 4.8.4 (198).
9 Antiquities 4.8.15 (219). Green’s has, “on account of their giddiness and impetuosity”. Ironically, this man-made law would force the rejection of the testimony of those who first saw Jesus after he was raised back to life from the dead.
10 Against Apion 2.25 (201).
11 “Gospel of Thomas”, 114.
