Exploring the biblical theology of Christian egalitarianism

Close this search box.

This is the first part of a talk I presented on February 11 in Brisbane (Australia) at a conference for Baptist Women in the Pacific. The conference was called No Limits: Empowering Women Through Theology. It was great! Thank you, Elissa Macpherson and the team!

The conference talks have been posted as audio files here. My talk starts at the 13.45-minute mark in session 2.


I’ve always loved Paul’s letters. I love seeing Jesus through his eyes and I love how Paul explains our salvation and the redemption of the world. I love Paul’s vision for the community of Jesus-followers, the church, where everyone is welcome and everyone is on an equal footing.

We’re not just equal before God, as is often said, but ideally we’re also equal socially within the church community. It doesn’t matter what our job is, what our ethnicity is, what our family background is, what our past was—within the body of Christ we should all have an equal status as siblings. We are children of God and heirs of God. And I’m thinking of Paul’s words in Galatians 3 here.

But the church has been painfully, painfully, slow to understand and accept the apostle’s message on equality or mutuality within the body of Christ which is beautifully explained in passages such as 1 Corinthians 12 for example.

I’d prefer to speak about these Bible passages where Paul speaks generally about community and generally about ministry. But there are a few passages in Paul’s letters that continue to overshadow his general teaching, especially when it comes to the topic of women and ministry. I’m reminded of these verses almost every day in the work that I do. On my blog and on social media and in emails people quote these verses at me all the time.

And maybe these verses are a concern of yours too. So in this talk [which will be posted in a series of blog articles], I’ll be focussing on 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 (which begins with “women should be silent in the churches”) and I’ll be looking at 1 Timothy 2:12 (which begins with “I do not allow a woman to teach”) and I’ll also look at a bit 1 Timothy 3 where there is a list of qualifications for church overseers.

In many people’s minds these three passages, specifically their interpretation of these three passages, carry much more weight than all of Paul’s other words on ministry put together. And these three passages are often used to completely exclude women from certain ministries no matter how capable or how suited a woman might be to fulfil those ministries.

First Corinthians and 14:34–35

So let’s look at 1 Corinthians 14:34–35. But before we look at chapter 14, let’s go to chapter 1 of 1 Corinthians.

Who is this letter addressed to? That’s a basic question but it’s an important consideration. Verse 2 tells us that Paul was writing to the church in Corinth.[1] If our aim is to take the Bible seriously, even literally, we also need to take verse 2 seriously. This letter was not written to us. We can take the letter as authoritative and inspired, and we can, and should, glean principles from it, but we need to keep in mind that, quite literally, it was not written to us it, or to a church like the ones we belong to today. Paul wrote this letter to Christians in first-century Corinth.

Why was this letter written? Verse 11 tells us. Paul wrote this letter after receiving a report from people associated with a woman named Chloe.

Paul didn’t just sit down one day and think, “I’m going to write a letter to the Christians in Corinth.” Letter writing was an expensive process in the first century and people usually needed a strong motivation to bear this expense. Paul was motivated to write the letter we know as 1 Corinthians because he had received a report from people in Chloe’s household about significant problems in Corinth.

This report may have been in the form of a letter, perhaps written by Chloe herself, as well as a verbal report. Occasionally, in 1 Corinthians, Paul seems to quote from a written report he had received.

So, with the understanding of who the letter was written to and why, let’s look at 1 Corinthians 14:34–35.

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission[2], as the law [or, custom] says. If they want to learn about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church (1 Corinthians 14:34–35).

There are various approaches to reading these verses but I’m going to look at just three of these.

The Interpolation Theory

Verses 34–35 were added, interpolated, later by an unknown person.

Some claim that verses 34–35 were added later to a copy of Paul’s letter by an unknown person. If we look at very old manuscripts of 1 Corinthians 14 there are a few odd things happening. Verses 34–35 are sometimes placed at the end of chapter 14, and not after verse 33. And in some manuscripts, there are symbols and margin notes that indicate there might have been an issue and some confusion with these verses.

Some speculate that verses 34–35 started out as a margin note in an early copy of 1 Corinthians and that this note was later added in the body of the text by a scribe making another copy of 1 Corinthians.

Also, if you look at your Bible and cover verses 34–35, and skip these verses entirely, the flow of the passage is fine. It makes reasonable sense without these two verses, and the theme of rowdy or chaotic prophetic ministry continues without interruption.

The interpolation theory is one that I keep in mind. It’s possible and quite a few scholars who love and value the Bible believe this is what happened to the text. However, there is no surviving ancient manuscript that leaves out verses 34–35 altogether, so I’m not ready to hang my hat on this theory.

The Quotation–Refutation Theory

Paul quotes the Corinthians in 14:34–35 and then refutes them in 14:36–38.

Another approach to reading these verses is to understand that verses 34–35 are what the Corinthians are thinking; that these two verses don’t represent Paul’s thoughts. According to this theory, Paul quotes the Corinthians in verses 34–35 and then reprimands them in verses 36 to 38. This is called the quotation-refutation theory.

An important part of this theory is the first word of 1 Corinthians 14:36. The King James Bible and the Revised Standard Version are two of the few English translations that have the exclamation “what!” in verse 36.

35  … for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
36 What? (η) came the word of God out from you? or (η) came it unto you only?
37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or (η) spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

Let me point out a few things about these verses in the King James Version.

~ The tiny one-letter Greek word (η) sometimes can mean “what!” (an exclamation expressing disapproval) but it frequently means “or.” Most English translations have the word “or” twice in verse 36, and also once in verse 37. A few English Bibles leave this word untranslated at the beginning of verse 36.

~ The reprimand in verses 36–38 is not given to the Corinthian women who were speaking shamefully in the church. We know this because the Greek word for “only” in verse 36—some translations have “only ones”—is grammatically masculine. So verses 36–38, where Paul is giving a reprimand, may be directed at men only or, more likely, at men and women who were prophesying in an unruly manner.

~ The Greek word behind “any man” (τις) in verses 36 and 37 means “anyone.” And there are no masculine personal pronouns in these verses in the Greek of these verses even though there are masculine pronouns here in the King James Bible. There are no pronouns at all in the Greek of 1 Corinthians 14:36–38.[3]

As much as I love the King James Bible, it often has masculine words such as “man” and “him” which do not adequately reflect the underlying Greek text. I’m going to come back to this point later (in part 3).

So what is happening in these verses? How does the quotation-refutation theory explain it?

The first chapter of 1 Corinthians tells us that there were competing factions in the Corinthian church. It is possible one of these factions was trying to silence women in church meetings. This would have been a real concern for women like Chloe. So according to the quotation-refutation theory, Paul quotes this faction in verses 34 and 35 and then rebukes them in verses 36 to 38.

Why the Different Approaches?

But why do we even have these theories? Why am I speaking about different approaches to verses 34 and 35? Why don’t we just accept that Paul was, in fact, simply telling Corinthian women to be silent in church meetings?

We have these theories because we know from 1 Corinthians 11 that women did speak in church meetings, they prayed and prophesied, and Paul does not silence them. He wanted these ministering women to have respectable hairstyles, or perhaps respectable head coverings, but he doesn’t tell them to stop speaking.

And in the next chapter, in 1 Corinthians 12, Paul warns the Corinthians not to take lightly the various ministry contributions from church members who had less honour in broader society. These people with less honour would have included some women. Paul’s reasoning in 1 Corinthians 12 is that the Spirit gives ministry gifts without apparent regard for things such as social status or ethnicity or gender or other social markers in broader society (e.g., 1 Cor. 12:7, 11).

Paul acknowledges the speaking ministry of women in chapter 11, and he encourages all kinds of ministries from all church members in chapter 12. Did he suddenly silence all women in chapter 14? Does he contradict himself? This is unlikely. In all of Paul’s general teaching, he welcomed participation in ministry without saying it was for men only. So how can we make sense of 1 Corinthians 14:34–35?

My Approach

Paul silences 3 groups of unruly speakers in 14:26–40 but at the same time encourages orderly speech.

Neither the interpolation theory or the quotation-refutation theory are my preferred approach. Rather, I take verses 34 and 35 as having been written by Paul and as expressing his own thoughts. The key to my approach is to zoom out further and look at the passage beginning at verse 26 to the end of the chapter in verse 40.

Chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians is all about maintaining order and decorum in church gatherings, and Paul silences the disorderly talk from three groups of people: from tongues-speakers, prophetic people, and women. The same imperative Greek verb for “be silent” is used for each of these three groups of people.

~ A tongues-speaker, male or female, is to be silent (sigaō) and stop speaking in tongues if there is no one to interpret (1 Cor. 14:28).

~ A prophet, male or female, is to be silent (sigaō) and stop prophesying if someone else receives a revelation (1 Cor. 14:30). We get this sense that the Corinthians were jostling and pushing themselves forward in order to be heard. They were speaking over one another.

~ Women are to be silent (sigaō). Paul indicates here what kind of speech he is silencing because he goes on to say that, if there is anything they want to learn (manthanō), they should keep their questions for home, for their husbands (1 Cor. 14:34–35). “Learn” may be a keyword here.

The women’s questions were disruptive in some way and may have been directed to the men and women prophesying. Paul had just said that prophecy was so that everyone could learn (manthanō) and be encouraged (1 Cor. 14:31). The same Greek verb for “learn” (manthanō) is used in verses 31 and 35. And if we understand that the women were asking questions of prophets, then the theme of chaotic prophetic ministry continues.

All these people—the tongues-speakers, the prophetic people, the wives with their questions—needed to hold their tongues and stop speaking in certain situations. But 1 Corinthians 14 is not about silencing them altogether.

1 Corinthians 14:26–40 is book-ended by verses that show the issue in Corinth was unruly, unedifying speech. In these verses, at the beginning and end of the passage, Paul encourages edifying and gifted speech, and he encourages orderly participation in church meetings, regardless of gender.

Have a look at 1 Corinthians 14:26 and 39–40, and hopefully your translation has the words “brothers and sisters” in these verses, and not just brothers.

“What then, brothers and sisters? Whenever you come together, each one has a hymn, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Everything is to be done for building up” 1 Corinthians 14:26 CSB.

Paul isn’t telling the Corinthians to stop bringing a hymn or teaching or a revelation. Rather he wants them to be ministering in an edifying manner.

“So then, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.  But everything is to be done decently and in order” 1 Corinthians 14:39–40 CSB.

Paul’s aim was not to simply silence people. His primary point was that speaking should be done to build up others and be done in an orderly manner. If our takeaway from this passage is that Paul wanted to silence people, including women, we’ve missed his main intention.

Paul’s aim wasn’t to silence well-behaved gifted women. Rather, he was addressing problematic speaking in the Corinthian church while at the same time encouraging edifying ministry. And he doesn’t specify gender in his encouragements.

This is how I read 1 Corinthians 14:34–35, but I’ve written about more approaches to these verses here.

In part 2, I look at 1 Timothy 2:12, here.


[1] Some English translations of 1 Corinthians 1:2 can sound as though Paul is writing to a broader audience, but 1 Corinthians was written for and is addressed to the church in Corinth. In this verse, Paul reminds the Corinthians that they have a calling to be holy just like God’s people “in every place” (an idiom) who call upon the Lord Jesus Christ.

[2] The same Greek verb for “be in submission” (ὑποτάσσω, hupotassō) is used in 1 Corinthians 14:32 for the prophets. “Submission” in verse 32 is contrasted with the noun ἀκαταστασία (akatastasia) in verse 33 which means “a disorderly disturbance.” The sense of “submission” in verses 32 and 34 may be that the prophets and the women are to be in control of their speaking so that they don’t cause a disturbance and behave disgracefully. All my articles on “submission” are here.

[3] In Greek, a man, or groups containing men, are usually referred to with grammatically masculine words. (A generic person or group, potentially male or female, will also usually be referred to with grammatically masculine words.) But a woman, or a group of only women, will be typically referred to with grammatically feminine words.

© Margaret Mowczko 2023
All Rights Reserved

Thank you to those who support my work. It is greatly appreciated!
You can support my work for as little as $3 USD a month at Patreon.
Become a Patron!

Explore more

Part 2. Paul’s Theology of Ministry: 1 Timothy 2:12
Interpretations and Applications of 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 
Galatians 3:28: Our Identity in Christ & in the Church
Extra Honour for Underdogs (1 Corinthians 12:12–31)
Brothers and Sisters” (Adelphoi) in Paul’s Letters
Who was Chloe of Corinth?
1 Corinthians 11:2–16 in a Nutshell
Which Bible Translation is Best?
7 Things you may not know about the King James Bible
바울 사역의 신학: 고린도전서 14:34~35

Further Reading

There’s a great discussion on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as interpolation or quotation on Reddit. (You may need to expand the first, main comment to read it.)

25 thoughts on “Paul’s Theology of Ministry: 1 Corinthians 14:34–35

  1. I’m very thankful for your thorough and in-depth studies in all your work. They have been encouraging and edifying. The Lod bless you and keep you firm in faith!

    1. Thanks, G!

  2. The interpolation theory is stronger than you think. There really is no other good explanation for why we find these verses in two locations.

    1. Hi Richard, There are issues with some texts around verses 34-35, but I’m not sure there is only one good way to explain the anomaly in Claromontanus, etc. Have you written on this?

      1. I am in the process of writing on it. If there are alternative explanations for the transposition, someone needs to find a parallel case of a similar transposition that has such an alternative explanation. Large transposition occur when omissions are corrected and (by the same mechanisms) when interpolations spread.

        1. I’ve been thinking about why the position of 34-35 is different in some western texts. Could it be another example of altering the text because of an anti-woman bias?

          By placing the women outside of 26-40, they are not just another example of unruly speakers.

          (The addition of ὑμῶν after γυναῖκες in Claromontanus, etc, adopted by the TR and hence the KJV, also makes the women “other.”)

          I went looking to see if someone else had written about this idea. Here’s what David Odell-Scott (who believes 34-35 is a quotation) has said,

          “I suggest the editors of manuscripts D, G and 88, removed verses 34 and 35 from their canonical location at 33/36, and inserted them after verse 40 in order to shelter the silencing and subordination of women from the critique of verse 36 and to positively associate the silencing and subordination of women with Paul’s admonition for decency and order.”

          Odell-Scott, “Editorial dilemma: The Interpolation of 1 Cor 14: 34-35 in the Western Manuscripts of D, G and 88,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 30 (2000): 68–74. (The quotation is from the abstract.) Here’s a pdf.

          1. On the quotation theory, see Joseph A.P. Wilson, “Recasting Paul as a Chauvinist within the Western Text-Type Manuscript Tradition: Implications for the Authorship Debate on 1 Corinthians 14.34-35” Religions 13 (2022). You can find this paper online. He suggests that the verses were transposed so that they could not be read as a quotation. A weakness of this theory are that we have very little evidence of anyone read the verses as a quotation in the ancient world. Also, we lack an example of any similar transposition happening anywhere in the New Testament in any manuscript. They just did not do that kind of thing.

            I find it interesting that Kloha suggested that the verses were transposed to the end of the chapter to make them LESS restrictive of women’s participation in the church. Misogynist changes are much much more likely. Also, verse 36 follows naturally from verse 34 and this favours the interpolation theory.

          2. Great. Thanks for letting me know about Wilson’s paper. Here’s the link in case others are interested.

    2. Hi Marg. See my “The Interpolation of 1 Cor. 14.34–35 and the Reversal of the Name Order of Prisca and Aquila at 1 Cor. 16.19”, JSNT (2024). It is now online and open access here:

      I conclude that 1 Cor 14:34-35 is indeed an interpolation, and that Paul named Prisca before Aquila at 1 Cor 16:19. I imagine that the same person added 1 Cor 14:34-35 and reversed the names Prisca and Aquila.

      1. Thanks, Richard. Your message went in my spam folder. I’m glad I spotted it and “un-spammed” it.

  3. Thank you for your faithful studies, conclusions, and challenges.

  4. Thank you so much for your posting your talks. I have bookmarked them to send to people. On the quotation-refutation theory, doesn’t Lucy Peppiatt cover it in “Women and worship at Corinth”? I’m not sure I completely agree with that argument either, or the interpolation theory, but I hold the refutation/rhetorical strategy in my mind as one possible explanation for what seems like a contradiction in Paul’s writings on his views about women. He certainly acknowledges and values their teaching ministries elsewhere, so this passage and others must be specifically addressing a certain problem in a certain church, to do with disorderliness. I’m not sure this side of heaven that we will ever know exactly and with certainty what Paul meant. Maybe an even earlier manuscript will turn up showing support for the interpolation theory? But I do know that 1 Cor 14: 34-35 are not a command from God to all women for all time in all churches, especially as Paul has just said that when we come together EACH or EVERYONE has something to say to build up the church. And the two greatest commandments given by Christ are to love God and our neighbours (Matt 22:34-40), not a made up “command” for women to be silent in church.

    1. Hi Linda, The oldest surviving manuscript of 1 Corinthians is Papyrus 46 and it has 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, and these verses are located after verse 33. (Part of verse 34 is damaged.) P46 is dated to around 175–225. It’s unlikely an older manuscript will be discovered, but who knows?

      Kirk MacGregor writes, “The next three manuscripts of 1 Cor 14 [after P46] are P123, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus, all from the early to middle fourth century. P123 and Sinaiticus both indisputably attest to the authenticity and placement of 14:34–35. … Vaticanus (fourth century) attests its authenticity but notes through a symbol in the margin adjacent to 14:33 the existence of a variant reading.” (Source: Priscilla Papers) Much of MacGregor’s paper is a critique of Philip Payne’s interpolation theory.

      As far as I know, Katharine Bushnell was the first to suggest that 1 Corinthians 14:33-34 were not Paul’s words but the words of Judaizers in Corinth. In the early 1920s Bushnell wrote,

      “We are driven to believe the Apostle was not uttering his own views in verses 34 and 35 of 1 Corinthians 14 … We believe this is the language of Judaizers at Corinth, which has been reported to Paul, and which Paul quotes to answer back in the words: ‘What! came the word of God out from you! or came it unto you only?’ with what follows to the end of the chapter.”
      Bushnell, God’s Word to Women, Lesson 27, section 203 (Online Source)

      More than 50 years later, Flanagan and Snyder suggested, in a short paper, that 1 Corinthians 14:33-34 was a Corinthian slogan which Paul then refutes.
      Neal M. Flanagan and Edwina Hunt Snyder, “Did Paul Put Down Women in 1 Cor 14:34-36?” Biblical Theology Bulletin 11 (1981), 10-12. (I can’t find this article freely available online, but there’s a preview here.)

      David W. Odell-Scott then argued for this idea in more depth in “Let the Women Speak in Church: An Egalitarian Interpretation of 1 Cor 14:33b-36,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 13.3 (1983): 90-93. Here’s a link to a pdf of this paper.

      Odell-Scott wrote a follow-up paper in reponse to criticisms made by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor who argued that 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is an interpolation. Odell-Scott’s paper, “In Defense of an Egalitarian Interpretation of 1 Cor 14: 34-36: A Reply to Murphy-O’Connor’s Critique,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 17.3 (1987): 100-103, can be read here.

      Then there was Charles Talbert (1987), Kirk Macgregor (2018), and possibly others too who have argued for the quotation-refuation theory.

      Women and Worship at Corinth focuses on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 but Lucy Peppiatt discusses 14:33b-36 on pages 108-111. On page 109 she states, “I am proposing with Flanagan and Snyder that this is indeed another instance of Paul citing the Corinthians in order to correct them.” Lucy reports on the quotation-refutation idea but doesn’t add to it.

      In her 2019 book Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women, Lucy barely mentions 1 Corinthians 14 but she does make this statement, “I have become convinced that the prohibitions on women in 1 Corinthians 11:2-10 and 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 are, in fact, the view of the Corinthians and not Paul’s and that Paul is rebuking them for implementing oppressive practices for women in worship.” (p. 142)

      I’m keeping my mind open about 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 while leaning towards my preferred approach. I’m more confident, however, that all of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 are Paul’s words which address two different social contexts in the two halves of the passage. I’ve written about these two contexts here.

      1. Thanks for the very detailed response and references which I can look up.

  5. Marg
    Thank you for a balanced and honest approach and to those who have responded and added to the debate.
    I agree it is unlikely we will find an earlier manuscript to Papyrus 46.
    There are some who in supporting the interpolation theory suggest a Pauline chaism if vs 34&35 were a gloss.
    I was wondering if you had thought about this and if so what the focus of the chaism might be.
    Thank you so much for sharing your valuable insights.
    God bless

    1. Hi Gareth, Here is one rendering of 1 Corinthians 14:26-40 as a chiasm. I would lay it out a bit differently, though.

      Whether this passage is written as a chiasm, or not, verses 39-40 do echo verse 26 very nicely. I believe these verses, at the beginning and end of the passage, convey Paul’s main point. This is Paul’s focus throughout the passage which is emphatically highlighted in verses 32-33:

      “And the spirits of the prophets are under the prophetic speaker’s control. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the congregations of God’s people.” (My translation)

      I agree with the New Living Translation’s understanding of these two verses:

      “Remember that people who prophesy are in control of their spirit and can take turns. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the meetings of God’s holy people” (1 Cor. 14:32-33 NLT).

      If 1 Corinthians 14:26-40 is a chiasm, then there is a place for 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. It wouldn’t work as a chiasm without verses 34 and 35.

      Also, as you probably know, many people regard chapters 11-14 as a chiasm.

      I’ve written about a few chiasms in Paul’s letters. (See here).

  6. Re: “ This is how I read 1 Corinthians 14:34–35, but I’ve written about more approaches to these verses here.”
    Did you intend that this sentence include a hyperlink to your article(s) about verses 34-35? There is a link to a pop-up with the Bible text, but the word “here” is not a hyperlink.

    I like your approach to verses 26-40 as a unit, which makes good sense.

    1. Thanks, Robert. I’ve just fixed the link.

  7. Hi Marg,
    I read your post with interest, and found it encouraging that you have landed pretty much in the same space as myself. While I note and take seriously both the textual factors and the quotation and response interpretation, I am also struck by the threefold ‘be silent’ element and Paul’s concern for orderly worship. I don’t have a problem with reading these verses as Paul’s concern for conduct that might be perceived to be shameful and his counsel to avoid unnecessary if it proved (in that context) to be counterproductive to his overarching value of edification. It is specific forms of speech that he addresses, not speech more broadly. In any even, I enjoyed your treatment and especially your reasoning.

    1. Hi Tim, it’s nice to hear from you. I also don’t have a problem with these verses. It makes sense that Paul would silence unruly speech and promote edifying speech.

  8. I just want to thank you for your work on this topic. This became important to me because my Mother was a Spirit-filled Believer called to minister, and yet received vicious pushback from the religious folks of her day. More times than not it drove her to prayerful tears – which bothered me greatly as a young man. Years later, the idea of females in ministry began “percolating” in my spirit and I decided to once and for all settle it Biblically for myself. At first, it seemed like I was alone in thinking that God calls both men and women. So I was very thankful to come across your site and others as I was researching my articles. I now have two posts on the subject, and have answered a few Quora questions on this.

    A book that was very helpful for me was Katharine Bushnell God’s Word To Women (my edition is 1943). I searched for it on your site, and nothing came up. You are likely familiar with it already, but maybe someone else will find it useful. Her insights into the Word are priceless.

    Keep up the great work. I linked to your page, so I pray some additional traffic heads your way.
    God Bless You!!

    1. Thanks, Harrison. It’s a real concern that countless godly and gifted women have been denied the opportunity of contributing their talents in the service of the church. What a waste! And what heartache this has caused!

      I’m actually surprised that I haven’t mentioned Katharine Bushnell’s work on my blog. I did a search and you’re right, nothing comes up for “Bushnell.” I need to do something about this.

      Thanks, again. And God bless you.

  9. The textual doubt argument was raised by some very desperate writers, based solely on Codex Vaticanus, (and perhaps some more mss that may have copied it), and it was always refuted by scholars, showing that its displacement at the end of chapter doesn’t matter as the * sign wasn’t something which showed a textual doubt. Now, recently, it has been scientifically debunked by ink analysis, where the ink composition proves that the symbol was added in 16th century, it wasn’t from the original scribe. I have speculated that as it is believed that Vaticanus was among those batch ordered by the Emperor Constantine, this Vaticanus copy could’ve been custom made, and corrupted, for his mother, who was basically a Queen. The verse is only ripped from its context to disconnect with the ref of “for all the churches”, to rid of its application from us. The motivation is the same for why Marcion or the early Gnostics rejected the God of the OT, and even rejected many NT books, and even today, many do deny certain books, as Luther rejected James/Jacob epistle, to adjust the scripture for their personal needs. Do read the recent development on the textual issue https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2023/11/distigmai-revisited-when-material.html

    1. Michael, I’m aware of Tommy Wasserman’s work. However, I reject your statement idea that the interpolation theory is based solely on the scribal sigla in Vaticanus. In the article on this page, I mention scribal marks almost in passing. In another article, I mention the sigla in Fuldensis but don’t mention Vaticanus. I have discussed the theory even though I am not convinced of it myself, and I have done it without mentioning Vaticanus.

      Michael, I’m interested in textual variants of certain Bible passages, including 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, but if your aim is to cast doubt on the Greek text of the New Testament, you’ve come to the wrong place.

  10. […] Note 10: Some Christians regard verses 34-35 as an interpolation, an addition not originally written by Paul. Some other Christians regard these two verses as Paul quoting a saying or a teaching of the Corinthians which he then refutes in verses 36-38. I take 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as Paul’s original words. (I discuss these three approaches, here.) […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Marg's Blog

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.


Join Marg's Patreon

Would you like to support my ministry of encouraging mutuality and equality between men and women in the church and in marriage?