#get rekt corinthian

[densewentz]

Pinterest Art Base Inktober Day 7! When Dream gets out of his box they're all fucked tbh (I have no idea if this is what this prompt means but I did it anyway so shrug)

[idylls-of-the-divine-romance]

what do you think of the argument that 1 Corinthians 14:34 wasn’t written by Paul, but inserted later? supporters of the idea argue that it doesn’t fit at all with the rest of 1 Cor 14, which is all about prophesy etc, with just this one verse flung in, then carrying on about prophesy. also, that it doesn’t fit with Paul’s writings on women covering their heads in church (1 Cor 11:5), where he expects them to pray and prophesy (as long as their heads are covered). this isn’t a loaded question at all, i’m interested in your interpretation with your love of Paul and much more knowledge of him than i have!

Grace!!! I love your questions. And I do love Paul lol. So, despite being aware of this argument I’ve never actually looked into it before today so we’re getting some off the cuff interpretation from me lolll

So the structure of 1 Corinthians is

1-4: Unity in the Diversity

5-7: Sexual Ethic in the Kingdom

8-10: Food and Idols

11-14: Unity in Worship

15-16: The Resurrection

So the weird issue in chapter 14 comes right after (1) Paul’s famous essay on love as the meaning of the universe which should then motivate you to focus on loving others rather than elevating yourself, and (2) Paul shaming the Corinthians for using the assembly as a talent show and not a common union based on love. 

Paul says (I don’t have a great translation on hand so bear with me lol)

All people must speak one at a time

Speaking in tongues must have an interpreter (and not just Dionysian madness). 

Prophets need to comport themselves  and not monopolize the assembly and go one by one. 

Women be silent and, if you’re confused, ask your husbands questions at home. It is shameful for a woman to speak. (Also it is the word “silent” and not “quiet”)

You should listen to me, Paul, because I gives the commandments of the Lord

So the obvious issue in the verse (aside from the rather misogynistic vibes) is that it is in direct contradiction with the rest of scripture which places great emphasis on the (ideal) inherent equality of women (again. Ideally) and also Paul’s own writing in this very letter where he gives details on how women in the Assembly of God are to pray, speak in tongues (which Paul describes in the letter as the language of spiritual beings), and prophesy (that is, preach a direct word from God). It is also inconsistent with Paul's dealings with his co-workers in that women such as Prisca, Phoebe and Junia could not have functioned as Church leaders and apostles if they were not allowed to speak in public.

So as such there are (per usual) a myriad of differing interpretations that fall under these camps. A reading of 

Subservience

Culture

Interpolation 

Disagreement 

I will not be nice nor gentle: if you hold the first view you are a misogynist with a poor exegesis of scripture. The fact that some Christian traditions have taken to literally silencing women in the church and refusing that they speak. Quite frankly I do not care if Paul WAS saying that no woman should ever speak in church ever — if he was, his words should be rejected as the ravings of a man who had no connection to Jesus of Nazareth, the Anointed One. Why? Not just because I personally find it disgusting (which. Clearly I do. I cannot be subtle I hate misogyny) but because it is inconsistent with the biblical narrative as a whole from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22. If we claim that the Holy Scriptures are a unified story that leads to Jesus then we have no choice but to interpret scripture in a way that is consistent as a whole. And this one does not cut it. Also it’s misogynist. Get rekt by the image of God poem. 

Next is the idea that this is a culturally contextual commandment. As such they would argue this doesn’t apply to all believers in all churches — either in 2025 or back in 56 when Paul write this letter. Some married women who sat together were being rude — talking and arguing during the sermon instead of listening to the singing, praying, and prophesying. They need to be quiet and ask their husbands whatever questions they have at home.

Slight problem imo: the idea that married women sat separately than the unmarried. I haven’t seen or found anything that would lead me to believe that there was a separation of the married and the unmarried, or any sex based separation. In fact, men and women of varying careers and ethnicities and socioeconomic statuses sitting together at one table to take the bread and the cup was a big deal and very controversial to many. That said, this is Corinth, the church infamous for being a problem basically all day and all the time. Also there was an almost schism that went down regarding sex and marriage vs consecrated virginity. Amongst other things (again Corinth had lots of problems). So it is possible that there was a division in seating between married and unmarried men and women.

Edit: interjecting here after having read N.T. Wright’s paper on the biblical basis for women’s service in the church. I’ll just quote the whole thing, “I have always been attracted, ever since I heard it, to the explanation offered once more by Ken Bailey. In the Middle East, he says, it was taken for granted that men and women would sit apart in church, as still happens today in some circles. Equally important, the service would be held (in Lebanon, say, or Syria, or Egypt), in formal or classical Arabic, which the men would all know but which many of the women would not, since the women would only speak a local dialect or patois. Again, we may disapprove of such an arrangement, but one of the things you learn in real pastoral work as opposed to ivory-tower academic theorizing is that you simply can’t take a community all the way from where it currently is to where you would ideally like it to be in a single flying leap. Anyway, the result would be that during the sermon in particular, the women, not understanding what was going on, would begin to get bored and talk among themselves. As Bailey describes the scene in such a church, the level of talking from the women’s side would steadily rise in volume, until the minister would have to say loudly, ‘Will the women please be quiet!’, whereupon the talking would die down, but only for a few minutes. Then, at some point, the minister would again have to ask the women to be quiet; and he would often add that if they wanted to know what was being said, they should ask their husbands to explain it to them when they got home.” With this new context I now find this to be a much stronger argument. And if it weren’t for the next problem I’d embrace it with open arms. But, alas, earwax 

Bigger problem: the Greek. Unlike in 1 Timothy where it says “Let women learn in quietness” this says very strongly in Greek that the women must be “silent”, as if required so by law, and that is “disgraceful/shameful” (another very strong word in Greek ) if they do not. This is an honor-shame culture so for something to be shameful is really, really bad. The Greek seems much too strong and intense for the cultural argument to be the case. 

Next is the interpolation interpretation: this is actually very popular among scholars. The reasons being

the passage interrupts the flow of Paul's argument

it follows language from the First Epistle to Timothy, which was probably not written by Paul

it contradicts Paul's neutral or positive mention of women prophesying, praying, and taking other speaking and leadership roles in the church

the passage is alternatively found at different locations in some manuscripts, which may indicate it was originally inserted as a marginal note and then unstably inserted into the text itself

some manuscripts give evidence of a prior record of its absence from the text.

And honestly? I find those to be really convincing arguments! I actually was unaware of all of this before today. 

Interestingly Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, when arguing for this position says, “1 Corinthians 14:34–35 are not a Corinthian slogan, as some have argued…, but a post-Pauline interpolation. ... Not only is the appeal to the law (possibly Genesis 3:16) un-Pauline, but the verses contradict 1 Corinthians 11:5. The injunctions reflect the misogyny of 1 Timothy 2:11–14 and probably stem from the same circle. Some mss. place these verses after 40.” Ignoring the jab at 1 Timothy (on which i find the Cult of Diana theory to be most convincing), I am intrigued at his words about a possible appeal to the Torah. 

The verse is: “Women should be silent in the assemblies. For they are not allowed to speak but are to subject themselves, just as the Torah also says.” 

Genesis 3:16 says: “Your desire shall be toward your husband, and he shall tyrant over you.” Which if you are a longtime follower of this blog (so like one of you lolll) you might know I take this to mean “You will have a tendency to dominate your husband, and he will have a tendency to act as a tyrant over you.” For why desire means dominate read the next chapter.

(Sidenote: both the woman being subjugated and the man eating the herb of the field are both forms of humanity becoming beasts. Meditate on Genesis 1 and 3.)

Where was I? Right, the interloper theory. Murphy-O'Connor says that the hyperlink is not Pauline but I’m not sure about that. An appeal to Genesis 1-3 to make a theological argument is very Pauline to me. Actually it’s just very biblical. All biblical theology throughout the prophets comes out of Genesis 1-3. It’s the same in the apostles. When Paul wants to talk about gender equality he turns to Genesis 1! Anyway. I don’t believe Paul wrote that line or made that allusion but I do think it’s inaccurate to say that the hyperlink is un-Pauline. 

Finally there is the disagreement interpretation, which I think is the most recent theory. Basically, in the same way earlier in the letter Paul will quote a letter from the Corinthians — “It is good for a man to not touch a woman” and “We know that we all have knowledge” — and then disagree with it — “Nevertheless because of sexual immorality” and “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” — he is doing the same thing here. Quoting a letter from the Corinthians and then following up with a disagreement. 

And with the way that our modern bibles have the text, this too is a compelling argument. The injunction against women speaking is immediately followed with with a negative statement: “[ē] did the word of God originate with you?” And then the controversy has to do with that ē (‘eh’). It can mean “or/than/either” or it can mean “hey/now” but either way it’s about contesting and contrast. 

Now here is where we begin to get into nerdy stuff about language which uh is not my wheelhouse. I love biblical studies and if I ever went into academic study of theology, that is where I would focus. But the second you want me to open a Hebrew/Greek dictionary I’m running away. Just know, there are a lot of smart people who believe it is a quotation that begins with “As in all the assemblies of the saints” and ends with “shameful for a woman to speak in the assembly”, and then is contested by Paul “What! Did the word of God originate with y’all, or are y’all the only ones it has reached?" 

The thing that bothers me about this interpretation: the manuscript variations. However, David Odell-Scott argues that those western manuscripts that moved 34-35 to a different position (after verse 40) are the work of a patriarchal redactor seeking to "shelter" and protect the Corinthian slogan from Paul's emphatic critique in verse 36. By associating these verses with the "decency and order" of verse 40, the redactor undermined the egalitarian interpretation of the canonical version, and incorrectly presented the Corinthian voice as the voice of Paul. (Sidenote: Odell-Scott seems to also dislike 1 Timothy. Interesting)

In summary because Kyrie Eleison that was a lot! So ranked —

Subordination: misogynist, anti biblical, anti Christian, anti Pauline. Should be rejected and burned with Gehenna fire

Cultural: a pretty good interpretation of it wasn’t for the intense harshness of the Greek

Interpolation and Disagreement: both are tied for me. Both have really good points that take both the textual and cultural history into view. Also both work structurally imo. Whether you have the injunction or not, the essay still flows perfectly.

I: Don’t be a showboat who creates disorder -> What!? Did the word of God come to y’all alone!?!

D: Don’t be a showboat who creates disorder -> “Something something misogynist trad” -> What!? Did the word of God come to y’all alone!?!

So… yeah. Love God. Love your neighbor. May whoever the misogynist was who wrote that have his bones ground to dust. And may the favor of our God and Lord Jesus be with you, and may the God of Peace crush the adversary underneath your feet.