Over at the Koinonia blog, Philip Payne presents a useful summary of his contention that 1 Cor 14.34-35 is an interpolation. He also talks about his forthcoming ETS paper on statistical evidence that the distigmai in Codex Vaticanus signify textual variants.
A forum for people with knowledge of the Bible in its original languages to discuss its manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology.
- Contributors
- Peter M. Head (ed)
- Tommy Wasserman (ed)
- P. J. Williams, and others
Interesting. Thanks Mike. Leaving aside the topic of the distigmai (on which I agree - they are markers of textual variation), he twice refers to 1 Cor 14.34-35 bearing 'the hallmarks of interpolations'. How do we know what these hallmarks are?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what Payne is claiming when he writes:
ReplyDelete"There is no comparable instance of any other manuscript of any of Paul's letters of a scribe rearranging Paul's argument with a significant block of text in this way. Consequently, we know that it was contrary to scribal convention for a scribe to take the liberty to change the order of Paul's argument simply because he thought a different ordering of the text would make better sense .... No scribe of any surviving manuscript (and there are thousands) of any of Paul's letters ever did anything like this in any other passage of Paul's letters."
It seems to me that the well-known variant units 2Co 1:6-7, Php 1:16-17 and the location of the doxology of Romans show that in fact scribes clearly did at points alter the order of Paul's argument among a significant number of MSS. Thus I fail to see the validity of Payne's claim at this point.
I want to remind you of this interesting presentation at the SBL in New Orleans so that you have something to look forward to. I hope Payne will be there and there is likely to be an interesting discussion:
ReplyDeletePeter M Head, Tyndale House/University of Cambridge
The Marginalia of Codex Vaticanus: Putting the Distigmai (formerly known as ‘Umlauts’) in their Place
Abstract:
In recent years it has been suggested that the double dots in the margins of Codex Vaticanus (Cod. Vat. Gr. 1209 or B/03) are ancient markers of places of known textual variation (most notably by Philip Payne). This paper challenges the claimed antiquity of these double dots by investigating their relationships with other marginal material in Codex Vaticanus; including the marginal marks (or diple) noting OT citations; and the various levels of marginal chapter markings; and other comments and corrections. A relative chronology of all the marginalia is proposed and demonstrated visually. This relative chronology suggests that the distigmai are the latest observable additions to this codex. Other considerations also confirm a sixteenth century date for these markers of places of textual variation.
Maurice,
ReplyDeleteI had the same thought. Also, he seems to be a bit rash in suggesting comprehensive support from the Western text type. Versional support is lacking in a place where versions would actually be reliable:
/ vss 34/35 pon. p. 40 D F G a b vgmss; Ambst
Thanks Tommy,
ReplyDeletePhil and I have been and shall be in conversation on this. I shall be trying to get the paper finished far enough in advance to get it to him beforehand. (I generally get presentations prepared beforehand, but not always 'a long time' beforehand).
Peter, the plane trip to New Orleans is of course much longer than the train from Cambridge to London, so it will probably be a fantastic paper ;-)
ReplyDeleteThat reminds me, I must book some tickets.
ReplyDeleteChristian,
ReplyDeleteverses 34-35 after verse 40] D F G 88txt it(ar, b, d, e, f, g) vg(ms) Ambrosiaster Sedulius-Scotus
--LaParola
Note, however, that Dd F Gg support ὑμῶν after γυναῖκες alongside Byz against NA-27, so it's really just cherry-picking to count them as unequivocal evidence for removing the verses entirely.
Dr. Payne made several assertions for which it would be helpful if he could provide proof, or at least supporting footnotes:
ReplyDelete1. Scribes copying the manuscript later would
a)naturally assume that the text in the margin was inadvertently omitted and
b)so insert those verses into the text.
2. All manuscripts of the Western Text-Type put these two verses after 1 Cor 14:40. (how about dem o x z vg?)
3. Such divergent positioning is one of the hallmarks of interpolations.
4. There is no comparable instance of any other manuscript of any of Paul's letters of a scribe rearranging Paul's argument with a significant block of text in this way.
5. we know that it was contrary to scribal convention for a scribe to take the liberty to change the order of Paul's argument simply because he thought a different ordering of the text would make better sense.
6. no scribe of any surviving manuscript (and there are thousands) of any of Paul's letters ever did anything like this in any other passage of Paul's letters.
7. In every other instance where Bishop Victor corrected the text of Codex Fuldensis,
a) surviving manuscripts support his rewriting of the text, and
b) he is known for preserving the readings of ancient manuscripts