Archive for January, 2010

January 15th
2010
written by phil

I found the following reviews of Man and Woman, One in Christ in respected blogs. Scot McKnight, Jesus Creed, writes, “Simply put, this is the most technically proficient study ever published on women in the Pauline texts.” (more…)

January 14th
2010
written by phil

At the New Testament Textual Criticism Seminar of the Society of Biblical Literature meeting November 21, 2009 Peter Head presented a paper entitled, “The Marginalia of Codex Vaticanus: Putting the Distigmai in their Place.” This paper argued that all of the Vaticanus Distigmai should be dated to the sixteenth century and were penned by Juan Gines de Sepulveda. The famous aphorism derived from H. L. Mencken aptly describes Head’s thesis: “For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.”

I have written a response to Peter Head and updated it several times.

The latest update is available in the March 17, 2010 post.

January 14th
2010
written by phil
 To view the location, verse reference, and variant type of each of the 51 distigmai that match the apricot color of Codex Vaticanus’s original ink, click here.
January 14th
2010
written by phil

 

So you don’t have to just imagine what the distigme-obelus symbol looks like just before 1 Cor 14:34-35, I have provided photographs of it and another distigme-obelus at the end of Luke 14:24 just before the interpolation that likewise would have occurred immediately after the end of the line marked by the distigme-obelus or at the very beginning of the following line, namely the interpolation  between Luke 14:24 and Luke 14:25, “many are called but few are chosen,” which is not  in the RSV, nor is it mentioned in an RSV footnote). Below both of these distigme-obelus photographs are photographs of other shorter horizontal bars called paragraphoi from that same page. To see these photographs, click here. (more…)

January 4th
2010
written by phil

I received this question from Don Johnson, who is reading my book.

Question: I am enjoying your book. I love your exposition of Eph 5. I have a question on 1 Cor 14. Before reading your book, I favored the idea that 1 Cor 14:34-35 is a quote from legalists at Corinth. The way I taught this is “the law/Torah says” is a ref. to the so-called Oral Torah of the Pharisees, which does limit women; and the 2 eta’s (sometimes translated as “or” but which I translate as “Bunk!”) in v. 36 which can be expletives of repudiation, per Nyland’s The Source New Testament (which she translates as “Utter Rubbish”) and others likewise.

Answer:  Thanks for your thoughtful question. The repudiation of a false prophecy interpretation of 1 Cor 14:34-35 is, I believe, the most credible of the many attempted interpretations of these two verses viewed as a part of Paul’s original letter delivered to the church in Corinth. For a while I was a proponent of this view after I realized the anachronism of trying to interpret in a narrow sense the thrice-repeated unqualified prohibition of speech by women in 1 Cor 14:34-35. That was before I looked closely at the text critical question and realized how powerful the arguments for interpolation are. (more…)