Subject: Re: I Corinthians 11:10 (re Waltz)

From: [email-masked] (William L. Petersen)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 00:10:41 +0100

Re Waltz's comments:

>Note that a gloss *can be* in the same language as the original.
>A dictionary, for instance, is a whole book of formalized glosses.

I am confused:  (1) *I* said nothing about glosses having to be in the same
language as the original;  indeed, I did not introduce the word gloss into
this discussion:  it is *your* description of the reading.  Your statement
makes no sense to me.  (2) Your example of a dictionary is a *non liquet*,
for dictionaries *also* contain the *word* they are "glossing."  If "veil"
is a gloss, then it has replaced the word/phrase it is explaining:  what we
have--to borrow your metaphor--is a dictionary of definitions, *without the
words being defined.*

It is precisely this reason (no word in the text being "glossed" by "veil")
which leads me, at least, to regard this variant as a simple
*substitution.*  It is either A or B.  No manuscript give "A, that is,
B"--which would be the classic definition of a gloss (cp. John 9:7 "Go wash
in the pool of *Siloam*"--followed in the text by a gloss on the word
Siloam: "which means 'having been sent'."  [Whether the gloss is from the
author or from a later scribe is irrelevant for these purposes of
illustration here.])  The reading in I Cor. 11:10 is simply a garden
variety substitution--*it has nothing to do with glossing* at any obviuos
level.  (If it *were* a gloss, then it is a case where the gloss has
completely replaced the thing it was glossing--a rather unusual situation.
Why not call it what it is: a substitution?)

Anyone interested in glossing should look up the word in a dictionary, and
then look at some clear examples in mss, where the phenomenon is abundant.
(Check out the edition of the *Liege Diatessaron* in either the edition of
D. Plooij, or of C.C. de Bruin.)

>Thus I would ask Petersen: If you do not consider this a gloss,
>does that mean you actually consider it *original*? (Of course
>the third possibility is that it is an accidental error, but
>that seems unlikely in this case.)

I have no idea whether it is original or not, nor do I care which is
original.  I would note, however, that the topic of "covering the head"
both preceeds and follows this verse.  Verses 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, and 15
specifically speak of a woman covering her head and/or a man not covering
his.  The standard head covering for prayer would be some sort of cloth,
i.e. something within whose semantic range the word "veil" certainly fits.
No great theological issue related to "power" (mystical, divine) seems to
be at play here, save for the authority/power of a man over a woman (as per
Paul).  Thus *kalumma* fits the context perfectly--and the context (set in
vv. 4, 5, 13, etc.) presumably stems from the author of the document, not
later scribes glossing the text.  But that still does not mean *I* think it
is original, for before I could say that, I would have to devote at least a
month to researching the matter.  (What was--according to ancient
sources--standard woman's headgear in Corinth at this time?  Among Greeks?
Among Jews?  What practices were followed in pagan temples in Corinth?  In
Jewish synagogues in Corinth? What do the fathers say [checked not through
an apparatus, but by looking up each reference in the *Biblia Patristica*]?
Etc.)  There is nothing which, a priori, suggests that *kalumma* is not
original, other than the dearth of *Greek* MSS with the reading *extant
today*;  equally, there  there is nothing which suggests that the standard
Greek reading is not original, other than the early and rather wide
dissemination of the reading "veil."

>On consideration, Petersen is probably right that it did not originate
>in the Latin.

Thank you.

>>At a practical level, the idea of wearing a veil is rather quaint, a bit
>>like the idea of giving to anyone who asks, or forgiving all debts in the
>>7th year...  (In other words, which reading is original is of no practical
>>interest to me, only a puzzling textual problem...)
>
>I don't think we can treat it as moot. It is moot in most denominations
>today -- but given the American propensity to shoot up strange cults
>every few years, I think this is the sort of thing we need to settle.

I used the word "moot" in reference to your argument that the reading must
be Latin because no (extant) Greek MSS contained it, not that the issue was
moot.  I appended this remark lest someone on the list (whose theological
baggage is legion) think that I am for or against "veil" on theological
grounds.  Not so.

Addressing the issue you raise, note: (1) the Roman Catholic
tradition--which used to require a head covering for women in church--can
hardly be characterized as a "strange cult"--recall that all of the
reformers were originally Catholic, and that all MSS of the NT were copied
by "great church" "catholics" (or Eastern Orthodox ater 1054).  (I am not
nor ever have been RC, just to set the record straight.)  (2) There are
some issues--even textual ones--which *cannot* be settled, because the
evidence is so complex, and because *no one* has assembled the relevant
evidence for even *beginning* a competent study of the material.  History
is full of examples of people "wanting" to "settle" something--only later
to rue their decision.  The "clear," "Biblically-ordained" inferority of
blacks is one such example;  the "necessity" of lobotomies as a treatment
for certain mental problems is another.  I see no need to--and, indeed, I
see many dangers in--settling a matter which has not been adequately
reserached, and which, in the final analysis, may not *have* an answer.
And if it ever does get answered, it most certainly will not be on this
list.  (Ever heard of apophatic theology??)

--Petersen, Penn State University.
Netherlands Institute of Advanced Studies.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 18:39:08 -0500 (CDT)

I'm not going to continue this discussion with Petersen about the
origin of this reading, as I think our differences are primarily
based on the way we use the language. (At least, that's the politest
way I can think of to say "He's twisting what I said." :-)

But there is one thing he said which utterly confuses me:

>original.

You "do not care" which reading is original in this passage? Is not
the purpose of textual criticism to do our best to determine the
original reading? If that is *not* the purpose, then what is?

I am obviously missing something fundamental here

In another message (not directed at me, thankfully), Petersen
wrote:

>Maurice, is it possible that the shoe you are fitting so comfortably on
>Evensen's foot could also fit a Byzantine foot?  (A one-word reply will
>suffice...)

>>Using precisely the SAME argument-ex-silentio, it could equally be claimed
>>that "thousands of MSS" containing the current NESTLE 27 text "that were
>>extant in the 13ths, 14th, 15th centuries have perished", and "it is even
>>possible to regard the printed" NESTLE 27 edition "as a transmission of
>>the text of MSS which now have perished."  And there is nothing preventing
>>such a claim, except normal logic and the normal laws of evidence and
>>interpretation of factual data.

[ etc. ]

I must spring to Robinson's defense here. Be it noted that I do not
agree with Robinson's theory of the text, or with the text he prints,
or with his theology, or almost anything else (except, perhaps, his
taste in music).

But the difference between Robinson's theory and Evensen's is vast.
Evensen offers a text on the basis of faith. Robinson offers a text
on the basis of evidence. Whether or not we agree with his theory
(and few if any of us do), Robinson *has* a theory, and follows it
consistently. Thus he differs from Evensen as fundamentally as
Petersen or I do. The fact that his text resembles Evensen's more
than ours is irrelevant.

Robinson is a textual critic, even if an unorthodox on. Evensen is
not.

What more need one say?

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)