Subject: I Corinthians 11:10 (re Rolan & Waltz)

From: [email-masked] (William L. Petersen)
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:10:19 +0100

On Bret Rolan's question (and, indirectly, Robert Waltz's reply):

While there appears no *extant* GREEK evidence for the reading, according
to Merk's editon of the NT (bilingual), it is found in:

(1) some MSS of the Vulgate ("velamen" in place of "potestatem" )
(2) some MSS of the Bohairic (a Coptic version)
(3) Irenaeus (the reference which piqued your curiosity)
(4) Jerome
(5) Augustine

The Greek word would be "kalumma."

Vogels' edition adds Origen to this list, but in brackets, indicating that
the reading may be from Rufinus' translation of Origen (in Latin), or there
is some other problem which urges caution.

Souter resolves that problem by telling us in his edition that Origen *in
the Latin translation of Rufinus* reads "uelamen et potestatem"--a
conflation of the present standard Greek reading and the reading you found
in Irenaeus.

Thus, contrary to Waltz's assertion, the reading does not seem to be a
"gloss."  Rather, as far back as the second century, it appears to have
been known (Irenaeus);  in the third century it was known to Origen--who
also knew the reading we now have (if we rely on Rufinus to be translating
accurately, which a study of F. Stanley Jones suggests he generally does
[there will always be places where we think something else should be read,
but on the whole...]).  In the fourth century it was known to Jerome and
Augustine.  The reading seems to be western (geographically speaking),
prominent in the West, esp. in the Latin tradition.  This may be deceiving,
however, for the *corpus paulinum* is poorly preserved in the east before
the Peshitta (fifth cent. and later).

Given the array of MSS and fathers with this reading, there is no question
but that it stood in a Greek MS at some date (the Bohairic, for example, is
certainly based on the Greek, not the Latin...  ditto for Origen, and
probably also for Irenaeus...).  That date was probably rather early, given
the early texts/fathers with it.

How it came to be stand in the English verions is interesting to speculate:
I don't have Erasmus at hand, but the Vulgate MSS with it are both in
London (Harley, VIII cent, and Williams, anni 1245).  They may have
influenced the English translations or the Vulgate traditions in England.

As Waltz noted, "the phrase just isn't very clear."  But to state as he
does that it is

>Clearly a gloss. No one would ever change the clear reading "veil" to
>the unclear "authority." And in any case, all the manuscripts read
>"authority."

seems, to me, precipitous, given the early testimony for the reading
"veil."  Waltz's statement that "all the manuscripts read 'authority'" is
correct--but only for the Greek MSS surviving *today*.  It does not apply
to the Fathers, or the versions, most notably the Latin and Bohairic.  And
as I remarked before, we can be quite certain, given this constellation of
witnesses, it once stood--probably in the second or third century--in a
Greek MS of I Cor.  So the argument that "all the [Greek] manuscripts read
'authority'" is moot:  one should say "all the Greek MSS *extant today*
read 'authority'."

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...)

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

>On Fri, 12 Sep 97, "ROLAN, BRET R" <[email-masked]>
>wrote:
>
>>I have come across a reading in Irenaeus that is interesting, and I
>>wonder if there is any NT manuscript support extant.
>>
>>Irenaeus, "Against Heresies" 8:2 has:
>>  - "A woman ought to have a VEIL upon her head, because of the angels."
>>(KALUMMA)
>>
>>Where the printed Greek NT versions I have access to would support the
>>more familiar:
>>I Corinthians 11:10
>>  - "For this cause ought the woman to have POWER on her head because of
>>the angels." (EXOUSIAN)
>>
>>I understand that Irenaes was quoting verses that the gnostic
>>Valentinians used in support of their particular doctrines, but he does
>>not challenge this particular reading.
>
>Question (since I don't have an edition of Irenaeus to consult): Is this
>from the *Greek* Irenaeus? If it's from the Latin or the Armenian, it
>doesn't mean much; many of the versions gloss this reading.
>
>>I have a few questions:
>>
>>1)  Are there any non-trivial variations in any extant manuscript?
>
>Based on the information available to me, there are no variations
>in the Greek manuscripts. The gloss you cite is, however, common
>in the versions. Even today, most English versions render the
>word "veil."
>
>>2)  If so, what are they, and what elucidation do you have on them?
>>
>>3)  Is it likely that Irenaeus' reading is a gloss, and the principle of
>>"the hardest reading is preferred" applies?  (as the phrase "power on her
>>on the head" seems to generate some confusion.)
>
>Clearly a gloss. No one would ever change the clear reading "veil" to
>the unclear "authority." And in any case, all the manuscripts read
>"authority."
>
>>4)  I am not conversant in Greek, so could anyone who is tell me if this
>>verse could be understood as "a woman ought to have authority over her,
>>because of the angels."?
>
>There are those who would read this as "a woman ought to have authority
>over her head, because of the angels."
>^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^
>
>Others would read it as ...have [a symbol of] authority upon her head.
>                                                        ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^
>
>I would say that the phrase just isn't very clear. I will freely admit
>that I would like to read it "a woman ought to have authority over
>her own head," but I doubt that's how Paul meant it....
>
>-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>                        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)

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 12:19:53 -0500 (CDT)

On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, [email-masked] (William L. Petersen)
wrote, in part:

>"gloss."

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

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.)

[ ... ]

>the early texts/fathers with it.

There is some basis for this argument, but I'm not sure it is complete.
Let's list the evidence again, noting the degree of Latin (especially
Old Latin) influence:

Definite Latin influence:
vg-mss
Augustine
Bede
Hippolytus
Jerome
Origen-lat (UBS4 says 2 of 3 of the Latin citations of UBS read "authority")
Tertullian

Possible Latin influence:
eth-ro (has many vulgate readings)

No obvious Latin influence:
arm
bo-mss

I note with interest that UBS4 does not list Irenaeus-Gk for either reading
here; only the Latin. If accurate (and I concede I cannot check it), then
the reading may be from the Greek.

Thus we need only explain the reading of the armenian and the bohairic.
But note that only *part* of the bohairic reads "veil." All other
Egyptian texts (that we know of, if one wishes to be pedantic) read
"authority." Since Irenaeus says that this is Ptolemy's reading,
the Bohairic variant may come from that. And I think the Armenian
rendering could be explanatory, given the context and the difficulty
of the other reading.

On consideration, Petersen is probably right that it did not originate
in the Latin. But I suspect that, among the orthodox, almost all
(except the two versions cited) ultimately derived it from the Latin.

[ ... ]

>correct--but only for the Greek MSS surviving *today*.

Which is, of course, what I meant. I can't say much about manuscripts
that no longer exist. :-)

[ ... ]

>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.

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]