Subject: RE: tc-list 1 Cor. 14.34-35 and the Western Tradition

From: Curt Niccum <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 07:57:08 -0500

It would be easiest (on me) to refer you to my article, "The Voice of
the Manuscripts on the Silence of Women: the External Evidence for 1 Cor
14.34-5" in NTS 43 (1997) 242-55 which is a response to Fee and Payne
(see Philip Payne, "Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1
Cor. 14.34-5" in NTS 41 (1995) 240-62 and "Ms. 88 as Evidence for a Text
without 1 Cor. 14.34-5," NTS 44 (1998) 152-8). Antoinette Wire has an
excellent discussion in her book "The Corinthian Women Prophets" and an
article entitled "Reply to Payne on the Text of 1 Cor 14.34-40"
forthcoming in NTS. the latter responds to Payne's second NTS article.

As for Fee's presentation of the evidence, he relied on the information
available in the UBS and NA apparatu(u)s. 

UBS 4 adds the evidence of b because, even though it is a copy of
Pelagius' commentary and a Vulgate text, it contains many valuable
"Western" readings. UBS4 errs here, however, for b lacks the folio
containing this verse. The published edition of b, which apparently was
the source of the information for the new edition of the Greek New
Testament, supplied the lacking text from a different (and inferior)
manuscript of Pelagius' commentary.

Curt Niccum

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	[email-masked] [SMTP:[email-masked]]
	Sent:	Monday, September 21, 1998 7:39 PM
	To:	[email-masked]
	Subject:	tc-list 1 Cor. 14.34-35 and the Western
Tradition

	TCers:

	I am trying to understand 1 Cor. 14:34-35. In particular I am
looking at
	the Western witnesses which put vv. 34-35 after v. 40. I am
trying to
	reconcile different presentations of the information:

	UBS 4 says: D, F, G, Italic ar b d f g, vg ms, Ambrosiaster,
	Sedulius-Scotus.

	UBS 3 (Corrected) says: D F G 88*, Italic ar d e f g,
Ambrosiaster,
	Sedulius-Scotus.

	Fee, 1 Cor., NICNT, says: D F G 88* a b d f g, Ambrosiaster,
	Sedulius-Scotus.

	Fee, _God's Empowering Presence_, pg. 273 lists: F/f; G/g; 88*;
e; ar;
	Ambrosiaster, Sedulius Scotus. 

	I am particularly stuck on Old Latin a and b. It seems to me
that Fee
	lists it in the NICNT but not in his later book. Am I misreading
the
	presentation of the evidence? Any suggestions would be helpful.
For that
	matter, why does UBS 4 include b, while UBS 3 leave it out?

	Secondly, does anybody know if any of the above Western witness
included
	any marginal notes or signs along with the placement of vv.
34-35 after
	v. 40? I am aware that Old Latin Armachanus "omits vv. 36-39, so
that its
	text reads vv.33, 40, 34-35 in this order" (quoting Fee,
Presence, p.
	273). I'm just curious if there were any other interesting
surprises.

	I am working on an article; any input would be greatly
appreciated.

	Thank you.

	Mike Kennedy, M.A., future doctoral candidate?
	Vacaville, CA 

_____________________________________________________________________
	You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet
e-mail.
	Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
	Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

---

From: Curt Niccum <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 08:54:44 -0500

I apologize once again for misinformation. Perhaps I should refrain from
making comments on the list until I actually have time to formulate
proper responses. UBS4 does not refer to the Balliol ms. of Pelagius'
Commentary (and who knows where I came up with that one!). It refers to
a commentary manuscript located in Budapest edited in 1973 by Frede. 

Well, back to the dissertation.

Extremely embarrassed,

Curt Niccum 

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Robert B. Waltz [SMTP:[email-masked]]
	Sent:	Tuesday, September 22, 1998 8:22 AM
	To:	[email-masked]
	Subject:	RE: tc-list 1 Cor. 14.34-35 and the Western
Tradition

	On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, Curt Niccum <[email-masked]> wrote:

	>The manuscript [b/89] was edited by Souter in 1922. By the way,
in my previous
	>posting I noted the ms lacked the folio containing 1 Cor
14.34-5. It
	>actually is missing an entire quaternion.

	Thanks for the information. This is *not* evident from any of
the
	sources I consulted (NA27, Metzger's manual).

	The most interesting thing is that NA27 lists b as being
*complete*.
	From the previous post, I assume the editors filled it out from
other
	sources. But I find myself wondering what the lacunae in the
	actual manuscript are. Anyone have a list?

	Thanks.

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

	                        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)