The prohibition of women's speech at 1 Cor 14.34–5, in a letter which elsewhere presumes female prophetic activity, has intrigued scholars. Although some attempt to resolve this apparent inconsistency by interpreting the text as it stands, others resort to interpolation theories. Of the latter, the large majority employ only a few of the traditional text-critical criteria. For example, Hans Conzelmann relies solely on intrinsic probability to dismiss 1 Cor 14.33b–36 as a later insertion,2 despite the external evidence which recognizes no omission. Gordon Fee, a noted text critic, has recently examined this passage employing all the text-critical criteria. Surprisingly, Fee still considers vv. 34–5 an interpolation.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 25th June 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.