¹ Although the UBS Greek NT cites it^{dem s z}, Metzger, B. in The Early Versions of the NT (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977) 295Google Scholar lists these as ‘no longer generally regarded as Old Latin’, cf. 306 which notes that z is Old Latin only in Heb 10–13, 1 Pet 2.9–4.15; 1 John 1.1–3.15.

² E.g. Carlo Martini, M., ‘La tradition textuelle des Actes des Apôtres et les tendances de l'Église ancienne’, Les Actes des Apôtres: traditions, rédaction, théologie (ed. Kremer, J.: Louvain: University, 1979) 34Google Scholar; Ropes, J. H., The Text of Acts (The Beginnings of Christianity. Part I: The Acts of the Apostles 3; ed. Jackson, F. J. Foakes and Lake, K.. London: Macmillan, 1926) ccxxiii–ccxxivGoogle Scholar; Hanson, R. P. C., ‘The Provenance of the Interpolator in the “Western” Text of Acts and of Acts Itself’, NTS 12 (1965–1966) 211–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pervo, R. I., ‘Social and Religious Aspects of the “Western” Text’, The Living Text, Essays in Honor of Ernest W. Saunders (ed. Groh, D. E. and Jewett, R.; New York: University Press of America, 1985) 229–41, 240.Google Scholar

³ Wire, A. C., The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Paul's Rhetoric (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 151.Google Scholar

⁴ Daniell, F. H. Blackburne, ‘Victor, Bishop of Capua’, in Smith, W. and Wace, H., eds., A Dictionary of Christian Biography (4 vols.; London: John Murray, 1877–1887) 1.1126.Google Scholar

⁵ Metzger, B. M., The Text of the NT: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration (Oxford: Clarendon, 1964) 77.Google Scholar

⁶ E. Nestle, Textual Criticism, 122.

⁷ Daniell, ‘Victor’, 1126.

⁸ Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT (New York: UBS, 1971) 565.Google Scholar

⁹ Lowe, E. A., Codices latini antiquiores 8: Germany. Altenburg-Leipzig (Oxford: Clarendon, 1959) 8.49.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Based on discussions at the AAR-SBL Meeting in late November, 1991 in Kansas City and in late November, 1992 in San Francisco.

¹¹ Ranke, E., ed., Codex Fuldensis (Marburg/Leipzig: N. G. Elwert, 1868) 485Google Scholar, translated from the Latin.

¹² In San Francisco in late November 1992.

¹³ Only in 1 Pet 3.14 is h in the text directing the reader supra to a gloss in the top margin.

¹⁴ Six of the other seven glosses marked by sigla h and h bring Fuldensis into conformity with the standard Vulgate reading as represented by the critical text of Weber: 1 Cor 7.35, 9.4; Col 1.2; 2 Thess 3.10; 2 Tim 2.20, and 1 Pet 3.14. R. Weber, ed., Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1969).

¹⁵ It is unlikely that the three different sigla used to mark deletion of the letters ‘eT’ in 2 Tim 2.20 (slash-through and over-comma) and the text in Rom 9.25 (overdots) all went back to Victor, so it is probable that at least one of these texts confirms the use of sigla h and h for replacement text, not just inserted text.

¹⁶ He might have used an arrow as is commonly done by a corrector of Codex Sinaiticus around his time, dated by Hunt at the end of the 5th cent. AD and by Kenyon at the beginning of the 7th, e.g. pages xviii, 108, 130, 131 (four times), 133, 134 in Lake, Kirsopp. Codex Sinaiticus petropolitanus. The NT, Epistle of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas (Oxford: Clarendon, 1911).Google Scholar

¹⁷ The few instances in the gospels were obviously motivated by a desire to harmonize with Matthew, not to rearrange the logic. Cf. Fee, G. D., 1 Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 700Google Scholar and note 9.

¹⁸ At the AAR/SBL Annual Meetings in 1991 and 1992, when he read a draft of this study.

¹⁹ Aland, The Text of the NT, 188.

²⁰ Ellis, E. E., ‘The Silenced Wives of Corinth (1 Cor 14.34–5)’, 213–20 in NT Textual Criticism, Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger (ed. Epp, E. J. and Fee, G. D.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1981) 219.Google Scholar

²¹ E. E. Ellis, ‘The Silenced Wives of Corinth’, 219.

²² Cf. B. M. Metzger, Early Versions of the NT, 21, cf. 26–7.

²³ G. D. Fee, 1 Corinthians, 699–710, addresses both transcriptional and intrinsic probability.

²⁴ The end of verse 33 assumes a natural ellipsis, ‘As [we teach/is taught] in all the churches’, which is made explicit in Fuldensis' addition of doceo. The second occurrence of this word in v. 35, ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, is identical in form to the occurrences of this phrase in 14.19 and 28.

²⁵ D. Horrell argued this at the Cambridge NT Seminar on 2 Feb. 1993.

²⁶ Cf. speaking in tongues in 14.2, 4, 5 (twice), 6, 13, 18, 23, 27, 39; speaking mysteries, 2; speaks for their strengthening, 3; speak revelation, knowledge, or prophecy, 6; what (the content that) you are speaking, 9; speaking into the air, 9; the one speaking, 11 (twice); speak with my mind, 19; I will speak through strange tongues and the lips of foreigners, 21; speak to himself and to God, 28; let two or three prophets speak, 29.

²⁷ 1 Cor 14.21's citation from Isa 28.11, 12 is not a citation of a precept, even if the somewhat-related content in Deut 28.49 is understood as also implied. Paul occasionally reinforces arguments by appeals to a precept of ὁ νόμος, but in each of the three passages where he does this he is either using the precept as a metaphorically-applied example, not as a new Christian law (1 Cor 9.8 and 14.21), or he uses it only as correlative support for what he establishes foundation ally on Christ (Rom 7.7 and 13.8–10).

²⁸ Even ‘let them ask’, ἐπερωτάτωσαν, comes from the root ἐρῶ in 1 Cor 14.16, 23.

²⁹ Roberts, A. and Donaldson, J., Ante-Nicene Fathers (9 vols.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, reprinted 1989) 2.290.Google Scholar

³⁰ Roberts, Ante-Nicene Fathers, 2.431–2.

³¹ Bap. 15.17, cited from Roberts, Ante-Nicene Fathers, 3.677.

³² Only in these verses is it in the indicative mood or present tense. Its only other Pauline occurrence, 1 Cor 16.7, is a subjunctive aorist.

³³ Given Paul's typical use of οὐδέ for hendiadys and the only well-established meaning for αὐθεντέω at that time, 1 Tim 2.12 should probably be translated, ‘I am not permitting a woman to teach-and-dominate a man’, namely ‘to teach in a way that dominates a man’. See the author's forthcoming Man and Woman One in Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).

³⁴ Cf. 2.8, ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ, referring to places of church worship. 1 Tim 3.5 and 15 use the word. ἐκκλησία.

³⁵ Even the reference to ‘husbands’ and ‘at home’ reflects ‘childbearing’ in 1 Tim 2.15.

³⁶ Ad. Marcionem 5.8.

³⁷ Just as Rom 3.13–18 was probably interpolated after Ps 14.2 first as a note in the margin but then included in the text of some editions of , several versions in other languages, and the Hebrew ms. De-Rossi, IV, 7 (cod. Kenn. 649); cf. , C. A. and Briggs, E. G., A Commentary on the Book of Psalms (2 vols.; ICC; New York: Charles Scribners' Sons, 1906, 1909) 1.104Google Scholar; Craigie, P. C., Psalms 1–50 (WBC 19; Waco, TX: Word, 1983) 146–7Google Scholar. Codex Bezae, the uncial Φ, the Old Latin and Curetonian Syriac versions, and a few copies of the Vulgate have a much longer interpolation after Matt 20.28.

³⁸ Cf. Metzger, The Text of the NT, 47–8; Aland, The Text of the NT, 106 ‘by far the most significant of the uncials’. The only one of the early papyri containing 1 Corinthians 14.34–5 is ⁴⁶, written about 200 AD, and every readable letter in it agrees with Vaticanus. The Bodmer Papyri, especially ⁶⁶ and ⁷⁵, both copied near or slightly after 200 AD, show substantial similarities with Vaticanus, implying origin from a common archetype that must not have been later than early in the second century, cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, xviii.

³⁹ Origen's 1 Corinthians 71 and 74 in Claude Jenkins, ‘Origen on 1 Corinthians’, JTS 10 (1909) 40, lines 6–8, and 41, lines 24–7.

⁴⁰ Even where the later minuscules do not have regular paragraph marks, each one I checked had a breaking mark at the beginning of v. 34 and at the end of v. 35, e.g. 876 (which has no pause mark in the middle of v. 33), 223, 1175, 1739, 1780 and 1881.

⁴¹ E.g. either the bar or the umlaut or both in Mark 2.16–17; 14.70–1; Luke 22.58; John 12.7 (1368B); Acts 2.47–3.1; 4.35–6; 6.10; Rom 16.5; Col 3.20.

⁴² Cf. Cardinal, E.Tisserant's, statement, ‘The exploration of this exceptional volume remains still to be carried out’ on p. 5 of the introduction to Ta iera Biblia codex Vaticanus graecus 1209 (Vatican City: Vatican, 1965)Google Scholar; similarly Canart and Martini wrote on p. 8, ‘A definitive appraisal of the corrections and annotations made to the codex during the course of time is still to be undertaken’; echoed by Skeat, T. C., ‘The Codex Vaticanus in the Fifteenth Century’, JTS 35 (1984) 456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴³ Tischendorf, C., Novum Testamentum Graece (8th ed.; 3 vols.; Leipzig: Giesecke & Devrient, 1869–94).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ NA²⁶ indicates the twenty-sixth edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece.

⁴⁵ Eleven if the variant Tischendorf noted at the gap in Mark 3.5–6 is included. The others are: Matt 13.50–1; 18.10, 12; Mark 3.5–6; 5.40; 14.70–1; Luke 1.28–9; John 7.39–40; Acts 2.47–3.1; 14.13–14; 1 Cor 10.24–5; and Phil 2.24. Five more examples are listed in the following discussion of ‘separated bar-umlauts’.

⁴⁶ It is generally regarded that the NT of Vaticanus was written by a single scribe. Canart and Martini, Ta iera Biblia, 8 state, ‘It is most probable that the entire NT (or most of it) was produced by a single scribe.’ Cf. Gregory, C. R., Canon and Text of the NT (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1907) 345Google Scholar. Ropes, The Text of Acts, xxxviii, writes that a separate scribe wrote Ps 77.72–Matt 9.5.

⁴⁷ This is probably higher than the overall average in Vaticanus since the lines farther away from the ‘bar-umlaut’ tended to have fewer variants noted in the NA²⁶ and since the continuation of several of these passages contained no textual variations noted in the NA²⁶ for over ten lines (e.g. Luke 1.34–5; Acts 14.22–5; and Rom 16.10–14 for over twenty lines).

⁴⁸ Note that the text of Vaticanus, not the NA²⁶, is the text to which other texts are being compared in the use of this and the following sigla.

⁴⁹ Two of these lines begin at the beginning of an NA²⁶ paragraph, Luke 21.19 and Acts 14.18. Eight others of these lines contain the beginning of an NA²⁶ paragraph in the middle of the line: Matt 13.50–1; Matt 18.10, 12; John 7.39–40; 9.41–10.1; Acts 2.47–3.1; Phil 2.24; Col 2.15–16; and 2 John 8–9. Matt 18.10, 12 and 2 John 8–9, however, are not the beginning of a paragraph in the UBS 3rd ed. corr.

⁵⁰ Hammond, Outlines of Textual Criticism, 48.

⁵¹ Usually the division occurs in the middle of the underlined line, but where the first word of a paragraph begins a line, the bar underlines the left end of the preceding line so that the bar logically separates the two paragraphs.

⁵² The eight are: Matt 13.50–1; Luke 21.19; John 7.39–40; 9.41–10.1; Acts 2.47–3.1; 14.18; Phil 2.24; Col 2.15–16. Matt 18.10, 12 and 2 John 8–9 have paragraph breaks in this line in NA²⁶ but not in UBS³. Eight of these ten NA²⁶ paragraph breaks occur in the middle of the line containing the ‘bar-umlaut’ and two of them, Luke 21.19 and Acts 14.18 at the end of that line.

⁵³ Cf. also these odd places for paragraph divisions: Matt 24.6–7; Acts 13.16–17.

⁵⁴ The whole Syriac tradition in Matt 13.50–1; 18.10, 12; John 7.39–40; Acts 2.47–3.1; Rom 16.5; 1 Cor 10.24; Syriac^h in Matt 3.9–10; Luke 1.78–9 (twice); Jas 4.4; Syriac^h** in Mark 5.40; 14.70–1; Col 3.18; Syriac^s in Luke 22.58; Syriac^p in Mark 14.70–1; Luke 1.78–9 (twice); Acts 14.13–14; Phil 2.24; Col 3.18; Syriac^hmg in Acts 6.10; Acts 14.18.

⁵⁵ E.g. Metzger, Early Versions of the NT, 39–41.

⁵⁶ A more detailed analysis of which manuscript families most often contain these variants is forthcoming in the author's Man and Woman One in Christ (Grand Rapids, Zondervan).

⁵⁷ See the chart below. There is a possibility that line 1359A from John 6.52 might be included, but that would depend on two very faint, horizontally-uneven smudge marks that are closer to the text than other umlauts. This line (1359A) does include a word omitted by many early texts.

⁵⁸ In Matt 9.13–14 (1425B) either or both of two factors appear to have caused this. First, another symbol, , already occupies that location. If the umlaut were put on the left as it usually is in column B, it would have overlapped this other symbol. Second, the text that is omitted is on the right side of the line, which makes the umlaut on the right of the line particularly appropriate.

⁵⁹ Matt 3.15–16; Luke 19.37; Acts 4.35–6; Rom 3.8–9. Similarly, all seven of the contiguous ‘bar-umlauts’ that were faded are by lines where the NA²⁶ lists variants: Mark 14.70–1; Luke 22.58; Acts 2.47–3.1; 6.10; Rom 16.5; Col 3.20; and 1 Cor 14.33.

⁶⁰ A later hand has partially reinforced the horizontal line and added a vertical stem to indicate a chapter division. Similar overwriting of a horizontal bar to indicate a chapter break has also been done on many other horizontal lines, e.g. in Vaticanus columns 1353C, 1403C, 1436C, 1451A, 1456C, 1459A.

⁶¹ Cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 219–22; Carson, D. A., The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) 333Google Scholar notes that ‘those that do include it display a rather high frequency of textual variants … The diversity of placement confirms the inauthenticity of the verses.’ Surprisingly, the same principle when applied to 1 Cor 14.34–5 he says is not weighty in ‘Silent in the Churches’ in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Wheaton: Crossway, 1991) 142.Google Scholar

⁶² Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets, 150, cf. 284 n. 16. Tischendorf, C., Codex Claromontanus sive epistulae Pauli omnes (Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1852) 558Google Scholar notes five variants here in that one codex. Three variants here in ms. 88 are not noted in NA²⁶.

⁶³ Outlines of Textual Criticism, 49.

⁶⁴ Gregory, Canon and Text of the NT, 347, where he indicates that his evaluation is shared by Tischendorff, Westcott and Hort.

⁶⁵ Krecher, J., ‘Glossen’, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie (ed. Ebeling, E. et al. ; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1971) 3.435–6.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Cf. Würthwein, Ernst, The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica (London: SCM, 1979) 56Google Scholar; Cox, C. E., Hexaplaric Materials Preserved in the Armenian Version (SBL LXX 21; Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1986) 2.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Brock, S. P., ‘Origen's Aims as a Textual Critic of the Old Testament’, Studia Patristica 10/1 (TU 107; Berlin: Akademie, 1970) 218Google Scholar; cf. Metzger, B. M., ‘Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in NT Manuscripts’, in Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian (NTTS 8; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968) 88–103.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Ranke, Codex Fuldensis, 465, 573 (photocopy of a sample page).

⁶⁹ The only exception is 1 Cor 15.20 (1474C), which has no NA²⁶ variant. Cf. below on 1 Cor 5.1.

⁷⁰ This figure does not include the ‘bar umlauts’ discussed above (1 Cor 10.17–18, 24–5; and 14.33) or dots whose shape is significantly different from the usual pattern (the large dots in 1 Cor 7.32 and the widely separated dots in 15.48–9) or that have a position that cannot be clearly associated with a particular line (see 1 Cor 13.11 and 16.19).

⁷¹ The ratio becomes even higher if the seven of these where the umlaut is most faint are excluded, since only one of these contains a variant. Then there would be 31 out of 42 containing variants. It is possible that the original Vaticanus scribe put in these umlauts based on variant readings he saw in a manuscript of 1 Cor but that the later scribe who reinforced the ink line by line, having no knowledge of variants in these lines, chose not to reinforce them. The paucity of textual variants in lines with faded umlauts in 1 Cor contrasts sharply with the uniform presence of NA²⁶ variants with faded ‘bar umlauts’ whether reversed or not. This, added to their distinctive written form, higher ratio of NA²⁶ variants, and the low correlation of the bar umlauts with NA²⁶ and UBS³ paragraph breaks, indicate that the ‘bar umlaut’ is a separate siglum from the ‘umlaut’.