Women and Men in the Church at Corinth:
Interpretive Puzzles in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

B. N. Fisk

1. The question of sentence division: with what shall we connect the final clause of v. 33?

• either the beginning of the next paragraph: “As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches” (NRSV; cf. NIV, NEB, NJB). But note the awkward repetition of “in the churches” (hard to see in the NIV).
• or the conclusion of the previous section: God wants peace to mark the worship of believers not just in Corinth but everywhere (cf. NASV, KJV, NLT).

2. The question of consistency: why does Paul call women to silence here, but permit them to pray and prophesy in 11:5, 13?

• For verbal participation by women, see Acts 2:17; 21:9; Joel 2:28-32; Judg 4:4-5.

3. The question of manuscript evidence: why do some ancient manuscripts locate these verses after v.40?

• all extant manuscripts contain these verses
• several Greek and Latin manuscripts (none earlier than 6th century) locate them after verse 40 [D (6th c.), F (9th c.), G (9th c.), 88* (6th c.), etc.]
• the text type (often called “Western”) of the manuscripts which locate the verses after verse 40 is generally thought to be inferior
• three basic options:
  • 1. Paul wrote them after verse 33; a later scribe moved them to the end of the chapter.
  • 2. Paul wrote them after verse 40; a later scribe moved them forward to just after v.33.
  • 3. Paul did not write them; a later scribe added them, perhaps as a marginal note (combatting a rising feminist movement? under the influence of 1 Timothy 2:11-12?) which was later incorporated into subsequent copies of the letter in 2 different places.
• Why would a scribe insert them after v.33? Paul is writing about order in church, and about the need for silence (14:28, 30)--hence, additional remarks about the orderly silence of women.
• five (not entirely persuasive) reasons why verses 34-35 may have been added perhaps late in 1st century:
  • Paul’s argument makes better sense if v.36 follows directly after v.33; little in these verses is obviously/explicitly linked to the surrounding discussion about prophecy
  • prohibition of these verses conflicts with the permission of 11:5, 13, which assumes that women will prophesy and pray (publicly).
  • some phrases are difficult, or don’t sound like Paul:
    • why should women be silent “in the churches” (plural) if this letter was written to the church at Corinth (1:1)?
    • where in the OT does “the law” promote the silence of women?
    • where else does Paul spell out practical guidelines by appealing to “the Law”?
  • it is unlikely a scribe would rearrange Paul’s remarks (e.g., by relocating these verses).
  • evidence elsewhere suggests that women contributed significantly to the life of Paul’s churches (e.g., Rom 16:1-4, 7; Acts 18:18-26; Phil 4:2-3; cf. Acts 2:17-18).

4. The question of logical fit: if Paul did pen these words, what might they mean?

Three principal options:

1. All women are excluded from positions of authority.

• the previous paragraph (14:29-32) envisions several prophets sharing their oracles with the larger community, which was expected to sift the wheat from the chaff–to separate divine insights from merely human opinion (v.29)
• in light of chapter 11 (verse 5), we must assume that women were active as prophets in the church; in chapter 14, however, Paul calls for their silence during the public evaluation of prophetic oracles
• for Paul, “weighing” prophecy carried more authoritative “weight” than did prophecy itself.
• so although Paul readily acknowledged women prophets, he would not let them occupy positions of authority in the church (cf. 1 Tim 2:11-15)
• Church leadership today should likewise be limited to men.

2. Charismatic women are losing control.

• Paul called for women’s silence, in the context of his restrictions on tongues and prophecy, because he believed their use of these gifts had gotten out of hand
• perhaps there had been outbursts of ecstatic frenzy, not unlike the ravings displayed in the worship of Dionysus (or Bacchus) at Rome. Pagan practices were infiltrating the church (cf. 6:1; 8:10; 11:20-22)
• women and men who exercise their gifts appropriately should be free to participate fully in the assembly.
• but not only women but also men were known for outrageous behavior in the cults of the day
• and v. 35 seems to imply that women were blurting out pointed questions rather than ecstatic gibberish

3. Poorly educated women are interrupting the service.

• the key to the puzzling prohibition of v. 34 (“women should be silent”) lies in the details of v. 35
• Paul is not forbidding all speaking but rather the public asking of questions
• Paul commends private times of discussion and learning, but disallows public interruptions during church assemblies
• his vision was for an open and dynamic gathering of believers (14:26-33), but not for pandemonium

Cf. Plutarch (contempoary of Paul and prolific writer/popular lecturer) on listening, and talkativeness: It is “scandalous,” writes Plutarch, “to speak while being spoken to.” How much better the one “who has acquired the ability to listen in a self-controlled and respectful fashion” (“On Listening,” 4 [39C]). Furthermore, “people who try to divert the speaker on to other topics and interrupt with questions and queries are disagreeable nuisances” (10 [42F]). Plutarch also protested against lazy people who “bother the speaker. . . by asking the same questions over and over again–they remind one of young birds before they can fly, with their mouths constantly opened towards someone else’s mouth, for whom acceptable fare is only what is ready-made and pre-processed by others.” (18 [48A])

• in Corinth, particularly among the working classes (which were well represented in the church; cf. 1:26), education would be much more common among men than among women
• apparently several of these unlearned women had crossed a line and were displaying disruptive behavior many would have considered “shameful” or “disgraceful”
• Paul does not intend to demean women; to the contrary; his view would seem progressive in its day
• even if the wife is less educated, the husband should recognize her intellectual capability and take responsibility for her education (cf. Craig Keener, Paul, Women and Wives, [Hendrickson, 1992], 84).
• Paul’s advice would doubtless sound quite different had he faced a group of particularly unruly men, or had more of the women enjoyed the benefits of education
• the task of identifying “shameful” patterns of behavior in the church remains as important as ever