Based Corinthians

Joseph Wilson has defended Saint Paul from the charge of sexism before Timothy O'Neill; based on Wilson's paper (pdf).

Wilson starts by passing on the consensus against 1 Timothy as Pauline; although allowing Tatian that Titus be authentic, and Origen on 2 Timothy. Absent "based" 1 Timothy, Wilson can move on to 1 Corinthians 14:34-5 and 36. Wilson accepts that vv. 34-5 isn't Pauline either. But it's been part of the letter in every transmission, including Marcion's. Tertullian, always keen-eyed for inepti readings, finds this sexist doublet ineptus for Marcion (as with several other Marcionite inclusions). Tertullian makes this doublet a centrepiece of his antiMarcionite argument, here that Marcion lets women speak in church. The man had kind of a bug about that.

Wilson argues that the question in antiquity never was "does 14:34-5 belong in 1 Corinthians". Everyone agreed that it did. The question, rather, was over whether it belongs in vv. 34-5. A "Western" text-type exists wherein this doublet floated out of context[; UPDATE 4/7 not Bezae but Claromontanus D^P/06, also 010 and 012]. Tertullian used that D^P/06-aligned text, accusing Marcion of floating the couplet before our v. 36. He used it in "On the veiling of virgins" also.

Reading the text after our v. 36 (now v. 34), as opposed to deleting it, forces its reading as Paul's opinion. If one reads it before v. 36, some might read it as the opinion of Corinth which Paul then follows v. 36 with an expletive. "LOLWUT" as some might translate. It's not that 1 Cor 14:34-5 is antiPaul; it's that Paul is anti-vv.-34-5...

Wilson holds that the Western type, which became - in large part thanks to Tertullian - also the pre-Vulgate vetus-latina, was a minority-report. Most Greek Paul-containing codices sided with Marcion. Even such harsh misogynes as the Egyptian Gnostic monks translated from the standard.

My first critique, in the spirit of Wilson's saving "the Jews" from the charge of sexism, is to narrow the critique against "the West". Rome had a patriarchy but women enjoyed many rights there, and during the later Severan age would enjoy power as well. Tertullian was in fact not an Italian at all but an African who self-identified as Punic. As a sexist one is tempted to take him at his word not being a Berber. Historically most on either side of the Western Med have tended more egalitarian in these matters. See also the Severan women.

I also must ponder how the Old Syriac got hold of this "occidental" text given that Syriac is, er, oriental. If Tatian (say) didn't like 1 Timothy then how would he approve the disassociation of 1 Cor 14:34-5? ANSWER 3/23 - because Old Syriac did not go Western here! See Stuttgart 4th ed. (1994) footnote. PALAESTINA 5/1 - Climaci Rescriptus follows majority-text here too.

Tertullian famously had praise for Prisc[ill]a and Maximilla the Montanist prophetesses. Earlier generations thought that Tertullian became a Montanist himself although nowadays since 2001 this is doubted. (Also I must wonder if Saint Luke be somehow involved with this or that Prisca.) Concerning Wilson's case: what matters is that Tertullian accepted the preaching of Prisca and Maximilla. They can preach God's Word outside the Church but... not in it? LOLWUT

Lastly, for the sake of Christian doctrine: not all Christians have historically accepted Paul. Our Church already concedes the fallibility of certain of Paul's writings by accepting "James" ... and indeed "1 Timothy". As modern witness to Paul's error, Vox Day offers Bishop Karen Oliveto.

Wiser Christians might consider canonising 1 Cor 14:34-5 as a lost-scripture of the Church of Corinth.