NO ONE has The Original Manuscripts of ANY of The Sacred Texts ...
We have copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies ... SOME of the Copies contain OBVIOUS errors or editorial changes ... OTHERS contain VARIATIONS that may or may NOT reflect The Original Text ...
Apologies - I haven't had time to read all the replies to this thread, but as I understand it is is believed by many people that the verses you mention were written by someone else & inserted up to 150 years after the death of Paul, after the revolutionary ideas about women were starting to recede & woman's place in the church was slipping again.
No that 's true, but there are resons why people studying those texts think these things, they aren't just making it up! There is some info on why they think it on the link I provided, but reasons include the same kind of reasons you'd expect any forgery - change in prose style etc. There are also historical motives for people adding/changing bits - again, based on research not just made up. That doesn't mean they're necessarily right, but you don't have to have the original copy of a manuscript in order to study it.
I don't claim to have studied them personally, just adding to the debate!
"Stuck" is a good term. When one is "stuck" in the twenty-first century with fourth century copies of first or second century writings, it is only honest to attempt to understand those writings in relation to the times and cultures they were written. If one is "stuck" within a canon, one doesn't move forward. There was no canon for several hundred years after the texts were written. How the texts were amended is largely lost, though we can see the process clearly in some texts (the long, the short and the Freer Logion of Mark, for instance). Others can be seen in changes of vocabulary, style, attitude of the author, and in the lack of coherence between parts of the Bible. This doesn't matter, however, to those who are "stuck" with the canon as it came into existence. It would be interesting to know how Paul's female companions, documented in several letters, would have reacted to the misogyny in 1 Corinthians, as well as Ephesians and the Pastorals. Not very kindly, I will presume! Paul, literally "Little" in Greek, would probably been chopped down a few more rungs!
"As in all the congregations of the holy ones, let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be in subjection, even as the Law says. If, then, they want to learn something, let them question their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in a congregation."-1 Corinthians 14:33b-35 NWT
Strong words from the writer of this text. He is trying to be as clear as possible, "women should be seen, not heard". Hearing a voice of a woman offering praise or prayer or prophesy would be disgraceful in his eyes.
Now let me be clear, I believe that an apostle Paul existed in antiquity. I believe that same man wrote many of the letters attributed to him in the christians greek canon like 1 Corinthians. Chapter 14 he wrote himself. The problem comes when we examine the text in question.
There is good reasons for a careful bible student's ear to tingle when hearing the words of 33b-35. A student of textual criticism would of found a few things odd.
1. Our oldest and best witnesses(i.e. manuscripts) don't agree with the placement of this text. Some copies has the text added at the end of chapter 14. Some has the verse preserved where we see it in the NWT. And still some of our witnesses don't have the text at all. This should give a student pause.
2. The text's ideology differs from what we know of the apostle and the congregations he governed.
I. Women held the position of deacons/ministerial servants-(Romans 16:1)
II. A woman was charged with delivering Paul's letters to the circuit of congregations. NO SMALL CHARGE. With Phoebe carried the weight of Paul's apostolic authority. She acted as his representative.(Romans 16:2)
III. Paul named the wife before her husband in giving a shout out to the pair. Would of been a big "no no" in the ancient world. But Paul did it any way.(Romans 16:3,4)
IV: Paul calls Junia, a woman, "[an] apostle". (Romans 16:7(NWTTC fails to stay true to the text))
V: In the congregation, there is neither "male or female". They are all "one".-(Galatians 3:27,28)
3. The text appears to be foreign to the immediate context. In the verses prior to vs33b-35, the apostle is discusses the role prophets have in congregation meetings. If we look to the verses after vs33b-35, again we find Paul discussing that role prophecy has in christian faith.
If one removes vs33b-35, we see that Paul's original words are healed. Go ahead and read the chapter without the text in question. You would find more continuity of thought in the apostles words. Yes friends, vs33b-35 is foreign to the context of chapter 14.
I see your point but it is important to notice that Paul Changes over his time following Jesus. The exact dates of the letters we are not sure of yet corinthians is one of his eariler letters, Galathian and Romans are written arround a year later maybe more.
So it could simply be a case that his ideas about this changed.
There are interpolations in the Bible. Indeed, 2 Corinthians was not written that way, but was the piecing together of five "letters." As for 1 Cor. 14:33-34, one does not to come up with schemes of Paul changing his mind over the years, as in a previous post. This obviously can not be shown. We can show the difference in this selection (along with remarks in the deuteroPaulines and pastorals) and in Galatians and even the seventh chapter of 1 Corinthians, which completely refutes chapter 14. Certainly one wouldn't say that he changed his mind from one chapter to another!!!
No, we can also note that this passage interrupts a message of ecstatic speech and prophetic speech. Someone stuck the polemic against women smack dab in the middle of it. It is a dead giveaway. Furthermore the location of this passage varies in placement in the early manuscripts... It is located after 14:40 is some Latin texts and Western texts.
The Bible is a human product; therefore the contents are quite human, quite prone to error and the foiables of humans. They weren't zapped down by the gods.
I understand... Male chauvinism is a part of the "sacred" character of the Bible. It is holy because it touts the subjugation of women. Holy, maybe, in the mind of the misogynist. Timeless, no.
The realization, though, that the Paulines, Paul, had women who were "co-workers" should make it evident that either the portions stating it "shameful for a woman to speak in church" were later insertions or that Paul having women who were co-workers was added later. It is, in this situation, an "either/or" scenario. As I have posted earlier, there are good reasons for seeing the passage in question as being an interpolation.
Obviously, Teil, you do not see the aforementioned 1 Corinthians 14 passage as an interpolation. Do you see any of the Bible as having interpolations? If so, which? Any of the Paulines? (Just name one or two, if you don't mind.) If not, are you considering the whole Bible to have been sent, without any error, to humans through the hand of God?
How do you reconcile the 1 Cor. 14 passages with the minister/deaconess Phoebe and the co-workers Prisca and Mary found in Romans, as well as the total equality of men and women found in 1 Cor. 7, as well as the Galatians 3:28 passage, "... There is no longer male or female; for all of you are one in Jesus Christ"?