Here is my draft analysis of 1 Cor 14 pericope.

I totally agree with you. It's a good rendtion. There are also those who say that there were quote marks in 1Cor 14:33b-35, quoting the tezt of a letter. Also the silencers ignore Paul's chiding as if it's not there. He was pretty forthright about their arrogance.

There are no quote marks in Koine Greek, they had not been invented yet.  Quotes are determined by context clues.

Hello Don,

I don't see a link to this draft analysis.  What am I missing?

Thanks!

 

Found it!  I was reading prior to logging on and couldn't see it until did.

Don, I hope you don't mind that I converted your analysis to pdf and posted a link on this blog:

The Silence of Women Is Golden: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

I noticed there are different fonts, but you are fine to do what you did.

Thanks.

I fixed the font, but no way to do that at the blog post.  I'll try to attach the revised pdf here.

Don, I'm aware of the misplacement of the verses also.  It is very possible that either Paul or an original copier of the epistle added it in explanatory after thought.  However, I'm still of the opinion that it is likely a quote from the Judiaizer's complaining about the new freedoms of women.  And it was probably one of the statement's from an epistle from the Corinthians to Paul.

The fact that Paul positively discusses women speaking in church in just a few chapters before, seems contradictory to Paul thinking women shouldn't speak in church.

TL,

Gordon Free in his commentary (1987ish) argues the women be silent are a later addition (gloss).
Some of the CBE papers dealing with those verses mention that later academic work further supports Fee's arguement.

its a technical source critical type level of argument - I think you would likely need to be a professional academic in the field of source criticism to be able to forward a reasoned opinion.

Yes, I think I've read some of Fee's thoughts on it.  I didn't recollect that the misplacement was on the original epistle or not though.

But that still would not change whether or not it is a quote from someplace else, which I think it is, because there is no hint of Paul thinking women should be silent anywhere else.  Unless I'm misunderstanding someone here. 

And I've a Bible Study to go to shortly. 

my take on Fee's argument in 1987 and then some other academics says the sentences are a scribal addition not in the orignial letter.
If that's true, imo, the sentences were never meant to be in the Bible.

If the sentences were misplaced and put where they are now found in the text, that is another matter.

Or the sentences were penned by Paul where they are now found in the letter

take your pick 

I don't feel at all comfortable dismissing any scripture as "scribal addition".  I liked Don's analysis because it is respectful to the integrity of the Scripture, (which I am personally convinced and convicted God was and is able to protect from such "tampering")

That’s the thing, Clay. Were those sentences original (i.e. from the pen of Paul)? Were they later additions (glosses)? Were they transcribed by a scribe in error – should they be somewhere else in the letter?

Scribal additions were not part of the original manuscripts. That is one of the reasons there are differences between the King James and modern translations. Scribes add their own comments while they were transcribing the originals.

In my view, these questions, as disconcerting as they may be, have nothing to do with our view of the Bible. Rather these questions are posed by skilled people as they examine the textual evidence. For example, Fee is world reknowned for his expertise in the field.

I take them as Paul, and I would distrust a "scholar" who thinks he can use his logic and knowledge to remove them from Scripture.  Just read this in 1 Cor.8 today:

We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. 2 And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know.

Paul could have been quoting someone else in 1 Cor 14 though, and that would really not be surprising since the letter is clearly his response to questions the Corinthians had asked him.

But you would like the blog at the link, Larry. 
Chris embraces textual criticism.  He doesn't think its Paul, nor does he think 2 Timothy is Paul.

I take Jesus' word that the Hebrew was ENTIRELY INTACT down to the jot and tittle:


Vowels were added by scribes (hebrew didn' have them) so there are cases where those scribal vowel choices can change the meaning of the text significantly.

And Peter has referred to Paul's epistles as "Scriptures" (2 Peter 3), therefore I believe God protected ALL His Scriptures.

That said, translations of scriptures often have human presupposition and error imposed into them.