"Women be silent." An anti-Montanist edit of Paul?

[mbuckley3]

As clearly laid out in the original post, 1 Cor.14.34-35 is abruptly discontinuous with the surrounding verses. In its present location, it bans women from prophesying. But I suggest it is a fragment lifted from a passage with a different agenda, and a possible witness to a previous history of editing.

The key words are λαλειν and 'εκκλησία.

The 'speak' iterations of the fragment invite insertion into a section concerned with speaking, so the link is made here, whether after v.33 or, as per some Western manuscripts, after v.40.

But 'assembly' is the major focus. Maybe I've been reading too much Dio Chrysostom of late, but 'surely' the primary C1/C2 meaning of 'εκκλησία, the 'town hall' meeting of citizens, is that of the Pauline letters. The framing as letters; the reports of embassies to other assemblies; the constant calls for unity, both between 'cities' and within the community : all these evoke the secular model. Like 'Paul', Dio, in his civic orations, addresses the assembly as one of the great and the good, flaunting his credentials, expecting his proposals to be accepted but encountering resistance both from the floor and from his equals. Or.7 provides a lively description of such a meeting in terms of a credible fiction; Or.46 (recommended - it's short !) uncannily echoes the combative rhythms of a Pauline letter (πάλιν 'αυ θορυβειτε - "there you go, heckling again !").

In this model, women were onlý citizens as related to qualified men; they did not have the right to speak or vote at an assembly. By using the word 'εκκλησία the author of 1 Cor.14.34-35 demonstrates that it is self-evident that women are not allowed to speak; (the 'law' need not even be the Torah, just the Universal Law of common assumption).

How much of the assembly model is 'original' (yes, a question -begging term), how much is editorial development, is another line of enquiry altogether. But those two verses, fully formed, look to have been appropriated from testimonia on church governance, and stitched into a section on prophesying to rule on a new issue, women prophets.

[neilgodfrey]

Let's pad out the original post with Turmel's full explanation. His argument for the tongues passage in 1 Corinthians 14 being a late second century interpolation to meet the Montanist "crisis" has two major planks:

1. the failure of either side of the Montanist debate to use passages in 1 Cor 14 that were favourable to their position in the early days of the controversy;
2. the "catholic" theme of the passage, allowing points for both sides so long as unity was maintained.

A slightly edited machine translation of Turmel's complete discussion, pp. 87-94, -- bolded highlighting is mine.

Chapter XIV, from 1^b to 33, is devoted to a strange phenomenon known as "speaking in tongues" (or "in tongues"), the characteristic of which is this: he who speaks in tongues is not understood by the hearers, and he cannot be, since he does not pronounce distinct words (especially 2, 9, 16); he speaks "by the Spirit", but not by the intelligence (14-15); however, the "speaking in tongues" is sometimes interpreted afterwards, either by a hearer or even by the one who held it, and then it becomes useful to the assembly (13, 27, 28) The phenomenon described here, which today is called "glossolalia", is due to the effect of religious exaltation on the nervous system. It is well known in history. Many religious sects, even in our own day, have shown it. It can be said in a general way that glossolalia occurs wherever religious feeling exceeds the average intensity. Then, as with all nervous accidents, it spreads from person to person by contagion.

This disease raged, around 165, in the province of Phrygia. Montanus and the two women who accompanied him were exalted: they had frequent fits of glossolalia. This we know from the Anonymous [source quoted by] Eusebius. Here is what he says about Montanus (Hist, eccl., 5, 16, 7, 9).

Suddenly entering into a state of excitement and false ecstasy, he spoke enthusiastically, uttered strange words (xenophônéïn)^ and prophesied against the custom introduced into the Church by tradition... He raised up two other women and filled them with the unclean spirit, so that they spoke out of turn, out of time, in an extravagant way like the above-mentioned.

In the excerpt we have just read, the adversary of the Montanists reproaches them for having inaugurated a kind of prophecy unknown to tradition, prophecy accompanied by transports, enthusiastic gestures, strange words, extravagant manners. A little further on (5, 17, 3) he insists on this observation, and he proves that Montanist prophecy has nothing in common with traditional prophecy:

They will not be able to show anything like it in the prophets, either of the Old or of the New Testament, who have been filled with the Holy Spirit. Whether they take Agabus, Judas, Silas, the daughters of Philip, Ammia of Philadelphia, Quadratus or any other, they cannot boast of having them with them.

This plea proves to the Montanists that their prophecies, with the extravagances with which they were surrounded, were new phenomena, unknown until now. But it implies that the Montanists maintained the opposite thesis and claimed to have ties with tradition. The dialogue was this: "We have ancestors. - You do not, because the prophets to whom you claim to be attached had nothing in common with you. It can be said, moreover, that it was imposed by force of circumstance. On both sides, tradition had to be drawn to itself.

But in this dialogue there is a surprising gap. How is it that the essay in 1 Corinthians on "speaking in tongues" or "by the Spirit" is used neither in the attack nor in the defense? Some passages of this piece could be used for Montanist propaganda, for example 39: "Do not prevent speaking in tongues". Others were rather hostile to it, e.g. 9: "If you do not speak intelligibly with your tongue, how will anyone know what is being said?" Why is it that neither the Montanists nor their opponents took advantage of the texts that could serve them? Will it be said that they took advantage of them, but that Eusebius did not consider it appropriate to insert in his extracts the borrowings made from the Pauline dissertation on "speaking in tongues"? This would be tantamount to saying that Eusebius eliminated the most important parts of the dossier he wanted to bring to our attention. Who does not see the implausibility of such an explanation?

And then we know that one of the opponents of Montanism, Miltiades, wrote - before [the] Anonymous [source], that is, around 185 - a book entitled: How a prophet must not speak in ecstasy. To tell the truth, we only know the title of this book (Eusebius, 5, 17, 1). But this title proves that, around 185, a Catholic doctor did not want to hear about ecstasy. How can we believe that he could have taken this aggressive attitude if he had known I Cor. XIV, 39: "Do not prevent speaking in tongues"? Let us conclude, then, that the whole discussion of "speaking in tongues" or by the "Spirit" was provoked by the Montanist controversy. It did not exist until the day when Montanus and his companions began to prophesy "in ecstasy", that is to say by "the Spirit". It did not even exist when the first polemics broke out to condemn and defend the new prophets. It was written in order to calm down by the method of authority the debates that the controversialists had envenomed (around 170).

Moreover, let us examine this piece closely. One is rightly surprised that Paul waited until he was far from the Corinthians to give them instructions on "speaking in tongues. Why did he not address this subject during his long stay among them?

Could it be that the need was not felt then? A vain excuse. Paul, who boasts (18) of knowing glossolalia better than anyone else, obviously possessed this science at the time he lived in Corinth, and no one would claim that he learned it after he left that city. At that time he knew how to speak in tongues. He could not, therefore, have been unaware that glossolalia had to be practised with discretion, or else it would lead to disorder. Why did he not make recommendations to the Corinthians in this sense? Why did he not tell them in person what he wrote to them in his letter (18): "In the assembly I would rather speak five words with my mind to instruct others than ten thousand words in tongues"?

And then let us note this remark which is made in verse 23: "If the whole assembly is gathered together and they all speak in tongues and some ignorant or unfaithful people come along, will they not say that you are crazy? Here we are shown pagans approaching an assembly of believers to enjoy the spectacle. Such a supposition could not even have occurred to Paul. In his day, Christians met in the house of one of their number. The assemblies were private, and the pagans did not think of disturbing them by their presence any more than an honest man would think of interfering in a family celebration where he was not invited. Verse 23 takes us to a time and place where large numbers of Christian assemblies were public or even held in the open air, as seems to have happened in Phrygia during the Montanist crisis.

One more observation. The essay on glossolalia seems to lack consistency. In one place (21, 22), it says that "speaking in tongues" is a sign for unbelievers, a sign that God announced through the prophet Isaiah. Then it declares that unbelievers will consider a meeting where all Christians speak in tongues to be an assembly of fools. It judges severely the glossolalia, which it presents (9) as the emission of inarticulate sounds, and yet her conclusion is that speaking in tongues should not be prevented. Are there therefore two amalgamated redactions?

Without being impossible, this hypothesis is not probable. Let us note that the same writer who has such harsh words for the glossolalia makes a point of giving them all points. He laughs at their inarticulate stammerings, but at the same time he recognizes that these ejaculations are addressed to God (2). And the pass that verse 39 gives to glossolalia should be all the less surprising because, even where the glossolalia are scoffed at, we read (5), "I desire you all to speak in tongues."

The dissertation of XIV is written in one draft. Its author is a Catholic in the style of Irenaeus, that is to say a man who has the Montanist faith, but who also has a sense of the ridiculous and who was shocked by the extravagances of which the Montanists had so often given the spectacle. It is because he holds the good reputation of the new prophecy that he sets himself up as a censor of the glossolalia. He believes that glossolalia is a sign for the unbelievers, a miracle capable of bringing men to faith, but on condition that no incongruity is introduced into it. Thus 21-23 are reconciled, which can be summarized as follows:

"The miracle that God instituted to bring the unbelievers to faith degenerates in you into an explosion of madness". His motto is this (33): "God is not for disorder but for peace". The anonymous [source cited by] Eusebius tells us (5, 16, 9) that from Montanist circles there sometimes arose censors who reminded their co-religionists of the laws of dignity and decency.

[Irish1975]

I suppose we should distinguish several questions that I might have clarified earlier:

1. whether 14:34-35 was a late insertion into chapter 14;

2. whether chapter 14 itself, with or without vv. 34-35, was a late insertion into the letter; and

3. whether the Montanist controversy was the specific historical occasion for either.

Apart from internal criticism of these passages (such as Turmel's), the textual issues are critical. Vv. 34-35 in the Western manuscripts appear after v. 40, at the very end of the chapter. There are not many places in the Pauline Epistles where whole verses are rearranged (the other example that comes to mind is the ending of Romans), and there needs to be some rational explanation why, if 34-35 were original, a scribe would have decided to move them around.

As for chapter 14 as a whole (and sorry to repeat myself), I do think it's significant that Pagels found no 2nd century gnostic commentary whatever on the entirety of the chapter. On the other hand, it is partly attested in the Marcionite version.