The Silenced Wives of Corinth

(I

Cor. 14: 34-5)

E . E A R L E E L L I S

I

I ^N the passage, ^I Cor. 14 : 34-5, problems are posed both for the textual critic and for the interpreter of Paul’s theology. Among the textual variants a number of MSS, mainly Western, place ^{14 :} 34-5 after ^I 4 : 40, and one of them, Codex Fuldensis (c. ^AD 545)) also puts the verses in the margin after I 4 : 33.’ Since no MS omits the verses, these variants would scarcely suffice to call the genuineness of the passage into question. However, a number of scholars, noting additional problems, have concluded that ^{14 :} 34-52 or, more broadly, ^I 4 : 33b-63 is a non-Pauline interpolation.

The interpolation hypothesis, a long-standing viewpoint among German commentators,4 has recently been argued by Professor Conzelmann. Its most significant points are the following:

I’

I. I Cor. 14 : 33b-6 interrupts the topic under discussion, i.e.

prophecy, and spoils the flow of thought.

2. It contradicts Paul’s teaching in ^I Cor. ^{I I} : 2-16.5

3. It includes linguistic and theological peculiarities. For example, the phrase ‘churches of the saints’ is found only here I Cf. B. M. Metzger, A fix&al Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London/

New York: United Bible Societies, rg7r), 565.

2 Cf. C. K. Barrett, Z%e First Epistle to th Corinthians (London: A. and C. Black, x968), 329-33; W. Bousset, ‘Erster Korintherbrief’, Die Schri&n des Jveuen Testa- ments (ed. J. Weiss; 4 ~01s.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, rgr 7), 2.146.

3 H. Conzelmann, z Corinthian-s (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, rg75), 246;

C. Holsten, Das Evangelium des Paulus. Teil I (Berlin: Reimer, 1880), 495-7; J.

Weiss, Der erste Korintherbriej (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, r g7o [ 1 g lo]), 342-3.

4 Barrett (First Corinthians, 332) thinks that an interpolation is probable, but sensibly decides, in the absence of any MS that lacks the verses, to leave the question open.

5 This problem is not resolved even if, with Weiss and Schmithals, one regards the two sections as originally belonging to separate Pauline letters. Cf. Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief, xli; W. Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth (Nashville: Abingdon, 1970, 90-6.

214 E . E A R L E

in Paul ; the term &s7p&c&~

elsewhere in the Pauline corpus

ELLIS

(‘to be permitted’) appears with this sense only in the post-Pauline ^I Tim. ² : 12, and in both passages it refers to a pre-existing regulation (Weiss) ; the term 4no&moOut (‘to subordinate oneself’) is typical of household regulations in the deutero-Pauline letters of Colossians and Ephesians. In a word, the atmosphere of this ceremonial regulation reflects ‘the bourgeois consolidation of the church’ (Conzelmann) and hardly fits in ‘the emotion-laden (enthu.sia.stische) epoch’ of Paul’s ministry (Weiss).

4. It does not join smoothly to its context; indeed,

14 : 37

more easily follows

14 :

33”.

5.

The displacement of ^I Car, 14 : 34-5 in some MSS is secondary, but it shows that certain scribes were sensitive to the incongruity of the pericope in its present context.

These arguments are not of equal value. The fourth point, the rough connection of the passage to its context, is well founded but is weakened by disagreement about the location of the con- nections, some identifying them after 14 : 33 and 14 : 35 (Barrett, Bousset) and some after 14 : 33” and 14 : 36 (Weiss, Conzelmann).

On balance, the forrner seems to be preferable although 14 : 33b (‘as in all the assemblies of the saints’) presents problems whether it is joined to 14 : 33” or to 14 : 34. In any case, the seams joining 14: 34-5 to its context are rough, and it is these two verses that are displaced in a number of MSS and duplicated in the margin of one. Some suspicion is aroused, therefore, that ^I Cor. 14:

34-5 may represent an addition to the original text. But whether a post-Pauline interpolation is the best explanation of the problem is another question.

A relationship between I Cor. 14 : 34-5 and I Tim. 2 : ^I 1-3 : 1 a is also quite probable (point 3). In addition to &LT~&&uL, noted by Weiss and Conzelmann, similarities appear in the terms,

‘silence’ (a~ydv&~xla), ‘subjection’ (6~0&mdk~/h0~upj),

‘learn’ (p~~~ctve~~ and in the common allusion to Gen. 3 : ^I 6.

But there are few exact parallels of words or phrases. All this suggests a common tradition or an existing regulation to which both passages are indebted rather than a direct literary relation- ship, whether that relationship is conceived of as an interpolation of elements of ^I Tim. 2 : ^I 1-3 : 1 a into ^I Cor. 14 : 34-5 (Weiss)

The Silenced Wives of Corinth 215 or a construction of ^I Timothy ² from ^I Corinthians 14.6 In support of a pre-existing piece underlying ^I Tim. 2 : I 1-3 :

~a is the formula ‘faithful is the word’ (rr~a& d Xdyos, 3 : ~a), which probably concludes the pericope.7 This formula has Jewish antecedent9 and, in the Pastorals, appears to signal a traditional teaching-piece or a biblical exposition of Christian- - prophets or inspired teachers.9 Here it refers to a Christian ex- position of Genesis 1-3 that was already a received teaching among the Pauline churches, not only when ^I Timothy was written but also, apparently, when ^I Corinthians was written.

Less convincing is the conclusion that such an ordered pattern of conduct must come from a post-Pauline period of the church (point 3). Both charisma and order were constitutive of the church from the beginning 10 and, in fact, the regulation in

I Cor. 14: 34-5 is essentially no different from the earlier in- structions regulating prophecy and tongues (I Cor. 14 : 26-33) and the dress of prophetesses (I Cor. ^{I I} : 2-16).

More fundamentally, one must question the validity of a procedure that automatically interprets theological differences in NT documents in terms of chronological distance. This ap- proach, which arose in the eighteenth century11 and became an established critical axiom after the work of F. C. Baur,Iz assumes

6 So P. Trummer, Die PuuZuslrudilion &r Pastorulbriefe (Frankfurt: Lang, 1g78),

14-g, who argues the thesis that the (post-Pauline) Pastorals have been con- sciously constructed on the model of passages in the Pauline letters even though a literary dependence can be shown only in a few places (241).

7 As it does in I Tim. 4: 8-g and Tit. 3: 3-8a, where a Christian interpretation of Joel 3: I is involved (otherwise: I Tim. I: 15; 2 Tim. 2: I 1-13). The ‘faithful word’ in I Tim. 3: ra may specifically refer only to I Tim. 2: 13-15, but it im- plicitly includes the preceding application that Paul has given to the Genesis passage.

s Cf. IQ27 ^I: 8: ‘Certain (flX> is the word to come to pass and true (fitlN) the oracle.’ Also, Rev. 2 I : 5; 22: 6: ‘These are the faithful words and true’.

9 Cf. I Tim. 4: I (‘the Spirit says’) with 4: 6 (‘by the words of the faith’); Tit.

I: g; Rev. 21: 5; 22: 6.

10 Cf. E. E. Ellis, ProphEcr and Hermemutic (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck] ; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, rg78), 12.

11 Cf. E. Evanson, The Dissonance of the Four generally received Evangelists (Ipswich,

I 792). He took Luke-Acts to be the earliest and most reliable NT books and dated others that diverged from them as late as the second and third centuries.

12 In his earlier writings Baur seldom questioned the traditional dating of NT books. His post-apostolic dating of many of them, e.g. ‘Die sogenannten Pastoral- briefe’ (1835) appears to coincide with his general reconstruction of early Christian history along the lines of Hegelian dialectic. Cf. J. Fitzer, Moehler and Buur in Controversy (Tallahassee: Academy of Religion, x974), 97-8.

216 E . E A R L E E L L I S

that Christian thought and practice moved forward as a block in either a straight-line or a dialectical development. While such an assumption or something very much like it continues to govern much NT research, it remains undemonstrated and to my mind oversimplifies a rather complex pattern of relationships.

A more likely scenario is that various circles of prophets and teachers, often under the leadership of an apostle, developed their theology and praxis at different rates and in different directions. Even if, in a given circle, a particular doctrine or practice was subsequent to another, it is difficult if not impossible to establish whether it arose after six months, six years, or several decades. Furthermore, many of these prophetic circles of co- workers were in contact and gave mutual recognition to one another’s pneumatic, i.e. prophetic credentials.13 Consequently, the oracles, expositions, and resulting regulations of one circle could be taken over and applied by another as circumstances warranted. Therefore, even if an exposition of Genesis found in ^I Cor. 14 : 34-5 and I Tim. ² : I

1-3 : ~a is

judged to be non- Pauline, it cannot on that basis alone be labelled post-Pauline.

If this is true, the argument that I Cor. 14: 34-5 is a post- Pauline interpolation rests on mistaken assumptions, and one must seek another explanation for the variants in the MSS.

Whether ^I Cor. 14 : 34-5 is congenial with its context and with Paul’s teaching in ^I Cor. ^{I I} (points ^{I, 2,} and 5) depends upon the exegesis of the verses. To that question we may now turn.

I I

The Spanish reformer, Juan de Valdez, offered a novel and, for the sixteenth century, remarkable interpretation of ^I Cor.

14:

34-5.14 This ordinance of the Apostle, he wrote, ‘could be kept only by married women and, among them, only those who had Christian husbands [and, among them], only by those who had Christian husbands so capable and learned (diestros y entendidos) in the things concerning Christianity that they would

*J Cf. Rom. 16: 3-15; I Cor. 16: 12; Gal. I: 18; 2: 7-g; Tit. 3: 13; 2 Pet. 3: 15- 16; Acts 13: 1-2; E. E. Ellis, ‘Dating the New Testament’, .hfTS 26 (rg8o), 501.

14 J. de Valdez, La primera eplstula de San Pablo apdstol a 10s Corintios (Venezia:

Philadelpho, 1557), 267-8 = Reformistas antiguos espaiioles, Yi’-omos XI (Madrid, 1856). Eng. tr.: London: Trubner, 1883. For his hermeneutic, cf. J, C. Nieto, Juan de Valdez and the Origins of the Spanish and Italian Reformation (Geneva: Droz, IgTo), 185-255. I am indebted to Professor Metzger for alerting me to the work of Valdez.

n

The Silenced Wives of Corinth 217 be able to teach others. All the other women were excluded from keeping this regulation and precept’. Of course, Valdez is not the only commentator to observe that Paul’s instruction was directed to married women, but his forthright emphasis on the limited nature of the regulation is unique and opens the way to a quite different understanding of the Apostle’s command.

A number of considerations suggest that ^I Cor. 14 : 34-5 is not a prohibition on the public ministry of women, as has tradition- ally been supposed, but is an ordering of the ministry of wives to accord with their obligations to their husbands. First, the word ~4, which means either ‘woman’ or ‘wife’, requires the latter meaning in the present context. (I) The phrase ‘their husbands’ makes clear that it is married women who are in view. (2) The reference to the law is in all likelihood an al- lusion to Gen. 3

: 16,

which stipulates the wife’s subordination to her husband. (3) With the explanatory adjective, your wives’, several Western (OL and Syriac) versions make the meaning explicit, as they do in other passages.15 Although this reading is apparently not original, it is a correct interpretation and shows the way in which the passage, at a very early time, was under- stood and/or a misunderstanding of it put right.

Second, the principle that one’s ministry is to be consistent with and qualified by one’s marriage obligations accords with Paul’s teachings generally. For the husband is (properly) con- cerned to please his wife, the wife to please her husband (I Cor.

7 : 33-4). The married couple, moreover, are to be mutually

subject

to

one another, and submission is an emphasized charac-

teristic of the wife’s marriage role. 16 Indeed, the wife can be called

‘the subject-to-a-man woman’.17 This principle is applied specifically to qualify the ministry of wives not only in the sequel to ^I Cor. 14 : 34-5, i.e. ^I Timothy 2, but also in ^I Corinthians ^{I I} :

‘the head of a wife is her husband’ (^{I I} : 3)’ and in her creation

‘woman was made for man’ (^{I I} : g), that is, to be his wife. The marriage role, then, is a part of the rationale in regulating the ministry of women in ^I Corinthians ^{I I,} although it is not as central there as it is in ^I Cor. 14 : 34-5.

1s Eph. 5: 25; Col. 3: 18-r g. A qualified meaning is intended also where the absolute form (3 7~4) occurs (I Cor. 7: 3-4, I O-II, 33; Eph. 5: 22-5; I Tim. 2:

14). Cf. Matt. 18: 25; I Pet. 3: 7.

16 I Cor. 7: 4; ^II: 3; Eph. 5: 21-4; Col. 3: 1 8 . 17 Rom. 7: 2: vj &ravapos yvwj.

218 E. EARLE ELLIS

Third,

^I

Cor. 14

:

26-40 is concerned to regulate the ministry of the pneumatics, i.e. those with gifts of inspired speech and discernment .18 In this context the ‘silence’ imposed on the wives

(14 :

34) is regulative and is no different in kind from that im- posed on the tongue-speaker (14 : 28) or on the prophet (14 : 30).

Likewise, the ‘speaking’ (14 : 34, AC&%) almost certainly refers, as it does throughout the section, to the exercise of pneumatic gifts. The wives in view are pneumatics and are known to be such. In

^I

Corinthians

^{I I}

women legitimately exercise such a public ministry19 and at least two women, Phoebe and Prisca, are Paul’s fellow ministers who carry on a ministry of teaching.20 Therefore, the prohibition o,n the wives in

^I

Corinthians 14, if it is to be consistent with Paul’s recognized teaching and praxis, must rest on some other grounds than that they are women.

Such other grounds are clearly at hand in the Pauline teaching on the role of the wife.

I

Car. 14

:

34-5 represents the application, in a particular cultural context, of an order of the present creation concerning the conduct of a wife vis-&is her husband. It reflects a situation in which the husband is participating in the prophetic ministries of a Christian meeting. In this context the coparticipation of his wife, which may involve her publicly ‘testing’ (&a~pb~, 14 : 29) her husband’s message, is considered to be a disgraceful (a&q&v) disregard of him, of accepted proprieties, and of her own wifely role.21 For these reasons it is prohibited.

III

If

^I

Cor.

¹⁴ : 34-5

is appropriate to its context and consistent with Paul’s theology, as has been argued above, why has it been

I8 cf.

Ellis, pr~@q, 24-T.

19 I Cor. I I : 5. The limitation of I Corinthians I I to non-public prayer sessions (Schlatter), to an ‘extra-ordinary impulse of the Spirit’ (Godet), or to a reluctant concession by the Apostle (Lietzmann) does not resolve the conflict, is not present in the text, and probably should not be inferred. Cf. A. Schlatter, Pa&s der Bate Jew (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1969 [rgS4]), Sgo; F. Godet, Commentary on First Corin- thians (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977 [r88g]), 545 = 2.117; H. Lietzmann-W. G.

Ktimmel, An die Korinther I-II (HNT; Ttibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], xg4g), 75.

20 Rom. 16: I (SL&OYOS), 3 ( auv~pyds), 7; cf. Acts 18: 26. On the teaching func- tion implied in the ascriptions given to Phoebe and Prisca cf. Ellis, Prophecy, 6-10.

21 J. N. Sevenster (Paul and Seneca [Leiden: Brill, 19611, 198) notes this aspect of the problem: ‘Paul is probably alluding in the first place to a passion for dis- cussion which could give rise to heated argument between a wife and husband’.

The Silenced Wives of Corinth

219 transposed to follow

14 : 40

in a number of ancient MSS (D F G

88”

it~~d+~f~g vgF Ambrosiaster) 3 Possibly, as it is often assumed, these scribes or their predecessors did not consider the pericope to fit after

14: 33

and accordingly transposed it. However, that hypothesis would not explain the anomaly found in the sixth century Latin Codex Fuldensis, which places 14

:

34-5 not only after

14: 40

but also in the margin after

14 : 33.

It may be that Codex Fuldensis offers a clue to the textual problem of

^I

Cor.

14: 34-5.

According to Professor Metzgerzz it is a leading witness to Jerome’s Vulgate and also contains hundreds of OL readings. In all likelihood the scribe who wrote it (or a predecessor) had both readings of

^I Cor. 14: 34-5

before him and decided to include (or retain) a deuterograph rather than to sacrifice either textual tradition.

The marginal reading,

then, was present already before the mid-sixth century. How did it arise ?

Perhaps the marginal location of

^I Cor.

14

:

34-5 originated with a careless scribe who, having omitted the verses, corrected his error in the margin of his MS. However, this would not explain the rough seams between the passage and its context.

A more likely explanation is that

^I

Cor. 14

:

34-5 was a marginal note in the autograph of

I

Corinthians.23 As Otto Roller24 and others have shown, a letter-writer of the first century would often employ an amanuensis who drafted the letter from short- hand notes. When the author received the draft from the amanuensis, he would add a closing greeting and make any desired additions or corrections. In

I

Corinthians, Paul em- ployed an amanuensis (

I

Cor. 16

:

2

I

) and he, or the amanuensis at his instruction, could have added

I

Cor. 14: 34-5 in the margin of the MS before sending it on its way to Corinth.

On this assumption the textual problems of

I

Cor. 14

:

34-5 are readily resolved. (

I

) An added marginal note would interrupt the flow of the letter and would probably make for rough edges wherever it might be later incorporated. (2) In tran- scribing the letter, the scribe or scribes behind the majority textual tradition incorporated the passage after 14: 33

;

those 22

B. M. Metzger, TTu Early Versions of t/z.e Jvew Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977), 20-r.

23 G. Heinrici (Dus erste Sendschreiben . . . an die Korinthier [Berlin, 18801, 459) suggested that it was Paul’s own marginal note.

24 0. Roller, Das Formular derpaulinischen ^Brzife (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933).

I - ^v1

220 E. EARLE ELLIS

behind the Western ‘displacement’ thought

14 : 40

to be a more appropriate point to insert it, and a few others copied the letter and left 14 : 34-5 in its marginal position. However, no MS lacks the verses and, in the absence of some such evidence, the modern commentator has no sufficient reason to regard them as a post-Pauline gloss.

18. ‘Putting on’ or ‘Stripping off’ in

2

Corinthians 5: 3

M A R G A R E T E . T H R A L L

1,~ the third edition of the UBSGNT this verse is printed ^{: EL’ YE}

KC&~ E)K~UC+YOL 06 yqwol +dqu~p~Ba. In their commentary the editors say:

It is difficult to decide between &~I.J&~EVOL and ~K82dp~OL. On the one hand, from the standpoint of external attestation the former reading is to be preferred. On the other hand, internal considerations, in the opinion of a majority of the Committee, decisively favor the latter reading, for with &J(TC&VOL the apostle’s statement is banal and even tautologous, whereas with ~K&JUC&EVOL it is characteristically vivid and paradoxical (‘inasmuch as we, though unclothed, shall not be found naked’) .I

Professor Metzger, however, disagrees with the majority verdict, and writes : ‘In view of its superior external support the reading

&&C+EVOL should be adopted, the reading ^E’Kh7dp~0L being an early alteration to avoid apparent tautology? All the editors agree, therefore, that the witnesses to &&+E~oL are more numerous and more significant than the attestation to ~K~vcT&MVOL,

which receives support from D* d e g m Marcion Tertullian, and indirectly from the reading E)K~TC&EVOL in F G. (Bultmann adds Ambrosiaster and Chrysostom,” but the apparatus in Tischendorf indicates that both these witnesses show themselves aware also of the existence of the reading Gh~~~p~voc.~) It is not entirely clear whether Professor Metzger agreed with the rest 1 Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London/

New York: United Bible Societies, x97x), 579-80.

2 Ibid., 580.

3 R. Bultmann, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther (ed. Erich Dinkler; MeyerK;

Giittingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, rg76), 137.

4 C. Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece (8th edn.; Leipzig: Giesecke &

Devrient, 1872), 2.588-g. I am indebted to Professor Gordon D. Fee for pointing out additional support for the reading ~~ihacip~vor in Ps-Macarius/Symeon (who quotes the text twice, both times using ~K~U~~C&EYOL) and in Ambrose and Cassiodorus.

2 2 2 MARGARET E. THRALL

of the committee that internal evidence favours E)K~UU&EVOL, and disagreed only on the weight to be given to internal evidence over against external, or whether he also thought less of the internal evidence. The aim of this discussion is to widen the investigation in this area, and to ask whether it is really true that ‘internal considerations . . . decisively favor’ the reading

~K8U(JC&WOL. After a brief survey of commentators’ views we shall consider the following three questions :

(I) Can a decision be reached on the other variant in the same verse, and, if so, does the decision between EC YE KU~ and dmp

KczL’ throw any light on whether &&c&~~o~ or ~K&K&&EYOL is original ?

(2) Does Pauline usage in respect of compound verbs and also emphatic KCL~ suggest a preference for the one reading or the other ?

(3) Is it necessarily true that the reading &&OC&VOL is

‘banal’, or ‘tautologous’ ?

Most commentators on ² Corinthians favour &&~~~EvoL.J

This may be due largely to the weight of the external support, but some other reasons are given as well. According to Windisch, if one chooses the alternative E’K&x&WO~ the point of the additional prefix &- in the preceding &&%a&~ would be lost. Moreover, the phrase would be confused. How can someone who has ‘undressed’ be preserved from ‘nakedness’? The Western reading will have arisen as a means of avoiding tauto- logy, since the presupposition is self-evident.6 Schmithals agrees with Windisch, and argues that the participle of v. 3 obviously resumes the &&%ua&c~ of v. ^2.7

It is Bultmann who is the chief supporter of the reading ~K&J- eX&EVOC. It is only this reading which gives a clear sense to v. 3 : the alternative gives a trivial sense. All is plain if we read ^gK8U-

(TcipJOL : ‘Wenigstens wenn es gilt (und das ist fur Paulus selbst-

s See e.g. A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle

of Saint Paul to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 19x5), 148; H.

Windisch, Derzweite Korintherbrief(MeyerK; Gdttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

I 924)) I 62 ; E.-B. Allo, Saint Paul: seconde kpftre aux Corinthiens (Paris: Gabalda, I g37), 124; Jean Hering, La seconde kpftre de saint Paul aux Corinthiens (Neuchatel/Paris:

Delachaux & Niestlt, rg58), 47-8; C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthian (BNTC; London: Black, rg73), 149, 153.

6 Der zweite Korintherbrief, 162.

7 W. Schmithals, Die Gnosis in Corinth (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, rg56), 226-7.

‘Putting On’ or ‘Stripping Of’ ₂₂₃ verstandlich), daR wir nach Ablegung des irdischen Gewandes nicht nackt dastehen werden’. The simple answer to the question put by Windisch is : ‘if at the same time one has a new garment at one’s disposal’.* To this, Baumert objects that there is no actual mention of another garment.9 Bultmann would seem to have the better of the argument here, however: the allusion to the other garment is surely implicit in the context. Windisch’s first point raises the question of Paul’s use of compound verbs, which we are to discuss later. His last point, on the origin of the Western reading, has some weight, since it provides a reason for the origin of the variant which works one way only, and would tell in favour of &SUCR+VOL, as Professor Metzger notes.

Further investigation of the problem requires us, first, to consider the other variant in the same verse. Most printed texts have EZ YE ^KU/, following $4 C K L P. But there is im- pressive support for the alternative E&TEP ^KU;, read by p46 B D E F G. Baumert notes that the entire passage is lacking in A, so that, of what he calls the ‘classical’ witnesses, only X provides support for Er YE Kd 10 Bruce remarks on the impressive early attestation of E&p ^{Ktd, 11} and Barrett says that it may well be correct.12 Hughes comments : ‘The correct reading may well be

&VP KCd (0 46 B D G), which would seem to introduce a note of greater certainty’ .I3 Collange, on the other hand, prefers ELH YE ^KU&

on the ground that it is impossible to explain how the majority of MSS come to have this reading if dmp ^KCC~ is the original:

En fait, on ne voit g&-e comment cette majoritt aurait CtC amen6e g lire E! YE KU~’ au lieu de &rep Kc& qui est d’un grec t&s correct et dont le sens est clair, alors que EZ YE Kui est, avec Gal. 3 : 4, un hapax de toute la 1ittCrature grecque.14

8 R. Bultmann, Exegetische Probleme des zweiten ITorintherbriefes (Symbolae Biblicae Upsalienses g ; Uppsala, 1g47), I I ; see also Der zweite Brief, ^I 37-8.

9 N. Baumert, Ttiglich Sterben und Auferstehen: Der Literalsinn von 2 Kor 4, 12-5, IO

@ANT 34; Munich: Kosel, rg73), rgo.

10 Ibid., 385. Baumert refers here (n. 707) to B. M. Metzger, Z!%e T&t of the Jvew Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, rg68), 46. He adds that WH give .&rep as a possibility in the margin, and that Weiss accepted it into the text.

rr F. F. Bruce, z and 2 Corinthians (NCB; London: Oliphants, rg71), 202.

I2 Second Epistle, 149 n. ^I.

13 P. E. Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, rg62), 169 n. 32.

14 J.-F. Collange, I?nigmes de la deuxieme L’pz’tre de Paul aux Corinthier_*: Eftude exe?- gktique de 2 Cor 2: ~4-7: 4 (SNTSMS 18; London/New York: Cambridge Univer- sity, rg72), 216. Other supporters of ELU ye Cal are Plummer, Second Epistle, 147-8;