¹ Gottfried Fitzer provides a notable exception, Das Weib schweige in der Gemeinde (ThExH 10; Munich: Kaiser,1963).

² Conzelmann, H., Der erste Brief an die Korinther (MeyerK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969) 289–90.Google Scholar Günther Zuntz argues similarly for 14.33b–35, The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum (London: Oxford University, 1953) 17Google Scholar Gerhard Dautzenberg extends the interpolation through v. 38, Urchristliche Prophetie, ihre Erforschung, ihre Voraussetzungen im Judentum und ihre Struktur im ersten Korintherbrief (BWANT 6/4; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1975) 253–7.Google Scholar

³ Fee, G. D., The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987)Google Scholar, relying heavily upon Fitzer, Weib schweige.

⁴ Cited by Fee, , Corinthians, 699.Google Scholar

⁵ Fee, , Corinthians, 701–2.Google Scholar

⁶ Fee, , Corinthians, 700Google Scholar n. 7.

⁷ Paper presented to the NT Textual Criticism Section at the 1990 annual meeting of the SBL.

⁸ Osburn, C. D., ‘The Interpretation of 1 Cor. 14:34–35’, Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity 1 (ed. Osburn, C. D.; Joplin: College, 1993) 219–42.Google Scholar Antoinette Clark Wire also questions whether ‘the gradual extension of the interpolation theory … does not indicate that the two verses are more tightly welded to their context than first appears’, The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Paul's Rhetoric (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 231.Google Scholar

⁹ ‘Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.34–5’, NTS 41 (1995) 240–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ The most thorough accounts are those of Fitzer, Weib schweige, and Wire, , Women Prophets, 149–52.Google Scholar

¹¹ Payne also suggests that Clement of Alexandria used a text which lacked 1 Cor 14.34—5. He bases this on the ‘citation’ of six other verses in 1 Cor 14 and a discussion by Clement on ‘the behaviour of women inchurch’, ‘Fuldensis’, 247–8. Since Clement obviously knows 1 Cor 14, his failure to employ vv. 34–5 in this section is supposedly significant.

Clement, however, does not discuss women's behaviour in church, but the Christian couple's proper demeanour while going to church and the impressions given to outsiders. Clement was also familiar with 1 Tim 2, yet Clement never cites vv. 11–12. Following Payne's line of reasoning, one could argue that Clement's NT text also lacked these verses! One cannot determine the text of a Church Father in this manner.

For the proper use of patristic evidence, consult G. D. Fee, ‘The Text of John in The Jerusalem Bible’ ‘The Use of Greek Patristic Citations in New Testament Textual Criticism: The State of the Question’ in Epp, E. J. and Fee, G. D., Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism (SD 45; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 335–59Google Scholar; and Ehrman, Bart D., Didymus the Blind and the Text of the Gospels (NTGF 1; Atlanta: Scholars, 1986) 4–29.Google Scholar

¹² MSS will be named with alternate identifications provided in parentheses (designations of Latin MSS are italicized). See Kurt Aland, Kurzgefaβte Liste der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994); and Fischer, Bonifatius, Verzeichnis der Sigel für Handschriften und Kirchenschriftsteller (VL 1; Freiburg: Herder, 1949)Google Scholar; and Nouum Testamentum Domini Iesu Christi Latine Secundum Editionem Sancti Hieronymi 2: Epistulae Paulinae (ed. J. Wordsworth and H. J. White; Oxford: Clarendon, 1941).Google Scholar

¹³ 33 of 39 occurrences, or 85%. The significance of his observation extends beyond attested variation. If correct, markings not corresponding to known variation units could provide bases for conjectural emendation, ‘Fuldensis’, 259–60.

¹⁴ Payne, ‘Fuldensis’, 251.

¹⁵ Payne admits this possibility, ‘Fuldensis’, 259.

¹⁶ Thompson, Edward Maunde, An Introduction to Greek and Latin Palaeography (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912) 58–9.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Nearly four hundred occur in the Gospels alone. Examples of these lone occurrences appear on the photographs provided by Payne, ‘Fuldensis’, 262.

¹⁸ See Skeat, T. C., ‘The Codex Vaticanus in the Fifteenth Century’, JTS 35 (1984) 456–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The minuscule text (listed as MS 1957) belongs to those MSS considered constant witnesses to the Majority text in NA²⁶.

¹⁹ The textual character and location of sigla were determined through personal collation using the facsimile edition, H KAINH ΔIAΘHKH (Vatican City: s.n., 1965).

²⁰ Evidence suggests Sepulveda introduced these ‘umlauts’. In 1533 he wrote Erasmus: ‘Estenim Graecum exemplar antiquissimum in bibliotheca Vatieana, in quo diligentissime et accuratissime literis maiusculis conscriptum vtrumque Testimentum continetur, longe diuersum a vulgatis exemplaribus … Sic enim habeto, raro vulgatam Graecorum editionem a veteri translatione nostra discrepare, (discrepat autem, vt nostri, saepissime) vt a Vaticano illo exemplari non dissentiat. Ac ne te teneam, trecentis sexaginta quinque locis scripturae diuersitatem adnotauimus’, Opus Epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami (ed. H. M. Allen and H. W. Garrod; Oxford: Clarendon, 1941) 10. 307–8.Google Scholar Sepulveda's statement that he found 365 agreements with the Vg does not limit the number of notations he might have made.

Sepulveda must have shared this list of readings with Erasmus for in 1535 Erasmus remarks on the reading καδα at Acts 27.16 found in a ‘Vatican’ MS (attested only in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus^corr), Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament: Acts – Romans – I and II Corinthians. Facsimile of the Final Latin Text with All Earlier Variants (ed. A. Reeve and M. A. Screech; SHCT 42; Leiden: Brill, 1990) 331. Since Codex Vaticanus has one of these marginal notations at that verse, it seems likely that the ‘umlauts’ originated with Sepulveda.

²¹ Erasmus, for example, makes no mention of it in any of the editions of his Annotations. In 1535 he does remark concerning 14.33: ‘Apud Chrysostomum æditionis Veronensis, additur: sed in enarrando non attingit: unde adiectitium esse uidetur. In æditione Aldina, non additur. Ne que uero Paulus docebat in omnibus ecclesiis, sed in omnibus ecclesiis sanctorum ordine & absque tumulta res agebatur’, Annotations, 509. This could explain the location of the ‘ umlaut’ at 14.33 (expected at 14.34) and provide additional support for identifying Sepulveda as the one who introduced the markings.

²² Fischer, , ‘Bibelausgaben des frühen Mittelalters’, Settimane di studio del Centro Italiano di studi sull'alto Medioeva (Spoleto: II Centro, 1963) 553–5.Google Scholar

²³ For a full description, see Ranke, E., Codex Fuldensis (Marburg: Elwert, 1868)Google Scholar i–xvi. See also Fischer, B., ‘Bibelausgaben’, 545–7Google Scholar; Epistula ad Ephesios (ed. H. J. Frede; VL 24/1; Freiburg: Herder, 1964) 15–16Google Scholar, and Frede, Hermann Josef, Pelagius, der irische Paulustext Sedulius Scottus (AGLB 3; Freiburg: Herder, 1961) 37Google Scholar. On dating consult Dobschütz, E. von, ‘Wann las Victor Capua sein Neues Testament?’, ZNW 10 (1909) 90–6Google Scholar; and Corssen, P., ‘Die Subskription des Bischofs Victor in dem Codex Fuldensis’, ZNW 10 (1909) 175–7.Google Scholar

²⁴ That vv. 36–10 were written in the margin and not vv. 34–5 was first ‘rediscovered’ by Wire, , Women Prophets, 285Google Scholar n. 19. This MS does not support E. Earle Ellis' theory of a Pauline marginal notation, ‘The Silenced Wives of Corinth’, New Testament Textual Criticism: Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger (ed. E. J. Epp and G. D. Fee; Oxford: Clarendon, 1981) 219.Google Scholar

²⁵ Payne, ‘Fuldensis’, 241–5.

²⁶ Payne makes much of the fact that Victor provides no notation signalling the reader to omit vv. 36–40 in the text of Fuldensis. This argument from silence hardly carries the weight Payne wishes to place upon it. Although some texts to be replaced are marked by erasures (1 Cor 15.33; 16.19), single dots over letters (2.6,13), or a triangular pattern of three dots over letters (7.17; 8.6) or words (6.13; 7.19), others lack such notation (1.16!; 2.8; 8.10). In addition, Payne himself admits that the longer corrections elsewhere in the NT have no notation signalling the need for deletion, ‘Fuldensis’, 242–3.

²⁷ Determined by collation from microfilm of the text of Reginensis (vac. 11.20–14.24) with Fuldensis.

Several readings are attested only by these two MSS (according to Wordsworth/white [W/V]), underlining their close relationship (2.6,13; 4.9; 8.11; 14.33; 15.33; see also 2.3 [W/W errs]; 5.1, 10; 8.7; 10.19; 15.2). Also, of the six genetically significant corrections at variance with Reginensis, half are singular readings (5.6; 10.13; 16.1).

²⁸ Fee, , Corinthians, 699 n. 1.Google Scholar

²⁹ See Frede, , Ephesios, 29–38Google Scholar; Altlateinische Paulushandschriften (AGLB 4; Freiburg: Herder, 1964) 140–4Google Scholar; and Fischer, , ‘Das Neue Testament in lateinischer Sprache’, Die alten Übersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenväterzitate und Lektionare (ed. Aland, K.; ANTF 5; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972) 24–6.Google Scholar

³⁰ Ambrosiastri qui dicitur commentarius in Epistulas Paulinas, part 2: In Epistulas ad Corinthios (ed. H. J. Vogels, CSEL 81; Vienna: Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1968).Google Scholar

³¹ Berger, Samuel, Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siècles du Moyen Age (Paris: Hachette, 1893) 139Google Scholar; Souter, A., The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St Paul (Oxford: Clarendon, 1927) 43Google Scholar; and Vogels, H. J., Das Corpus Paulinum des Ambrosiaster (BBB 13; Bonn: Hanstein, 1957) 11, 13.Google Scholar Heinrich Zimmermann concludes that Ambrosiaster's text, ‘trotz seiner eindeutigen Zugehörigkeit zum δ-Typus ein durchaus eigenständiges Textgebilde ist, wie es bis zum Ende des 4. Jahrh. in Norditalien gewachsen war’, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altlateinischen Überlieferung des zweiten Korintherbriefes (BBB 16; Bonn: Hanstein, 1960) 102.Google Scholar Zimmermann's conclusion stands though he unfortunately subsumed the I-text under his ‘δ-Typus’. See Frede, , Paulushandschriften, 140–4.Google Scholar

³² Ambrosiaster distrusted Greek MSS and so preserves a purely Latin text. See Comm. Rom. 5.14. Cf. Zelzer, M., ‘Zur Sprache des Ambrosiasters’, Wiener Studien 4 (1970) 196–213.Google Scholar

³³ Ambrosiaster apparently published three editions. The first, however, commented only on Romans. See Vogels, , Corpus Paulinum, 13–14Google Scholar; and for the textual tradition see his ‘Die Überlieferung des Ambrosiasterkommentars zu den Paulinischen Briefen’, Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen aus dem Jahre 1959 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1959) 107–2.Google Scholar

³⁴ In 2 Corinthians, at least, many of the departures from this text agree with Codex Boernerianus, Zimmermann, Untersuchungen, 83–99Google Scholar, especially 96–9.

³⁵ For a description and history see Codex Claromontanus sive Epistulae Pauli Omne Graece et Latine (ed. Constantine Tischendorf; Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1832) i–xxix.Google Scholar

³⁶ Frede, , Paulushandschriften, 20–3.Google Scholar Cf. Tischendorf, , Claromontanus, xiv–xv.Google Scholar

³⁷ Frede, , Paulushandschriften, 17–29.Google Scholar For other theories, see Tischendorf, , Claromontanus, xvii–xviiiGoogle Scholar (Alexandria); Souter, A., ‘The Original Home of Codex Claromontanus’, JTS 6 (1904/1905) 240–3Google Scholar; and Diehl, E., ‘Zur Textgeschichte des lateinischen Paulus’, ZNW 20 (1921) 97–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar (Southern France).

³⁸ Frede, , Paulushandschriften, 26–31, 45.Google Scholar

³⁹ The Greek and Latin texts are closely related, but the occasional differences require themto be considered separate witnesses.

⁴⁰ On provenance (probably Pavia) and possible Irish connections, see Dold, Alban, Die im Codex Val.Reg.Lat. 9 vorgeheftete Liste paulinischer Lesungen für die Messfeier (TA 35; Beuron: Beuroner Kunstverlag, 1944).Google Scholar

⁴¹ In addition to the evidence from 1 Corinthians, all of Victor's corrections in Galatians and Ephesians agree with Reginensis, Fischer, ‘Bibelausgaben’, 553–4. See also Corssen, P., Epistula ad Galatas ad fidem optimorum codicum Vulgate recognovit prolegomenis instruxi Vulgatam cum antiquioribus versionibus (Berlin: Weidmann, 1885) 16–17.Google Scholar

⁴² Frede, , Ephesios, 17–18.Google Scholar

⁴³ Frede, H. J., Ein neuer Paulustext und Kommentar (2 vols.; AGLB 7–8; Freiburg: Herder, 1973–1974) 1. 13–16.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Frede, , Neuer Paulustext, 1.153, 247–59.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Frede, , Neuer Paulustext, 1.34–5, 82–3, 153.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ For a description, detailed history, and transcription, see Gwynn, J., Liber Ardmachanus:The Book of Armagh (Dublin: Hodger, Figgis and Co., 1913).Google Scholar Consult also Graves, Charles, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 3 (1846/1847) 316–24, 356–9.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Frede, , Ephesios, 11Google Scholar; and Paulushandschriften, 61.

⁴⁸ Gwynn identified the MS as Vg, Liber Ardmachanus, ccxxiii–iv. Souter mistakenly associated it with Pelagius (PEL^B), Pelagius's Expositions of the Thirteen Epistles of St Paul (3 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1922) 1.128–9.Google Scholar See Frede's, corrections, Pelagius, 60–86.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Frede, , Paulushandschriften, 35–49.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Frede, , Paulushandschriften, 67–76.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Zimmermann, , Untersuchungen, 256.Google Scholar

⁵² Frede, , Ephesios, 12–13.Google Scholar

⁵³ See Der Codex Boernerianus (ed. A. Reichardt; Leipzig: Hiersemann, 1909)Google Scholar; also Frede, , Paulushandschriften, 50–79.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Frede, , Paulushandschriften, 54–64.Google Scholar On types of grammatical sources, consult Metzger, B M., ‘Bilingualism and Polylingualism in Antiquity; with a Check-List of New Testament MSS Written in More than One Language’, The New Testament Age: Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke (2 vols.; ed. Weinrich, W. C.; Macon: Mercer, 1984) 2.329–31.Google Scholar But cf. Rönsch, H., ‘Die Doppelübersetzungen im lateinischen Texte des cod. Boernerianus der paulinischen Briefe’ ZWT 25 (1882) 488–517Google Scholar, 26 (1883) 73–98, 309–44; and Soden, Hermann von, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Text-geschichte (2 parts in 4 vols.; 2nd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911/1913) 1/3.1938.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Frede, , Paulushandschriften, 63.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See An Exact Transcript of the Codex Augiensis (ed. F. H. Scrivener; Cambridge: Deighton Bell, 1859) xxiii–xxxiii.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ They even share the same lacunae, Scrivener, Augiensis, xxiii. See also Zimmer, F., ‘Der Codex Augiensis (F^Paul), eine Abschrift des Boernerianus (G^Pau1)’, ZWT 30 (1887) 76–91Google Scholar; Smith, W. B., ‘The Pauline Manuscripts F and G. A Text-critical Study’, AJT 7 (1903) 454–85, 662–88Google Scholar; and Hatch, W. H. P., ‘On the Relationship of Codex Augiensis and Codex Boernerianus of the Pauline Epistles’, HSCP 60 (1951) 187–99.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Frede, , Paulushandschriften, 85–7.Google Scholar They usually correspond to the readings of Boernerianus, 81.

⁵⁹ Hellmann, S., Sedulius Scottus (Quellen und Untersuchungen zur lateinische Philologie des Mittelalters 1/1; Munich: Beck, 1906)Google Scholar; and Kenney, James F., The Sources for the Early History of Ireland: Ecclesiastical (New York: Columbia University, 1929) 565.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Marginal notations in some MSS of the Collectaneum indicate sources used by Sedulius. None exist for these verses, however. See Souter, A., ‘The Sources of Sedulius Scotus’ Collectaneum on the Epistles of St Paul’, JTS 18 (1917) 213.Google Scholar

⁶¹ See Frede, , Pelagius, 87–95.Google Scholar

⁶² For a description see Salvatore Cyrillo, , Codices Graeci Mss. Regiae Bibliothecae Borbonicae descripti atque illustrati (Naples: s.n., 1726) 1.13–24.Google Scholar

Ms 88 may have ties to Italy (or at least Sardinia), since it shares a colophon with Codex Coislinianus (H, 015), but this association would not necessarily extend to the text of the Pauline epistles since the scribe apparently had a number of MSS at hand. See Murphy, Harold S., ‘On the Text of Codices H and 93’, JBL 78 (1959) 228–37Google Scholar; and Dobschütz, Ernst von, ‘A Hitherto Unpublished Prologue to the Acts of the Apostles (probably by Theodore of Mopsuestia)’, AJT2(1898) 355.Google Scholar

⁶³ Both MSS were fully collated in 1 Corinthians from microfilm. See also Murphy, H. S., ‘The Text of Romans and 1 Corinthians in Minuscule 93 and the Text of Pamphilus’, HTR 52 (1959) 119–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Aland, Kurt, ed., Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments 2/2: Die paulinischen Briefe (ANTF 17; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991) 4, 32 and 67–8.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Peter Corssen has provided the best account of the consanguinity of the bilingual MSS, ‘Epistularum Paulinarum codices Graeca et Latine scriptos Augiensem Boernerianum Claromontanum examinavit inter se comparavit ad communem originem revocavit’, Programme des Gymnasiums Jever 1 (1887) and 2 (1889)Google Scholar; and ‘Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte des Römerbriefs’ ZNW10 (1909) 1–45.Google Scholar

For other studies consult Diehl, , ‘Textgeschichte’, 118–27Google Scholar; Vogels, H. J., ‘Der Claromontanus’, Amicitiae Corolla: A Volume of Essays Presented to James Rendel Harris(ed. Wood, H. G.; London: University of London, 1933) 274–99Google Scholar; Schäfer, Karl, ‘Der griechisch-lateinisch Text des Galaterbriefes in der Handschriftengruppe DEFG’, Scientia Sacra: Theologische Festgabe für Kardinal Schulte (Cologne: Bachem, 1935) 41–70Google Scholar; Zimmermann, , Untersuchungen, 9–65Google Scholar; Tinnefeld, Franz H., Üntersuchungen zur altlateinischen Überlieferung des 1. Timotheusbriefes (Klassisch-Philologische Studien 26; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1963) 1–62Google Scholar; Frede, , Paulushandschriften, 15–101Google Scholar; Nellessen, Ernst, Untersuchungen zur altlateinischen Überlieferung des ersten Thessalonicherbriefes (BBB 22; Bonn: Hanstein, 1965) 28–133Google Scholar; and Frede, , Neuer Paulustext, 1.76–83.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ On Irish influence, see Cordoliani, A., ‘Le texte de la Bible en Irlande du Ve au Xle siècle’, RB 57 (1950) 22–3Google Scholar; and Kenney, , Early History, 372–621.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Codex Claromontanus and MSS 88 and 915 hardly prove important exceptions. Codex Claromontanus or its text might have originated in northern Italy. In all probability Frede's conjecture of a southern Italian origin for the MS (based primarily on the history of Italian bilingualism) is correct, Paulushandschriften, 16–33. Still, the script only guarantees an Italian provenance and leads to the conclusion ‘daβ sie nicht in den groβen lateinischen Schreibzentren Italiens entstanden kann, sondern nur in einem abgelegenen, provinziellen Scriptorium’, 19. More likely, just as with Fuldensis, a northern text was transported to a southern locale.

The other two MSS are genetically related. 88 and 915 agree 86% in 1 Corinthians (Aland, , Paulinischen Briefe, 1.22Google Scholar; confirmed by collation). Significantly, they share a number of marginal readings (see 5.13(?); 7.28; 8.11; 14.16 and 19, but cf. 14.25 in MS 915). They do not represent a family of ‘Western cursives’, a myth dispelled by Thomas C. Geer, Jr, in a paper presented before the NT Textual Criticism Section at the 1989 annual meeting of the SBL. They merely reflect the occasional influence of the bilingual tradition on the Greek text.

⁶⁷ Ep. 169.2, S. Aureli Augustini Operum (CSEL 44, 2/3; ed. A. Goldbacher; Leipzig: Freytag, 1904).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Frede, , Ephesios, 34–5.Google Scholar See also Souter, , Commentaries, 147–8Google Scholar; and Zimmermann, , Untersuchungen, 188–90, 233–5.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Souter provides the text in the third volume of Pelagius's Expositions. The apparatus of UBS⁴ erroneously labels the Balliol MS as OL and as a witness for the traditional order. First, this MS of Pelagius’ commentary, though containing numerous OL readings, is Vg (Souter mistakenly considered it the best representative of Pelagius’ text, Pelagius' Expositions, 1.34–48, despite the fact that the commentary often exposited a Vg reading instead of that in the lemma, 2.7–8. Cf. Frede, , Pelagius, 9–47).Google Scholar Second, the exemplar of the Balliol MS lacked the quaternion which included the text of 1 Cor 14.

⁷⁰ PL 30, 762. See Souter, , Pelagius's Expositions, 265–8.Google Scholar

⁷¹ According to Wordsworth/White, Nouum Testamentum; and UBS³. When two MS designations are given, the first refers to the Vetus Latina and the second to Wordsworth/White. MS descriptions come from Frede, , Ephesios, 10–24.Google Scholar

⁷² Fortunately, 1 Cor 14.34–5 was chosen as one of the ‘Teststelle’ by the Institut für neu testamentliche Textforschung. See Aland, , Paulinischen Briefe, vols. 1–2.Google Scholar

⁷³ See Jenkins, Claude, ‘Origen on 1 Corinthians’, JTS 10 (1909) 41–2Google Scholar; Chrysostom 1 Cor Hom. 37; and Theodoret Int. XIVEpist. (PG 82, 348A).

⁷⁴ Michael Bakker notes that the inclusion of the Slavonic in UBS⁴ is both ‘misleading and premature’, ‘he Slavonic Version of UBS ⁴’, NT 37 (1995) 94.Google Scholar This applies equally well to the Latin, Sahidic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions of 1 Corinthians. See the contributions in Text of the NT in Contemporary Research, 113–87. The following works were consulted: Horner, George William, ed., The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Northern Dialect Otherwise Known as Memphitic and Bohairic (4 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1898–1905)Google Scholar; The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect Otherwise Known as Sahidic and Thebaic (7 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1911–1924);Google ScholarThompson, Herbert, ed., The Coptic Version of the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Epistles in the Sahidic Dialect (Cambridge: Cambridge Üniversity, 1932);Google ScholarAland, B. and Juckel, A., Das Neue Testament in Syrischer Überlieferung 2: Die Paulinischen Briefe, part 1: Römer- und 1. Korintherbrief (ANTF 14; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and The New Testament in Ethiopic (Addis Ababa: American Bible Society, 1968).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Work also needs to be done on the lectionaries. See Osburn, C. D., ‘The Greek Lectionaries of the New Testament’, Text of the NT in Contemporary Research, 61–74.Google Scholar For 1 Cor 14.34–5 in fourteen lectionaries, see Cocroft, Ronald A., A Study of the Pauline Lessons in the Matthean Section of the Greek Lectionary (SD 32; Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1968) 171–2.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ See Kim, Young Kyu, ‘Palaeographical Dating of P46 to the Later First Century’, Bib 69 (1988) 248–57.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Wire, , Women Prophets, 150–2.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ See Lorenz, Rudolf, ‘Die Anfänge des abendländischen Mönchtums im 4. Jahrhundert’, ZKG 15 (1966) 1–12, 27–38Google Scholar; and Petersen-Szemérdy, Griet, Zwischen Weltstadt und Wüste:Römische Asketinnen in der Spätantike (Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte 54; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Cf. Schmitz, D. Ph., ‘La première communauté devierges à Rome’, RevBén 38 (1926) 189–95.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Claromontanus, Boernerianus, Augiensis, and latinus medii aevi 1 or their exemplars were written colometrically.