Date: Tue Sep 19 1995 - 17:01:00 EDT

On Date: Tue, Sep 19, 1995 3:57 PM EDT Perry Stepp wrote,

>>Several years ago, Carrol Osburn gave a lecture at ACU re. this verse. He
made a couple of points:

I was Dr. Osburn's grad. asst. at the time. This, though, does not make me
his interpreter; but I can help this discussion. Dr. Osburn's thoughts on
this passage is distilled in Carroll D. Osburn, ed., *Essays on Women in
Earliest Christianity,* vol. 1 [Joplin, MO: College Press, 1993. You will
find his art. ("The Interpretation of 1 Cor. 14.34-35") on pp. 219-242.

>>1. Not until the mid-20th century was 1 C 14.33b grouped with what followed
instead of what preceded.

More precisely Osburn argues that the mss. evidence for moving or deleting
these verses are unconvincing. Only in the mid-20th century did scholars
seek to use the mss. evidence to remove the obvious difficulty this passage
has in such "liberating times" Conzelmann rejects the verses on internal
grounds only; Fee, more recently, to lessen the tension between prophecy as a
gift to men and women (1 Cor. 11) and this text.

>>2. The force of a present infinitive in a prohibitive command is different
(less decisive and absolute) than an aorist infinitive. The best discussion
of this that I can recall is in A. T.Robertson.

This refers to the use of <<lalein>> in vv. 34.-35.

Osburn writes, "xthere is no clear contextual indication of what is meant,
but there is a significant grammatical indication. In moods other than the
indicative, the present doesn not necessarily refer to past time, the
distinction being rather in the manner in which the action is viewed. Thus,
the aorist infinitive refers to the action without indication anything about
it continuance or repetition; the pres. inf., on the other hand, specifically
refers to the action as continuing or being repeated in some way [ref. to
Robertson, 890] xIt seems improbable that they were merely "chatting," paying
no attention to the speaker and thus disturbing the learnersx Rather,
*lalein* should be taken here to mean that they were "piping up," giving free
rein to "irresistable impulses" to ask question after question either of the
speaker or of their husbands, creating chaos in the assembly by interfering
with communication [pp. 233-234].

Dr. Osburn greatest contribution here is the way he reads the whole text. He
sees correctly that Paul tells three groups of people to "shut up." and for
the same reason; they are causing chaos in the gathering.

Helpfully, I hope,

Stan Helton

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:27 EDT