Mulier taceat

Aļesja Lavrinoviča undertakes a detailed critical examination of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, a passage that has played a decisive role in debates on women's participation in early Christian worship. Drawing on textual criticism, redaction criticism, and linguistic analysis, she explores the syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic dimensions of the verses in close dialogue with manuscript traditions, with particular attention to early Greek and Latin witnesses. This investigation is framed against centuries of exegetical engagement, from patristic interpretation to modern scholarly debate.
The author's analysis demonstrates that verses 34-35 form a discrete textual unit with tenuous syntactic links to the surrounding context. Pronoun usage, verbal forms, and central terms such as ἐκκλησία, λαλεῖν, and λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ exhibit striking incongruities, reinforcing the hypothesis of interpolation. Furthermore, she highlights the function of verses 33b and 36 as an editorial frame that universalizes the prohibition of women's speech in order to emphasize ecclesiastical unity. This insight supports the conclusion that the passage is not authentically Pauline but the product of later editorial activity.
Challenging rhetorical approaches that assume textual coherence, the author proposes instead that textual incoherence be read as evidence for interpolation. The findings shed new light on questions of Pauline authorship, the role of women in early Christian assemblies, and the processes by which doctrinal norms were established.

INTRODUCTION 1
1. Why Another Study on 1 Cor 14:34-35?
2. The Object of the Study
3. Explication of the Research Question
4. The State of the Discussion on the Interpolation of the Mulier Taceat Pericope (until the 1950s)
5. Conceptual Framework of the Study
6. Methodological Approach
CHAPTER 1
THE MULIER TACEAT PERICOPE AND EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 21
A. INTERPRETATION OF THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE AMONG THE EXEGETES
1. Scholarly Opinion on the Place of Vv. 34-35 in Its Immediate Context
2. Scholarly Arguments about Their Views on V. 33b
2.1. Verse 33b Introduces the Mulier Taceat Pericope
2.1.1. Verse 33b Was Written by Paul and Goes with V. 34
2.1.2. Verse 33b Was Not Written by Paul and Goes with the Non-Pauline V. 34
2.2. Verse 33b Goes with What Precedes 34
2.2.1. Verses 33b-35 Are Written by Paul 34
2.2.2. Verse 33b Is Pauline and Vv. 34-35 Are Non-Pauline
2.3. Verses [33b]34-35 Constitute a Corinthian Slogan
3. Summary of the Scholarly Proposals
B. EVALUATION OF THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE
1. Paragraph Marking, Sense-Lines and Punctuation as a Scribal Practice
2. Text-Critical Analysis of the Place of Vv. 34-35 in Greek and Latin Manuscripts
2.1. Greek Papyri
2.1.1. Papyrus 46 (P46)
a. Dating and Quality of the Text Found in Papyrus Chester Beatty II (P46)
b. P46 and the Mulier Taceat Pericope
2.1.2. Papyrus 123 (P123; P.Oxy. 72 4844)
2.2. Greek Majuscule Codices
2.2.1. Codex Vaticanus
a. General Description of Codex Vaticanus
b. Paragraphoi in Codex Vaticanus
c. Paragraphs and the Authenticity of 1 Cor 14:34-35
2.2.2. Codex Sinaiticus
2.2.3. Codex Alexandrinus
2.2.4. Codex Athous Lavrensis (Ψ)
2.2.5. Minuscule 33
2.2.6. Minuscule 1739 and Majuscule 0243
2.2.7. Minuscule 88 (Codex Regis)
2.3. Latin Versions - Vetus Latina, Vulgate
2.3.1. Codex Fuldensis
a. Scholarly Discussion Concerning Sigla Around the Mulier Taceat in Fuldensis
b. Fuldensis and Reginensis-Is There Any Relation?
2.3.2. Codex Reginensis (Reg.lat.9)
2.3.3. Summary on the Fuldensis and Reginensis
2.4. Latin Versions That Transpose Vv. 34-35
2.4.1. Codex Claromontanus
2.4.2. Codex Augiensis (F)
2.4.3. Codex Boernerianus (G)
3. Issue of the Transposition
3.1. A Possible Gloss or a Marginal Note Hypothesis