There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Greek construction has Paul refuting was has just proceeded verse 36 and the only way this could be logical is that Paul is not refuting himself but a quote from the Corinthians.

“There are several reasons scholars believe that verses 34 and 35 of this passage are quotes from the letter Paul is answering. The most important clue is that the Greek symbol “n” (with a grave accent) is used at the beginning of verse 36 to signal to the reader that the preceding statement is quoted.”

Just what you have said all along Cheryl!
For reference, his references to research from which he draws that conclusion are: Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., “Shared Leadership,” Christianity Today, October 3, 1986, 124; Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Baker Book House Co., Broadman Press, 1977), 275.
The reference for my quote above is: J. Lee Grady, 10 Lies the Church Tells Women (Lake Mary, FL: Charisma House, A Strang Company, 2006), 71.

One of the papyri, p123, has the complete text of 1 Cor 14 and dates around 350. I am trying to find an image of it to see if it was punctuated.

Thanks for giving the information that you have on these manuscripts.  I have not done the research myself and it is good to know.

Actually, they did.  They thought they were correct in their interpretations and did so with integrity, but the facts are that when the original manuscripts were written in 50’s - 60’s AD, it was in all caps, no accent marks, no punctuation of any sort.  Thus, when those are added in, it is at the discretion of the translators.

I have not studied the versions with the accents, so what I say about them should not be taken as anything more than just my own opinion.  I do not know for sure if these same accented manuscripts made Junia into a male name.  If that is true, then the accents should be treated as a human addition that can be very helpful but may also skew the text into an interpretation instead of a translation.  A person’s interpretation put into the text is not helpful in my opinion.  I believe this is why 1 Cor. 11 has been so difficult to understand for so long.  When one adds “a symbol of” in 1 Cor. 11:10 when the words are not there in the original and the added words change the meaning of the text, it is clear that interpretation needs to be left out of the business of translation so that difficult passages can be wrestled with, without an unfair influence of the translator regarding the meaning of scripture.

So as regards to an accented text, would it be helpful?  Absolutely, I am sure it would.  Is it necessary to understand the meaning of the passage?  I don’t think it is necessary.  God has left a witness to us with the inspired words and the inspired grammar in an inspired context.  That I know for sure.  The other I will consider and appreciate and I can even value it.  I am not convinced it is more than that at this point.

I do appreciate God’s Holy Spirit who is the most important factor in understanding God’s inspired words.  His work in our hearts to open the word is very important and I do not take that work lightly.  But still we are to struggle with the text and to study to show ourselves approved unto God a workman that does not need to be ashamed.  I trust that all of us are on the path way to be that kind of workman.

The question is - do we discard this wealth of detail simply because it is of more recent origin or do we trust God has preserved this detail for us so that we can further study and understand His word beyond what a uncial manuscript is able to provide for us? Or conversely, do we contend that the whole of the majority text is some ploy of the enemy to make us less reliant on “the true” uncial text (also not autographs, also prone to error and influence)? Certainly none of the Nestle-Aland editors believe in such a dismissal, or they would have simply compilled their Greek addition as another uncial resource. So, I am inclined to at least show some deference to the use of details in our Greek standards and am quite happy that we don’t have to rely exclusively on the cryptic and difficult uncial variant of manuscript to discern God’s word.

gengwall,

I agree with you in that I am not saying that the term “but” means that a quotation is referenced.  It is only when “but” presents a contrary view to what was just presented that we can consider that Paul is referencing a quote.  This is where 1 Corinthians 10:23 is shown to be presenting a contrary view.  The ESV, NET, NIV, NRSV are some of the versions that put quotation marks in this verse as referencing a quotation of the Corinthians.  The Montgomery Centenary Translation of the New Testament also has quotation marks around verses 34 & 35 including the ending of verse 33.

In my DVD I bring up a quotation of Sir William Ramsay who says “We should be ready to suspect Paul is making a quotation from the letter addressed to him by the Corinthians whenever he alludes to their knowledge or when any statement stands in marked contrast either with the immediate context or with Paul’s known views.”

This also appears to be the case in 1 Cor. 7:1 where the ESV and the NET bible also put the quotation marks indicating that Paul is referencing a position quoted from the Corinthians.  Again we see the word “but” in 1 Cor. 7:2, but again “but” means nothing aside for the fact that verse 2 appears to contradict a position quoted in verse 1.

In 1 Cor. 14 the quotation is not marked with a “but”.  It is marked with the Greek word “n”.  It also is a strong indication that Paul is refuting the position just quoted in verses 34 & 35.  Again, in my DVD I go through all of the documentation proving that it is impossible for verses 34 & 35 to be Paul’s position since the inspired wording of verse 36 is grammatically set up as a refutation.  What is verse 36 refuting? It cannot be that Paul is refuting some imaginery reaction to verses 34 & 35 that he thinks that Corinthians would give when they read Paul’s words.  The documentation I give shows that the inspired wording must set verse 36 as a marked contrast to what had just been quoted.  This is also a very important reason why verse 36 must be kept in its position.  Some manuscripts have this verse at the very end of the chapter but this cannot be.  Verse 36 is very carefully worded as a refutation and if is removed from its position, there is nothing to refute.

As far as 1 Cor. 11 I am not convinced at all that there is a quotation in the passage.  I see no marked contrast in the passage and no carefully worded refutation of a position.  I have exegeted this passage in my DVD to show that it can be demonstrated that the entire passage is Paul’s words in answer to questions about women, headcoverings and hair and Paul uses this as an opportunity to preach our dependence on each other and that God is the ultimate source of all things so that neither male nor female is lifted up as being more important than the other.

Paul also points to customs that can be respected but should not override our loyalty to Christ and the honor due him.  Any custom that dishonors Christ must be abandoned and any custom that separates believers also should not be held onto.

This issue came to light with the treatment of Junia. They could make her a man just by adding an accent.

“About quotations. In the absence of quotation marks, there are some editorial conventions that can help you to recognize a quotation. First, a quotation inside a sentence may begin with a capital letter, just like in English. Notice also that there is an acute accent, instead of a grave accent, on the word immediately preceding the beginning of the quotation.”1

With that in mind, we need to look at verse 33 to see the beginning of the quotation. At the end of verse 33 we have this clause:

“as in all the churches of the saints” (NASB)

Most translations have that as a clause ending the sentence in verse 33. But if we looked at a fully accented text, which you can do here, you will see that the omega in hos (”as”) is capitalized2.  The quote actually begins with this phrase and continues through verse 35. So, the entire quote from the Corinthians is:

“As in all the churches of the saints, the women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.”

And of course, Paul’s refutation of that nonsense follows.

So to reiterate, I think we need more grammatical clues than the occurance of “but” to identify where Paul is quoting and where he is himself speaking.
———————
1. Biblical Greek Online. Laura Gibbs, Ph.D.
2. A caveat: the accented Greek text I reference does not state its source. I am assuming they are using a published standard Greek text but can not state that for a fact. Still, there is no evidence that they have an agenda regarding 1 Corinthians 14:33 so I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the capitalization I note.