Sex, Scribes, and Scriptures / Edgar Battad Ebojo 367

Sex, Scribes, and Scriptures:

Engendering the Texts of the New Testament

1)Edgar Battad Ebojo*

1. Introduction

I subscribe to the leadership role of women in advancing the Kingdom of

God. This paper is not offered as a “proof” that women can lead effectively and
contribute significantly to societal progress; my main interest in this article is to
present the gender question from the standpoint of the transmission of the
biblical texts, as enshrined in the texts of various extant manuscripts of the New
Testament.
In a lecture on gender, Melba Maggay, a Filipino Christian social
anthropologist, clarified that “gender has nothing to do with one’s physiological
composition, but with the socio-cultural conditions that have helped develop
one’s orientation; in short, gender is a ‘social construct’”.1)
Taking the same presupposition, one is disturbed by the fact that the Christian
Church through the centuries has somehow contributed, consciously or
unconsciously, to the somewhat unequal, if not unjust, treatment of women in
the Church, especially in the area of leadership. Take, for instance, these two
passages:

… women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed
to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to
inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for
it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (1Co 14:34-35, NIV)

* Ph.D. in Biblical Studies, University of Birmingham, UK. Translation Consultant and Publishing
Manager of the Philippine Bible Society. Visiting Professor at the Asian Theological Seminary.
[email protected].
1) Melba Maggay, “Gender or Sex?” (Silang, Cavite: Unpublished lecture given during the
ISACC’s Retreat on Spirituality and Culture, 2007. 7. 31).
368 성경원문연구 제39호

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit

a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For
Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived;
it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women
will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and
holiness with propriety. (1Ti 2:11-15, NIV)

Whether intended originally or not by the biblical writers, passages like these
somehow served historically as impetus for the eventual development of
doctrines and practices in the Church (and para-church organizations) that have
placed women on a seemingly second level status in the gender hierarchy.
Can passages of this nature, however, be alternatively interpreted and
understood in light of recent change of attitude toward the manuscript tradition?
Is there anyway an Asian Christian can take a second look at this issue and find
a more sensible reading for our context than what has been transmitted
predominantly from the West?
Using text-critical lenses, this paper highlights instances in the transmission
history of the New Testament texts where some textual variations may have
emerged due to gender sensitivities espoused by those who copied and
transmitted them. This slant benefits from recent textual scholarship
demonstrating that ancient scribes can no longer be construed as passive,
disinterested, detached copyists of a “sacred text”. There is now wealth of
materials pointing to the scribes’ rather intentional participation in meaning
(re)production of the biblical text.2)
The transmission of the New Testament was both a theological and a
historical process. Those who transmitted the text of the New Testament were
themselves readers embroiled in actual historical, social, cultural, and religious
issues, whose socio-cultural contexts unambiguously shaped the way they
perceived the text they were copying (i.e., Vorlage).
Deliberate scribal alterations at critical junctures, which betray scribal
tendencies, mirror the way scribes reflected their own prevailing socio-cultural

2) On this as a theoretical construct, see Edgar Battad Ebojo, “The Way I See It”: P 46 as a
Paradigm for Reader-Response Criticism”, TBT 60:1 (2009), 22-36. See also, Bart Ehrman,
“The Text of Mark in the Hands of the Orthodox”, M. Burrows and P. Rorem, eds., Biblical
Hermeneutics in Historical Perspectives (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 31.
 Sex, Scribes, and Scriptures / Edgar Battad Ebojo 369

practices that may have motivated such changes. In cases of alterations with
bearing on the gender question, textual alterations were, to a greater or lesser
degree, reflective of that tendency toward patriarchal predominance.3)
In the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles particular importance was accorded to
women and their fundamental roles in the advance of Christianity in its early
phase.4) However, not everyone in Christian antiquity was comfortable with
these roles.5) Some scholars even suggested that there was an organized effort to
oppress women and restrain their voices in the public circle;6) a movement
perpetuated by those who believed that women should be in complete
submission to men and be contented with their proverbial “Martha role”.7) This

3) A relevant development in New Testament scholarship is the growing acknowledgment that the
business of copying manuscripts, both religious and literary, was not an exclusive male domain,
as previously perceived; on this, see Kim Haines-Eitzen, Guardians of Letters: Literacy, Power,
and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000),
42-44; The Gendered Palimpsest. Women, Writing, and Representation in Early Christianity
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). See also the indirect but related discourses offered by
Roger S. Bagnall and Raffaella Cribiore, with Evie Ahtaridis, Women’s Letters from Ancient
Egypt, 300 BC-AD 800 (Ann Arbor: Michigan Press, 2006).
4) For instance, Richard Bauckham, Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002); Elizabeth Schussler-Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological
Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, 1989), 97-351. Of particular interest is
the anthology by Nicola Denzey, The Bone Gatherer: The Lost Worlds of Early Christian Women
(Boston: Beacon Press, 2007), tracing early Christian women (e.g., Lucina, Viatrix, Cyriaca, among
others) who made a dent in the economic but more importantly in the religious life of the Imperial
Rome but were never fully recognized in the annals of the Church.
5) Mary Daly, Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation, 2nd ed.
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1985); Elizabeth Schussler-Fiorenza, In Memory of Her; Karen Jo
Torjesen, When Women Were Priests: Women’s Leadership in the Early Church and the
Scandal of Their Subordination in the Rise of Christianity (New York: Harper, 1993);
Antoinette Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction Through Paul’s Rhetoric
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990); among others.
6) See, for instance, Bart Ehrman, “The Text as Window: New Testament Manuscripts and the
Social History of Early Church”, Bart Ehrman and Michael Holmes, eds., The Text of the New
Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, SD 46 (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1995), 367-369; Ben Witherington III, “Anti-Feminist Tendencies of the ‘Western’
Text in Acts”, JBL 103 (1984), 82-84; among others.
7) On the Fathers and their prejudices against women see Kevin Koyle, “The Fathers on Women
and Women’s Ordination”, D. Scholer, ed., Women in Early Christianity, SEC 14 (New York:
Garland, 1993), 117-167; and Karen Jo Torjesen, When Women were Priests, esp. 9-50. For
non-ecclesiastical (paganic?) commentaries, see Margaret MacDonald, Early Christian Women
and Pagan Opinion: The Power of the Hysterical Woman (Cambridge: Cambridge, 1996), esp.
49-126.
370 성경원문연구 제39호

movement and the socio-cultural tensions it entailed would not be resolved with
finality in the writings of the Apostles. On the contrary, it would become even
more pronounced in the ensuing centuries long after the Apostles’
demise—courtesy of the scribes who transmitted the biblical texts.

2. (Re-)Constructing Christian Origins Through The Manuscripts

Surviving manuscripts of the New Testament are not merely repositories of

variant readings from antiquity where we can reconstruct the potential
“originals”. By carefully examining textual variations that make perfect sense in
context,8) extant manuscripts also have the potential to become opulent
resources for (re-)constructing Christian origins and thoughts, i.e., early
Christians’ dogma and praxis, their reaction to socio-cultural changes and the
new challenges they brought, the complex rigidity of their theology and the
paradox of their praxis, the seeming acceptability of multiple interpretations of
similar passages, and others. In these manuscripts, New Testament scribes
embedded coded messages that seem to depict their proclivities or tendencies
with regard to specific issues that confronted them and the communities they
represented. As such, these manuscripts were a microcosm of the early Christian
movement; they provide us with the human face of Scripture transmission.
Sensible textual variations, in this regard, serve as invaluable window into the
world of early New Testament scribes and how they subtly (but actively)
participated in the issues of their day by enshrining, in the manuscripts they
produced, their preferences in the areas of theology, culture, and their society.
Because of this, the New Testament scribes can no longer be arbitrarily
described as passive, disinterested, un-engaged copyists of a transmitted “sacred
text” from the hands of the biblical writers.
Conversely, through these inscriptions they become responsible for “meaning

8) In this paper, I shall call this type of textual variation as “sensible” textual variances, which falls
under the rubric of “significant variation”; on the delineation of these textual categories, see
Eldon Jay Epp, “Toward the Clarification of the term ‘Textual Variant’”, J. K. Elliott, ed.,
Studies in New Testament Language and Text: Essays in Honour of George D. Kilpatrick on the
Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, SNTSS 44 (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 153–173; repr. with the
same title in E. J. Epp, ed., Perspective on New Testament Textual Criticism: Collected Essays
1962-2004 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2005), 101-124, esp. 116-117.
 Sex, Scribes, and Scriptures / Edgar Battad Ebojo 371

re-production,” as they deliberately altered their Vorlagen9) to make it

effectively respond to their own context and conform to what they thought the
Scriptures might have meant10) in view of their own socio-cultural milieus. In
this sense, they kept the Scripture “relevant” to them and “responsive” to their
context; the New Testament texts were not just a transmitted text from the
biblical writers of the first century but sacred writings that could and should
effectively address their present circumstance as well. It has become their
Scripture—a “living text” that should resonate real living situations. As James
Zetzel notes,

…  critics and scribes…  in antiquity were not machines, and they were
not even monks or professional copyists. They were intelligent and
thinking people, who read and copied books because they had interest in
them, not because it was their job. And because they understood what
they read and wrote, they inevitably affected the texts in accordance with
their own ideas.11)

3. Women, Men, and Manuscripts

Surviving ancient manuscripts, therefore, provide graphic examples of textual

divergences that describe rather more vividly how some scribes reacted when
confronted with passages dealing with women issues and interests. Despite the
fact that women were clearly affirmed in the New Testament writings as a
whole, interpreters and scribes of subsequent centuries at times disagreed with
the texts of their Vorlagen, deliberately altering them at critical junctures.
Examples are now in order.

3.1. “Junia”: The “Lost” Apostle?!

Romans 16:7 mentions a person identified in the manuscript tradition as
(“Iounian”). This is a tricky domain, for this accusative form can be

9) This German term refers to the immediate source manuscripts that the scribes copied to produce
their own manuscripts. This must not to be confused with the term “original manuscript” (or
autographs).
10) Bart Ehrman, “Text of Mark”, 31.
11) James E. G. Zetzel, Latin Textual Criticism in Antiquity (New York: Arno Press, 1981), 254.
372 성경원문연구 제39호

translated either as feminine (“Junia”)12) or masculine (“Junias”);13) and precise

gender identification is to a large extent dependent on where to place the accent
and what kind of accent.14) This case of “Battle of the Accents” is an interesting
study since our earliest surviving manuscripts scantily employed this editorial
convention.
Because of the widespread perception that is an elite office
ascribed exclusively to the “Twelve,” ( ) it has been thought that the
term therefore is a restricted male office.15) To caricature this,
Bernadette Brooten satirically comments, “Because a woman could not have
been an apostle, the woman who is here called an apostle could have not been a
woman”.16)
Scholarly discussion on this issue is admittedly a topic of its own, and I can
only briefly echo here what most scholars regard to be the best textual option
given the scarce evidence at hand. Note further that this is especially interesting
because it is the only instance in the Bible where the name is
mentioned, i.e., a hapax legomenon.
There is a growing voice that the here is a feminine entity (most
likely the wife of Andronicus) who made herself equally notable among the
apostles. Most noteworthy is the recent decision taken by the revisors of the
common text of NA28-UBS5, where they have now adopted the feminine Ἰουνίαν
reading instead of the previous masculine Ἰουνιᾶν. This point is of fundamental
importance because if a feminine reading is to be pursued (which is the position
taken here) and if the subsequent clause οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς
ἀποστόλοις is translated as “who are prominent among the apostles”, then

12) So are GNT, NLT, NRSV, ESV, NET, etc.

13) So are RSV, NIV, GNTmg, ESVmg, NRSVmg, etc.
14) That is, the circumflex Ἰουνιᾶν (“Iouniân”) is masculine, while the acute Ἰουνίαν (“Iounían”)
is feminine in Greek; for an extended discussion, see Eldon Jay Epp, “Text-Critical, and
Socio-Cultural Factors Affecting the Junia/Junias Variation in Romans 16:7”, A. Denaux ed.,
New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis: Festschrift Joël Delobel (Leuven: Leuven,
2002), 242-291; Junia: The First Woman Apostle (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007). See also,
Michael Burer and Daniel Wallace, “Was Junia really and Apostle? A Re-examination of Rom
16.7”, NTS 47 (2001), 76-91.
15) On how some modern translators perpetuate this idea, see the marginal note of NET Bible.
16) Bernadette Brooten, “Junia…  Outstanding among the Apostles (Romans 16:7)”, L. Swidler
and A. Swidler eds., Women Priests: A Catholic Commentary on the Vatican Declaration
(New York: Paulist, 1977), 142.
 Sex, Scribes, and Scriptures / Edgar Battad Ebojo 373

would have been the first “woman apostle” unequivocally

mentioned in the New Testament. In antiquity, however, such position was
deemed culturally unacceptable, scribes included, and reasons for that are
obvious. In fact, a feminine identification is revolutionary in many ways, as
Arichea has noted correctly,

“It is therefore very significant that Junias, even though a woman, was
included among the apostles. This makes it certain that women did occupy
positions of prominence in some early Christian communities, and that
very early in the life of the church, a concept of ministry which included
both women and men started to emerge.”17)

3.2. “Women of high standing”: Stealing the thunder

Ben Witherington18) suggested that the scribe(s) of codex D (Bezae) had
“anti-feminist” tendencies (a somewhat anachronistic labeling, but nonetheless
an important point), as it apparently downplays the significance of women in
Acts 17:4 and in some other passages in the book.
Witherington noted that while the earliest reading is undoubtedly
(literally, “the leading women”),
codex D substituted it with (literally,
“and wives of the leading men”), effectively trivializing the high social profile
of the female personalities converted to the faith through Paul’s ministry. In
effect, this alteration essentially demoted these “socialite believers” as the
variation now projects that their social status was simply a borrowed one,
emanating from that of their husbands.
In Mark 15:41, some scribes (C Δ 579 and n) appear to have attempted also to
put a distance between Jesus and his female followers,19) efficiently lessening
the strategic impact of Jesus’ women disciples. For instance, some women in the
Gospels have been explicitly identified because they made significant inroads
into the ministry of Jesus, e.g., Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, et al (Luke
8:2-3), Mary the mother of James the young and Joseph as well as Salome

17) Daniel Arichea, “Who was Phoebe: Translating diakonos in Romans 16:1”, The Bible
Translator 39:4 (1988), 401-409, 402.
18) Ben Witherington III, “Anti-Feminist Tendency”, 82-84.
19) See Wayne Kannaday, Apologetic Discourse and the Scribal Traditions: Evidence of the
Influence of Apologetic Interests on the Canonical Gospels, TCS 5 (Atlanta: SBL, 2004), 183.
374 성경원문연구 제39호

(Mark 15:41), etc.

The mention of their names at significant points in the life of Jesus is
indicative of their meaningful recollection in the consciousness of the early
Christians—this band of remarkable women faithfully followed and supported
Jesus during his lifetime. In fact, Mark 15:41 said it well by describing these
women as αἳ ὅτε ἦν ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ ἠκολούθουν αὐτῷ καὶ διηκόνουν αὐτῷ
(literally, “… when [Jesus was] in Galilee, these [women] followed him and
provided for him”).
But this apparently did not sit well with some scribes and altered their texts by
deleting the phrase καὶ διηκόνουν αὐτῷ (literally, “and [they] provided for
him”),20) presumably because of its “scandalous” implication. This phrase is
capable of a whole range of nuanced translations, from “and they provided for
him” to “and they served table for him”. However, for creative-minded scribes
with culturally pro-male leadership proclivities, it was not farfetched to
misconstrue καὶ διηκόνουν αὐτῷ to also mean “and they were ministering with
him” – putting these women in the same class as that of the apostles, equally
exercising all the vested powers and privileges afforded by Jesus upon his
twelve male apostles. By excising the last phrase, these scribes have efficiently
obviated this translational possibility by detaching these women from any
attribution of a special role in the ministry of Jesus except to be portrayed as
mere followers at the sidelines.
Some scribes went even further; not only did they “discredited” these women
but even attempted to shift the focus from these women to their husbands. For
instance, a fragmentary manuscript discovered in 1933 (Dura Parchment 24),
believed to be from Tatian’s Diatessaron, has a reading that parallels Mark
15:40-41, Matthew 27:55-56, and Luke 23:49. In all these passages, Mary
Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Younger and of Joseph, and Salome
were described as γυναῖκες αἱ ἠκολούθησαν τῷ Ἰησοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ
διηκόνουν αὐτῷ (literally, “the women who were traveling with Jesus from
Galilee and were ministering with him”).
In this fragmentary manuscript, however, the reading was altered to αἱ
γυναῖκες τῶν συνακολουθησάντων αὐτῷ (“the wives of the ones who were

20) Manuscripts that omitted this phrase include codex C (Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus), codex D
(Bezae), codex Δ (Sangallensis), minuscule 579 and a few others.
 Sex, Scribes, and Scriptures / Edgar Battad Ebojo 375

traveling with him”). This grammatical change, however subtle, has radically
denigrated the distinctive importance of these women to the ministry of Jesus;
by changing the verb ending, it is no longer these women who have extensively
travelled and faithfully ministered with Jesus to the end, but their husbands.
Acts 17:12 in the NA28-UBS5 common text reads πολλοὶ μὲν οὖν ἐξ αὐτῶν
ἐπίστευσαν καὶ τῶν Ἑλληνίδων γυναικῶν τῶν εὐσχημόνων καὶ ἀνδρῶν οὐκ
ὀλίγοι (literally, “Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women
of high standing as well as men”). However, it is very interesting to note the
layers of scribal intervention into the text of codex D for this passage (see
Figure Ia & b). The first hand copied

(“Some of them, therefore, believed, but some did not believe;

and some of the Greeks and of high standing, and not a few men and women
believed ”). However, another hand restructured the sentence to

some did not believe; and some of the Greek women and of high standing, and
not a few men and women believed ”). But there is yet a third hand which read

therefore, believed, but some did not believe; and some of the Greek women of
high standing, and not a few men believed ”). Clearly, both corrections
essentially agree with the reading of the NA28-UBS5 common text.
376 성경원문연구 제39호

While the first hand’s reading is admittedly grammatically smoother in Greek,

the scribe of codex D has demonstrated yet again his propensity to lessen the
social importance given to women and unceremoniously re-accorded such
significant accolade to men, thereby stealing the thunder from these great
women of the Bible. The pen has proven to be a powerful tool in reproducing a
text that conforms to the wider cultural practice of the time—although it meant
recreating the text of their Vorlagen.

3.3. Holy Secretaries?! Lost in Translation

This practice of trivializing the importance of women goes beyond the biblical
writings. As this can be shown in a number of ways, I limit my example to just
one: the textual domestication of women in the transmission of Christian and
biblical writings by ancient Christian writers and by modern scholars.
In his rather vivid description of the academic (gender balanced) workforce
behind Origen’s scholarly pursuit in Alexandria, in connection with Ambrose,
the early Church historian Eusebius wrote:

At that time also Origen’s commentaries on the divine scriptures had

their beginning, at the instigation of Ambrose, who not only plied him
with innumerable verbal exhortations and encouragements, but also
provided him unstintingly with what was necessary. As [Origen] dictated
there were ready at hand more than seven shorthand-writers [ταχυγράφοι],
who relieved each other at fixed times, and as many copyists
[βιβλιογράφοι], as well as girls trained for beautiful writing [κόραις ἐπὶ τὸ
καλλιγραφεῖν ἠσκημέναις]; for all of these Ambrose supplied without stint
the necessary means. (Historia Ecclesiastica 6.23.2)

The importance of this ancient quotation is that this is the first explicit
instance where the “female sex” is recognized as a member of the Christian
scribal trade, at least within the circle of Origen.21) The female component is
described as “girls trained for beautiful writing”—not an easy feat in
antiquity—and may have been tasked by Origen for special copying
assignments, including biblical manuscripts.22)

21) For a wider social context, see the list of ancient private letters and literary papyri written
personally by women in Roger S. Bagnall and Raffaella Cribiore, Women’s Letters from
Ancient Egypt, 48-54.
22) On the plausibility of this suggestion, see the insightful discussion of Kim Haines-Eitzen,
Guardians, 50-52; and AnneMarie Luijendijk, Greetings in the Lord: Early Christians and the
 Sex, Scribes, and Scriptures / Edgar Battad Ebojo 377

However, this importance easily dissipates in its transmission. For instance,

when quoting the same Origen-Ambrose transaction, Jerome (De Viris
Illustribus 61) suspiciously mentions of “seven or more short-hand writers
(notarii) … and an equal number of copyists (librarii)”. Whatever has happened
to the specially trained women calligraphers?
But the textual domestication of Origen’s male-female workforce suffers also
from the hands of some modern interpreters, relegating these elite women
scribes to mere “stenographers”23) (an anachronistic term yet again) or
“secretarial assistants” working for their male bosses.24) No wonder
Haines-Eitzen’s protest is not misplaced:

Ancient and modern readers of Eusebius have not only effaced the
presence of “female scribes” but also offered interpretations that once
again uphold a certain “phallic-centered” orthodoxy and sensibility.25)

3.4. Priscilla (Prisca): Sex Change by Transcription?!

Re-ordering word sequence seems harmless at first glance. However, there are
instances when word transposition becomes an obvious avenue for gender
concern. For instance, in Acts 18:26, some scribes (D Ψ1739 M and a few early
versions) transposed Ἀκύλας (“Aquila”) before Πρίσκιλλα (“Priscilla”),
suggesting their textual discomfort with woman’s explicit priority. Note that in
all the six occurrences of Πρίσκιλλα (Act 18:2, 18, 26; Πρίσκα [“Prisca’] in
Rom 16:3, 1Co 16:19, and 2Ti 4:19), it always appears in tandem with
Ἀκύλας—this is an important point.
Note further that only on two occasions did Aquila’s name come first (Act
18:2; 1Co 16:19); this is expected because it was the norm of the day. But to
identify the wife first was beyond the cultural convention unless the writer
intends to emphasize the prominent place of the woman being referred to. The

Oxyrhynchus Papyri (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard, 2008), 74-78, esp. 78.

23) On this interpretation, see Albert Schramm, “Zur Geschichte der Stenographie in der alten
Kirche”, Korrespondenzblatt, Amtliche Zeitschrift des königlichen stenographischen Instituts
zu Dresden 48 (1903), 62-66, esp. 66; as well as Collin Roberts, “Books in the Graeco-Roman
World and in the New Testament”, P. R. Ackroyd and G. F. Evans, eds., The Cambridge
History of the Bible, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge, 1970) 30-66, esp. 65.
24) On this interpretation, see George Haven Putnam, Books and Their Makers during the Middle
Ages, vol. 1 (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1896), 53.
25) Kim Haines-Eitzen, Guardians, 42-43.
378 성경원문연구 제39호

significance of this alteration becomes more pronounced when one looks at the
context of Acts 18:26. This passage talks about Priscilla and Aquila’s “accurate
teaching” (ἀκριβέστερον αὐτῷ ἐξέθεντο) of the Way to a certain Apollos—a
man of passion for the Gospel and of great knowledge about John the Baptizer
but lacks exuberance for Jesus and his teachings.
Nothing could be more disturbing for a male-orientated scribe than a woman
being introduced as one who accurately mentored a prominent man of wisdom
as Apollos; it undisputedly ascribes honor to the mentor/s. But to blindly impute
this accolade upon a woman seems to have been a big challenge, if not a
scandal. Apparently, these scribes were not ready to succumb to this honorable
ascription being vested upon a woman.
This scribal reservation becomes even more unmistakable when one notes that
in 18:7, almost the same scribes (D* ith) would again alter καὶ μεταβὰς ἐκεῖθεν
(“And he left there”) to καὶ μεταβὰς (ἐκεῖθεν 614 1799 2412) ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἀκύλα
(“And he left from [the house of] Aquila”). Stylistic improvement may have
been a reason for this alteration. But what seems to be a scribal motive here is
hinted in the fact that Priscilla and Aquila always appear in tandem and never
independently. Given this observation, it is then not farfetched to suggest that
these scribes even considered leaving Priscilla out of the picture and giving
prominence solely to Aquila.
2Timothy 4:19 is another interesting case. NA28-UBS5 common text reads
reads Ἄσπασαι Πρίσκαν καὶ Ἀκύλαν καὶ τὸν Ὀνησιφόρου οἶκον (literally,
“Greet Prisca and Aquila and the household of Onesiphorus”). However, the
manuscript tradition presents an interesting twist: the addition of a quite
controversial index of names in connection with Ἀκύλας. After the nominal
Ἀκύλαν, the cursive codices 181 (see Figure II) and 460 added Λέκτραν τὴν
γυναὶκα αυτου και Σιμαιαν και Ζηνονα τους υιους αυτου (“his wife Lektran and
Simaian and Zenona his sons”), making Λέκτρα the wife of Ἀκύλας.
 Sex, Scribes, and Scriptures / Edgar Battad Ebojo 379

But if Λέκτρα is the wife of Ἀκύλας, what has happened to Πρίσκα? Could it
be that the scribe of codices 181 and 460 thought that Πρίσκα was a “he” and
not a “she”, and therefore connected the long addition to Ἀκύλας? Are we seeing
here a case of “sex change by transcription”?
That some scribes may have thought of Πρίσκα as a “male” is not without a
potential example in the textual tradition. The dittography (i.e., doubling of
letter/s or word/s) in 1Corinthians 16:19 seems a good case for this.26)
NA28-UBS5 reflects the reading of the last part of the verse as ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἐν
κυρίῳ πολλὰ Ἀκύλας καὶ Πρίσκα σὺν τῇ κατ᾽ οἶκον αὐτῶν ἐκκλησίᾳ (literally,
“Aquila and Prisca, together with the church in their house, greet you warmly in
the Lord”). In the text of P 46 (see Figure III), however, Πρίσκα σὺν was
transcribed as (“… Priscas, together with”). Although the
doubling of the sigma may be explained on paleographical grounds and the
intention of its scribe may not be easily ascertained,27) in terms of exegetical
effect, it has “miraculously” transformed Πρίσκα to a “he” because the form
is masculine in Greek.

3.5. “Sin” of commission and omission?

In the scribal tradition, one hallmark of professional scribal enterprise is a
faithful representation of their Vorlagen. However, there are instances when

26) For some proponents, see Kim Haines-Eitzen, Guardians, 115-116; and Dominika A.
Kurek-Chomycz, “Is There an ‘Anti-Priscan’ Tendency in the Manuscripts? Some Textual
Problems with Prisca and Aquila”, JBL 125 (2006), 107-128.
27) See Edgar Battad Ebojo, “A Scribe and His Manuscript: An Investigation into the Scribal
Habits of Papyrus 46 (P. Chester Beatty II-P. Michigan Inv.6238)”, Ph.D. Dissertation
(University of Birmingham, 2014), 276-277.
380 성경원문연구 제39호

fidelity to the Vorlage does not always imply textual loyalty to the transmission
tradition. At times it also reveals the preferences of the scribes copying the
manuscript. Reflected in the manuscripts are passages that are inherently
androcentric (at least from our modern standpoint), and the fact that no
alteration was done on these passages makes one suspect that this reflects the
scribe’s social and theological preferences. The “scandalous” passages in Paul
may well illumine this point.

3.5.1. The Voiceless Women of Corinth: Perpetuating a Culture of Silence

The textual problem in 1Corinthians 14:34-35, along with other similar
passages, is at the center of the gender debate not only for its perceived
androcentric tone, but also for the heightened interest given to this passage
because it explicitly prohibits “γυναῖκες to speak in the churches” because it is a
“shameful thing” (αἰσχρόν) to do so. This vocal prohibition has scandalized the
Church through the centuries for it has been used to forbid women from taking
on more active ministerial and leadership roles in many churches, particularly in
the areas of preaching and teaching.
Scholarly debates have followed two basic strands: 1) its origin, i.e., whether
or not Paul actually wrote this vocal prohibition, and 2) whether, assuming Paul
wrote this prohibition, γυναῖκες here refers to women in general or only to the
Corinthian wives in particular.28)
External evidence shows that while most manuscripts witnessing to this
passage follow the traditional sequence,29) some manuscripts, however,
“relocated” vv. 34-35 after v. 40,30) and a few other manuscripts inscribed this
injunction in two locations (after v. 33 and after v. 40).31) It is very difficult to

28) For a review of different proposed interpretations, see Edgar Battad Ebojo, “Should Women Be
Silent in the Churches? Women’s Audible Voices in the Textual Variants of 1 Corinthians
14:34-35”, Trinity Theological Journal 14 (2006), 1-33.
29) These manuscripts include one papyrus (P 46), 8 uncial codices (‫ א‬A B K L  0150 0243), 22
minuscule codices (6. 33. 81. 104. 256. 263. 365. 424. 436. 459. 1175. 1241. 1319. 1573. 1739.
1852. 1881. 1912. 1962. 2127. 2200. 2464), and a number of versional and patristic citations
(ito vg syrp, h, pal copsa, bo, fay arm eth geo slav Origen Chrysostom Theodoret; Pelagius).
30) Manuscripts with this “relocated” version include the Greek-Latin bilingual codices D/d, F/f,
G/g; Old Latin codices Armachanus and Veronensis; codex Fuldensis; and two patristic
commentators, Ambrosiaster and Sedulius-Scottus; see Edgar Battad Ebojo, “Should Women
be Silent”, 8-11.
31) For instance, codex 88.
 Sex, Scribes, and Scriptures / Edgar Battad Ebojo 381

account for these relocations as products of copying accidence. On the contrary,

these are reflections of a deliberate scribal effort to cushion the impact of this
injunction regarding the silence of women, especially if doubts regarding its
authenticity were detected very early on in the history of its transmission.32)
But it does not take long for one to realize that scribes who retained the
traditional sequence (e.g., P 46, codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and
many others) of these controversial verses were, to some degree, making a
statement that the cultural practice of women’s subordination to men, especially
in pedagogical matters, must not be disturbed in any way. Their silence seems to
relay the message that intervening with this long-held social structure is to
perilously commence social chaos.
What this means, admittedly, is that by not modifying anything in this passage
(which these scribes would normally have done with other passages), these
scribes have in effect registered their consent and agreement with what these
verses explicitly express—the absolute silence of all women in all social
domains (the church being a social setting as well), regardless of the strong
plausibility that in context γυναῖκες refers exclusively to the Corinthian “wives”
and not to “all women” in general.
Some Church Fathers, based on this disputed verses, in fact, made a whole
gamut of moral prescription regarding the subordination of women.
Ambrosiaster, for instance, notes:

It would be shameful if [the wives] dared to speak out in church. They

are veiled precisely for this, to show their subjection: yet see how they
flaunt their lack of discretion! That is a reason for their husbands to be
humiliated as well; for the insolence of wives rebounds on the reputation
of those to whom they are married.33)

Or take the case of Clement of Alexandria who believed that ἀνήρ

(“husband/man”) is intrinsically superior to γυνή (“wife/woman”) since man had
a complete human nature in himself even before Eve was created,34) and that

32) See, for instance, Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of
Paul (Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1994), 274.
33) Translation by Kevin Koyle, “The Fathers on Women and Women’s Ordination”, 156.
34) Clement of Alexandria viewed the γυνή as the cause of sin, Protrepticus 11 (Die griechische
christliche Schriftsteller, 12, 75.25); see Kevin Koyle, “Fathers on Women and Women’s
Ordination”, 117-167.
382 성경원문연구 제39호

woman’s primary role is to receive man’s semen and to assist in the house
management.35)
What is clear, then, is that the injunction on woman silence does not run
counter to the prevailing cultural practice at the time, both in and out of the
Christian circles. In fact, this prohibition loudly echoes an earlier Greek adage.
As the Greek philosopher Democritus asserts, “No woman should practice using
her tongue; it just means trouble”, and another Greek philosopher arrogantly
asserts, “It is appropriate for a man to speak, but let a woman be content with
what she hears”.36)
1Timothy 2:11-15 echoes the same assertion, and reasons out that Adam was
created first, thus, it was the woman who was deceived and became a
transgressor (vv. 13-14). Whether this passage was written originally by Paul or
not is not my concern at the moment, but rather to show that as far as the ancient
copyists were concerned, the teaching about woman’s creation subsequent to the
man was vitally important, so much so that going against this teaching was
culturally unacceptable to their society.
Note that in these two passages, almost the same scribes did not alter
anything, which is quite unusual given the very fluid character of these
manuscripts on other matters. This observation is given credence when one
conversely looks at passages that on the other hand clearly affirm women’s
worth. In these women-affirming passages, the same scribes seems to project
uneasiness to the point that they made deliberate “corrections” ranging from a
simple substitution of words to a total excision of a whole pericope altogether.

3.5.2. The Forgiven Adulteress: Excising the Grace of God

One such example is John 7:53-8:11, a passage marked in most English
translations with marginal notes such as “The earliest and most reliable
manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11” (NRS,
NIV, NLT, among others). This passage talks about the story of the forgiven

35) For other quotations on patristic prejudices against women ordination, see Kevin Koyle,
“Fathers on Women and Women’s Ordination”, 117-167.
36) Quotations are from Democritus, Fragment 110, γυνὴ ἀσκείτω λόγον, δεινόν γάρ, and Aelius
Aristides, 45, 41D, ὅ ἀνήρ λεγέτω, γυνὴ δε οἵς ἂν ἀκούσῃ χαίρετω; both quoted from Walter
Bauer and Frederick William Danker, et al., A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament
and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: Chicago Press, 2000), 209.
 Sex, Scribes, and Scriptures / Edgar Battad Ebojo 383

(unnamed) adulteress. In fact, it is a height of demonstration of God’s love and

mercy. But, however endearingly dramatic the emotive effect of this account
was, it offended the cultural sensitivities of many ancient scribes37) (or perhaps
their commissioning patrons).
The external evidence in favor of its non-Johannine origin is indeed
impressive.38) On the other hand, the evidence can be alternatively appreciated
in light of internal considerations, especially if one takes into account the moral
repercussions of Jesus’ compassionate treatment upon the unfaithful woman,
particularly among the enemies of the Christian movement. Some scholars
suggested that this account was omitted because it condones adultery; hence, its
omission from the Johannine Gospel was to obviate the interpretive potential of
taking this account as a passage for tolerating marital infidelity. While this
proposal seems to make sense, it is difficult to sustain in view of the strong
external attestations against its favor.39)
The significance of this account, however, lies not in its written form but in
the fact that there was a widespread oral tradition about this forgiven adulteress
that circulated at a very early stage of New Testament textual transmission, at
about early 2nd century or as old as the oldest manuscript support (P 66) for its
non-inclusion. David Parker40) believes that this story, which was known to
Papias (Bishop of Hierapolis), was part of the early Church’s reservoir of oral
traditions that have from time to time appeared tenaciously in the written
tradition, albeit at different locations. The moral of the passage is starkly clear:
Jesus is the man for all seasons, for all people; and this message is not
incongruent with the teachings of the Gospels.
Viewing this textual phenomenon in light of the seemingly patented attempt in

37) Many of the earlier manuscripts omitted 7:53-8:11 (e.g., P 66, 75, codices Sinaiticus,
Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and others), but majority of the extant manuscripts, mostly of later
dates and belonging to the Byzantine textual tradition, reflect this passage in its traditional
location. On the other hand, a few manuscripts re-located this passage, in part or whole, either
after Luk 21:38 (manuscripts in the family1) or Luk 24:53 (8:3-11 only, minuscule 1333); or
after Joh 7:36 (minuscule 225) or after Joh 21:25 (minuscule 1). Some other manuscripts made
a few more alterations.
38) See Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the UBS’ Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (New
York: UBS, 1994), 187-189.
39) David Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997),
101.
40) David Parker, Living Text, 99.
384 성경원문연구 제39호

the Scriptures to indict women “with questionable credibility” is helpful. Could

it be that this tenacious oral tradition was omitted in numerous manuscripts
because its main protagonist was a woman considered by the society at large as
one who deserves to die for “uncovering the nakedness of her husband”, and yet
she walked away trophying the grace and forgiveness of God? The scribes’
response: excision.

3.6. “Flirting” with Women of Questionable Character

That Jesus directly engaged women of “suspicious” social reputation and
empowered them to realize their inherent worth is clearly shown in the Gospels.
But not everyone was on the same page, especially those who used different
social lenses in looking at these situations. For these people, adulterers (John
8:3), prostitutes (Luke 7:37), wife of many husbands (John 4), and others were a
shameful blemish to the Christian faith. Wayne Kannaday observed that
Christianity during the patristic era suffered from external assaults largely
because of the way the Scriptures portrayed women, i.e., the women followers of
Jesus, as depicted in the Gospels, have provided enemies of Christianity with a
“particularly vulnerable point of attack”.41) One of the ways in which some
Christians apologetically responded was to appeal to Scripture texts that will
corroborate their position—even though it meant creating another version of
their Scripture.
Aside from the forgiven adulterer in John 5:3-8:11, there is another instance
of Jesus’ up-close encounter with a woman of questionable reputation—the
Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well. In context, the exegetical importance of this
morally suspect woman is explained in John 4:39 where it clearly attributes the
conversion of many Samaritans διὰ τὸν λόγον τῆς γυναικὸς (“because of the
testimony of the woman”). But investigating further, we are told that this
Samaritan woman had five husbands and was cohabitating with another who is
not her husband (4:18).
It is not difficult to understand why some people would take offense at the
message this account tries to convey—the conversion of the whole town was due
to a polygamous woman. This was unacceptable to the prevailing social norm at
the time; no wonder alterations had been done at crucial points of the discourse

41) Wayne Kannaday, Apologetic Discourse, 176-177.

 Sex, Scribes, and Scriptures / Edgar Battad Ebojo 385

to address this moral concern.

In John 4:25 of UBS5-NA28, the Samaritan woman said to Jesus that Οἶδα ὅτι
Μεσσίας ἔρχεται ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός· ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, ἀναγγελεῖ ἡμῖν
ἅπαντα (literally, “I know that the Messiah is coming, the one who is called
Christ; when he comes he will proclaim all things to us”). However, the first
person singular Οἶδα (“I know”) was amended by some scribes to the plural
Οἶδαμεν (“We know”),42) making it appear that the coming of the Χριστός was a
common knowledge, and no longer as a result of the woman’s progressive
encounter with Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah. By altering Οἶδα to Οἶδαμεν,
these scribes have effectively averted any attempt to construe this discourse as a
fitting tribute to a “morally suspect” woman, which in turn is reflective of the
way “the early Church placated pagan sensitivities to the visibility and
leadership status of women of nascent Christianity”.43)

3.7. Magna Carta of the New Humanity: Are you sure really?
When citing equality in the Bible, nothing is more prominent than Galatians
3:28. Egalitarian advocates unanimously appeal to it for enlightenment on the
question of equity and equality. Rightly so for this passage explicitly states that
in the new fellowship established by God through Christ, Jews and Gentiles,
slaves and free, male and female have been brought into a relationship of
oneness and solidarity such as they had not experienced previously. What is not
usually told, however, is that even this so-called Magna Carta was not spared
from the malevolent pen of some scribes.
The UBS5-NA28 common text reads οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι
δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ· πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν
Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (literally, “there is not a Jew nor a Greek, there is not a slave nor
free, there is not male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus”). External
attestations for this reading are compellingly impressive. However, there are
variations at crucial points that subtly but substantially changed the exegetical
tenor of this passage altogether.
Note that in the second clause, instead of εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ (“you [all] are

42) Aside from the respective correctors of P 66 and codex Sinaiticus, this reading is supported also
by codices L, N, family 13, minuscules 33, 1241, 2 lectionaries, and early Eastern versions and
a few Fathers.
43) Wayne Kannaday, Apologetic Discourse, 187.
386 성경원문연구 제39호

one in Christ”), some scribes altered the clause to ἐστε Χριστοῦ (“you [all] are
of Christ/you [all] belong to Christ”, e.g., P 46, codex Alexandrinus), or to ἐστε ἐν
Χριστῷ (“you [all] are in/with Christ”, e.g., the original scribe of codex
Sinaiticus and a Vulgate manuscript), or simply to ἕν ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ (“you are
one in/with Christ”, e.g., codices F, G, and 33). By omitting or substituting a
word, the whole essence of this Christian magna carta has changed radically:
the solidarity and equality of the created order has now been reduced simply to
positional privilege, i.e., “in Christ”. With this kind of alterations the Galatians
3:28 magna carta is no longer a forceful assertion of solidarity and parity for
everyone in the new world order Christ himself enunciated.
One cannot help but issue a suspicious look at such an egalitarian claim,
especially when confronted by some manuscripts that have attempted to
universalize the subordinate position of women. The scribe of P 46 is a case in
point. On a number of occasions, this scribe exhibits in his text expressions
about the subordinate importance of women by juxtaposing elements that have
to do with women interests.
In 1Corinthians 11:9, UBS5-NA28 reads καὶ γὰρ οὐκ ἐκτίσθη ἀνὴρ διὰ τὴν
γυναῖκα, ἀλλὰ γυνὴ διὰ τὸν ἄνδρα (literally, “For [the] husband was created not
for the wife, but the wife for the husband ”). In P 46, however, ἄνδρα (usually
translated “husband ”) was replaced with the more generic
(usually translated “man”).44) By this substitution, this scribe altered effectively
the essence of the text by making it appear that the point of issue is universally
valid, i.e., “man and woman”, although the passage is ambiguous, and may also
be alternatively understood in light of domestic context, i.e., “wife and husband”
(which I assume in this paper).
The text itself already sounds androcentric, and the more scholars defuse the
hierarchical reading of this passage, the more pronounced it becomes.45) Whether
it pertains to domestic or universal relationship is a moot point, since ἄνηρ (root
of ἄνδρος) is not always interchangeably used with ἄνθρωπος, and almost not
without any distinction.46) Not with this scribe, however. With this substitution,

44) In 1Co 11:1-16 alone, Paul used anēr and its derivatives 14 times. However, this is the only
verse where our scribe effected this alteration.
45) Dale Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven; London: Yale, 1995), 232.
46) The most stable criterion to judge the semantic usage of anēr is the context, and almost always,
when it appears with gunē, the contrast is within the conjugal context, i.e., husband and wife.
 Sex, Scribes, and Scriptures / Edgar Battad Ebojo 387

P 46 did not only flaunt its androcentric (mis-)understanding of Paul’s present

discourse, which in context has to do with “unveiled” women involved in
prophetic utterances,47) but also its firm resolve to present an unambiguous
assertion about male primacy in the gender hierarchy. For this scribe, the
word-shift closed the door for any other interpretation but one: all women are, by
virtue of the Genesis creation account, secondary to men. Such a message
obviously thwarts any attempts to build a level playing field in the gender arena.
The same scribe made a bolder statement on women subordination in the
Haustafel (household rules) in Ephesians 5:21-33. In v. 24 the common text of
NA28-UBS5 reads ἀλλὰ ὡς ἡ ἐκκλησία ὑποτάσσεται τῷ Χριστῷ, οὕτως καὶ αἱ
γυναῖκες τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἐν παντί (literally, But just as the church is subject to
Christ, so let the wives also submit to [their] husbands in all things), which in
context has a “comparative” force. As such, Paul is here presenting an ideal
model of mutual submission in view of the Christ-Church paradigm,48) and not
necessarily an articulation of the raison d’être for the wife’s blind submission to
her husband ἐν παντί (“in all things”) as such.49)
On the contrary, what the passage expects to evince from its hearers is a
willful assumption of distinct roles as Christian husbands and wives just as there
is a mutual (although distinct) relationship between the Church and Christ.50)
However, a simple pen-stroke changed this framework altogether when P 46’s
scribe chose to reflect the causal (“because”) [see Figure IV] instead of the
comparative (“just as”).51)

What Paul originally intended to be a straightforward point of comparison has

become an occasion for yet another gender agenda, using the analogy of Christ’s

47) On the issue of unveiled women, see Bruce Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The
Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003),
77-96; and Antoinette Wire, Corinthian Women Prophets, 116-134.
48) Ben Witherington III, Women in the Earliest Churches, SNTSMS 59 (Cambridge: Cambridge,
1988), 53.
49) Cf. Elizabeth Schussler- Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 266-270.
50) Ben Witherington III, Women in the Earliest Churches, 58.
51) There is no immediate paleographical explanation for this substitution. Perhaps the proximity
of in v. 23 influenced the scribe’s choice. But this is unsustainable in view of the fact that
in this chapter where Paul used nine times (vv. 1, 8, 15 [2x], 22, 23, 24, 28, 33), this is
the lone instance where our scribe made such a change, which turns out to be a very pivotal
exegetical alteration.
388 성경원문연구 제39호

headship over the Church as a pretext. From an uncomplicated analogical

comparison (ὡς),52) P 46’s alteration has articulated the reason or the basis for
the supposed “subordination” of the “second sex”—an action that was not
isolated but was dictated by the scribe’s socio-cultural context.53)

4. Conclusion

Sensible scribal changes, with bearings on the gender question, are reflective
of the socio-cultural milieu from which ancient biblical manuscripts emerged. It
is no secret that the history of interpretation, particularly during the Patristic era,
is openly marked with androcentric accent,54) and traces of this understanding
are now found inscribed in the text of some New Testament manuscripts
themselves.

52) The function of here is clearly comparative, which may be essentially translated as “in
the same way” or “just as”; see for instance, Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Epistle to the
Ephesians: A Commentary, Helen Heron, trans. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 246; Peter
O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans; Leicester: Apollos Press, 1999), 416; Markus Barth, Ephesians 4-6: A New
Translation with Introduction and Commentary, ABC 34A (New York: Double Day, 1974),
607.
53) See Jennifer Knust, “The Politics of Virtue and Vice in the Pauline Epistles”, Society of
Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 39 (2000), 436-451.
54) For instance, see Kevin Koyle, “The Fathers on Women and Women’s Ordination”.
 Sex, Scribes, and Scriptures / Edgar Battad Ebojo 389

Alterations in the manuscripts we mentioned here are not isolated. Church

history is in fact replete with many other examples recounting the seemingly
programmed efforts, both from inside and outside the Church,55) to nip the bud
of the growing influence of women in various fields of life, and confining them
to the traditional “Martha” roles.
Women largely did not have any public voice, and when they spoke they were
called shameless. Societal protocols at the time dictate that wives ought to
submit to their own husbands in all respects. But being without a husband was
also no exception so long as they belong to the “weaker sex”.56) The list
describing the despicable plight of women during that time goes on, but the
undeniable truth is that women at the time were seemingly treated as inferior
breed of humanity, for one reason or another.57)
It is in our hands now, however, whether we, both as a member of our social
community and of our Church, will take a long hard look at this issue and make
amends as necessary or to let the status quo continue. Our present context must
dictate what the Church in Asia can do and must do to address these issues. We
have to grapple with these and not deny their existence.
The scribes we identified here also had to live with the issues of their own
time. The social construct they were born in inevitably imputed on them a
worldview that was primarily a patriarchal society. Without unjustifiably
exonerating these scribes, for them to disavow a pre-commitment to male
dominance was to go against the prevailing socio-cultural norm at the time.
Through the distinctive readings they deliberately reflected in their texts, they
attempted to arrest the “scandal of the hysterical woman”—a construct that

55) See, for instance, Karen Jo Torjesen, When Women were Priests, 9-50; and Margaret
MacDonald, Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion, 49-126.
56) “‘If they have any questions to ask, they should ask their own men at home; for it is not right
for a woman to speak out in an assembly’ (1Co 14:35). It seems to me that the phrase ‘their
own men’ does not refer to husbands alone. If it did, virgins would either be speaking out in an
assembly, or be with anyone, or with be anyone to teach them, and the same would be true of
widows. Cannot ‘their own man’ also include brother, kinsman, son? In summary, a woman
should acquire her information from ‘her man’, ‘man’ being understood here as a general term
contrasted to ‘woman’” (Origen, Comm. in I Epist. ad Corinthios, 14:34-35; translation quoted
from Kevin Koyle, “The Fathers on Women and Women’s Ordination”, 73).
57) On how women were treated in the Old Testament and Qumran materials, that shed light on the
limits of what women can and cannot do, see Paul Heger, Women in the Bible, Qumran, and
Rabbinic Literature: Their Status and Roles, STDJ 110 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2014).
390 성경원문연구 제39호

continues to challenge us, both men and women.

<Keywords>
Vorlage/n, scribal alterations, manuscript tradition, social construct,
scribal habits.

(투고 일자: 2016년 7월 20일, 심사 일자: 2016년 8월 23일, 게재 확정 일자: 2016년 10월 26일)

<References>
Arichea, Daniel, “Who was Phoebe: Translating diakonos in Romans 16:1”, The
Bible Translator 39:4 (1988), 401-409.
Bagnall, Roger S., Cribiore, Raffaella and Ahtaridis, Evie, Women’s Letters from
Ancient Egypt, 300 BC-AD 800, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,
2006.
Barth, Markus, Ephesians 4-6: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary, Anchor Bible Commentary 34A, New York: Double Day,
1974.
Bauckham, Richard, Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels,
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
Bauer, Walter, and Danker, Frederick William, eds., A Greek–English Lexicon of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third edition,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Brooten, Bernadette, “Junia… Outstanding among the Apostles (Romans 16:7)”,
Leonard Swidler and Arlene Swidler, eds., Women Priests: A Catholic
Commentary on the Vatican Declaration, New York: Paulist Press, 1977,
141-144.
Burer, Michael and Wallace, Daniel, “Was Junia really and Apostle? A
Re-examination of Rom 16.7”, New Testament Studies 47 (2001), 76-91.
Daly, Mary, Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation,
Second edition, Boston: Beacon Press, 1985.
Denzey, Nicola, The Bone Gatherer: The Lost Worlds of Early Christian Women,
Boston: Beacon Press, 2007.
Ebojo, Edgar Battad, “Should Women Be Silent in the Churches? Women’s Audible
Voices in the Textual Variants of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35”, Trinity
 Sex, Scribes, and Scriptures / Edgar Battad Ebojo 391

Theological Journal 14 (2006), 1-33.

Ebojo, Edgar Battad, “The Way I See It”: P 46 as a Paradigm for Reader-Response
Criticism”, The Bible Translator 60:1 (2009), 22-36.
Ebojo, Edgar Battad, “A Scribe and His Manuscript: An Investigation into the
Scribal Habits of Papyrus 46 (P. Chester Beatty II-P. Michigan
Inv.6238),” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Birmingham, 2014.
Ehrman, Bart, “The Text of Mark in the Hands of the Orthodox”, M. Burrows and
Paul Rorem, eds., Biblical Hermeneutics in Historical Perspectives, Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991, 77-98 ; reprinted Studies in the Textual Criticism
of the New Testament, New Testament Tools and Studies 33, Leiden;
Boston: Brill, 2006, 142-155.
Ehrman, Bart, “The Text as Window: New Testament Manuscripts and the Social
History of Early Church”, Bart Ehrman and Michael Holmes, eds., The
Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the
Status Quaestionis, Studies and Documents 46, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1995, 367-369.
Ehrman, Bart, “A Leper in the Hands of an Angry Jesus”, Amy M. Donaldson and
Timothy B. Sailors, eds., New Testament Greek and Exegesis: Essays in
Honor of Gerald F. Hawthorne, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003, 77-98;
reprinted Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, New
Testament Tools and Studies 33, Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2006, 120-141.
Epp, Eldon Jay, “Text-Critical, and Socio-Cultural Factors Affecting the
Junia/Junias Variation in Romans 16:7”, A. Denaux, ed., New Testament
Textual Criticism and Exegesis: Festschrift Joël Delobel, Leuven: Leuven
University Press, 2002, 242-291.
Epp, Eldon Jay, “Toward the Clarification of the term ‘Textual Variant’”, J. K.
Elliott, ed., Studies in New Testament Language and Text: Essays in
Honour of George D. Kilpatrick on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth
Birthday, Supplements to Novum Testamentum 44, Leiden: Brill, 1976,
153-173; reprint edition with the same title in E. J. Epp, ed., Perspective
on New Testament Textual Criticism: Collected Essays 1962-2004,
Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2005, 101-124.
Fee, Gordon, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul,
Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1994.
Haines-Eitzen, Kim, Guardians of Letters: Literacy, Power, and the Transmitters of
Early Christian Literature, New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press,
392 성경원문연구 제39호

2000.
Haines-Eitzen, Kim, The Gendered Palimpsest. Women, Writing, and Representation in
Early Christianity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Heger, Paul, Women in the Bible, Qumran, and Rabbinic Literature: Their Status
and Roles, Studies on the Texts of Desert of Judah 110, Leiden; Boston:
Brill, 2014.
Kannaday, Wayne, Apologetic Discourse and the Scribal Traditions: Evidence of
the Influence of Apologetic Interests on the Canonical Gospels,
Text-Critical Studies 5, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004.
Koyle, Kevin, “The Fathers on Women and Women’s Ordination”, David Scholer,
ed., Women in Early Christianity, Studies in Early Christianity 14, New
York: Garland, 1993, 117-167.
Knust, Jennifer, “The Politics of Virtue and Vice in the Pauline Epistles”, Society of
Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 39 (2000), 436-451.
Kurek-Chomycz, Dominika, “Is There an ‘Anti-Priscan’ Tendency in the
Manuscripts? Some Textual Problems with Prisca and Aquila”, Journal of
Biblical Literature 125 (2006), 107-128.
Luijendijk, AnneMarie, Greetings in the Lord: Early Christians and the
Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press, 2008.
MacDonald, Margaret, Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion: The Power of
the Hysterical Woman, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Maggay, Melba P., “Gender or Sex?”, Silang, Cavite: Unpublished lecture given
during the Institute for Studies of Asian Cultures and Churches’s Retreat
on Spirituality and Culture, 2007. 7. 31.
Martin, Dale, The Corinthian Body, New Haven; London: Yale University Press,
1995.
Metzger, Bruce, A Textual Commentary on the United Bible Societies’ Greek New
Testament, Second edition, New York: United Bible Societies, 1994.
O’Brien, Peter, The Letter to the Ephesians, Pillar New Testament Commentary,
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leicester: Apollos Press, 1999.
Parker, David, The Living Text of the Gospels, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1997.
Putnam, George Haven, Books and Their Makers during the Middle Ages, Volume
1, New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1896.
Roberts, Collin, “Books in the Graeco-Roman World and in the New Testament”, P.
 Sex, Scribes, and Scriptures / Edgar Battad Ebojo 393

R. Ackroyd and G. F. Evans, eds., The Cambridge History of the Bible,

vol. 1: From the Beginnings to Jerome, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1970, 30-66.
Schnackenburg, Rudolf, The Epistle to the Ephesians: A Commentary, Helen Heron,
trans., Edinburgh: T&T Clark International, 1991.
Schramm, Albert, “Zur Geschichte der Stenographie in der alten Kirche”,
Korrespondenzblatt, Amtliche Zeitschrift des königlichen steno-
graphischen Instituts zu Dresden 48 (1903), 62-66.
Schussler-Fiorenza, Elizabeth, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological
Reconstruction of Christian Origins, New York: Crossroad, 1989.
Torjesen, Karen Jo, When Women Were Priests: Women’s Leadership in the Early
Church and the Scandal of Their Subordination in the Rise of Christianity,
New York: Harper San Francisco, 1993.
Winter, Bruce, Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and
the Pauline Communities, Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2003.
Wire, Antoinette, The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction Through
Paul’s Rhetoric, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.
Witherington III, Ben, “Anti-Feminist Tendencies of the ‘Western’ Text in Acts”,
Journal of Biblical Literature 103 (1984), 82-84.
Witherington III, Ben, Women in the Earliest Churches, Society for New Testament
Studies Monograph Series 59, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1988.
Zetzel, James E. G., Latin Textual Criticism in Antiquity, New York: Arno Press,
1981.
394 성경원문연구 제39호

<Abstract>

Sex, Scribes, and Scriptures:

Engendering the Texts of the New Testament

Edgar Battad Ebojo

(The Philippine Bible Society)

Textual alterations in some of the manuscripts of the New Testament conform

to the prevailing socio-cultural milieus from which these manuscripts emerged.
Interestingly, a number of these alterations intimate preference for the “stronger
sex”, and almost always to the detriment of the “weaker sex”. Using text-critical
lenses, this article identifies some passages that may be considered as
gender-related alterations in the manuscript tradition, that have preoccupied the
exegetical attention of many Bible scholars and theologians for centuries. The
varying interpretations that emerged out of this on-going interpretive exercise
have undeniably influenced the very fabric of many Churches’ dogma and
praxis with regard to the role of women in ministry and leadership. This paper
will attempt to offer alternative appreciation of the evidences pertaining to these
textual conundra. In offering this renewed text-critical appreciation, this paper
will also appeal to the contributions of new fields of studies, particularly the
field of scribal studies, in relation to the ancient socio-anthropological contexts,
which might have influenced the form and content of the transmitted passages
dealt with in this article. Finally, a reflection on its challenges for the
contemporary Asian Church is submitted.