Cheryl Schatz

Kay,
The problem with Bailey’s use of chiamus in 1 Corinthians is that there are several things that are not answered by this approach. The first is that I haven’t seen him deal with or identify “the law” from verse 34.

Secondly the speaking in the assembly is said to be “shameful” which is a very strong word meaning something that is filthy. This is not only unlike Paul but it makes the passage outside of a parallel since the other silencing of people in this chapter is never said that their talking out of turn is “filthy”.

Thirdly he seems to gloss over the fact that verse 36 starts with a term that provides a contradiction to the verses immediately proceeding. In other words the saying from verses 34 & 35 is contradicted in verse 36. If Paul had written verses 34 & 35 from his own instruction, why did he write verse 36 in such a way as to contradict his own command?

These things are all unanswered by anything else that I could find except for the view that verses 34 & 35 are a quote from the Corinthian letter that Paul refutes.

If Bailey has written on the place of “the law” in verse 34 I haven’t seen it just as I haven’t see where he dealt with the contradictory wording of verse 36.

So because I am one who wants to pay attention to each inspired word and each inspired grammar, I myself do not consider that the chiamus view fits. The grammar of refutation, the addition of the term shameful (fillthy) and the appeal to the oral law are very serious problem areas without making this a quote from the Corinthians.

I hope this helps!