Canonical implications of Deutero-Paul


#1

It’s now accepted by most Pauline scholars that the “Pastoral Epistles” of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus were not written by St. Paul, but rather by one or more figures sometimes referred to as “Deutero-Paul” (Second Paul).

This is how the introduction to 1 Timothy in the New American Bible (commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops) describes how most scholars feel:
*“Most scholars are convinced that Paul could not have been responsible for the vocabulary and style, the concept of church organization, or the theological expressions found in these letters.”

  • There’s more in the introduction, so I recommend a read.

The NAB’s introduction to 1 Timothy also includes this statement:
*“In spite of these problems of authorship and dating, the Pastorals are illustrative of early Christian life and remain an important element of canonical scripture.”
*
What does this mean for how we treat the epistles?

It would seem as though some verses in the Pastoral Letters contradict other epistles universally accepted as genuinely Pauline writings (i.e., on women speaking during worship – 1 Tim 2: 9-15 vs. 1 Cor 11:5). Would it be appropriate to say that there are separate bodies of “Pauline” and “Deutero-Pauline” writings, each of which may emphasize different parts of Tradition?


#2

I prefer the view from the last 2000 years rather than the very untraditional theories by that new school of thought. So often translators make the lousiest expositors.


#3

[quote="COPLAND_3, post:2, topic:332051"]
I prefer the view from the last 2000 years rather than the very untraditional theories by that new school of thought. So often translators make the lousiest expositors.

[/quote]

+1.


#4

[quote="COPLAND_3, post:2, topic:332051"]
I prefer the view from the last 2000 years rather than the very untraditional theories by that new school of thought. So often translators make the lousiest expositors.

[/quote]

Actually, the view from the last 2000 years may not be what you think. If modern scholarship is correct, then for the first 60-90 years of Christianity, and the first 30-70 years after Paul's "genuine" epistles (written ca. 50-60 AD), then the Pastoral Epistles were not part of the earliest Christian teachings and reflect a later historical development.

To me, there's something inherently distasteful about text attributed to one person that is written be another person. Although "pseudoepigrapha" was a more commonly-accepted practice in the ancient world, I still would suggest that the Gospels and the earlier writings of Paul represent (especially the beginning of 1 Corinthians 15) the earliest evidence we have about the first Christians. It would seem to me that the Pastoral Epistles are evidence of the second or third generation of Christians. That's an important distinction in understanding church history.


#5

I don't think it is admissible to propose for belief that the Pastoral Epistles are not authored by Paul because they clearly state that they are. How can we suppose these writings, which we hold to be sacred and canonical, are wrong on such a fundamental level? So what if the majority of scholarship thinks they are forgeries? The majority of scholarship is not Catholic either. Does that make Catholicism also untenable?


#6

[quote="fnr, post:1, topic:332051"]
It's now accepted by most Pauline scholars that the "Pastoral Epistles" of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus were not written by St. Paul, but rather by one or more figures sometimes referred to as "Deutero-Paul" (Second Paul).

This is how the introduction to 1 Timothy in the New American Bible (commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops) describes how most scholars feel:
*"Most scholars are convinced that Paul could not have been responsible for the vocabulary and style, the concept of church organization, or the theological expressions found in these letters."
* There's more in the introduction, so I recommend a read.

The NAB's introduction to 1 Timothy also includes this statement:
*"In spite of these problems of authorship and dating, the Pastorals are illustrative of early Christian life and remain an important element of canonical scripture."
*
What does this mean for how we treat the epistles?

It would seem as though some verses in the Pastoral Letters contradict other epistles universally accepted as genuinely Pauline writings (i.e., on women speaking during worship -- 1 Tim 2: 9-15 vs. 1 Cor 11:5). Would it be appropriate to say that there are separate bodies of "Pauline" and "Deutero-Pauline" writings, each of which may emphasize different parts of Tradition?

[/quote]

Hi FNR

Perhaps it helps to look at the letter to the Hebrews. In the King James bible that letter is titled as a letter from St. Paul as that was the tradition of the time. Now few people attribute the letter to Paul, but it remains as important a book within the canon as it ever was. Equally the Pentateuch was traditionally ascribed to Moses as the author, but few people would now hold to Moses writing all five books, and many now considered they were authored or edited quite late in the compilation of Hebrew scriptures. Yet those books remain as canonical and as important as before.

Another example would be the women caught in adultery. It seems quite clear now that it was not in the earliest copies of John's Gospel - and so very likely does not have Johannine authorship. But its inspiration has stood the test of time nonetheless. The long ending of Mark is in the same situation (though perhaps its inspiration is more in doubt, as few now really believe that Christians are protected from drinking poison).

So, yes, perhaps scholars may have an interest in trying to work out what was written by Paul, and what was written pseudographically in the name of Paul, but those letters are an important part of the canon, and I suspect always will be.

Just my thoughts.

God bless +


#7

From the Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry on “Epistles to Timothy and Titus” :

Internal evidence

The remainder of this article will be devoted to the important question of authenticity, which would really require a volume for discussion. Catholics know from the universal tradition and infallible teaching of the Church that these Epistles are inspired, and from this follows their Pauline authorship as they all claim to have been written by the Apostle. There was no real doubt on this question until the beginning of the nineteenth century; but since that time they have been most bitterly attacked by German and other writers. Their objections are principally based on internal evidence and the alleged difficulty of finding a place for them in the lifetime of St. Paul.

Source: Aherne, Cornelius. “Epistles to Timothy and Titus.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 14. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 6 Jul. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14727b.htm.

And further into the entry:

The Pauline authorship of the Pastorals was never doubted by Catholics in early times.

(Ibid.)

There is given a bunch of historical evidence from the Early Church Fathers, and later we read:

In judging of the early evidence it should be borne in mind that all three Epistles claim to be by St. Paul. So when an early writer shows his familiarity with them, quotes them as authoritative and as evidently well known to his readers, it may be taken as a proof not only of the existence and widespread knowledge of the Epistles, but that the writer took them for what they claim to be, genuine Epistles of St. Paul; and if the writer lived in the time of Apostles, of Apostolic men, of disciples of Apostles, and of Timothy and Titus (as did Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement) we may be sure that he was correct in doing so. The evidence of these writers is, however, very unceremoniously brushed aside…

Ibid.

I hope this helps :o


#8

The introduction to the NAB is dead on, if somewhat limited. It is true that many scholars (mostly linguists) doubt the authenticity. It is also true that many of these scholars are not Catholic. I believe they come from a false assumption, namely, that writing style and vocabulary are consistent enough to serve as evidence of authorship. The goes against reason. I think we all have different styles of writing. I write one way at work, another here and a third in a personal letter. Both vocabulary and grammar change, depending on the mode of communication.

The NAB is also dead on that these objections that are floating around are not relevant to the substance of the Scripture.


#9

Here is another view, from 'The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible - New Testament':

(After relating the early Church's acceptance of the Pastoral Epistles being authored by Paul by referencing; Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, and presenting the theory of modern scholarship post nineteenth century, the ICSB goes on and says):

'That being said, the distinctiveness of the Pastoral Epistles is a factor that must be weighed carefully, for the evidence that can be interpreted in different ways. For instance, even critics who deny Pauline authorship generally recognize traces of Paul's thinking throughout these letters, and this leaves open the possibility of a closer relationship to the apostle than that envisioned by pseudepigraphical advocates. Stylistic differences between the Pastorals and Paul's undisputed writings, while undeniable, probably have more to do with differences in purpose and subject matter than anything else. After all, the Pastoral Epistles are written to pastors (Timothy and Titus) who are already well seasoned and educated leaders in the Church, while Paul's other letters are written to instruct young congregations in the basics of Christian faith. Allegations that the ecclesiastical hierarchy outlined in the Pastorals was unknown to the Church of Paul's day are likewise overdrawn, since several passages in the undisputed letters of Paul point to a structured system of leadership already in place during the earliest days of the Church (1 Cor 12:28; Phil 1:1; 1 Thess 5:12; cf. Acts 14:23; 20:17). As for Paul's travel itinerary, one must admit that these letters claim to give us information about Paul's career that is otherwise uncorroborated in the NT. Nevertheless, this can be taken as an earmark of Pauline authorship, since it is more likely that a literary forgery would stay within the outline of Paul's life set forth in the Book of Acts and his genuine letters rather than depart from it. Otherwise, the attempt to pass off these letters as authentic Pauline writings would surely fail to convince the original recipients that they were reading the words of an apostle. In the end, the case against Pauline authorship is neither airtight nor immune to criticism, and the tradition that Paul himself composed the Pastoral Epistles can still be critically and convincingly defended.'


#10

Thank you. That is how I always took it. I never thought about the itinerary argument, but it seems sound.


#11

Thank you for this reply. It’s excellent.

It seems to me that the other works attributed to Paul in the Ignatius introduction refer to priests (presbyters) explicitly. The Acts citations clearly show Paul having authority to appoint priests, which would make him the equivalent of a bishop. The 1 Corinthians citation fits well within the “one bread, one body” theme of the letter, with an understanding of different vocations within the Church.

My issue with 1 Timothy is in how Paul’s other works contrast in the description of women. First, in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul talks about women prophesying (preaching) with their heads covered, but in 1 Timothy 2, the author says he doesn’t permit a woman to teach. That seems inconsistent. Second, in Galatians 3, Paul says that baptism means that we have clothed ourselves in Christ. He says the famous statement:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Yet in 1 Timothy 2:14-15, the author says, "14 Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. 15 But she will be saved through motherhood, provided women persevere in faith and love and holiness, with self-control."
It looks to me that 1 Timothy 2’s words that say “women will be saved through motherhood” actually suggest that women and men are saved in different ways. But there’s no where else in the Pauline corpus that suggests a different soteriology for women and men. 1 Tim 2:12 says, “I never let a woman have authority over a man,” yet Romans 16 includes almost as many women as men among the list of church leaders; 1 Corinthians 1 talks about “Chloe’s people,” which suggests that Chloe was a leader. Paul frequently cites Priscilla and Aquila in other epistles (putting Priscilla first is a big way to suggest that she was more a leader than was Aquila). In Acts 18:26, Priscilla and Aquila are both shown teaching Apollos correct beliefs; Paul refers to Apollos as a leader of the church in Corinth, so he seems very much to respect a leader taught by a woman.

Looking at all this evidence, it seems very unlikely to me that Paul wrote 1 Timothy. 2 Timothy looks like he could have written it… I’m a bit uncertain about that. I’ve not yet looked much at Titus, though in Titus 1, the author says something that sounds nothing like Paul in any of his other letters:"12 One of them, a prophet of their own, once said, “Cretans have always been liars, vicious beasts, and lazy gluttons.”
13That testimony is true. "

I’m not saying any of this to be politically correct, I’m saying it because I can’t see how Paul could have written this.

It’s OK to include the Deutero-Paul epistles in the Biblical canon, but to suggest that St. Paul himself wrote all these letters is to ask too much. We’re not fundamentalists who claim Biblical inerrancy. The Church admits that there are errors in the Gospels (for example, Mark 1:2-3 claims to quote Isaiah, while the text itself comes from Malachi, Isaiah, and Exodus. That doesn’t undercut the whole Gospel.

From the perspective of church history, it seems to me that the earliest Christian writings, those of Paul, did not include texts that say that women need to be silent and can’t be a leader. It very much looks to me that these texts came from different churches.


#12

First point. It seems modern scholars reject the direct authorship of basically ALL the NT books, against long-standing Church tradition. I reject their views, especially because it’s contradictory to claim that their divinely inspired writings but that they basically lie about who wrote them (introductions claim authorship).

Second point. For the Pastoral Epistles to be written by impostors, basically, that means that Timothy and others were deceived, which I reject. Think of it. If someone, name Eric, say, wrote you a personal letter claiming to be from your Dad, and you later discovered this, wouldn’t you call the personal letter false?

Third point. Many modern scholars claim that the letters were written later, by “schools” of followers. If they were written later, why would they be addressed to living persons, e.g. Timothy or Titus. This theory can’t hold water regarding the Pastoral Epistles, because the receipients would no longer be alive.


#13

Brian, as to scholars doubting the authenticity of authorship, other than the letters claimong Pauline authorship, there are very few books of the NT that claim to be written by any particular author. None of the Gospels have author names within them (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are names from tradition). Acts was written by "Luke" (the author of that Gospel). Hebrews, the letters of John, and Jude don't claim authorship by anyone. Revelation is attributed to the author named therein, John writing from the island of Patmos.

The possible pseudepigrapha in the NT include:

The following books where critical scholars are not in agreement:
Ephesians
Colossians
2 Thessalonians
2 Timothy

The following books where, to my knowledge, all critical scholars are in agreement:
1 Timothy
Titus
1 Peter
2 Peter

That's not "every book."

The canon, keep in mind, was in flux for years. Even now, some Oriental orthodox churches don't include Revelation!


#14

Hi, fnr. While you raise some good question, I think you are assuming the existence of contradictions where there are other possible readings that are harmonious with the rest of Paul’s writings.

It may seem that 1 Timothy is at odds with 1 Corinthians in this regard. How can Paul speak of women prophesying when he forbids women to teach in church? I think the mistake here is to assume that teaching in church is what is signified by “prophesying.” One solution is that prophesying does not refer to teaching. Cornelius a Lapide writes:

The phrase, “Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth,” does not use “prophesieth” in its strict, and proper meaning of uttering a prophecy or an exposition, but in the improper sense of singing hymns or psalms to the praise of God. For S. Paul is here speaking of the public assembly, in which he does not allow a woman to speak or to teach, but only to sing her part well when the whole congregation sings. Prophet means singer in 1 Chron. xxv. 1, and in 1 Sam. x. 10. So Saul is said to have been among the prophets, that is among the singers of praises to God. So in the Books of Kings those are called prophets who served God with praises.
sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/1-corinthians/cornelius-a-lapide-on-1-corinthians/chapter-1/chapter-2/chapter-3/chapter-4/chapter-5/chapter-6/chapter-7/chapter-8/chapter-9/chapter-10/chapter-11

A second interpretation, although I think less lilely is that St. Paul is not referring to prophecy durying the liturgy. Thus St. Thomas writes:

Then when he says, but every woman, he gives an admonition as it applies to women, saying: But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled (which is unbecoming, considering her condition) disgraces her head, i.e., does something unsuitable in regard to covering her hair. But against this is the Apostle’s statement in 1 Tim (2:12): “I permit no woman to teach in church.” How, then, does it befit a woman to pray or prophesy in public prayer or in doctrine. The answer is that this must understood of prayers and readings which women say in their own groups.
sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/1-corinthians/st-thomas-aquinas-on-1-corinthians/chapter-1/chapter-2/chapter-3/chapter-4/chapter-5/chapter-6/chapter-7/-7-15-10-33/chapter-11

Second, in Galatians 3, Paul says that baptism means that we have clothed ourselves in Christ. He says the famous statement:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Yet in 1 Timothy 2:14-15, the author says, "14 Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. 15 But she will be saved through motherhood, provided women persevere in faith and love and holiness, with self-control."
It looks to me that 1 Timothy 2’s words that say “women will be saved through motherhood” actually suggest that women and men are saved in different ways. But there’s no where else in the Pauline corpus that suggests a different soteriology for women and men.

I hardly think the author of 1 Timothy intends anything close to the idea that women are saved apart from baptism. The thrust of v. 15 is that as Eve fell by disobedience, women will be saves through obedience. Living according to divine law is necessary for both sexes for salvation. We do not believe like some do that our conduct is irrelevant to salvation or as others that our conduct is only an extrinsic evidence of our election. However, what is proper to one sex is not necessarily proper to the other. Thus, to be a mother is proper to the female and to be a father is proper to the male. The idea is not that motherhood is an alternative route to salvation for women instead of baptism, but that women will be saved in addition to baptism by “persevering in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”


#15

1 Tim 2:12 says, “I never let a woman have authority over a man,” yet Romans 16 includes almost as many women as men among the list of church leaders; 1 Corinthians 1 talks about “Chloe’s people,” which suggests that Chloe was a leader. Paul frequently cites Priscilla and Aquila in other epistles (putting Priscilla first is a big way to suggest that she was more a leader than was Aquila). In Acts 18:26, Priscilla and Aquila are both shown teaching Apollos correct beliefs; Paul refers to Apollos as a leader of the church in Corinth, so he seems very much to respect a leader taught by a woman.

You will have to clarify what you mean by a leader. None of these women are clerics. You don’t think Chloe was the bishop of Corinth, do you? Then, there are positions of leadership and authority where it is proper or permissable for a women to have authority over a man. It is good for a mother to have authority over her child, and Paul endorses this relationship, saying, “she will be saved through motherhood.” Nevertheless, I would mot assume that any of these women were presbyters or bishops or any similar authoritative position any more than that every man that Paul addresses in his letters are clergy or in necessarily any position of authority.

Looking at all this evidence, it seems very unlikely to me that Paul wrote 1 Timothy. 2 Timothy looks like he could have written it… I’m a bit uncertain about that. I’ve not yet looked much at Titus, though in Titus 1, the author says something that sounds nothing like Paul in any of his other letters:"12 One of them, a prophet of their own, once said, “Cretans have always been liars, vicious beasts, and lazy gluttons.”
13That testimony is true. "

I’m not saying any of this to be politically correct, I’m saying it because I can’t see how Paul could have written this.

Why couldn’t Paul have written this? This is the same Paul, after all, that wrote, “there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” Paul’s point is that the community in Crete is poorly behaved, and I don’t think it’s inappropriate for Paul to exercise his sense of humor.

It’s OK to include the Deutero-Paul epistles in the Biblical canon, but to suggest that St. Paul himself wrote all these letters is to ask too much. We’re not fundamentalists who claim Biblical inerrancy. The Church admits that there are errors in the Gospels (for example, Mark 1:2-3 claims to quote Isaiah, while the text itself comes from Malachi, Isaiah, and Exodus. That doesn’t undercut the whole Gospel.

Biblical inerrancy is the teaching of the church. Thus Pope Leo XIII says in Providentissimus Deus:

"But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred."
vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html

This same sentiment is echoed in Dei Verbum. Therefore, I don’t think you can lightly depart from this view. Where has “the Church” ever taught that the Gospels err? I don’t see the example from Mark as it stands as an error since the quote is derived from Isaiah, but it is also worth noting that not all manuscripts read this way. Thus the King James reads, “As it is written in the prophets.”


#16

What is important is the message, not the messenger. The books of the canon were accepted upon their content, not as some sort of literary anthology. The authorship is an interesting side path following it, but takes us away from the message, if we confuse it for the direction we are led by the word.


#17

The problem, Oldtimer, is that the Pauline letters explicitly identify Paul as the author so Paul's authorship is part of the message.


#18

Paul could be as sweet as honey when he wanted to be (Epistle to the Thessalonians), or caustic as vinegar (Epistle to the Galatians), or a mix of both (1st Corinthians.)

Likewise we can see how Paul alters his tone based on his familiarity with his audience. The Epistle to the Romans very much reads like a letter of introduction, and an orthodox Christianity 101 primer, as Paul was writing mostly to strangers under the leadership of other bishops and putting his best foot forward. Contrast this again with his tone when writing to Churches he had sent considerable time with and felt responsible for.

In this light, it is nearly impossible to guess what tone Paul would use when writing what was almost certainly meant to be a private letter to a friend, brother in Christ, and young bishop of the Church in Timothy. It would be expected that Paul would write in a more warning tone about groups of people that he feared would be difficult to lead and telling his young bishop in private not to be subject to women, he is in charge. I would compare it to the difference between giving instructions on how to drive on a busy road to your 16 year old daughter versus how you would instruct an experienced driver. With the young girl you are going to overemphasis the dangers, maybe to the level of hyperbole to get your point across. This tone wouldn’t be necessary with a more experienced driver.

As for the language, dating, etc. All are noteworthy to consider and learn about, but always remember our understanding is only as good as the most recent dry cave full of papyrus that has been discovered. Also, the Church fathers were good at sniffing out the false texts, they are our chain of custody for authorship. They are not infallible, but are closer in time and source material to the original texts than anyone today.

Sadly, we don’t know everything they saw and learned or how it compares to what survives today. It is quiet possible the oldest copies we have were “scrubbed” or “updated” by a well-meaning ancient scribe to make the language more “modern” to his audience, never considering his copy would be the only one that would survive and raise questions 1,000+ years later.

As such, I think it is wise to continue to learning what modern scholarship can tell us, but stop short of accepting disputed authorship. None of our Sacred Texts would pass muster based on today’s academic standards. The ancients simply thought and wrote differently.


#19

Polycarp of Smyrna was writing around 110 AD, only about 45-50 years after the time when the the Epistles to Timothy were written according to Church history. Polycarp includes quotes from the letters to Timothy in his sections about Paul's teachings.

*Polycarp Letter to the Phillipians *

Knowing, therefore, that “as we brought nothing into the world, so we can carry nothing out,”

if we live worthily of Him, “we shall also reign together with Him,”

1 Timothy 6

*7 For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. *

2 Timothy 2

if we endure,
we will also reign with him.

Here are the links to Polycarp's letter and the analysis of his work in regard to the Pastorals.

jhu.edu/gcf/lessons/PolycarpPhilippians.pdf
thegoodbookblog.com/2012/jul/02/polycarp-of-smyrna-tells-us-who-he-thinks-wrote-1-/

So, not only did Polycarp know of these writings, he attributed them to Paul in the very early 2nd century.


#20

Thanks for the reply! I enjoy this discussion. I won’t call this a fight, I’ll call it a discussion. Here are my responses…

Likewise!

It may seem that 1 Timothy is at odds with 1 Corinthians in this regard. How can Paul speak of women prophesying when he forbids women to teach in church? I think the mistake here is to assume that teaching in church is what is signified by “prophesying.” One solution is that prophesying does not refer to teaching. Cornelius a Lapide writes:

The phrase, “Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth,” does not use “prophesieth” in its strict, and proper meaning of uttering a prophecy or an exposition, but in the improper sense of singing hymns or psalms to the praise of God. For S. Paul is here speaking of the public assembly, in which he does not allow a woman to speak or to teach, but only to sing her part well when the whole congregation sings. Prophet means singer in 1 Chron. xxv. 1, and in 1 Sam. x. 10. So Saul is said to have been among the prophets, that is among the singers of praises to God. So in the Books of Kings those are called prophets who served God with praises.
sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/1-corinthians/cornelius-a-lapide-on-1-corinthians/chapter-1/chapter-2/chapter-3/chapter-4/chapter-5/chapter-6/chapter-7/chapter-8/chapter-9/chapter-10/chapter-11

A second interpretation, although I think less lilely is that St. Paul is not referring to prophecy durying the liturgy. Thus St. Thomas writes:

Then when he says, but every woman, he gives an admonition as it applies to women, saying: But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled (which is unbecoming, considering her condition) disgraces her head, i.e., does something unsuitable in regard to covering her hair. But against this is the Apostle’s statement in 1 Tim (2:12): “I permit no woman to teach in church.” How, then, does it befit a woman to pray or prophesy in public prayer or in doctrine. The answer is that this must understood of prayers and readings which women say in their own groups.
sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/1-corinthians/st-thomas-aquinas-on-1-corinthians/chapter-1/chapter-2/chapter-3/chapter-4/chapter-5/chapter-6/chapter-7/-7-15-10-33/chapter-11

I think that in context of the rest of 1 Corinthians, the discussion of prophecy suggests that it’s not just singing or talking to other women. Like Biblical scholars, we can’t just read 1 Corinthians canonically, we need to read it as Paul himself meant it.

1 Corinthians 13:2
"And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing."
1 Corinthians 14:
“3 On the other hand, one who prophesies does speak to human beings, for their building up, encouragement, and solace. 4 Whoever speaks in a tongue builds himself up, but whoever prophesies builds up the church. 5 Now I should like all of you to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. One who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be built up.”
*
Funny enough, 1 Corinthians 14 also includes this text: *
"31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged. 32 Indeed, the spirits of prophets are under the prophets’ control, 33 since he is not the God of disorder but of peace. As in all the churches of the holy ones,
** 34 women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. 35 But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church."*
And at the location where I put in ***, the USCCB web site includes this footnote:
"Verse 33b may belong with what precedes, so that the new paragraph would begin only with 1 Cor 14:34. 1 Cor 14:34–35 change the subject. These two verses have the theme of submission in common with 1 Cor 14:11 despite differences in vocabulary, and a concern with what is or is not becoming; but it is difficult to harmonize the injunction to silence here with 1 Cor 11 which appears to take it for granted that women do pray and prophesy aloud in the assembly (cf. 1 Cor 11:5, 13). Hence the verses are often considered an interpolation, reflecting the discipline of later churches; such an interpolation would have to have antedated our manuscripts, all of which contain them, though some transpose them to the very end of the chapter."
In the first century of Hellenistic Jewish culture, “prophets” were those who were talking about religious and spiritual issues, social issues, cultural issues, and other concerns to the body of believers. The prophets in the Old Testament aren’t just singers, they’re pretty much discussion how the exegesis of scriptures apply to the world around them, often warning Israel that its children have gone astray. Jesus describes himself as a prophet (Mark 6:4, Matthew 13:57), and we are baptized and anointed “priest, prophet, and king.”

Given the context of 1 Corinthians, in which women leaders were present in other sections (e.g., Chloe, a deacon from Cenchrae cited in Romans 16, Priscilla), I don’t think we can read it as having meaning compatible with 1 Timothy 2.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.