Cytotec overnight fed ex no prescription

Tools: Print Buy Accutane tablets E-mail

Thomas R. Schreiner

View Article (PDF)

Introduction

Philip Payne has studied and worked on the

issue of the role of women in the home and the

church for thirty-six years. It can be said, then,

that this work is the culmination of a lifetime of

study and represents his magnum opus. Those who

are familiar with Payne’s work will know that he is

an egalitarian, and here he argues forcefully for an

egalitarian reading of all the major texts in Paul.

Payne’s approach differs from William Webb’s,

for the latter endorses a complementarian reading

of the major texts but argues on the basis of his

trajectory hermeneutic that the application of the

biblical text must go beyond the scriptural word.

Payne never mentions Webb and contends instead

that the biblical text from the beginning to the end

supports an egalitarian reading. In Payne’s view,

then, there is no need to go beyond the Bible. In

that sense he is an old-fashioned egalitarian, for he

thinks a straightforward reading of the Bible sup-

ports his interpretation.

Much of what Payne says in the book is not

new, representing arguments that he and others

have made for many years. A multitude of argu-

ments are given in support of the proffered thesis.

It not surprising, then, that Payne concludes that

the evidence supporting his view “is as strong as

an avalanche” (462). Since most of the arguments

made by Payne have been rehearsed many times,

I will interact with him throughout the review as

I present his interpretation.

Influences on Paul

Payne begins the book by contrasting Paul

to the Hellenistic and Jewish culture of his day,

maintaining that Paul’s view of women was more

progressive. According to Payne, a progressive view

of women was already present in the OT where

women functioned as political leaders and proph-

ets. They did not serve as priests, for female priests

in pagan religions were associated with prostitutes

and the Lord desired his people to be pure. Payne

gives twenty (!) reasons why men and women were

equal in both essence and role in Genesis 1–3. He

rejects typical complementarian interpretations

of Genesis 1-3. For instance, the creation of man

first does not designate male authority because

then animals would have authority over humans

since they were created first. Woman being created

as a helper (Gen 2:18) does not signify her subor-

dinate role since the noun helper is never used of

an inferior helping a superior. The naming of the

woman is not determinative, for God grants both

males and females rule over the animals, and Adam

does not assign a proper name to the woman. The

Lord calling Adam to account first does not imply

male headship since Eve was also responsible for

her sin. Payne also considers Jesus’ impact on Paul,

for Jesus appeared to women first after his resur-

rection, treated women with dignity, and upheld

their rights with his theology of divorce. Why

didn’t Jesus select female apostles? If he traveled

with women, there would be serious moral ques-

tions raised about Jesus and the apostles.

Complementarians agree with Payne that

women are equally made in God’s image and like-

ness so that there is no ontological inferiority.

Furthermore, we agree that women functioned as

prophets in both the OT and the NT. Such a gift

reminds us that women are gifted for ministry, and

we must celebrate and promote their ministries in

the church. Against Payne, it is quite significant that

women never functioned as priests and that Jesus

appointed only male apostles. Payne attempts to

explain these omissions in the OT and Jesus’ min-

istry by appealing to cultural and moral factors. But

there were pagan female prophets as well, so it seems

significant that the priesthood is limited to men.

Male leadership cannot be established decisively

from an all male apostolate in Jesus’ day or from OT

priests being male, but the pattern is suggestive, and

it carries over to the NT where women served as

prophets but never as elders/overseers/pastors.

Payne’s arguments against indications of male

headship in Genesis 1-2 do not wash. He fails

to read the narrative on its own terms and in its

canonical context. The creation of animals before

human beings is a red herring. It is obvious from

the narrative that human beings are the crown of

creation (Gen 1:26–27) and in a different category

from animals. Hence, the reader is invited to con-

sider the significance in Genesis 2 of the man being

created before the woman. The narrator wants to

add another point here, which does not contradict

the fundamental equality of men and women. The

creation of man before woman signifies the head-

ship of men. Such a reading fits with a canonical

reading of the scriptures, for Paul appeals to this

very order when he posits a distinction in role

between men and women (1 Cor 11:8–9; 1 Tim

2:12–13). The woman being made as a “helper” fits

the pattern of male leadership (Gen 2:18). It is true

that Yahweh often helps his people, but the verbal

form of the word “help” is also used to designate a

subordinate helping a superior (e.g., 1 Chron 12:1,

22–23; 22:17; 2 Chron 26:13), and so the use of the

word “helper” does not rule out a subordinate role

for the one who helps. One of the key principles of

word study (which Payne too often ignores) is that

words derive their meaning from context, and in

the context, where woman is created after man, the

word “helper” suggests that the woman was created

for the sake of the man (1 Cor 11:9).

No one doubts Payne’s contention that both

men and women are to rule the world for God.

The issue is whether there is more to be said. Con-

tra Payne, the naming of the woman cannot be

waved away so easily (Gen 2:23). The naming of

the animals (Gen 2:18–19) and their classification

represents one way that Adam exercised rule over

creation. Payne says that Adam does not give Eve

a proper name until after the fall (Gen 3:20), but

how is that relevant? Surely Adam did not give the

animals proper names either. He classified them as

lions, tigers, and bears. He did not call the tiger

“Tony”! So too, he recognized the uniqueness and

distinctiveness of woman by calling her such, and

hence expressed his leadership in the relationship.

Payne says that Eve was also accountable for her

sin. Quite right. But it seems that God coming

to Adam first, even though Eve sinned first, sup-

ports the idea that Adam bore primary responsibil-

ity for sin. This fits with Paul’s contention that sin

is passed on to all human beings through Adam

(Rom 5:12–19).

Paul’s High View of Women in Ministry and

His Theological Axioms

Payne considers women who served in min-

istry roles during Paul’s day and highlights central

theological axioms in the Pauline view of women.

He argues that women were deacons (1 Tim 3:11)

and that Phoebe was a deacon and even a leader of

Paul (Rom 16:1–2). Priscilla is always named before

her husband, and she taught Apollos and hence

Priscilla’s example demonstrates that women may

teach men (Acts 18:26). Junia (Rom 16:7) is clearly

a woman and is identified as an apostle, and since

she served as an apostle, no ministry is off-limits

for women. Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis

are commended for gospel ministry in Romans 16.

Euodia and Syntyche were co-workers in the gos-

pel (Phil 4:2–3). Paul also teaches that both men

and women are equally made in God’s image, that

they are equally in Christ, and they are to submit

to one another mutually (Eph 5:21). Since women

have received all the gifts of the Spirit, and even

have a gift greater than teaching (prophecy), they

are free to exercise all the gifts, including leadership

gifts. Payne argues that the requirement that elders

be one-woman men (1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:6) does

not preclude women from serving as elders since

the same logic would exclude single men or mar-

ried men without children from serving as elders.

Payne thinks it is significant that there are no mas-

culine pronouns in 1 Tim 3:1–12 and Titus 1:6–9.

Complementarians would again endorse

much of what Payne says here. Women are surely

called to serve in ministry, which is a truth that we

should all rejoice in and foster in our churches. The

issue is whether they are called to serve as elders/

overseers/pastors and should teach men. I would

argue in due course that 1 Tim 2:11–15 prohibits

women from teaching men and from the office of

elder. The requirements for elders in 1 Tim 3:1–7

and Titus 1:6–9, including the statement that they

are to be one-woman men, does not necessarily

in and of itself preclude women from serving as

elders, but it does fit with such a conclusion and

hence accords with the whole of biblical revelation

where men exercise primary leadership.

I agree with Payne that Phoebe was a deacon

and that women served as deacons (1 Tim 3:11), but

they never served as elders. Two qualities required

of elders, i.e., ability to teach (1 Tim 3:2; 5:17; Titus

1:9) and the gift of leading (1 Tim 3:5; 5:17; Acts

20:28), are not required of deacons. The elders, not

the deacons, have the responsibility for doctrinal

purity and leadership of a church. The deacons are

responsible for ministries of mercy and service in

the church. It is significant that 1 Tim 2:12 pro-

hibits women from teaching and exercising author-

ity over men. Women are excluded are from the

two activities that distinguish elders from deacons

(teaching and exercising authority). Women can

and should serve as deacons, but they should not

occupy the pastoral office, which involves teaching

and exercising authority. To say that Phoebe served

as Paul’s leader (prostatis) is quite improbable. The

Romans are instructed to assist (parastēte) Phoebe

wherever she needs help because she has been a

“helper” (prostatis) of many, including Paul him-

self (Rom 16:2). The play on words between “help”

(parastēte) and “helper” (prostatis) assists us in dis-

cerning Paul’s meaning. Phoebe is commended here

as a patroness who probably helped many with her

finances. Paul is scarcely suggesting that she func-

tioned as his leader or as the leader of the church.

Paul even declared his independence from the Jeru-

salem apostles (Gal 1:11–2:14), and so it is impos-

sible to believe that Phoebe was his leader.

Priscilla was clearly gifted in remarkable

ways, and she did instruct Apollos, and hence men

should be open to biblical instruction from women.

Still, the import of the text is often exaggerated by

egalitarians. Priscilla taught Apollos privately, not

in a public teaching setting. Junia was almost cer-

tainly a woman, and Paul identifies her as an apos-

tle. But even Payne says that she was a missionary.

It is highly doubtful that she was an apostle in the

same sense as Paul and the twelve. Ernst Käsemann

rightly suggests that Junia’s ministry in a patriar-

chal world was probably with other women, for “the

wife can have access to the women’s areas, which

would not be generally accessible to the husband.”¹

Payne rightly argues that men and women are

equal in essence and one in Christ. But his view

of mutual submission from Eph 5:21 should be

rejected. It is most implausible that 5:21 functions

as the thematic verse for the household code (Eph

5:22–6:9) for Paul is not suggesting that parents

and children (Eph 6:1–4) and masters and slaves

(Eph 6:5–9) should mutually submit to each other;

nor is there any text in scripture that says that hus-

bands should submit to wives. Of course, husbands

are called upon to love their wives sacrificially, but

this should not be confused with submission. Nor

does the reference to prophecy prove Payne’s thesis.

Even though prophets declare the Word of God,

the gift of prophecy should not be equated with

the regular teaching and preaching of God’s Word.

Paul teaches that prophecy involves the spontane-

ous reception of oracles from God (1 Cor 14:29–

32). Such a definition of prophecy accords with

the gift of prophecy in Acts. The Lord revealed to

Agabus that a famine would spread over the world

(Acts 11:27–28), and he also prophesied that Paul

would be bound and delivered over to the Gen-

tiles (Acts 21:10–11). These prophecies were not

prepared messages but revelations that came spon-

taneously from the Lord. Prophecy and teaching

are distinct gifts. Teaching involves the explanation

of tradition, whereas prophecy is new revelation.

As complementarians we rejoice that the Lord has

given spiritual gifts to women as well as men, but

the scriptures in their totality instruct us as to how

those gifts are to be exercised. Women who have

teaching gifts should exercise them with other

women (Titus 2:3–5) and children (cf. 2 Tim 1:5;

3:14–17).

1 Corinthians 11:2-16

Head

Payne devotes nine chapters to 1 Cor 11:2–16,

and hence his exposition is crucial for the argument

of his book. Payne argues that the word kephalē

means “source” in v. 2, giving fifteen reasons to sup-

port such a translation. For instance, the LXX only

uses the word “head” as leader six out of 171 times.

So, he concludes that Paul’s readers would not have

considered the meaning “authority over” since this

was not a standard meaning in Greek literature.

By way of contrast, he argues that “source” was a

common meaning for the term “head,” arguing his

case from a number of examples. Payne thinks that

elsewhere in Paul’s letters the word typically means

“source.” In 1 Cor 11:3 “authority over” does not

fit since unbelievers do not acknowledge Christ’s

authority, whereas “source” works since Paul thinks

of the creation of Adam. Furthermore, if one

adopts the meaning “authority over,” then Christ is

subordinate to God and such subordinationism is

heresy since it denies the ontological equality of the

Father and the Son. Payne goes on to say that the

reference to “God” in 11:3 and 11:12 refers to the

“Godhead” and cannot be restricted to the Father.

He suggests the same reading in 15:28 so that sub-

ordinationist christology is precluded. The claim

that God is the “source” of Christ in 11:3 refers to

the incarnation. In the same way, vv. 8 and 12 teach

woman’s source from man, while v. 10 asserts the

woman’s authority rather than the man’s. Finally,

vv. 11–12 proclaim equality not hierarchy, show-

ing that any notion of subordinationism earlier in

the text must be rejected. Payne also maintains that

this text does not refer to husbands and wives but

men and women since there is no clear evidence

that husbands and wives are in view.

I agree with Payne that the text refers to men

and women rather than husbands and wives. Sur-

prisingly, however, he does not interact with the

alternative view defended by Bruce Winter. Payne’s

discussion of the word “head” does not advance

the discussion. First, he underestimates the evi-

dence from the LXX, for there are more than six

instances where kephalē has the meaning “author-

ity over.” The evidence of the LXX is crucial since

Paul often cites it in his letters. Second, there may

be a few examples where kephalē means “source,”

but Payne actually gives very few examples (which

are themselves debatable) to substantiate his the-

sis. By way of comparison Grudem has carefully

sifted the evidence in three major articles, show-

ing that the meaning “authority over” for kephalē is

well attested.² Third, Payne’s treatment of the NT

evidence is singularly unconvincing. He suggests

the meaning “crown” for Eph 1:22 and Col 2:10

where the meaning is obviously “authority over”

since Paul refers to Christ’s headship over demonic

powers. Furthermore, it is clear that “head” means

“authority over” in Eph 5:23, for the wife is to “sub-

mit” to her husband as the head (Eph 5:24). The

call to submission fits perfectly with the idea that

husbands are the authority over their wives. Fourth,

kephalē may denote source in some texts (Eph 4:15;

Col 2:19), but even in these instances, in accord

with Hebrew thought, the one who is the source

is also the authority. Fifth, to say that the term

cannot mean “authority over” in 1 Cor 11:3 since

not all acknowledge Christ’s authority misses the

point. Christ is the authority over all men even if

they don’t recognize it. Sixth, Payne says that 1 Cor

11:3 points to Christ being the source of Adam,

but the text says that Christ is the “head of every

man.” There is nothing about Adam in particular

in this verse. Paul speaks universally here. Seventh,

Payne wrongly charges those who think there are

economic distinctions among the members of the

Trinity with the subordinationist heresy. Such a

charge represents a distortion and misunderstand-

ing of those who see a role distinction between

the Father and the Son.3 Eighth, the idea that 1

Cor 15:28 refers to “the Godhead” rather than the

Father is rather strange and fits awkwardly with the

idea that Christ submits to God. Is the verse saying

that Christ submits to himself insofar as he is God?

Such an interpretation seems quite improbable. To

sum up, Payne’s discussion of kephalē is unpersua-

sive and should be rejected.

The Cultural Practice in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

Payne argues that men are prohibited from

wearing long hair (not veils or shawls), since in the

Greco-Roman world long hair was considered to

be effeminate and would suggest homosexuality,

though surprisingly and inconsistently he defines

“nature” (1 Cor 11:14) in terms of the “established

order of things” (204). One would think that his

arguments on homosexuality would lead him to

see the reference to nature as similar to what we

find in Rom 1:26–27. Perhaps Payne is right about

the focus being on the length of hair on men, but

he has a tendency to omit evidence that calls into

question his conclusions. The exact same Greek

expression used in 1 Cor 11:4 with reference to

men (kata kephalēs) is used of Haman in Esth 6:12.

Remarkably Payne never even discusses this text,4

which seems to refer to a covering of some kind.

Payne engages in a long discussion of the cus-

tom pertaining to women in 1 Cor 11:2–16. He

argues that there is no evidence that it was dishon-

orable for a woman to pray without a head covering

in Greco-Roman or Jewish culture. Paul’s state-

ment in 1 Cor 11:15 demonstrates that the issue

is hair rather than a veil or shawl of some kind. It

was considered shameful for a woman to let her

hair down loose, and hence putting up one’s hair

on one’s head with “a clasp, hairnet, headband, rib-

bon, or some other utensil” (150) was required.

Furthermore, the braiding of hair and the many

portraits and sculptures of women from the Greco-

Roman world where there are no head coverings

demonstrate that shawls or veils were not required

or common. Roman women would pull garments

over their head in worship, but so would Roman

men, so it is unlikely Paul has that practice in mind

here. Payne thinks that Paul may be responding to

Dionysian practices where women let their hair

hang down loosely and engaged in sexual sin. In

the OT an adulteress was required to let her hair

hang down loosely (Numbers 5). Payne may be cor-

rect about the custom practiced here, though one’s

judgment on this matter does not speak to whether

complementarianism or egalitarianism is correct, so

it is not vital to the main thesis offered in the book.

Perhaps there is some truth in seeing a reference to

both hair and a utensil that held hair up, since hair

was held up on the head with something like a hair-

net or headband. If this is the case, Payne’s reading

of the custom could stand, and we could account for

the emphasis on hair and on the use of some kind of

device to keep hair up on the head.

Other Features in the Text

To say that woman is man’s “glory,” says Payne,

means that she is his pride and joy (1 Cor 11:7).

His reading here seems improbable. It is far more

likely that the language of glory in the text is tied

to the honor and shame language in the text, so

that Paul teaches that women were created to bring

honor to men. Strikingly, Payne says almost noth-

ing about 1 Cor 11:8–9; he devotes only one page

to it in nine chapters on 1 Cor 11:2–16! This is

quite striking since these verses most naturally sup-

port a complementarian reading. Paul’s argument

is not merely that men need a sexual partner differ-

ent from them. What Paul says here is tied to the

issue of the proper adornment of women and their

being the glory of man. They are to adorn them-

selves properly because of the pattern of creation

(1 Cor 11:8–9; cf. also 11:3). Woman came from

man, and she was created for man’s sake. Therefore,

they must adorn themselves and speak and pray in

such a way that they do not violate male headship.

The meaning of 1 Cor 11:10 is difficult. Payne

argues that women exercise authority over their

head by putting their hair up, and they should fol-

low this custom because angels are present when

believers worship. Payne is probably right about the

role of the angels in worship, and he rightly sees that

the authority is related to women’s adornment. But

he waves aside too easily the idea that the author-

ity on the head may be symbolic. What is worn on

the head may function symbolically. For instance,

in Rev 12:3 the seven crowns on the dragon’s head

symbolize his power (cf. Rev 19:11–12). Diodorus

Siculus (1.47.5) refers to a statue of the mother of

King Osymandias, “There is also another statue

of his mother standing alone, a monolith twenty

cubits high, and it has three kingdoms on its head,

signifying that she was both daughter and wife and

mother of a king” (1.47.5). The three diadems (i.e.,

“kingdoms”) represent someone else’s authority—

namely, her father the king, her husband who was

also a king, and her son who was a king as well.

Payne rightly argues that vv. 11–12 teach the

fundamental equality of men and women in Christ,

but he wrongly concludes that such teaching on

equality precludes a role difference between men

and women in vv. 8-9. Against Payne, Paul teaches

both differences of role and equality of essence in

these verses. Payne falls into the error of thinking

that if a text teaches equality then role differences

are precluded. Such a view, though exceedingly

common among egalitarians, does not follow bibli-

cally or philosophically.⁵

1 Corinthians 14:34–35

Payne surveys various interpretations and

argues that 1 Cor 14:34–35 is a later interpolation

and therefore not part of inspired scripture. Payne

insists the verses must be interpolated, for the dis-

ruption in the context is too severe for the verses

to be original. Furthermore, only the interpolation

theory explains why the verses were added after

14:40 in the Western text. Payne says, “It is not

just that the interpolation is plausible; it is the only

adequate explanation of the position of 14:34–35

in the entire Western text-type tradition” (228). No

scribe, asserts Payne, would have moved vv. 34–35

after v. 40 if the verses were originally after v. 33.

He also claims that we do not see such a large block

of text moved to another location elsewhere.

Other evidence, says Payne, supports an inter-

polation. We find in Codex Vaticanus a distigme

(“two horizontally aligned dots in the margin,”

232) right after v. 33, pointing to an interpolation.

Payne disputes Curt Niccum’s contention that the

distigmai probably originated in the sixteenth cen-

tury, contending that fifty-one distigmai (includ-

ing 1 Cor 14:34-35) match “B’s orginal ink color”

(235), and that the bars marking the text also indi-

cate an interpolation. Payne appeals to the work of

Paul Canart who argues “that fifty-one distigmai

match the apricot color of the original ink of Vati-

canus” (241). He concludes that the distigmai were

original to Vaticanus or were added in the scripto-

rium very early.

Codex Fuldensis was corrected by St. Victor

Bishop of Capua. Payne argues that a marginal note

indicates that vv. 34–35 were not original. Further-

more, since vv. 36–40 are reproduced in the mar-

gin, they were intended to replace all of vv. 34–40,

showing again that vv. 34–35 were interpolated.

Another manuscript supports an interpolation

according to Payne. In MS 88 v. 36 immediately

follows v. 33, and the scribe inserted vv. 34–35 after

v. 40. The double-slashes on MS 88 show, according

to Payne, that MS 88 was originally copied from a

manuscript that lacked vv. 34–35. Payne defends

this interpretation because MS 88 is non-Western,

and hence its inclusion of vv. 34–35 cannot be

attributed to Western influence. Payne also posits

that Clement of Alexandria’s text of 1 Corinthians

lacked 14:34–35 since he never cites these verses,

and we would expect him to refer to women being

silent. Similarly, none of the Apostolic Fathers

cited these verses.

Payne argues that internal evidence points to

an interpolation with a number of arguments. First,

1 Cor 14:34–35 contradicts 11:5 where women are

encouraged to speak in church. Second, the verses

interrupt the flow of Paul’s argument. Third, the

vocabulary is used in a way that does not fit the

remainder of the chapter. Fourth, why would Paul

command wives to ask their husbands at home

when their husbands may be unlearned and even

unbelievers? Fifth, the reference to the law does

not fit the Pauline pattern elsewhere, for no specific

verse in the OT is specified, and Paul never appeals

to an OT verse for the practice of the church. Sixth,

Paul usually takes the side of the weak but here the

weak are suppressed. Seventh, the similarity to 1

Tim 2:11–14 suggests that a later scribe modeled

what was said here after 1 Timothy 2 but made the

text more restrictive. The motive of the interpola-

tion was to silence women in the church. A long

interpolation is quite possible, given John 7:53–

8:11 and the longer endings of Mark. Payne sug-

gests that the gloss was added after the Pastorals

were written, perhaps when Paul’s letters were col-

lected as a codex near the end of the first century.

Payne argues vigorously for an interpolation,

but at the end of the day his arguments fail to carry

water. It should be noted, incidentally, that even if

these verses are judged to be secondary, the com-

plementarian case would still stand on the basis of

many other texts. Still, 1 Cor 14:34–35 is part of

the fabric of the biblical teaching, and the claim

that it is not part of the original garment does not

succeed. Readers should recognize first of all that

the disputed verses are not missing from any of the

manuscripts Payne discusses. The textual evidence

is overwhelming for their inclusion in the original

text. The verses are displaced in some manuscripts

in the Western tradition, but they are not missing

in any Western manuscripts. Payne asserts that no

scribe would move the verses after v. 40 if they were

original. But by moving the verses scribes would

keep the verses on prophecy together (vv. 29–33

and vv. 36–38), and hence the displacement is not so

astonishing, nor is it inexplicable. Furthermore, we

must beware of overconfidence in explaining scribal

habits. Scribes (or a scribe) may have had reasons for

the transposition that are now obscure to us. Payne

insists that the transposition here is unprecedented,

but Jeff Kloha argues in a forthcoming work that

there are other witnesses where verses are moved to

another place such as we find in 1 Cor 14:34–35,

and he argues that such displacements “occur in the

same witnesses that move 14:34–35.”6

Payne’s argument from the distigme in Codex

Vaticanus has not been clearly established. I should

note first of all that vv. 34–35 are not missing in Vati-

canus. What Payne argues, however, is that the dis-

tigme points to evidence of an interpolation. Kloha

argues that the “bars” point to the evidence of a

new paragraph, not an interpolation.7 According to

Kloha, the umlaut points to a textual variant, but

what is most likely is that the scribe was signaling

that didaskō followed hagiōn. Peter Head also cri-

tiqued Payne’s thesis at SBL in New Orleans (2009).

Tommy Wasserman summarizes Head’s conclusion

on the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog:

In conclusion: Peter presented a con-

vincing argument that the distigmai were

added late, probably in the 16th century

as Niccum has proposed,8 based on the

relative chronology of marginal features

in the manuscript, and on a close match

with Erasmus’ edition. In my opinion,

this in itself does not entirely exclude

the possibility that some of the distig-

mai were very early, but I do agree that

Peter’s explanation is the more economi-

cal (Occams’ razor), so that only one

explanation for the origin of the distig-

mai is necessary, regarded as one unified

system.⁹

One of the primary planks of Payne’s argument,

therefore, is severely undermined.

Nor is the argument from Codex Fuldensis

decisive. Again, the disputed verses are in the man-

uscript. The issue is whether the marginal notations

indicate that the scribe thought vv. 34–35 were

interpolated. Both Niccum and Kloha maintain

that the correction in the margin demonstrates an

awareness that some manuscripts placed vv. 34–35

after v. 40.¹⁰ The corrections should not be inter-

preted to say that the scribe thought the verses

were secondary. Payne’s arguments from MS 88 do

not hold up either. Kloha points out that MS 915

is in the same textual tradition as MS 88. Signifi-

cantly, 915 has features which make it impossible

to conclude that 915 copied 88. What is impor-

tant to note is that 915 also places vv. 34–35 after v.

40, but it lacks any notations that signal questions

about the text. Since MS 915 is non-Western, the

idea that only Western texts place vv. 34–35 after v.

40 is falsified. In addition, Payne is too simplistic in

thinking that Western readings could not be found

in manuscripts that are non-Western since scribes

read other manuscripts and sometimes inserted

readings from other text traditions in the process

of copying a manuscript. Kloha remarks,

What took place in 88 is easily described

when we have knowledge of 915. The

scribe wrote v. 36 immediately after v. 33,

before he realized that the verses were

in an unfamiliar position. He added a

superscript double slash at the beginning

of v. 36, as well as in the margin, to mark

the location at which the verses should

be placed. He then continued writing

until the end of v. 40, where he placed a

double slash both in the text and in the

margin. He continued with vv. 34-35.

This is precisely what stood in his exem-

plar, now known through 915. Payne had

described this as a possibility before rul-

ing it out.¹¹

I conclude that Payne’s arguments from both

Codex Fuldensis and MS 88 do not demonstrate

the presence of an interpolation in 1 Cor

14:34–35.

When Payne appeals to the fact that vv. 34–35

are missing from Clement of Alexandria and the

Apostolic Fathers, he relies on an argument from

silence. Kloha points out that the verses are cited

by Marcion, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Cyprian, and

probably Origen. The argument from silence seems

a bit desperate given the partial reference to bib-

lical texts in the church fathers. The view that vv.

34–35 are interpolated should not be accepted on

the basis of external evidence, for the arguments

supporting an interpolation are untenable.

Payne’s arguments from internal evidence are

quite subjective and should be rejected as special

pleading. First, the so-called contradiction with 1

Cor 11:5 can be resolved, for in 1 Cor 14:34–35

women are exhorted to quit interrupting the con-

gregation with questions that contend with male

leadership. Women are not prohibited from all

speaking, but from the kind of speaking that under-

mines male leadership. Paul was careful in 1 Cor

11:2–16 to support women speaking when it was

done in a way that was submissive to male leader-

ship. Second, even if the verses are thought to inter-

rupt Paul’s argument, which is by no means clear,

such “disruptions” exist elsewhere in Paul’s letters.

Nor with such a limited corpus is the argument

from vocabulary valid. Third, Payne asks more from

any text than is credible in saying that Paul would

not exhort wives to speak with their husbands

since some of the husbands might be unqualified.

This kind of extraneous objection could be raised

against just about anything in the scriptures, and

it is quite surprising that Payne thinks the argu-

ment is worth stating. Payne’s objection is easily

parried. Either Paul assumes that all the wives have

believing husbands or he generalizes and does not

bother to state exceptions. Fourth, Payne’s objec-

tion regarding the law is overly simplistic. Paul

argues that the law is both abolished and fulfilled

in Christ.¹² Elsewhere commands from the law are

cited as authoritative (cf. Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14; Eph

6:2–3), and Paul appeals to the teaching of the law

in general as well (Gal 4:21). Furthermore, Paul

appeals to creation (the OT!) in 1 Tim 2:13 when

he enjoins the women to be quiet in 1 Tim 2:12, so

the parallel to 1 Cor 14:34–35 is quite remarkable.

Finally, the notion that Paul supports the weak

and hence would not write such words is remark-

ably problematic. Even Payne admits that what

is written here is rather close to what we find in

1 Tim 2:11–14. Furthermore, Paul exhorts slaves

to obey (cf. Eph 6:5–8), and hence commands are

given to those who were “weak.” I conclude that

both external and internal evidence for an interpo-

lation should be rejected, and therefore the verses

are authentic. The text fits with what Paul teaches

elsewhere. Women should be submissive to male

leadership and should not speak in the assembly in

such a way that male leadership is subverted.

Paul on Marriage

Payne argues that the call for wives to sub-

mit to their husbands is culturally limited, for Paul

doesn’t draw on creation in Eph 5:22–33 or Col

3:18–19. The Pauline resistance to hierarchy is evi-

dent in his call for Philemon to free Onesimus and

for slaves to avail themselves of freedom if possible

(1 Cor 7:21). The Pauline paradigm for marriage

is mutual submission (Eph 5:21) and mutual love.

The reciprocal pronoun “one another” in Eph 5:21

cannot mean that only some submit to others. The

pronoun is comprehensive, so that all believers

(male and female/slave and free) are called upon

to submit to one another. The word “head” in Eph

5:23 means “source” since it is in apposition to the

word “Savior.” Husbands, as the source of their

wives, nourish and support their wives.

Payne rightly sees that Paul does not endorse

slavery. Instead he regulates and modifies an exist-

ing evil institution. Nevertheless, it is quite unclear

that Paul demanded Philemon to free Onesimus.

Indeed, in 1 Tim 6:1–2 Paul exhorts slaves to serve

their masters and does not command masters to

free their slaves. It seems that Payne has a tendency

to accept too easily readings that are palatable to

our culture. He also seems to assume that if the

pronoun in Eph 5:21 is reciprocal, then husbands

should submit to wives. But this reading should

be rejected, for as I pointed out above, does it also

follow that parents should submit to children and

masters to slaves? Some may answer in the affirma-

tive, but such an interpretation betrays a modern

mindset. Neither Paul nor any other biblical writer

ever calls upon husbands to submit to wives, parents

to submit to children, or masters to submit to slaves.

Those in authority must love and treat well those

who are under their authority, but they are never

called upon to submit to them. I understand Eph

5:21 to speak of mutual submission in the church.

As believers we are to submit to one another, but

it does not follow from this that husbands should

submit to wives. In other words, I agree with Payne

that “one another” (allēlois) does not designate the

submission of some to others, but it does not fol-

low from this that mutual submission is enjoined

for husbands and wives. Verse 21 specifies the need

to submit to one another as fellow believers in the

body of Christ. Such a calling does not yield the

conclusion that husbands should submit to wives.

Payne’s support for the interpretation “source”

is also flawed. He makes the mistake of thinking

that the word in apposition (“Savior”) demon-

strates that the word “head” means source. But it

also makes perfect sense to say that one’s “Lord” is

one’s Savior. Other grounds are needed to deter-

mine the definition of the word “head.” Similarly,

just because the husband as head nourishes and

cherishes and supports the wife, it does not follow

that the word “head” means “source.” Payne con-

fuses function with meaning here, as if the former

determines the latter. Once again, it makes perfect

sense for Jesus as our master and Lord to support

and nourish us. The arguments for “source” pre-

sented by Payne are not decisive. Indeed, the argu-

ment of the text tilts the other way. Wives should

“submit” to their husbands because husbands are

their authority, just as Christ is the authority over

the church (Eph 5:22–24). Payne argues that the

text on marriage is cultural since Paul doesn’t men-

tion creation, but he fails to see that Paul grounds

the marriage relationship in what is transcendent

rather than in what is cultural. The mystery of mar-

riage (Eph 5:32) is rooted in Christ’s relationship

to the church. Astonishingly, Payne doesn’t even

mention this interpretation, and so there is no rea-

son for complementarians to be convinced by his

interpretation of Eph 5:22–33. I should add at this

point that Payne often fails to state, or addresses in

a very cursory fashion, texts or arguments that sup-

port a complementarian view. Such omissions cast

doubt upon the credibility of his own view.

1 Timothy 2:8–15

The Situation

Payne’s work on 1 Timothy 2 is not dramati-

cally different from what is argued by many other

egalitarian commentators, but it is the second lon-

gest part of his book. He devotes eight chapters

to expositing 1 Tim 2:8–15. Payne maintains that

the letter is authentic and that the key to under-

standing the text is to recognize that false teach-

ers were threatening the congregation, and hence

1 Timothy should not be understood as a manual

of church order. Women are prohibited from speak-

ing because they were uneducated and purveyors of

the false teaching (1 Tim 2:14). The terms used

to discuss the false teachers, according to Payne,

encompass men and women. The reference to myths

characteristic of old women also indicates that they

were spreading heresy (1 Tim 4:7). Payne contends

that 1 Tim 5:13 demonstrates that women were

propagating the heresy. They were speaking out

things that are not fitting, and the word phlyaroi

in the verse designates an aberrant philosophy or

teaching. The women were not merely busybodies;

they were spreading the unhealthy teaching which

was the object of Paul’s concern.

Payne’s arguments for the notion that women

played a central role in spreading the false teaching

come up short. Describing 1 Timothy as a manual

of church order, as Payne suggests, does not fit pre-

cisely the purpose of the letter. It is directed to a

specific situation, and yet what Paul teaches in the

letter stems from his worldview and theology and

thus is rightly used today for the life and practice

of churches (cf. also 1 Tim 3:14–15). Payne does

not emphasize this latter truth sufficiently. Even

though Payne focuses on female false teachers in

Ephesus, the only false teachers actually mentioned

in the Pastorals are men (1 Tim 1:20; 2 Tim 1:15;

2:17; cf. 2 Tim 4:14). Paul does not concentrate

on women spreading the false teaching. Instead,

he focuses on their being duped and deceived by the

false teachers (cf. 1 Tim 2:14; 2 Tim 3:6–9).

Some of the evidence adduced by Payne is

quite strained. The reference to myths characteris-

tic of old women (1 Tim 4:7) does not demonstrate

that women were teaching the heresy. The expres-

sion should not be interpreted literally, as if women

were actually propounding these myths. So too,

if one is accused of propagating “old wives’ tales”

today, it does not follow that the person in view

is necessarily female. Nor does 1 Tim 5:13 clearly

designate that women were false teachers. Payne

does not pay sufficient attention to the context and

draws unwarranted deductions. Verse 13 empha-

sizes that the women were idle and busybodies, not

that they were teaching falsely. Nor is it clear that

phlyaroi points to false teaching. Payne’s arguments

here are quite weak. For example, in 4 Macc 5:11

the term modifies “philosophy,” indicating that

from the speaker’s perspective the philosophy is

foolish. But it does not follow from this that the

adjective itself denotes false teaching. Payne often

makes mistakes like this in defining words. If I

used the expression “foolish astronauts,” it does not

follow that when I use the word “foolish” in other

contexts I am talking about astronauts. The women

speaking what is not fitting (1 Tim 5:13), therefore,

does not indicate that they were teaching heresy.

The context indicates that they were involved in

activities that were not productive. In the same way

a mere reference to Satan does not prove that the

women were actually promoting the false teaching.

Payne thinks that the women were involved in false

teaching because Hymanaeus and Alexander were

handed over to Satan (1 Tim 1:20), and the women

followed Satan (1 Tim 5:15), just as false teachers

followed vain speech (1 Tim 1:6). But the paral-

lels must be more specific and sharper to establish

Payne’s thesis. Human beings can turn aside to

Satan in many ways, including sexual sin, gossip,

false teaching, etc. We must be careful and discrim-

inate in our scholarship, so that we do not claim

to know more than is warranted. Perhaps women

did spread the false teaching to some extent, but,

if they did, Paul doesn’t clearly tell us this. Payne

seems too eager to prove his thesis, and as a result

he relies on parallels and questionable exegesis (cf.

his rather strange reading of “profess” in 1 Tim

2:10) to establish his conclusions.

Learning and Teaching

Payne emphasizes that the only command in

the text is found in v. 11 where women are com-

manded to learn. Once women have learned suffi-

ciently, they will be able to teach. A woman should

learn quietly until they are instructed. The women

are to be submissive to the truth of God’s word,

not to men or their husbands. The words “I do not

permit” (epitrepō) in v. 12 do not represent a per-

manent command. The verb “permit” is regularly

used to denote temporary restrictions according to

Payne. It is illegitimate to derive from the present

indicative a command that continues to be bind-

ing. Furthermore, teaching refers to an action not

an office, and teaching cannot be limited to formal

doctrinal instruction. Payne claims, e.g., that 2 Tim

2:2 refers to “personal discipleship” (326) rather

than formal teaching. The infinitive “to teach” in v.

12 is used broadly to designate any kind of teach-

ing, and since women can teach according to other

texts of scripture the prohibition can’t be univer-

sal here. Payne goes on to say that the teaching of

younger women by the older women in Titus 2:4–5

shows that women can teach. The restriction to

younger women does not show that women may

only teach women since “purpose clauses are rarely

exhaustive” (330), and Paul doesn’t say they can only

teach women. Timothy was taught by his grand-

mother and mother, and there is no indication, says

Payne, that this was limited to only his childhood

(2 Tim 1:5; 3:14–17). We also see women teaching

in Priscilla’s instruction of Apollos and in 1 Cor

14:26 and Col 3:16. Paul prohibited women from

teaching in 1 Tim 2:12 because they were duped by

and spreading false teaching and were uneducated.

Payne rightly says that women are enjoined to

learn in v. 11, which complementarians also cele-

brate. Still, the emphasis of the verse is on how they

learn, i.e., quietly and submissively. Women should

submit to apostolic teaching, but that teaching is

communicated by the elders/overseers/pastors, so

Payne presents us with a false dichotomy. Against

Payne, the present tense of “I do not permit” (v. 12)

and the so-called intrinsic meaning of the term (as

if the term itself denotes a temporary restriction)

must not be pressed. Whether the command is

binding long term must be assessed in context; it

cannot be decided by the present tense of the verb

or what the term means elsewhere. Payne piles up

examples in an attempt to verify his view, but what

he needs to do is to interpret the meaning of the

verb in context. Payne’s discussion of epitrepō shows

no indication that he is familiar with recent studies

on verbal aspect. Since Paul grounds the exhorta-

tion in v. 12 in creation (v. 13), the injunction for

women not to teach or exercise authority over a

man cannot be limited to a specific situation.

Contrary to Payne, teaching in the Pastoral

Epistles is the public transmission of authortative

material (cf. 1 Tim 4:13, 16; 6:2; 2 Tim 4:2; Titus

2:7). The elders especially are to labor in teaching

(1 Tim 5:17), so that they are able to refute false

teachers who promulgate heresy (1 Tim 1:3, 10; 4:1;

6:3; 2 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:9, 11). Payne thinks that 2

Tim 2:2 is just personal discipleship, but this prob-

ably reflects the popular evangelicalism of our day.

What Paul has in mind is the correct teaching based

on the ap stolic deposit that should be passed on to

the next generation (2 Tim 1:12, 14; 2:2).

Too often Payne seems too anxious to make

his case, which doesn’t inspire confidence in his

work elsewhere. For instance, even though Titus

2:4–5 says the older women should teach the

younger women, Payne says that the purpose clause

here is not exhaustive, and so men could also be

taught by women. In the same way, he says that

Timothy’s mother and grandmother continued to

teach him when he became an adult. Does Payne

really think these arguments are persuasive? His

case seems even weaker when he advocates argu-

ments like these, and it makes me less confident

that he is right when I can’t verify what he says.

Yes, there are contexts in which women can teach

men. They can share informal instruction from the

word in the assembly (1 Cor 14:26; Col 3:16) in

the same way as all other believers. They can teach

men in private settings (Acts 18:26), and they can

teach women and children. But public and regular

instruction is prohibited.

Oude in 1 Timothy 2:12

Payne also argues that the two infinitives

joined by oude “express a single idea” (338). He

argues from 1 Tim 2:12 that women are forbid-

den from “assuming authority to teach a man”

(353). He contests Köstenberger’s study where

the latter argues that the two conjoined actions or

concepts are either both positive or both negative.

Payne concludes that women are prohibited from

assuming an authority that has not been delegated

to them. Space is lacking to rehearse the evidence

provided by Payne regarding oude, but Kösten-

berger has now responded to Payne, demonstrating

that his analysis of the evidence is unpersuasive.¹³

Indeed, many egalitarian scholars have endorsed

Köstenberger’s study. Köstenberger demonstrates

that Payne’s study is not sufficiently nuanced, but

he does not necessarily deny that the two actions

specified in 1 Tim 2:12 may have a single coher-

ent idea. If there is a single idea, then the verse

teaches “that women ought not to serve in authori-

tative church positions, whether by teaching men

or by ruling (both functions are reserved for male

elders)—two functions that are distinct yet closely

related.”¹⁴ Seeing a single idea, therefore, does not

clearly support Payne’s reading.

Authentein

Payne next considers the meaning of authen-

tein in 1 Tim 2:12. He differs from both Knight

and Baldwin in considering the meaning of the

related noun in defining the verb. I do not deny

that in many instances in Greek related nouns and

verbs have the same meaning (see the comment on

“help” above), but Payne needs to be careful, espe-

cially with a rare word, that he does not impose the

meaning of the noun upon the verb. Payne insists

that authentein does not mean “exercise authority”

in Paul’s day and argues for the meaning “assume

authority.” According to Payne, Paul teaches that

women should not assume authority that has not

been delegated to them. Space is lacking to inter-

act with Payne’s study of authentein in detail. His

valiant effort to wash out the meaning “exercise

authority” is doubtful. Köstenberger’s study of

the two infinitives comes into play here, and he

has shown that both infinitives are positive in and

of themselves in context. Paul prohibits women

from teaching and exercising authority, which are

in and of themselves good activities. It must also

be remembered that words are colored by their

context in taking on a shade of meaning. Hence,

the word authentein in context could have a nega-

tive meaning (“dominate”) or a positive meaning

(“exercise authority”). Assuming or taking author-

ity is not necessarily a bad thing if one has a posi-

tion of authority. The parallel with “teach” indicates

that Paul refers to actions that are legitimate in and

of themselves. Women are prohibited from teach-

ing and exercising authority because such actions

violate male headship.

The Appeal to Creation in 1 Timothy 2:13

Payne maintains that the “for” (gar) in v. 13

is illustrative rather than causal. Payne admits that

“for” may be giving a reason, but then says it is diffi-

cult to be certain what Paul is explaining. Nor, says

Payne, is it clear what Paul is saying if he restricts

women based on the created order, for elsewhere

Paul argues for the equality of men and women.

Furthermore, if Paul appeals to Genesis, how

would this argument work since there was no need

for preachers when Genesis was written? Payne

concludes that woman should respect man as their

source. Women should respect men and learn in

quietness and should also show their respect by not

promoting false teaching.

Verse 13 is a decisive verse, and Payne’s

attempt to explain it is unsuccessful. Payne, like

many egalitarians, throws up various objections to

a complementarian reading. The difference between

complementarians and egalitarians surfaces here.

It seems that the logic of the verse is not hard to

understand. Women are not to teach or exercise

authority over men because of the created order.

The Lord created man first to signify male head-

ship in the church. Payne’s claim that there was

not preaching in Genesis is irrelevant, for the

order of creation communicates an abiding prin-

ciple. When Payne says that women are to respect

men as their source, he imports an idea that is not

stated in the text. At the same time he washes away

what the verse actually says, i.e., women are not

to teach or exercise authority over men. The rock

on which all egalitarian interpretations stumble is

the wording of the biblical text. Scholars and lay

people may voice many objections to the comple-

mentarian reading. But at the end of the day the

complementarian reading is the most natural and

plausible interpretation.

The Argument from Deception

Why does Paul mention Eve’s deception in

v. 14? Payne argues that he does so because the

women in Ephesus were duped by the false teach-

ing. He argues that Adam’s sin involved deceit as

well, but the point is that the serpent deceived

Eve rather than Adam. Payne rejects the idea that

women are more prone to deception than men.

Payne’s interpretation of v. 14 is on target

in some respects but is not completely satisfying.

The verse does not suggest that women were dis-

seminating false teaching, for to say that one is

deceived is not to say that one is spreading error,

but only that one is being led astray by it. Nor is

it plausible to conclude that the women of Ephe-

sus were banned from teaching because of a lack

of education. Deception, after all, is not the same

thing as lack of education, for the latter is remedied

through instruction, while the former is a moral

failing. Nor does it work to say that Eve was igno-

rant of the prohibition given to Adam. If she were

ignorant because Adam failed to inform her of the

command, then the blame would rest with Adam.

On the other hand, if Adam distorted the com-

mand and did not explain it well to Eve, this would

not fit with an injunction that encouraged men to

teach rather than women. Surely Adam explained

the prohibition to Eve, and it is difficult to see

how she could have muddled it, since it is quite

easy to understand what was prohibited. If Eve

couldn’t understand the command, then she was

inherently stupid—which would explain why men

should teach. But deception should not be equated

with stupidity. Paul is not saying that Eve somehow

lacked education or intelligence. He argues that she

failed morally and was deceived by the serpent.

Saved through Childbirth

Payne rightly argues, given Paul’s usage of sal-

vation elsewhere in the Pastorals, that the salvation

in view here is spiritual. A reference to safety in

childbirth is also misplaced since Christian women

are not promised physical protection when having

children. According to Payne, the salvation here

should not be understood either as preservation

from Satan or being kept from taking on the role

of men. He sees a reference to the birth of Christ,

for Paul still has the Genesis narrative in mind and

sees Eve “as representative of women in general”

(420). A reference to the birth of Christ is possible

here, but it is by no means clear that the incarna-

tion is in view. If that is what Paul had in mind,

he referred to it in a very indirect and unclear way.

More likely, Paul promises women that they will

be saved if they fulfill their role as women and

continue in the faith. One obvious indication that

women are fulfilling their role is if they bear chil-

dren. Paul does not teach that women must be

married or have children to be saved on the last day

(cf. 1 Corinthians 7). He selects bearing children

because it represents in a concrete way that women

are embracing their role as women.

Conclusion

Payne is to be thanked for the tone of his

book, for he is fair and respectful (even though he

feels very strongly about this matter!) with those

with whom he disagrees. Furthermore, comple-

mentarians will be gratified to see his high view of

scripture. I suspect that Payne’s book will not have

a great impact. Most of what he says is not new, and

I have argued that his interpretations are unper-

suasive at point after point. Surely he will con-

vince some, for many in our culture today ardently

desire egalitarianism to be true. But it will not hit

the scholarly world like an avalanche. It is closer to

being another drizzly day in Portland, Oregon.

ENDNOTES

¹Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerd-

mans, 1980), 413.

²Wayne Grudem, “Does Kephalē (‘Head’) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples,” Trinity Journal 6 (1985): 38–59; idem, “The Meaning of Kephalē (‘Head’): A Response to Recent Studies,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem; Wheaton: Crossway, 1991), 425–68, 534–41; idem, “The Meaning of Kephalē (‘Head’): An Examination of New Evidence, Real and Alleged,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44 (2001): 25-65. See also Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Kephalē in 1 Corinthians 11:3,” Interpretation 47 (1993): 52–59; idem, “Another Look at Kephalē in 1 Corinthians 11:3,” New Testament Studies 35 (1989): 503-11.

³See Bruce A. Ware, “Equal in Essence, Distinct in Roles: Eternal

Functional Authority and Submission among the Essentially

Equal Divine Persons of the Godhead,” The Journal for Biblical

Manhood and Womanhood 13 (2008): 43-58; Christopher W.

Cowan, “The Father and Son in the Fourth Gospel: Johannine

Subordination Revisited,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological

Society 49 (2006): 115–35; Robert Letham, “The Man-Woman

Debate: Theological Comment,” Westminster Theological Journal 52 (1990): 65–78; Stephen D. Kovach and Peter R. Schemm, Jr., “A

Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son,”

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42 (1999): 461–76.

⁴It is Cytotec overnight fed ex no prescription not listed in the index, and I did not find a Cytotec overnight fed ex no prescription reference to it in

his book.

⁵For the philosophical coherence of the complementarian view on

this matter, see Steven B. Cowan, “The Metaphysics of Subordina-

tion: A Response to Rebecca Merrill Groothuis,” The Journal for

Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 14 (2009): 43–53.

⁶The material from Jeff Kloha stems from a part of his thesis, which

was submitted to Professor Keith Elliott at the University of

Leeds. The dissertation is being published by Walter de Gruyter.

My thanks to Professor Kloha for allowing me to see some of his

work before publication.

⁷Cf. also Curt Niccum, “The Voice of the Manuscripts on the

Silence of Women: The External Evidence for 1 Corinthians

14.34–35,” New Testament Studies 43 (1997): 244–45.

⁸For Niccum’s view, see ibid., 245–46.

⁹“SBL New Orleans 2009 I: Peter Head Putting the Distigmati in

the Right Place Pt. 1” and “SBL New Orleans 2009 I: Peter Head

Putting the Distigmati in the Right Place Pt. 2,” n.p. Online:

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2009/11/sbl-

new-orleans-2009-i-peter-head.html; and http://evangelical

textualcriticism.blogspot.com/2009/11/sbl-new-orleans-

2009-i-peter-head_22.html.

¹⁰Niccum, “The Voice of the Manuscripts,” 246–47.

¹¹See note 6.

¹²See Thomas R. Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline

Theology of Law (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993).

¹³Andreas J. Köstenberger, “The Syntax of 1 Timothy 2:12: A

Rejoinder to Philip B. Payne,” The Journal for Biblical Manhood and

Womanhood 14 (2009): 37–40.

¹⁴Ibid., 38.

Tools:Top where to purchase cheap Amoxil no rx Print E-mail

Journal

Cytotec overnight fed ex no prescription

Thomas R. Schreiner

ENDNOTES

Related Items

Browse

RefTagger

Popular

Bible Search

Key Texts