Comments on: Silent women and dotty manuscripts

By: Peter Kirk

Peter Kirk — Mon, 03 May 2010 10:03:22 +0000

An updated version of Philip Payne's paper is now available, a PDF download from Evangelical Textual Criticism. I haven't looked at the new version myself.

By: Peter Kirk

Peter Kirk — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:26:24 +0000

Philip Payne is now replying to Peter Head in a series just started at Evangelical Textual Criticism. Even the introductory part 1 is very long for a blog post - this is really a scholarly paper, being published in an innovative way.

By: Sue

Sue — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:15:26 +0000

Sorry ’bout that Peter (H). The Bible gives women one heck of a runaround. I think I need to swear off it for a bit.

By: Peter Head

Peter Head — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:26:18 +0000

Well, thanks for the permission to proceed. I certainly appreciate the encouragement to free research.

By: Sue

Sue — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:05:20 +0000

I certainly understand the desire to publish and this is a fascinating study – as long as there is no whiff of attaching this to opinions on treating women as “different but equal.”

In other words, as long as this is not another Junia study!

By: Peter Kirk

Peter Kirk — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:44:09 +0000

Sue, in principle I agree with you. There is a lot more to be explained about these dots. But don’t put Peter Head under too much pressure. He is obviously trying to publish what he can about this.

And bear in mind what I said at the end: these verses, even if genuine, do not teach complementarianism, but only good order in churches i.e. the same as the undisputed verses 33 and 40. Yes, they also teach a very strange non-Pauline idea of the law, but that’s a separate issue except as another reason for doubting their genuineness.

By: Sue

Sue — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:34:57 +0000

Peter H.

You have built a fascinating model and theory. Many will want to view the data or try to reproduce your results. You have given a description of a possible chronology for the dots.

However, you have not provided any explanation for why the dots are different colours, or why some are reinforced and others not. If they were all part of a unigfied chronology, why would some of the apricot dots be reinforced?

I have to say this seems like a model which might be right, but leaves other things unexplained.

This model building would be quite fascinating, but, of course, for me with my Brethren background these verses relegated women to a totally different existence than the men. Its about time we just stopped applying obscure verses to our own life and those of others. It is a roller coaster ride for women. They are a pawn of the text.

I think this kind of study moves the text from being a rule of faith to an ancient curiosity. Probably all the better. Thanks.

By: Gary Simmons

Gary Simmons — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:02:45 +0000

Perhaps the debate on the roles of women is exactly what Genesis 3 was talking about. Maybe that’s what the punishment is is the confusion and headache that this brings.

Fortunately, there’s been no name-calling or animosity here. A breath of fresh air, that.

By: Peter Head

Peter Head — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:09:11 +0000

I refer my learned colleague to my earlier answer.

By: Sue

Sue — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:13:01 +0000

Peter H,

What physical evidence do you present to support the 16th century dating of the dots?