Monday, May 02, 2011

Reviews of Philip Payne's Man and Woman, One in Christ

Two reviews of Philip Payne's monograph, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009) refer to "the distigmai affair" on the ETC blog, as raised by Peter Head's SBL paper which I summarized here and here. (For Payne's "long series of response's on the blog, see here.)

The first is a review article by Thomas R. Schreiner, "Philip Payne on Familiar Ground," is published in Journal for Biblical Manhood & Womanhood Volume 15 No. 1 (Spring 2010): 33-46. The journal is a biannual publication of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (ISSN: 1544-5143).

Read online here or PDF here.

The second is an on-line review by Jim Hamilton published 19 April on his blog, "For His Renown" here.

Another review by Craig Blomberg is found on-line here (with Payne's very long response in the comment section).


  1. Thomas Schreiner:
    "Similarly, none of the Apostolic Fathers cited these verses (14:34-35)."

    Hardly! They not only cited them but even quoted them in full, in the present context of ch. 14.


  2. My apologies to Schreiner. He was indirectly quoting Payne:

    "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."

    The actual quote from Payne, p.251:

    "6. The Apostolic Fathers Give No Sign of Awareness of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
    . . . even though 1 Corinthians was the most quoted epistle by Christian writers in the second century (140), none of the Apostolic Fathers cite 1 Cor 14:34-35."
    A list then follows of 45 sources that don't cite the passage. Later, on p. 252, we read,
    "The earliest extant citation of 1 Cor 14:34-35 appears to be by Tertullian, writing about AD 200."

    By some weird twist of logic, the seven citations I quote, including three from Tertullian, don't qualify as being from Apostolic Fathers.

  3. For more on the still-unpublished work by Jeff Kloha on this passage, see this post from 2006:

  4. Okay, mea culpa. No weird twist of logic, just a narrow definition: I see that "Apostolic Fathers" is defined as pretty much everyone BEFORE Tertullian whose works are extant today. So, Payne and Schreiner are right: this passage isn't cited before Tertullian.

  5. The editor of JBMW refused to let me respond to Schreiner’s review even though I identified eighty-one instances where it misrepresents arguments in Man and Woman, One in Christ, ten times attributing to Man and Woman the opposite of what it states. You may see my response to Schreiner’s review at

    For a more representative overview of reviews, see those cited along with two dozen endorsements at, the six reviews at ( and the ones in Review of Biblical Literature by Teresa Okure at and in JETS 54/1 (2011) 175-77 by Aída Spencer.