Who Really Silenced Women? Questions Worth Asking About Biblical Scholarship
For generations, Christian women have been taught that certain New Testament passages establish boundaries around their participation in the life and leadership of the church.
Some have been told they cannot preach to mixed congregations. Others have been discouraged from leading small groups with men present or seeking employment in roles of spiritual leadership. These restrictions are frequently defended by appealing to the authority of the Apostle Paul, particularly in passages like his instructions in 1 Timothy 2:11–12.
Yet how many Christian women in our churches today have been told that the authorship of some letters attributed to the Apostle Paul and the textual context of other relevant passages have been disputed and debated by respected biblical scholars for more than two centuries?
Questions about biblical authorship and scholarship have not been invented by contemporary advocates for women’s equality. Nor are they just concerns raised by people seeking to undermine Christianity. They belong to a longstanding field of historical and biblical scholarship examining the origins, language, theology, and circumstances of the New Testament writings.
The issue is not whether these letters and passages have been proven to be inauthentic. Rather, it is that their authorship and textual context remains a matter of substantial scholarly debate.
When passages like that in 1 Timothy are used to restrict women’s opportunities to serve Christ, surely the scholarly questions surrounding those passages deserve to be openly discussed and examined.
How Many Letters Did Paul Write?
The New Testament contains thirteen letters traditionally attributed to the Apostle Paul.
Within contemporary critical biblical scholarship, the authorship of six of these letters has been disputed to varying degrees. These are Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus.
The scholarly arguments are not identical for every letter, and it would be misleading to suggest that any of the six have been conclusively established as works by other authors. The three letters known as the Pastoral Epistles, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus, have attracted particular scrutiny. Porter (2023), for example, continues to defend their authenticity while engaging critically with the objections raised by other scholars.
Some scholars argue that differences in vocabulary, writing style, theological emphasis and descriptions of church organisation suggest that these letters originated during a later period of early Christianity. Others maintain that these differences can be explained by changing circumstances, different audiences, the involvement of secretaries or developments within Paul’s own ministry.
These are serious historical questions, and respected scholars have reached different conclusions. Introductory New Testament scholars continue to present differing assessments of these questions, reflecting the ongoing nature of the debate (Brown, 2016; Wright & Bird, 2019).
But, if the authorship of a New Testament letter remains the subject of disagreement among respected biblical scholars, should Christians in churches be encouraged to understand this?
A Debate That Did Not Begin Yesterday
Questions about the authorship of Pauline letters are hardly new.
During the nineteenth century, biblical scholars increasingly examined the historical and literary evidence surrounding the New Testament writings. Friedrich Schleiermacher (Van Nes, 2016) questioned the authenticity of 1 Timothy in 1807, while subsequent scholars, including Ferdinand Christian Baur (1845) and Wilhelm de Wette (1858), contributed to the developing debate.
Over subsequent generations, scholars from different theological traditions continued examining the Pauline letters, comparing Greek vocabulary, grammar, theological emphases, and descriptions of developing church structures.
More recently, advances in computer technology have enabled researchers to undertake sophisticated statistical comparisons of the language and writing styles found in the Pauline letters. Yet these studies have not resolved the authorship debate. Beijen and de Heide (2025), using deep-learning models, found that 1 Timothy was less consistent with Paul’s undisputed letters, while Pracht and McCauley (2025), using a different statistical approach, found little evidence of significant stylistic differences between the Pastoral Epistles and Paul’s accepted writings apart from stronger occurrences of third-person contrasts and declarations of fact in the Timothy letters. These differing findings demonstrate that even with modern analytical methods, questions about Pauline authorship remain open to scholarly investigation.
One consideration is whether some letters traditionally attributed to Paul reflect circumstances that developed after his lifetime. If so, these writings may provide valuable evidence of how Christian communities adapted to changing social pressures, leadership arrangements, and theological concerns. Such findings would not necessarily diminish the historical importance of these writings. They could instead help readers understand more accurately the development of the early Christian movement.
Yet these questions extend beyond historical curiosity when teachings contained within disputed letters are used to determine who may exercise authority and teach in Christian communities today.
The Women Paul Actually Commended
One of the most interesting aspects of this discussion concerns the women mentioned in the seven letters widely accepted as authentic writings of Paul.
In Romans 16, Paul commends Phoebe, describing her as a diakonos of the church at Cenchreae and a prostatis of many, including himself. The precise meanings and implications of these terms remain debated, but they clearly convey a woman’s significant service and responsibility within the early Christian church.
Paul also acknowledges Priscilla and Aquila as fellow workers in Christ Jesus. He greets Junia, describing her in terms that have generated debate about whether she was recognised as an apostle. Elsewhere, Paul refers to women who laboured alongside him in the work of the gospel.
These references provide important evidence that women were actively involved in the life and mission of the earliest Christian communities. Westfall (2016) concludes that when considered in their original historic and linguistic settings, the Pauline letters present women not as passive recipients of ministry but as people Paul invited into full, gifted service.
In Galatians 3:28, Paul declares that in Christ there is neither male nor female, for believers are one in Christ Jesus. Then, in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul refers to women of faith praying and prophesying.
Yet in 1 Corinthians 14:34–35, women are instructed to remain silent in the churches.
The textual history of 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 has also generated significant scholarly debate. While these verses appear after verse 33 in most early manuscript copies of this letter, they appear after verse 40 in some early biblical manuscripts like the Codex Claromontanus. Philip Barton Payne (2017) has argued that manuscript evidence supports the possibility that these verses were added to Paul’s original letter. Joseph A. P. Wilson (2022), however, proposes that Paul was quoting a restrictive statement from the Corinthians before challenging it, and that the subsequent relocation of the verses influenced how they were understood. Although their conclusions differ, both scholars raise important questions about the traditional interpretation of these verses.
Even Luke Timothy Johnson (2001), who robustly defends Paul’s authorship of 1 Timothy, explains that he views the passage in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 not as a universal, permanent ban on women speaking in churches, but as a directive regarding decorum and orderly worship in a 1st-century setting.
Another contentious passage is 1 Corinthians 11:2–16. Some biblical scholars suggest it contains contradictions significant enough to suggest that parts of the passage have been misunderstood or have missing information from its initial translation. The logic of verse 10 feels jarring because it pivots from declaring a woman is the "glory of man" who was created for man (verses 7–9), to suddenly declaring a woman possesses "authority over her own head" (verse 10). Theologians (such as Thomas Schirrmacher, 1997) propose that Paul didn't write verses 4–9 as his own words; he was quoting a letter sent to him by Corinthian men. Under this view, the text reads as a debate where in verses 4–9 men of Corinth wrote to Paul asserting their patriarchal authority, arguing that because man was created first, women must be veiled and subordinate. Schirrmacher suggests that in verse 10 Paul stops quoting them and states: "Therefore, a woman ought to have authority over her own head..." Paul then continues his correction by reminding the men that while the first woman came from man, every subsequent man is born from a woman, and all come from God who created women with their own beautiful, built-in hair covering. Westfall (2016), however, argues that Paul is acknowledging that enslaved and low-class women in biblical times were forbidden from veiling themselves, but by instructing all women to veil, Paul is granting lower-class and enslaved women the exact same social status and honour as wealthy respected women. Westfall argues that a woman having “authority over her own head” means that she has authority over her own attire and body, allowing a woman to shield herself from harassment while she worships and prays publicly.
These explanations raise an important question. When churches preach through 1 Corinthians, are congregations made aware of the textual evidence and scholarly disagreement surrounding these verses?
When Historical Questions Have Present-Day Consequences
Perhaps the most significant example of the need for careful examination is 1 Timothy 2:11–12.
These verses have been used for generations to support restrictions on women’s teaching and authority within Christian congregations. For some churches, they remain central to the theological justification for reserving particular leadership and preaching responsibilities for men.
Yet 1 Timothy belongs to the group of letters whose Pauline authorship has been disputed.
If the letter were written by someone other than Paul, potentially after his lifetime, this would raise important questions about the historical circumstances in which its instructions were drafted.
A letter’s canonical authority and its historical authorship are related but distinct issues. Christians who regard the entire New Testament as inspired Scripture may continue to affirm its authority even if they accept that a particular letter was written by someone other than its traditionally identified author. However, historical authorship matters when interpretations depend upon claims about who gave an instruction, when it was given and the circumstances it addressed.
If a passage is used to restrict another believer’s opportunities to serve Christ, and its interpretation remains contested, surely the historical and theological questions surrounding it deserve careful scrutiny and open examination.
When Scholarship Challenges Established Traditions
The authorship debates also raise questions about how Christian institutions respond to historical scholarship.
Churches do not interpret Scripture in a vacuum. Their theological convictions influence leadership structures, ministerial training, employment opportunities, ordination practices, and decisions about who may preach or teach.
Over time, particular interpretations can become deeply embedded in institutional identity. Reconsidering those interpretations may therefore have consequences extending well beyond academic discussion.
This does not mean that churches defending traditional Pauline authorship are necessarily motivated by institutional self-interest. Many theologians sincerely believe the historical and literary evidence supports that position. But it should invite a broader question. When established church practices depend upon particular interpretations of Scripture, how willing are institutions to critically and objectively examine evidence that may challenge those interpretations?
Are alternative scholarly conclusions presented fairly to theological students and congregations, or are perspectives that don’t suit an institution or diocese discouraged or dismissed?
There is an important distinction between what ministers’ encounter during theological training and what ordinary church members are encouraged to understand. A minister may be familiar with longstanding scholarly debates without ever explaining them to a congregation.
When a church’s teaching directly affects women’s opportunities to serve, what responsibility do its leaders have to acknowledge relevant scholarly disagreements?
These questions concern intellectual honesty, theological accountability, and the responsible exercise of spiritual authority. They should not be considered threatening simply because their answers may be uncomfortable.
Can Christian Faith Withstand Historical Scrutiny?
Some Christians may worry that questioning the authorship of New Testament letters or the context of passages threatens the reliability of Scripture itself. For those taught that biblical authority depends upon traditional claims of authorship and textual context, these debates may feel particularly unsettling.
Yet Christianity has a long history of examining its sacred writings. Questions concerning authorship, textual transmission, historical setting, and interpretation have occupied Christian scholars across generations.
The relationship between historical authorship, biblical inspiration and inerrancy is complex, and Christians hold differing views.
Accepting that someone may have written a particular New Testament letter other than Paul does not, by itself, determine whether that writing should remain within the biblical canon. Nor does it automatically establish how its teachings should be interpreted.
Nevertheless, historical questions deserve careful engagement with evidence rather than an assumption that traditional conclusions must be protected from reconsideration.
The central claims of Christianity concerning Jesus Christ, His life, teaching, death, and resurrection do not depend upon establishing that Paul personally composed every letter traditionally attributed to him.
In John 14:6, Jesus Christ declares, “I am the way and the truth and the life.”
Should those who claim to follow Jesus be afraid of honest historical investigations?
Perhaps confidence in the Christian faith should allow room for greater humility about historical questions that remain unresolved.
Truth Should Not Be Threatening
Questions about who wrote the disputed Pauline letters and textual debates about certain passages may never be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. Historical evidence is rarely as complete as we might wish, and responsible scholars will continue to disagree.
But uncertainty is not a reason to avoid investigation. Nor should institutional traditions or denominational loyalties be protected from questions merely because reconsidering them could have significant consequences.
The Holy Spirit is not restricted by our theological institutions. Human beings, however, may be restricted by interpretations those institutions consider authoritative.
For Christian women whose calling and service have been shaped by these interpretations, the questions are particularly important.
Greater historical understanding may require greater theological humility. It may also encourage Christians to distinguish more carefully between the biblical text itself, and the theological interpretations developed around it.
For women who have walked away from Christianity because they could no longer reconcile certain interpretations of Scripture with the character of Christ, honest and transparent discussion about biblical scholarship may offer a reason to return to the Gospels. There, they may rediscover Jesus, who welcomed women into His ministry and entrusted them with a place in His mission.
Reference List
Baur, F. C. (2003). Paul the apostle of Jesus Christ: His life and works, his epistles and teachings (A. Menzies, Trans.). Hendrickson Publishers. (Original work published 1845)
Beijen, E., & de Heide, R. (2025). Authorship verification of the disputed Pauline letters through deep learning. HIPHIL Novum, 10(1), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.7146/hn.v10i1.147482
Brown, R. E. (2016). An introduction to the New Testament: The abridged edition (M. L. Soards, Ed.). Yale University Press.
De Wette, W. M. L. (1858). An historico-critical introduction to the canonical books of the New Testament (F. Frothingham, Trans.). Crosby, Nichols, and Company. (Original work published 1826)
Johnson, L. T. (2001). The first and second letters to Timothy: A new translation with introduction and commentary. Yale University Press.
Paley, J. P. (2023). Pauline pseudepigrapha and early Christian literacy: Are the clues hidden right in front of us? Religions, 14(4), 530. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/14/4/530
Payne, P. B. (2017). Vaticanus distigme-obelos symbols marking added text, including 1 Corinthians 14:34–35. New Testament Studies, 63(4), 604–625. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688517000121
Porter, S. E. (2023). The Pastoral Epistles: A commentary on the Greek text. Baker Academic.
Pracht, E. B., & McCauley, T. (2025). Paul's style and the problem of the Pastoral Letters: Assessing statistical models of description and inference. Open Theology, 11(1), Article e20240034. https://doi.org/10.1515/opth-2024-0034
Savoy, J. (2019). Authorship of Pauline epistles revisited. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 34(3), 542–557. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24176
Schirrmacher, T. (1997). Paul in conflict with the veil: An alternative interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16. Culture and Science Publ.
Westfall, C. L. (2016). Paul and gender: Reclaiming the apostle's vision for men and women in Christ. Baker Academic.
Wilson, J. A. (2022). Recasting Paul as a chauvinist within the Western text-type: 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 and the quotation/refutation device. Religions, 13(5), 432. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13050432
Wright, N. T., & Bird, M. F. (2019). The New Testament in its world: An introduction to the history, literature, and theology of the first Christians. Zondervan Academic.
Van Nes, J. (2016). On the origin of the Pastorals' authenticity criticism: A "new" perspective. New Testament Studies, 62(2), 315–320. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002868851500051X
…
Philippa Cleall is a Christian writer, qualified teacher, librarian, and counsellor who has completed undergraduate and postgraduate qualifications at universities across four Australian states. Her training in information studies, education, psychology, and industrial relations has equipped her with skills in research, evidence evaluation, and critical inquiry. She has a longstanding interest in thinking carefully about Scripture, particularly where tradition and interpretation intersect. Approaching the Bible with both faith and intellectual curiosity, she encourages readers to engage with tough questions thoughtfully while remaining anchored in the person and teachings of Jesus Christ. www.philippacleall.com
Comments