I will explore just two of them because the others can be dealt with by pointing out that I agree with him.
The truth of oral tradition Peter dislikes what he perceives to be my (and Keller’s) emphasis on a “hypothetical lengthy time gap” between when the apostolic material circulated orally and when it was available in written form in the canon.
Incidentally, Kathy’s account of teaching is almost identical to my own.
Where she and I differ is that she believes the ‘teaching authority’ of 1 Tim is rightly equated with contemporary theological correction performed by elders. between the three authors Peter pits against each other: ‘teaching’ in the Pastoral Epistles principally refers to passing on the Jesus tradition. Similar accounts of ‘teaching’ can be found across a diverse spectrum of scholarship—in Klaus Wegenast’s article on the topic in If there is anything novel in what I am claiming—and I suspect there isn’t—it is not a particular historical or exegetical insight, less still a new linguistic definition.
I am quick to point out in the book that the former Archbishop probably would not agree with my extrapolation of his insights, but Robinson family members have since told me that he did in fact once suggest that the closest thing to ‘teaching’ might not be the sermon at all but the design of the sermon roster.Moreover, I am told he has happily sat under the preaching of women at his local church for more than a decade.In any case, it is not correct to say that my reexamination of 1 Tim had something to do with my experiences with women.The reason for this agreement is that it is a fairly standard view. The only odd-sounding thing I am proposing has to do with the logical implication and application of these realities.If this is what Paul meant by “teaching,” why do we give the same name to a modern sermon?The difference in our views has little to do with the definition of Christian ‘teaching’; it concerns the rationale for Paul’s prohibition on women teaching.Mike believes Paul forbade women to teach in Ephesus for a contextual reason, because their teaching had become corrupted.(I am grateful to Mike Bird for hosting this piece.My preference was to post a guest blog on Mark Thompson’s site – keeping it in the family, so to speak.I cannot think of anything in my book remotely resembling this historical anachronism Peter describes.My arguments are based on the standard evangelical dating of the Pauline epistles, on the one hand, and the widely acclaimed accounts of oral tradition and the Gospels offered by James Dunn (2003), Richard Bauckham (2006) and Craig Keener (2009).