Truthscape · Data Explorer · Review edition
A corpus dataset and decision framework, traced by Schreiner’s propositional method. Corpus counts here were run against MACULA Greek; secondary and unverified figures are flagged as such. Every contested judgment is left contested — and where the outstanding research went against the reading this study was leaning on, it says so. Sorted by evidential strength, not by tradition.
From What the Text Says and What the Argument Has Shown (August 26), §V. The grades are that paper’s, on the project’s five-level scale.
| Women prophesy, and no text forbids it: Acts 2:17–18; 21:9; 1 Cor 11:5, which regulates rather than forbids | certain as to the practice; probable that 1 Cor 11 is the assembly |
| Women pray publicly, on the same participle chain | the same |
| Women host congregations: Nympha, Lydia, Mary, Prisca with Aquila | certain |
| Women labor in the gospel in the vocabulary Paul uses of himself: kopiaō, synergos | strong as to vocabulary; possible as to office |
| A woman instructs a man in doctrine: Acts 18:26, jointly | strong |
| Women teach women: Titus 2:3–4 | certain that it is enjoined |
| A woman is diakonos of a named congregation: Phoebe, Rom 16:1 | strong as to the phrase; undetermined whether titular |
| Women are enrolled in an order with entry qualifications: 1 Tim 5:9–10 | strong |
| A woman is named among the apostles: Rom 16:7 | undetermined: the syntax is genuinely split |
What the evidence does not establish (§V.2): “Two texts prohibit something, and neither prohibition can be given a scope from the text alone.” For 1 Tim 2:11–12 the scope “turns on three things, and all three are open: the coordination of the οὐδέ; the sense of αὐθεντεῖν; and the force of the γάρ at verse 13.” And: “the gnomic reading of 2:12 rests on the creation ground at 2:13 and on nothing else.” The nine commentators before 1918 surveyed are unanimous that the γάρ is a reason, and “That unanimity is the strongest single datum on the restrictive side in this entire survey, and it has not been overturned here.”
From What the Text Says, §II. The August 16 edition had no structural results.
The restrictive corpus is two passages. The descriptive corpus is thicker than the prescriptive one — and each of the two prohibitions has a live problem at its center. A study that treats the prohibitions as “the data” and Romans 16 as background has inverted the volume of evidence; so has a study that does the reverse.
Each bar is a distribution actually run against the Greek text, not a characterization. The shaded segment is the portion that constrains the disputed reading.
Fourteen practices congregations argue about, against the four live positions. The counts are how many of the four permit each practice — a measure of where the disagreement really sits.
Descriptive data. Narrative record is not by itself prescriptive — and its absence is not prohibition. Both directions of that error are common.
Scope markers are quoted verbatim. Note especially where each one attaches — the “in every place” of 1 Tim 2:8 governs the men’s prayer, not the women’s quietness, and the strongest “all the churches” formula in 1 Corinthians sits in ch. 7.
The operative distinction is concord (masculine by agreement — carries no information about the referent’s sex) versus sex-specific (semantically male or female). Of roughly 16 qualifying terms in 1 Tim 3:1–7 and roughly 18 in Titus 1:5–9, exactly one per list is sex-specific. (Extending the first count to 3:1–13 gives ~25 terms and two sex-specific ones, since 3:12 repeats the formula for deacons.)
Occurrence counts run against MACULA Greek (Nestle 1904 base). Every count stated as a count was actually run. Items resting on secondary reportage are flagged and must be verified before use in a finished paper.
August 16 wording, superseded: The NA28/UBS5 apparatus and the ECM were not consulted directly; items resting on secondary reportage are flagged in the notes.Updated · Aug 23Since August 16 the printed NA28 apparatus has been checked against every traced unit: 132 verses carrying sigla and 201 variation-unit markers across 29 units (note B43). One load-bearing site the August 16 work did not raise: at 1 Cor 14:37, “it is the Lord’s command” is itself a variation unit.
The fathers are witnesses to how texts were read, not authorities that settle anything. Verification: FULL = read in continuous text; QUOTED-2nd = a substantial verbatim quotation inside a named secondary source; SUMMARY/WINDOW = flagged, and no argument is built on it.
Nothing here is resolved silently elsewhere. Each carries the alternatives, the evidence on each side, and what would decide it. Seven outstanding pieces of work are named in the study that would move specific judgments; each is identified with the judgment it would settle.Updated · Aug 19–26Seventeen judgments come from the August 16 edition. CJ-18 and CJ-19 were added from later work. CJ-6 was closed on August 19 as non-discriminating.
Not two positions. Four — and the two middle ones hold most of the actual congregational practice in the English-speaking church. Each card carries the best case and the cost, weighted comparably.
Read down your column. Cells take four values: Yes, Usually yes (the position’s mainstream, with a documented minority against), Contested within X, and No. Each cell is rendered from the position’s stated definition and from what the exegetical sections establish — not from a general impression of the traditions. That rule changed four cells in round 2: Position A now reads No on reading Scripture, the Supper, and church-planting, because A’s own quoted advocate forbids all three in one sentence; Position D now reads Yes on the eldership, because a trajectory argument has no internal reason to stop there.
A and D differ on twelve of the fourteen rows, agreeing only on teaching other women and teaching children — the same two rows all four positions settle identically (shaded green). B and C differ on nine rows, and five rows are disputed within B: the internal dispute is large relative to the gap, and does not close it.
Not a verdict. These are the tests this study’s data supports, and they cut in different directions on purpose.
Each row names the record, what the August 16 edition said, what the project’s files say through August 26, and where to check it. The records themselves carry the full wording. Dates are the dates of the project files.
These notes from August 23–25 bear on records here and were not worked into them for this edition. Read the notes directly.