Here’s a paragraph that I cut from my review of Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ:
Payne typically answers his critics with argumentum verbosium or “proof by verbosity.” Craig Blomberg wrote a 2,200 word review of the book under review here,[1] and Payne posted a 3,600 word comment in response. Tom Schreiner reviewed the book in JBMW,[2] and in his response Payne ludicrously claims that Schreiner misrepresents him 81 times and makes 41 dubious assertions![3] These claims would only stand if viewed from Payne’s perspective. To those who do not view it from his perspective, Payne’s is the misrepresenting and dubious assertion, and there are more of them in his book than I would want to try and count. Peter Head presented a devastating argument against Payne’s thesis regarding the distigmai in Codex Vaticanus,[4] and Payne provided what Tommy Wasserman called “a long series of responses”[5] in addition to multiple iterations of a paper responding to Head’s presentation.[6]
[1] Craig L. Blomberg, “Review of Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters,” Denver Journal, February 5, 2010, http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/man-and-woman-one-in-christ-an-exegetical-and-theological-study-of-pauls-letters/.
[2] Thomas R. Schreiner, “Philip Payne on Familiar Ground,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 15, no. 1 (2010): 33–46.
[3] Philip B. Payne, “A Critique of Thomas R. Schreiner’s Review of Man and Woman, One in Christ,” Philip B. Payne, n.d., http://www.pbpayne.com/?p=456.
[4] See Tommy Wasserman, “SBL New Orleans 2009 I: Peter Head Putting the Distigmai in the Right Place Pt. 1,” Evangelical Textual Criticism, November 21, 2009, http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2009/11/sbl-new-orleans-2009-i-peter-head.html; Tommy Wasserman, “SBL New Orleans 2009 I: Peter Head Putting the Distigmai in the Right Place Pt. 2,” Evangelical Textual Criticism, November 22, 2009, http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2009/11/sbl-new-orleans-2009-i-peter-head_22.html.
[5] Tommy Wasserman, “Color Images of Vaticanus Marginalia,” Evangelical Textual Criticism, May 3, 2010, http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2010/05/color-images-of-vaticanus-marginalia.html.
[6] Tommy Wasserman, “Distigmai in Vaticanus: New Version of Payne’s Response,” Evangelical Textual Criticism, March 16, 2010, http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2010/03/distigmai-in-vaticanus-new-version-of.html.
What’s wrong with long responses? Does long mean wrong?
Usually people can affirm simple truths in short, simple statements. Like this: I believe that 1 Timothy 2:12 is the word of God, and that it fits with other passages such as Eph 5, 1 Cor 14, Col 3, 1 Pet 3, etc. Men and women are equal in what they are, and they have been given complementary roles, with the man charged to lead and protect and provide and the woman to submit and help.
You can affirm the truth simply, but in this case simple declarative statements aren’t comprehensive or persuasive. A comprehensive and persuasive argument has to articulate in detail how all the evidence support a claim. On the other hand, simple, sweeping statements may serve only to antagonize those with whom you disagree, and almost never persuade.
Persuasion – and finding the truth in the first place – often takes patience, attention to detail, and rigorous thinking. Given that Phil Payne is responding to critics, the length of his responses testifies to his sincerity in trying to persuade others. He could respond in sweeping statements, but that would be much less likely to persuade.
What he needs to do is repent of his rejection of the Bible’s teaching on gender roles.