Here are another couple of paragraphs omitted from my review of Payne’s book.
Those who disagree with Payne are accused of censorship, misrepresentation, blatant falsehood, and uncritical thinking: Payne suggests that when Douglas J. Moo, as editor of Trinity Journal, did not publish a particular egalitarian’s submission, Moo practiced “censorship” (120 n. 13, cf. 411 n. 50). Thomas R. Schreiner is said to have “misrepresented the lexical evidence” and is described as “making . . . blatantly false statements” (122). Andreas J. Köstenberger is accused of misrepresenting Payne and keeping one of his papers from being published in JETS (356 n. 47). Blomberg has disputed Payne’s claim (356 n. 48) that he uncritically accepted Köstenberger’s anaylsis.
These are all serious charges, but the allegations that Moo practiced censorship and that Köstenberger abused his position as editor of JETS are of particular concern. These are claims that one should not lightly lodge against brothers in Christ. Payne seems to be challenging the character of two editors with strong reputations for fair and careful scholarship. The refusal of a journal to publish an essay does not warrant charges of censorship and abuse of editorial privilege. Disagreeing with someone else’s interpretation does not mean one is asserting blatant falsehood, and the rejection of an argument does not necessarily reflect uncritical thinking.
 Page numbers in parentheses refer to Payne’s Man and Woman, One in Christ.
 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/.