Where Mike Winger Went Wrong on Women

Comprehensive response to the entire Mike Winger Women in Ministry video series (Parts 1-13)

What Winger Presently Gets Wrong: “Women Keep Silent” (1 Cor 14:34–35)

Response to Mike Winger's Women in Ministry Part 11 on 'women keep silent' in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Textual issue in Isaiah 3:12: the Hebrew word for 'women' may actually be 'creditors' — the consonants are identical, only vowels differ.

Textual criticism of Isaiah 3:12

The interpolation view: verses 2-16 don't belong in the Bible

Mike presents the fourth interpretive approach.

Question 1: Does this passage belong in the Bible? The interpolation argument

Mike begins addressing the 14 questions, starting with textual authenticity.

The manuscript evidence for the passage is overwhelming -- no textual basis for removal

Mike demolishes the interpolation argument with textual evidence.

Introduction of View 1: The Interpolation View

Mike introduces the first of five views, which argues these verses do not belong in the Bible at all.

Outline of the teaching: hinge points for each view

Mike explains his format for analyzing each view through key 'hinge points' that each view depends upon.

Interpolation View Hinge 1: No manuscript lacks these verses

Mike examines the manuscript evidence and finds that not a single manuscript omits 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

The relocation of verses to after verse 40 in some manuscripts

Mike explains that while no manuscripts omit the verses, some relocate them after verse 40.

The UBS apparatus rates these verses as 'almost certain' to be authentic

Mike explains the UBS (United Bible Societies) critical apparatus and its rating of these verses.

The displacement manuscripts likely derive from a single source

Mike explains that the handful of manuscripts with relocated verses may trace back to one scribal change.

Manuscript 88 is a 12th-century copy and carries little weight

Mike addresses the outlier manuscript 88 which does not fit the same connected manuscript tradition.

Textual criticism principle: the reading that explains the other readings is likely original

Mike applies a standard textual criticism principle to the manuscript evidence.

Greek article 'that' (hē) in James 2:14 — 13 of 16 translations include it, pointing to 'that particular faith' as the referent

Textual note on James 2:14 — 'can that faith save him'

Psalm 22:16 textual debate: 'like a lion' vs. 'they pierced' — three sources support 'pierced'

Ra claims 'they pierced my hands and feet' in Psalm 22:16 is a mistranslation — the correct Hebrew is 'like a lion they were at my hands and feet'

Q&A: Is the Bible's text perfectly preserved like Muslims claim about the Quran?

Viewer question about textual preservation and inerrancy.

Q&A: The pericope adulterae (John 7:53–8:11, woman caught in adultery) was likely not in the original Gospel of John

Viewer asks about the scholarly conclusion that the 'cast the first stone' story is a later addition.

Idea

Cited as an example of movement-specific vocabulary with zero textual basis.

Textual criticism — comparing thousands of manuscript copies, locating them geographically, and dating them — has demonstrated that every New Testament book was written within the first century, much earlier than 19th-century skeptics claimed (~200s AD). It also shows the biblical text has been transmitted with remarkable fidelity.

The Bible is supported by thousands of manuscripts. Comparing them reveals only minor variations — spelling differences, word order — not substantive theological changes. A reader can trust modern John 1 reflects what was originally written.

Winger argues Ehrman's book creates a false impression of radical biblical change by using technically true statements in a misleading way. When pressed in an interview, Ehrman himself admitted the Gospels 'pretty much say exactly what they say in your Bible now,' undermining the impression his book creates.

Winger's favorite counter to 'the Bible has been changed' claims: ask the person what specific doctrine or belief should be different based on their view of how the text has been altered. He says no one ever answers because the manuscript tradition is so stable that no theology would change.

Around 650 AD, Caliph Uthman collected competing Quran versions, created a single authorized text, and destroyed all variant manuscripts. This means the Quran — a later document than the Bible — has a worse manuscript tradition because independent confirmation of the original text was deliberately eliminated.

Winger explicitly frames his approach as a cumulative case: archaeology, textual criticism, multiple attestation, historical reconstruction, prophecy, unity/meta-narrative, and experiential evidence are each like different tests on a $100 bill — no single test is definitive, but together they build a compelling case for the Bible's authenticity and divine inspiration.

Refutation of Jim's Gospel dating: scholars date Mark to the 50s–70s AD, and John to the 60s or 90s AD — not 170 AD; P52 papyrus (100–150 AD) proves John predates Jim's claim by decades

Mike systematically dismantles the 170 AD date for John

Jim's claim about the longer ending of Mark: the final verses of Mark 16 were added in the 13th century by a Jewish council to harmonize it with other Gospels

Fourth major claim Mike refutes — the textual history of Mark's ending

Refutation: early manuscripts from well before the 13th century already contain the longer ending of Mark; the addition was likely scribal, not conciliar — probably constructed from Luke, Acts, and Matthew to give public readings a more complete feel

Mike explains the actual textual history of Mark's longer ending

Recommendation: Mike has a three-video playlist on translations and complex textual issues related to the Bible, covering topics like the longer ending of Mark and textual variants

Answer to 'The Real Effects' about where to find more on Mark and Scripture authority

Bible translation recommendation: Mike favors ESV and NASB, and advises reading multiple translations when a passage turns on a single word

Q&A: questioner asks which Bible translation Mike recommends, especially given the Hebrew/Greek issues discussed.

Q&A: The ending of Mark 16 — short vs. long ending; not a threat to Gospel reliability

Q&A from an atheist about the ending of Mark and supposed Gospel contradictions.

Twitter response 3: Want documented accounts with originals protected — which is what we have

Third respondent's example of extraordinary evidence.

Textual criticism: the discipline that traces copies back to originals and why we can trust the transmission

Brief explanation of how we verify the integrity of the New Testament text.

Bart Ehrman acknowledges we probably have what the originals said, despite popularizing text-critical skepticism

Mike's nuanced engagement with a prominent skeptical scholar on textual transmission.

John 8 (woman caught in adultery) has significant textual critical issues; there is no good case for identifying her as Mary Magdalene; the absence of the man reflects a real double standard

Response to question about the woman caught in adultery

James White tweet: respectful but firm disagreement; White acknowledged for textual criticism work and Ehrman debate

Winger shows the James White tweet that prompted deeper preparation for this stream.

Anderson is King James Only — his church's statement of faith lists KJV without error as first article

Other theological problems with Anderson beyond homosexuality teaching

Mark 16:17-18 — the signs follow believers as a community/historically, not as individual mandates for every Christian

Question from Chretienis about Mark 16:17-18 and helping people escape the prosperity gospel.

Q (Quelle) is a hypothetical source document proposed in synoptic gospel studies; its existence is unproven and theologically non-threatening

Question from New Creation Coaching about the scholarly concept of "Q" and its reception among concerned Facebook users

Mark 16:9-20 (the longer ending) is likely not original to the gospel

Responding to a question from Max Bolser about Mark 16:17-18 and signs following believers

Recommended resources on NT manuscript reliability — James White and Daniel Wallace

A viewer asks for scholarly book recommendations on the reliability of New Testament manuscripts.

Dating the Gospels — pre-70 AD arguments deserve more weight than commonly given

A viewer asks whether most NT historians date all four Gospels to around 70 AD or later.

Upcoming Passion Translation critique project with scholarly interviews

Mike previews December content plans.

Update on the Passion Translation review project: four interviews done with scholars, more coming; Brian Simmons took unusual liberties especially in Revelation and Song of Solomon.

Passion project update - Passion Translation review series

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's claim that the NT contains anti-Semitic propaganda and forged passages is theologically foolish — it substitutes his personal agenda for textual criticism and makes him the effective authority over Scripture.

Q: What do you think of Shmuley Boteach's claim that the NT has anti-Semitic propaganda Christians should reject as forgeries?

Mike has authorship of the contested Pauline epistles on his list but far down in priority; he recommends Darrell Bock as an existing resource for those who need it now.

Q: Do you ever plan to do a deep dive into the authorship of the contested Pauline epistles?

The shorter Septuagint Jeremiah vs. the longer Hebrew Masoretic Jeremiah — reasons to trust the longer canonical form

Question from Leor about which version of Jeremiah is correct.

Textual variants and extra verses in modern translations do not undermine inerrancy or preservation — they represent more, not less

Q18 from Chris Levy: How do we reconcile inerrancy and preservation when modern translations say verses have been added (e.g., ending of Mark, Acts 8:37)?

Q&A: John 8:1-11 (woman caught in adultery) is very likely a true story/memory of Jesus but probably not originally part of John's Gospel. It appears in different locations in manuscripts. Most translations bracket it.

Q&A — John 8:1-11 textual criticism

The JW blood transfusion example actually comes from Watchtower proclamations, not biblical interpretation. John notes the Bible's manuscript tradition makes it more reliable than modern media like video. Even supernatural direct knowledge could still be questioned by skeptics.

Additional response to Q1 — JW example and textual reliability