Let me go out on a limb here and say your interpretation is chameleon-like.
I don't think so, but my approach may well differ from yours.
You come approaching the Scripture with a preconceived notion (let's say "egalitarianism")
Everyone comes to Scripture with preconceptions. If we can't agree on that fact, our views of reality are so different that no meaningful communication is possible.
and if you run into something you disagree with you will make a list of claims to discount what it clearly says.
No. I base my beliefs on Scripture. But taken at face value, there are many contradictions in Scripture. One must then work to resolve those contradictions by examining textual context, authorial context, translation, and cultural background.
I will address the specific tactics you cite below from that perspective, i.e. resolving contradictions.
If one claim can be proven wrong, you move to the next:
-Means something different in the Greek
Sometimes that is the case. One might suspect this upon comparing different translations -- always a good idea -- and observing meaningful differences.
-Not in the "original manuscript," even though every single manuscript does include the verse in question
Normally one would not expect this unless suggested by footnotes or demarcations in the text, or by commentators. And those sources would need to have textual reasons for omitting the verses, not something whimsical such as "That just doesn't sound like something the author would say."
-Cultural context makes it inapplicable today
Not just "today." Mores may have differed between, e.g., Palestine and Rome. If a certain hairstyle or type of apparel was discouraged because it would be considered scandalous in one culture, that doesn't mean the same was true in all cultures.
-The verse applies to an event that happened at the time and does not apply to the whole Church for all time
Similar to the above. At this point it may be appropriate to note that I view the Epistles as ad hoc documents speaking most directly to their immediate recipients. When speaking of broad matters such as the distinctions between the New Covenant and the Obsolete Covenant, I consider their teachings universal. When addressing particular matters of behavior and decorum, I consider they are applying universal New Covenant truths and its fundamental "law" of "love your neighbor as yourself" to specific situations; they may apply differently in other places and times.
-The Epistle was not really written by Paul, so maybe the verse was snuck in by someone else
You've conflated two things.
The Pastoral Epistles are often considered to be Second Century pseudepigraphs. I think they were most likely pseudepigraphs in the sense that they were probably penned by Luke, but since he would have been serving as Paul's amanuensis, they are genuine.
The only potential margin gloss in Paul's works I'm familiar with offhand is the one we're discussing, 1 Cor. 14:34-35.
-The Epistle is pseudonomynous
-Etc.
Pseudonymity doesn't necessarily bother me. 2 Peter is often viewed as pseudonymous, but still canonical.
As we start moving down this list, eventually the whole Scripture on any matter can be thrown into question.
For example you say:
"If by 'traditional view' one means the view that women are supposed to wear a particular garment to demonstrate that they are under the authority of a male, then that view is by definition 'sexist' at the very least, and reasonably understood to be misogynistic."
How do you explain Eph 5:22-25?
I must interject: How I explain that passage is irrelevant to the basic definition of the words "sexist" and "misogynistic." Any rule that makes a distinction solely on the basis of sex is "sexist." If that rule subordinates one sex or the other, it could reasonably be viewed as either misogynistic or misandric, depending on who comes out on top, so to speak.
As for the passage you cited, I explain it by noting that you began it at the wrong place. V. 22 actually contains no verb, but borrows that of v. 21. That shows that Paul is using submission by wives as a specific example of mutual submission of all believers to each other.
Further, you ended it at the wrong place. The passage is one of several table of house codes. It extends to 6:9. That suggests it applies most directly to a culture that practices slavery. Beyond that, it ends conceptually the way it began: In 5:21, believers are to submit to each other, while in 6:9 masters are to treat their slaves "in the same way" as slaves were just instructed to behave toward masters.
How do you explain that the exact same idea reappears in 1 Cor 11:3,
If the "idea" is hierarchy of authority, I don't believe it does reappear there.
That is part of another house-code table, so it should not be isolated from its context, which begins back in ch. 2. Again it presupposes a culture that accepts slavery. Taken at face value, it suggests a degree of wifely submission that regards her husband as "lord." Those facts alone suggest that the passage may need to be significantly modified to be applied to our culture.
The entire domestic codes passage is set in a larger context of unjust suffering and unjust accusations inflicted by a potentially hostile culture. That suggests it is teaching practical ways to practice Xian relationships that do not invite persecution.
Also, this particular set of domestic codes is unusual in that it addresses the possibility of an unbeliever as husband. Therefore, one must consider that part of the reason for the emphasis on wifely submission is precisely for the purpose of winning over her husband.
Further, in both 1 Cor 11 and Eph 5, Paul reminds his audience to "imitate God," particularly the way in which the Son is in submission to the Father. Remember, Christ "who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men." (Phil 2:6, 7)
FTR, I believe the Son *was* in submission to the Father, but I don't believe He *is* in submission to the Father.
An interpretation that ignores submission from one party to the next, makes the whole point of the passage impossible to understand.
It causes us to understand the passages differently.
There is a dimension in which how we live mirrors the realities of the Godhead. Am I to flush this down the toilet because of 20th and 21st century social norms?
I flushed my "complementarian" views down the toilet because of what I came to see in Scripture, not because of modern western mores. One thing I see in Scripture is mutuality and equality within the Godhead, not unilateral submission. You will of course come to your own conclusions regarding what and why you flush.
(Me, speaking in regard to 1 Cor. 14:34-35) "Various scholars have challenged their authenticity; the ones whose names I can readily call to mind are Gordon Fee and Phillip B. Payne....I'll still stick with Dr. Payne's view of the passage, thanks.
"
You can agree with these scholars, just as I can make a much longer list of scholars and doctors of the church for two thousand years, plus have the internal consistency Scripture on my side too.
Sure, I have no doubt you can pile up a bunch of scholars. Heck, *I* can find a bunch who disagree with Fee and Payne in regard to those two verses, while still holding to the larger view of full equality of women and men.
However, I flatly reject the notion that one can take those verses at anything approaching face value and still retain anything resembling "internal consistency" of Scripture.
Ultimately, if I work from the position that the Scripture, and all of it, is God-breathed and you and your scholars don't, we have no basis for disagreement. This is because we would have two different authorities. I'd be concerned with the internal consistency of Scripture and you would be concerned with essentially non-scriptural ethics and then cherry picking teachings in the Scripture and Christian tradition that support that view.
I and the scholars I favor respect the inspiration and authority of Scripture. Most would consider ourselves "inerrantists," though I believe Ben Witherington and David Instone-Brewer are uncomfortable with that term. But as I said, I'm sure our hermeneutical principles differ from yours.
