Holmes examines four exegetical devices employed by all sides in the debate on 1 Tim. 2.9-15, proposing that together they create a 'whirlwind' effect which obscures the text's meaning. She concludes that (1) the immediate context is general, not ecclesial; (2) background often reconstructed from passages elsewhere in the Pastorals is misleading; (3) comparison with 1 Cor. 14.34-35 can similarly mislead; and (4) the conjunction gar ('for') has been allowed unduly to dominate interpretation. The writer of the letter, it is argued, has been misunderstood since very early in the Christian era, his intention having been simply to moderate women's everyday behaviour in ways that parallel the behaviour he requires of men.