The interpretation timeline
1 Timothy 2:11 Douay-Rheims

Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection.

A.D. 220 – 1871 9 witnesses 10 excerpts

Patristic

before A.D. 750
220
A.D.
Tertullian Patristic
c. A.D. 150–220
“But we, little fishes, after the example of our Icqus Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water; so that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes, by taking them away from the water!”
Source
“It is not permitted to a woman to speak in the church; but neither (is it permitted her) to teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer, nor to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say (in any) sacerdotal office.”
258
A.D.
Cyprian Patristic
c. A.D. 200–258
“But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to be set over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not seduced, but the woman was seduced."”
397
A.D.
Ambrose of Milan Patristic
A.D. 339–397
“I think the prohibition in the law against a man wearing female garments refers not so much to clothing as to manners and to our habits and actions, since one act is becoming to a man, another to a woman. Therefore, the apostle, as the interpreter of the law, says, "Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be submissive, as the law says. But if they wish to learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home." And to Timothy he says, "Let a women learn in quietness in all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men." How unsightly it is for a man to act like a woman!”
Source
407
A.D.
John Chrysostom Patristic
A.D. 347–407
“Great modesty and great propriety does the blessed Paul require of women, and that not only with respect to their dress and appearance: he proceeds even to regulate their speech. And what says he? "Let the woman learn in silence"; that is, let her not speak at all in the church; which rule he has also given in his Epistle to the Corinthians, where he says, "It is a shame for women to speak in the church"; and the reason is, that the law has made them subject to men. And again elsewhere, "And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home." Then indeed the women, from such teaching, kept silence; but now there is apt to be great noise among them, much clamor and talking, and nowhere so much as in this place. They may all be seen here talking more than in the market, or at the bath. For, as if they came hither for recreation, they are all engaged in conversing upon unprofitable subjects. Thus all is confusion, and they seem not to understand, that unless they are quiet, they cannot learn anything that is useful. For when our discourse strains against the talking, and no one minds what is said, what good can it do to them? To such a degree should women be silent, that they are not allowed to speak not only about worldly matters, but not even about spiritual things, in the church. This is order, this is modesty, this will adorn her more than any garments. Thus clothed, she will be able to offer her prayers in the manner most becoming.”
Source

Scholastic

c. 1100 – 1500
1273
A.D.
Thomas Aquinas Catholic
1225–1274
“For the Apostle above gave directions to women with regard to prayer; here he directs them with regard to teaching. And first he sets down his ordinance concerning their teaching; second he assigns the reason for the ordinance, at the words *For Adam was first*; third he answers a tacit question, at the words *yet she shall be saved*. Again, first he shows what is fitting for women; second, what does not belong to them, at the words *but to teach*. Concerning the first, he sets down three things as belonging to them, namely silence, being taught, and subjection; these three proceed from one reason, namely from a defect of reason in them. To these he first enjoins silence, saying *let a woman learn in silence*, etc. James 3:2: *If anyone offends not in word, he is a perfect man*; and 1 Cor. 14:34: *let women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted them to speak*, etc. For a woman's words are inflaming. Ecclesiasticus 9:11: *her talk burns as it were with fire*. Second, that they should learn, because it is proper to those who are deficient in reason to be learning. 1 Cor. 14:35: *but if they wish to learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home*, etc. But to men it is given that they should teach. Third, he enjoins subjection, because it is natural that the soul should rule the body, and reason the lower powers. And therefore, as the Philosopher teaches, whenever two things are related to one another as the soul to the body, and reason to sensuality, the natural dominion belongs to that one which abounds in reason, and that one rules, while the other is subject, namely the one that is deficient in reason. Gen. 2: *you shall be under the power of your husband*. Again, he excludes those things which do not belong to them, saying *but to teach*, etc. And there are two things, namely, that they not teach. But against this, Proverbs, last chapter: *his mother taught him*, etc. I answer. It must be said that teaching is of one kind public, and this does not belong to a woman, and therefore he says *in the Church*; of another kind private, and by this a mother instructs her son. But against this, Judges 5: Deborah instructed the people of Israel. I answer. That instruction was through the spirit of prophecy, and the grace of the Holy Spirit does not distinguish between man and woman; yet she did not preach publicly, but by the instinct of the Holy Spirit gave counsel. Second, dominion over a man is forbidden to them. Ecclesiasticus 25:30: *if a woman has the primacy, she is contrary to her husband*. And the Philosopher says that the rule of women is the corruption of a household, as of tyrants in a kingdom. And thus he forbids two things against the two that belong to them, but he repeats the first, namely *but to be in silence*. Then, when he says *For Adam*, he assigns the reason for what he had said, and first from the order of creation; second from the order of guilt, at the words *and Adam was not seduced*. Concerning the first, it must be known that in the order of things the perfect and the imperfect are ordered in different ways: for in one and the same thing the imperfect precedes in time, and the perfect precedes in nature, because nature tends toward the perfect; but in different things the perfect is prior both in time and in nature, because nature always begins from what is perfect. And this order is at work here, because man is perfect in human nature, woman is a defective male. Hence Adam was formed first. Gen. 2:7: *God formed man from the slime of the earth*; secondarily woman, as a certain imperfect thing originated from the perfect, namely from a rib. 1 Cor. 11:8: *for man is not from woman, but woman is from man*. And hence it is that man is not said to have been made for the sake of woman, but to the likeness of God. Gen. 1:26: *let us make man to our image and likeness*. But woman was made for the sake of man; therefore man ought to preside. Likewise on the part of guilt. For the order of generation and of corruption is contrary, because what is first in generation is last in corruption. But sin is a corruption of nature, and therefore generation begins first from Adam, but corruption from the woman. Hence he says *Adam was not seduced*, namely first, because he was stronger, but the tempter began from the weaker, so that the stronger might more easily be seduced. Here he alludes to the words of Adam, Gen. 3:12. For when the Lord reproved Adam, he said: *the woman whom you gave me as a companion, she gave to me*, etc. And therefore he says *Adam was not seduced, but the woman*. But seduction is twofold: namely in the universal, and in the particular object of choice, which is ignorance of choice. Whoever therefore sins is seduced by ignorance of choice in the particular object of choice. But the woman was seduced by ignorance in the universal, namely when she believed what the serpent said; but the man did not believe this, but was deceived in the particular, namely that he ought to indulge his wife's wish, and that he ought to eat with her, and, being unpracticed in the divine severity, he believed that it would easily be forgiven him. But against this: ignorance is the punishment of sin, therefore punishment preceded guilt. I answer. It must be said that it did not precede, because immediately at the words of the serpent she was elated, because someone else was concerned for her, and from that elation she was seduced; hence elation preceded. Then, when he says *yet she shall be saved*, he answers a certain tacit question; for someone might say that if woman is not for the sake of man, and from her is the beginning of sin, then she is harmful to man; but if something is not for the sake of another, but is harmful to it, it ought to be removed; therefore woman ought not to be saved. It must therefore be said that salvation is twofold: namely temporal, and this is common even to brute animals; the other is eternal, and this is proper to human beings. Isaiah 51:8: *but my salvation shall be forever*. But woman has not lost either salvation. Not the temporal, for she is not thereby deprived of the female sex on account of the generation of offspring. Nor the eternal, because according to the soul she is capable of grace and glory. And therefore, as to the first, it is said *she shall be saved*, that is, she shall not be uprooted, and this through the bearing of children, to which she is ordained by God. As to the second, he says *if she continues*. But because *if* implies a cause, is it then the case that she who has not continued will not be saved, since the Apostle says that a woman does better if she does not marry? I answer. In one way the expression can be figurative, and thus by *man* the higher reason is understood, the lower reason is the woman, good works are the children of the lower reason, and the charity which she conceives through the man, and by these she shall be saved. The other is a literal exposition, such that the word *through* does not signify a cause, but an opposition. And the sense is: the woman shall be saved, even if she proceeds by way of childbearing, that is, if she marries and is not a virgin. And then the word *through* denotes an increase of salvation, as though through the bearing of children for the worship of God she shall be saved the more. Ecclesiasticus 7:25: *have you children? Instruct them, and bow them down from their childhood*. As to attaining eternal salvation, he sets down three things. First, something with regard to the intellect; second, with regard to the affections; third, with regard to the exterior act. In the intellect is faith, through which the intellect is subjected to Christ; hence he says *in faith*. Heb. 11:6: *without faith it is impossible to please God*. And because faith is worth nothing without love, therefore as to the affections he immediately adds, saying *and love*. 1 Cor. 13:2: *if I have all faith, so that I could move mountains, but have not charity, I am nothing*, etc. But as to the exterior, he sets down two things against wantonness, which consists in two things, namely in lust; and as to this he says *in sanctification*, that is, in chastity. 1 Thess. 4:3: *this is the will of God, your sanctification*, etc. Likewise in drunkenness, against which he says *with sobriety*. Titus 2:12: *that we should live soberly, and godly, and justly in this world*.”

Post-Reformation

c. 1650 – 1900
1771
A.D.
John Gill Reformed
1697–1771
“But I suffer not a woman to teach, They may teach in private, in their own houses and families; they are to be teachers of good things, Tit 2:3. They are to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; nor is the law or doctrine of a mother to be forsaken, any more than the instruction of a father; see Pro 1:8. Timothy, no doubt, received much advantage, from the private teachings and instructions of his mother Eunice, and grandmother Lois; but then women are not to teach in the church; for that is an act of power and authority, and supposes the persons that teach to be of a superior degree, and in a superior office, and to have superior abilities to those who are taught by them: nor to usurp authority over the man; as not in civil and political things, or in things relating to civil government; and in things domestic, or the affairs of the family; so not in things ecclesiastical, or what relate to the church and government of it; for one part of rule is to feed the church with knowledge and understanding; and for a woman to take upon her to do this, is to usurp an authority over the man: this therefore she ought not to do, but to be in silence; to sit and hear quietly and silently, and learn, and not teach, as in Ti1 2:11.”
Source
1832
A.D.
Adam Clarke Methodist
1762–1832
“Let the woman learn in silence - This is generally supposed to be a prohibition of women's preaching. I have already said what I judge necessary on this subject in the notes on Co1 11:5, etc., and Co1 14:34 (note), Co1 14:35 (note); to which places I beg leave to refer the reader.”
1849
A.D.
1774–1849
“In silence. See 1 Corinthians xiv. 34. See St. Chrysostom.[3] (Witham)”
1871
A.D.
1871
“learn--not "teach" (Ti1 2:12; Co1 14:34). She should not even put questions in the public assembly (Co1 14:35). with all subjection--not "usurping authority" (Ti1 2:12). She might teach, but not in public (Act 18:26). Paul probably wrote this Epistle from Corinth, where the precept (Co1 14:34) was in force.”
Modern · 1953 →

The in-app commentary runs from the Fathers to the early-modern record, then stops — that's where the public-domain sources end, not where the reading does. For the modern reading, follow the sources directly.