To demonstrate his claim in 1 Cor 11:2–16 about how a Christian man and woman should wear their hair during liturgical worship, Paul uses several types of arguments, including Scripture (vv. 7–12). In v. 7, he states that “A man should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but a woman is the glory of man” (NAB). Most readers today, question the soundness of such an argument and may accuse Paul of misogyny. Does he not, contrary to what Gen 1:26–27 asserts, contend that the woman was not created in the image of God? The present study argues that Paul’s position can be better understood only if one, on the one hand, highlights the points of his argumentation and, on the other hand, considers the techniques of the Jewish theory of interpretation of the Scriptures in practice at the time of the Apostle. Paul is doing a Midrashic reading of Gen 1–3 narratives about the creation of human beings to assert the importance of both man and woman to behavior during Christian liturgical worship in such manner that they respect their specific dignities. At the end, Paul seems to be more “philogynist” than people use to appreciate.
Repetition in Bible narratives is very often a sign for scholars to identify in the text the presence either of a doublet or of different sources. One of the examples is the end of the story of the Creation, the lost Paradise (Gen 2–3). This article analyses the conclusion of the story (Gen 3:23-24) trying to answer the question: Is Genesis 2–3, a narrative with a double conclusion? The analysis is divided into four sections, complementary to each other. The first part of the research has a preliminary character, dedicated to the delimitation of the text. The second part compares Gen 3:23 and Gen 3:24, at the level of style and content; the third part concerns the comparison between Gen 3:23-24 and other narratives in the Bible that possess a similar concluding structure. Finally, the forth part is dedicated to the study of the legal meaning of two particular verbs xlv (send away) and vrg (drive out) and other legal aspects of the narrative in Gen 3.
IT
Repetition in Bible narratives is very often a sign for scholars to identify inthe text the presence either of a doublet or of different sources. One of the examples is the end of the story of the Creation, the lost Paradise (Gen 2–3). This article analyses the conclusion of the story (Gen 3:23-24) trying to answer the question: Is Genesis 2–3, a narrative with a double conclusion? The analysis is divided into four sections, complementary to each other. The first part of the research has a preliminary character, dedicated to the delimitation of the text. The second part compares Gen 3:23 and Gen 3:24, at the level of style and content; the third part concerns the comparison between Gen 3:23-24 and other narratives in the Bible that possess a similar concluding structure. Finally, the forth part is dedicated to the study of the legal meaning of two particular verbs šlh (send away) and grš (drive out) and other legal aspects of the narrative in Gen 3.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.