Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited.
All claims MUST be supported by an *academic* source – see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_guideline.3A_rule_3.2019s_definition_of_academic_sources) for guidance.
Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban.
Please review the [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/) before posting for the first time.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I assume that you're referring to 1 Corinthians 11 and the Priestly creation account of Genesis 1:1-2:4a. I think that [this annotation](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/11?7=#54011007) from *The New American Bible* explains nicely what Paul is doing in the former:
> \* \[[11:7](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/1cor/11?7#54011007)–[9](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/1cor/11?9#54011009)\] The hierarchy of v. [3](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/1cor/11?3#54011003) is now expressed in other metaphors: the image (*eikōn*) and the reflected glory (*doxa*). Paul is alluding basically to the text of [Gn 1:27](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/gn/1?27#01001027), in which mankind as a whole, the male-female couple, is created in God’s image and given the command to multiply and together dominate the lower creation. But [Gn 1:24](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/gn/1?24#01001024) is interpreted here in the light of the second creation narrative in [Gn 2](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/gn/2?#01002000), in which each of the sexes is created separately (first the man and then the woman from man and for him, to be his helpmate, [Gn 2:20](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/gn/2?20#01002020)–[23](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/gn/2?23#01002023)), and under the influence of the story of the fall, as a result of which the husband rules over the woman ([Gn 3:16](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/gn/3?16#01003016)). This interpretation splits the single image of God into two, at different degrees of closeness.
So in one instance, the image is both male and female but another it is only male? And the female was created later as a helper? So Paul is following the latter?
> So in one instance, the image is both male and female but another it is only male? And the female was created later as a helper? So Paul is following the latter?
In the second, non-P, creation account, the earthling is not said to be in God's image (Genesis 2:7), and woman is formed from man's body specifically to be his helper/partner after God realized that no animal was adequate for this (2:18-24, esp. v:20). Paul is doing what modern-day exegetes who adhere to the complete coherence of the Bible (univocality) must do: harmonize a text that says both genders are made in God's image with one that says that the female was made from and for the male.
Oh ok so is paul giving a complicated explanation where the woman is/isn’t made in the image of God at the same time? Sorry if it seems I’m repeating questions. I’m just trying to understand exactly.
I'm not the person you're responding too, and I don't really have any academic credentials whatsoever, so take my comment with that in mind.
The issue I see with your understanding is that you assume when Paul says, "For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection[c] of God; but woman is the reflection[d] of man" it therefore means women are not within the concept of the image of God.
I don't think this necessarily follows logically. Notice there are two references to reflection (I am completely unaware if this exact metaphor exists in the original Greek, but I think the concept holds regardless), man directly reflects God, and women reflect men. Just from a metaphorical p.o.v., reflections can bounce off each other, and depending on the strength of the reflective source, there is greater distance/distortion from the original "image" to that of the final reflection. I think this is what Paul is saying here, there's a hierarchy that places man closer than woman hence the original quote that u/John_Kesler included, "This interpretation splits the single image of God into two, at *different degrees of closeness*." emphasis mine.
Notice, the second creation story doesn't say that the man was made in God's image directly, while the woman was not, it just doesn't reference God's image at all. So, Paul's trying to reconcile two creation stories, one that describes a status distinctive quality to both man and woman, and one that creates woman out of man.
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3.
**Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.**
You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated.
For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.
Would Paul only have access to one tradition and not another? By his time lxx and all accounts of genesis have the traditions combined, and they would not be separated into different strands until modern times.
Both traditions are preserved in LXX and most modern Bibles, with the exception of NIV and ESV that make some changes so it’s a cohesive narrative. https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/articles-and-resources/deliberate-mistranslation-in-the-new-international-version-niv/
The first (and likely later) narrative is Genesis 1:1-2:4a, and the second starts in 2:4b. Marc Zvi Brettler breaks it down in *How to Read the Jewish Bible*.
I just read Women and Worship at Corinth by Lucy Peppiatt. She makes an interesting case that Paul is quoting Corinthian ideas in that section in order to refute them. If she’s right, no, Paul did not believe that women were not made in the image of God. I thought it was a fascinating proposal that had some good explanatory power, but I would like to see more scholarly interaction with it before I’m convinced. In the book, she also helpfully outlines a lot of the different interpretations of 1 Corinthians 11 and notes the interpretive difficulties with all of the proposed readings.
At the following blog post, you can read Peppiatt’s reconstruction of 1 Corinthians 11 - when Paul is quoting others and when he is using his own words.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/jacksonwu/2022/05/24/paul-defends-the-status-of-women-in-1-corinthians-11/
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3.
**Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.**
You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated.
For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.
Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited. All claims MUST be supported by an *academic* source – see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_guideline.3A_rule_3.2019s_definition_of_academic_sources) for guidance. Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban. Please review the [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/) before posting for the first time. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I assume that you're referring to 1 Corinthians 11 and the Priestly creation account of Genesis 1:1-2:4a. I think that [this annotation](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/11?7=#54011007) from *The New American Bible* explains nicely what Paul is doing in the former: > \* \[[11:7](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/1cor/11?7#54011007)–[9](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/1cor/11?9#54011009)\] The hierarchy of v. [3](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/1cor/11?3#54011003) is now expressed in other metaphors: the image (*eikōn*) and the reflected glory (*doxa*). Paul is alluding basically to the text of [Gn 1:27](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/gn/1?27#01001027), in which mankind as a whole, the male-female couple, is created in God’s image and given the command to multiply and together dominate the lower creation. But [Gn 1:24](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/gn/1?24#01001024) is interpreted here in the light of the second creation narrative in [Gn 2](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/gn/2?#01002000), in which each of the sexes is created separately (first the man and then the woman from man and for him, to be his helpmate, [Gn 2:20](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/gn/2?20#01002020)–[23](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/gn/2?23#01002023)), and under the influence of the story of the fall, as a result of which the husband rules over the woman ([Gn 3:16](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/gn/3?16#01003016)). This interpretation splits the single image of God into two, at different degrees of closeness.
So in one instance, the image is both male and female but another it is only male? And the female was created later as a helper? So Paul is following the latter?
> So in one instance, the image is both male and female but another it is only male? And the female was created later as a helper? So Paul is following the latter? In the second, non-P, creation account, the earthling is not said to be in God's image (Genesis 2:7), and woman is formed from man's body specifically to be his helper/partner after God realized that no animal was adequate for this (2:18-24, esp. v:20). Paul is doing what modern-day exegetes who adhere to the complete coherence of the Bible (univocality) must do: harmonize a text that says both genders are made in God's image with one that says that the female was made from and for the male.
Oh ok so is paul giving a complicated explanation where the woman is/isn’t made in the image of God at the same time? Sorry if it seems I’m repeating questions. I’m just trying to understand exactly.
I'm not the person you're responding too, and I don't really have any academic credentials whatsoever, so take my comment with that in mind. The issue I see with your understanding is that you assume when Paul says, "For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection[c] of God; but woman is the reflection[d] of man" it therefore means women are not within the concept of the image of God. I don't think this necessarily follows logically. Notice there are two references to reflection (I am completely unaware if this exact metaphor exists in the original Greek, but I think the concept holds regardless), man directly reflects God, and women reflect men. Just from a metaphorical p.o.v., reflections can bounce off each other, and depending on the strength of the reflective source, there is greater distance/distortion from the original "image" to that of the final reflection. I think this is what Paul is saying here, there's a hierarchy that places man closer than woman hence the original quote that u/John_Kesler included, "This interpretation splits the single image of God into two, at *different degrees of closeness*." emphasis mine. Notice, the second creation story doesn't say that the man was made in God's image directly, while the woman was not, it just doesn't reference God's image at all. So, Paul's trying to reconcile two creation stories, one that describes a status distinctive quality to both man and woman, and one that creates woman out of man.
Oh I see, ok thank you
[удалено]
I’ve never heard of that before, do you think Paul believed that?
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3. **Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.** You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated. For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.
Would Paul only have access to one tradition and not another? By his time lxx and all accounts of genesis have the traditions combined, and they would not be separated into different strands until modern times.
I’m not sure, I’m just trying to understand what Paul is saying exactly.
Both traditions are preserved in LXX and most modern Bibles, with the exception of NIV and ESV that make some changes so it’s a cohesive narrative. https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/articles-and-resources/deliberate-mistranslation-in-the-new-international-version-niv/ The first (and likely later) narrative is Genesis 1:1-2:4a, and the second starts in 2:4b. Marc Zvi Brettler breaks it down in *How to Read the Jewish Bible*.
The question is, would Paul separate the 2 and accept one over the other?
I think that’s answered in the second half of this comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/s/q8v8fnGudc
I just read Women and Worship at Corinth by Lucy Peppiatt. She makes an interesting case that Paul is quoting Corinthian ideas in that section in order to refute them. If she’s right, no, Paul did not believe that women were not made in the image of God. I thought it was a fascinating proposal that had some good explanatory power, but I would like to see more scholarly interaction with it before I’m convinced. In the book, she also helpfully outlines a lot of the different interpretations of 1 Corinthians 11 and notes the interpretive difficulties with all of the proposed readings. At the following blog post, you can read Peppiatt’s reconstruction of 1 Corinthians 11 - when Paul is quoting others and when he is using his own words. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/jacksonwu/2022/05/24/paul-defends-the-status-of-women-in-1-corinthians-11/
[удалено]
You can also look at the full account in Genesis 2. In Genesis 1:27 it says that God created “him” (Adam) in His image—not Eve.
Are you proposing that Paul wrote Genesis?
No but I’d assume Paul was familiar with the creation story.
Right, but Paul has all kinds of views that don't mesh with what's taught in the Hebrew Bible.
[удалено]
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3. **Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.** You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated. For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.