Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumbledore
So you are right that "and" is there instead of "nor". A point could be made that the NIV translation was not literal. However I must challenge your interpretation of the significance of this. Is it likely that Paul given his rigid gender boundaries would intend to express a form of gender-blending in his letter? Very unlikely I would say. If it cannot mean that in the original context, I'm not sure it can be applied that way in modernity.
|
Some scholars (I think of Dominic Crossan, for instance) don't think the real Paul was as sexist or "rigid" as you allege. There is a very strong case that such things as "women should be silent in church" etc. were not by the real Paul, but by person(s) writing in Paul's name.
Crossan argues that there was a strain in early Christianity (which Paul may be reflecting here) that believed that gender differentiation into male and female was not the original condition of humanity (this is an interpretation of the "second" creation story in Genesis). The original "Adam" was not differentiated into male and female until after the "operation" that created Eve.
Steven Webster