gengwall
2011-06-08
“It only does these with some assumptions unfortunately. Technically, all Paul tells us about Eve is that she was formed after Adam – that’s all.”
I disagree. I think Paul gives us enough to make the Eve-Ephesian woman connection. Let’s say we know the Ephesian woman’s name – we’ll call her Jane. Then, vss. 13-14 could have been written:
For Adam was created first and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but Jane, having been deceived has fallen into transgression.
If I read that, I have no problem seeing the connection between Jane and Eve. Paul has simply substituted Jane for Eve in his second comparison, but Eve is still in the picture because of her inclusion in the first and the knowledge we have that she was deceived. Jane is like Eve. I don’t have to assume anything to come to that conclusion. (Unless you believe it is an assumption that Eve was deceived.)
Jane is “the woman”; “the woman” is Jane. The two are interchangeable. So I don’t need either of my prior parenthetical “helps” to come to the view I hold. Nor do I need to make any assumptions about Eve or read Eve into the second part of vs. 14. Paul brings up Eve for a reason. The reason becomes clear at “the woman…”.
Your Tags
Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.
...more
Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.
...more