EPISPAOMAI in 1 Cor 7:18
Steven Lo Vullo
slovullo at mac.com
Sun Sep 22 18:54:49 EDT 2002
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 04:02 PM, Mark Wilson wrote:
> Just thought I would offer this highly speculative question:
>
>> Does anyone have any information on the use of the NT hapax
>> EPISPAOMAI ("to remove the marks of circumcision")in 1 Cor 7:18.
>
> Seems that EPISPAOMAI is used often in the sense of being "drawn
> away," perhaps more mild, to be "allured," or more harsh, to be
> "dragged."
In the posts I have seen on this thread, I do not think anyone has
commented on the use of EPISPAOMAI as a perfectly fitting verb for
hiding or reversing the effects of circumcision. One quite literal
meaning of the word is to draw or pull something forward or over. It is
no wonder that it would be used as a medical technical term for pulling
the foreskin forward over the top of the penis. Both LSJ and BDAG cite
a passage in Soranus (Gynaec. 2, 34) where it is enjoined on a nurse:
EPISPASQW THN AKROPOSQIAN ("let her pull forward the tip of the
foreskin"). This appears to be a reference to pulling the foreskin
forward over the top of the penis. Note BDAG:
"3. medical t.t. to pull the foreskin over the end of the penis, pull
over the foreskin (Soranus, Gynaec. 2, 34 p. 79, 1 of a nurse:
EPISPASQW THN AKROPOSQIAN) to conceal circumcision 1 Cor 7:18 (this
special use of the word is not found elsewh., not even 4 Macc 5:2,
where EPISPASQAI means 'drag up', as 10:12). On epispasm [rabbinic
JKAvDm], as done by Hellenizing Israelites, esp. ephebes, to undo their
circumcision s. 1 Macc 1:15; Jos., Ant. 12, 241; Billerb. IV 33f;
MHengel, Judaism and Hellenism ’74, I 74, II 51f, n. 138 [lit.]; RHall,
Epispasm—Circumcision in Reverse: BR 18/4, ’92, 52–57.—M-M."
And Louw-Nida:
"53.52 EPISPAOMAI: (a technical and medical term) to pull the foreskin
over the end of the penis as a means of concealing former circumcision
— 'to conceal circumcision, to extend the foreskin.' MH EPISPASQW 'do
not conceal the circumcision' 1Cor 7:18.
A literal and descriptive rendering of epispaomai could prove to be
quite vulgar in some languages. Furthermore, such a practice might seem
to be medically impossible or absurd, so that in general, translators
have used some such expression as ‘do not conceal the circumcision’ or
‘do not change the circumcision to appear like uncircumcision,’ but
often some additional marginal note is required if people are to
understand satisfactorily what is involved."
Note that Louw-Nida is not saying that such a thing *is* impossible,
but that it might "seem" such to some.
So, lexically speaking, there is no compelling reason to overturn the
traditional understanding here, reflected in every translation I know
of.
> Could it be that Paul is commanding those who had been circumcised
> not to be drawn away or allured by the non-circumcised party? After
> all, the next sentence is to those who are uncircumcised not
> to be drawn into the circumcised party (and presumedly be circumcised).
There is nothing here about a circumcised "party" or an uncircumcised
"party." The uncircumcised men of Corinth are exhorted not to be
circumcised (MH PERITEMNESQW), not to resist a "circumcised party." The
idea of joining an organized "circumcised party" or "uncircumcised
party" must be read into the text. If there were any such parties in
Corinth at this time, they would no doubt have provoked Paul into an
extended response (such as in Galatians), rather than a mere aside,
since this would be viewed as something very serious indeed. But the
whole idea of this section is that different classes of Corinthian
Christians be content in and remain in the life *condition* in which
they were called (vv. 17, 20, 24). Paul goes on to mention slaves (vv.
21-24) and the married and single (vv. 25ff.) . Surely there were no
organized "slave" and "non-slave" parties at Corinth from which to
choose, or a "married party" vs. a "singles party." Moreover, how on
earth could an already circumcised man join an uncircumcised party
without somehow reversing the marks of circumcision, which according to
you is impossible? But once you admit it is possible, the whole
objection to understanding MH EPISPASQW as "do not become
uncircumcised" flies out the window.
I think this also misses the parallel contrast between the two
sentences: PERITETMHMENOS TIS EKLHQH ... EN AKROBUSTIAi KEKLHTAI TIS
(was someone called circumcised .... has someone been called in
uncircumcision) and MH EPISPASQW ... MH PERITEMNESQW ("let him not
become uncircumcised ... let him not be circumcised"). If PERITEMNESQW
means "be circumcised" (which it does) then it naturally follows that,
in this context, EPISPASQW means "become uncircumcised."
> What I am assuming then is not that these were being asked to somehow
> reverse circumcision (an impossibility), but that they were being
> ask to withdraw from one party (here, the circumcized party)
> to the opposing party, this by attraction or allurement. This is
> similar to the party lines found in Chapter 1. "I am of Paul..." Here,
> the party lines are drawn based on some ritual mark on the body,
> or lack thereof.
First of all, there is no evidence that anyone was being "asked" to do
anything. This is an assumption that I think reflects the tendency of
trying to find an agitator or "party" behind practically everything
Paul says.
Was it impossible to reattach the original foreskin, lost so long ago?
Yes. But was it impossible to regain, at least to some degree, the
appearance of uncircumcision? Apparently not. The texts I mentioned in
my last post on this issue indicate that this was precisely what many
Jews did during the days of the Maccabees. Whether there was some
surgical procedure available, or some lengthy and painful process of
stretching the remaining skin over the top of the penis, I do not know.
But it does appear that it was possible to regain the appearance of
circumcision, at least to some degree.
As for the parties mentioned in 1 Cor 1, these are not only explicitly
identified, but Paul spends four chapters dealing with the "wisdom of
the world" behind such party spirit! Does anyone seriously think that
if there had been an organized "circumcision party" in Corinth at this
time Paul would have addressed it with practically an aside, rather
than with a lengthy rebuttal of the errors of its champions? This was
no insignificant issue with Paul, as Galatians bears witness. Now
imagine that there was not only a "circumcision party" but also an
"uncircumcision party," and that the two factions were fighting over
members. Does anyone really suppose that this would not have called
forth a detailed response?
============
Steven R. Lo Vullo
Madison, WI
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list