Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: EPISPAOMAI in 1 Cor 7:18

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Billy Evans <biblewje AT comcast.net>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: EPISPAOMAI in 1 Cor 7:18
  • Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 14:42:08 -0500


on 9/18/02 6:58 AM, Mark D. Nanos at nanosmd AT comcast.net wrote:

> on 9/17/02 8:12 PM, Billy Evans at biblewje AT comcast.net wrote:
>
>> Charles and specifically Mark:
>>
>> I refer you to my earlier response today. And Mark, logically, if Jewish
>> Christians were not removing their marks why would Paul address it?
>
> Rhetoric is/was a funny animal. Are you familiar with Eric Gruen, Heritage
> and Hellenism, U. of California? I highly recommend it for the kind of
> "rhetorical" question you pose.
>
>> Of
>> course, the literature is quite full of such examples as I said earlier as
>> well as are rabbinic literatures which addresses it. I might add that this
>> issue was addressed (early Jewish Christians removing their mark) at Hebrew
>> Union, in embarassment I should add. I believe my friend Richard Oster
>> even
>> documents such practices found on iconographies (but I am not certain on
>> this fact).
>
> I still remain unaware of any references, much less many references to early
> Jewish Christians receiving epispasm. I do not doubt some cases, but I do
> doubt it represented the ideological convictions of the kind of Jewish
> believers in Christ of which we read in the NT. Please provide some evidence
> to the contrary that may be evaluated. I also do not understand the comment
> about embarrassment at Hebrew U regarding this historical question; please
> explain.
>
> Regards,
> Mark
Mark

It was indeed a sore spot (nice pun) when rabbis at HUC unveiled Jewish
conversions to Christianity. It was more of an additional slap to tell
rabbinic students that some circumcised males even had the mark removed (as
if to spit on Jewish tradition). I always tried to remain neutral with
regard to religious differences on that campus since I was a guest (being
admitted and paid to attend). When the epispasm was broached I always felt
like rabbinic eyes were on me to check my reaction. It was certainly the
case when a fellow Christian in one of my classes renounced Christ to become
Jewish.

I thank Professor Krenz for providing enough info regarding epispasm. I
even printed the article for my own files. Thanks again Doyen.

Finally, regarding the U of Calif book you mentioned. Mark, I am always
willing to read something new. I have over two hundred books in my library
regarding linguistics alone. The list ranges from Derrida, Saussure etc,
new horizons (actually a title) by Thiselton (I have four of his books: New
Horizons, the Two Horizons, Interpreting God and the Postmodern Self, and
one other that escapes me at the moment), Gadamer's Truth and Method, to
twenty or so on Semiotics, ten on Structuralism (D. Patte and others,
Poststructuralism by Moore et al and about thirty others covering things
like deconstructionism, reader response criticism, Feministic criticisms,
Rhetorical and other forms of narrative criticisms. Stalking the Wild Verb
(a favorite of S A Kaufman) by Fradkin throws serious questions at normative
English grammar. And, this is only the beginning. I know that I did not
mention the science of metacriticism or the research I did (180 page paper)
on the Philosophical presuppositions (not theological presuppositions)
involved in the history of biblical interpretation (this involves reading
primary text from Descartes, kant, Hume, Spinoza Hobbs, Heidegger, Reicour
et al. Of course my dissertation from UNISA on relecture and antilanguage in
the Fourth Gospel and Johannine epistles covered linguistics more than even
biblical backgrounds (after all, that is where Johannine studies are at
present). I only say all of this because I take advice seriously, but I do
have children in Vanderbilt and a top Opera school in the world so my wife
has put restrictions on my book purchasing: I only buy now what I will refer
to again and again.

As you said Rhetoric is/was a funny animal. Thus, indulge me once more: I
do not know if you meant a question in which the answer was assumed or in
the sense of rhetorical criticism. Anyway it is profitable to communicate
with our language in hope of developing better skills in listening to
ancient texts (texts not in the philosophical vein but historical critical
sense). If you still feel I would benefit from reading the book you
suggested, kindly let me know now after I have spilled my soul over the
digital world

In ending...here is a laugh and a reason to pause to think. It cam from a
sermon I preached at Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis back in 1991:

"I shot an elephant in my pajamas, how it got in my pajamas I don't know,"
G. Marx. [It is indeed funny.]

When we get the words of someone right but misunderstand the meaning, we
call it a comedy. We all love to laugh. However, when the same thing
happens with regards to the Bible, it is not a comedy, but a tragedy.

In other words, we can get all the "words" of God right but misunderstand
the entire "Word" of God. That is not funny; that is serious.

I am always willing to learn. May God keep me open.

--
William "Billy" J Evans Jr-Nashville
Doctorate Rabbinics, Dead Sea Scrolls, Targums at Hebrew Union College
Doctorate in NT at University of So. Africa






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page