Seminal Issues in Biblical Genitalia
Sara Parks, “The Greek Hat: 2 Maccabees 4:12 as a Euphemism for Reverse Circumcision,” 1-20.
KEYWORDS: Epispasm, 2 Maccabees, Judaism, Hellenism, Torah, petasos, circumcision
Biblical Hebrew is known for its creative avoidance of mentioning intimate body parts. Did such euphemisms continue in Greek-speaking Judaism? This article proposes that the “Greek hat” in 2 Maccabees 4:12 is not (or at least not only) a literal hat or a vague metaphor for Hellenism, as has been suggested through the centuries. Instead, it is a sly euphemism for a foreskin, and refers to the practice of epispasm, or the restructuring of a penis to reverse the look of circumcision. Such a reading fits well with the text’s anxiety around the gymnasium and its concern for Torah observance.
Michael Peppard, “Bearing a “Jewish Weight”: A New Interpretation of a Greek Comedic Papyrus About Athletics (CPJ 3.519),” 21-41.
KEYWORDS: circumcision, epispasm, Jewish identity, Martial, mime, papyrology
This article offers a new interpretation of the phrase “Jewish weight,” especially as it is used in the Greek papyrus known as CPJ 3.519. The Roman-era papyrus preserves part of a work of otherwise unknown fiction, probably a script of a comedic mime about an athletic contest in a gymnasium. Contrary to previous interpreters, a new reading of the “Jewish weight” proposes that the fictional athlete is neither Jewish nor circumcised, but rather a non-Jew who is described as looking Jewish based on the appearance of his genitalia in the nude. “Jewish weight” thus means “an exposed glans, such as Jews have.” This meaning could also work for the only other extant usage of the phrase, in a bawdy Latin epigram of Martial about which classical scholars have disagreed. The argument is bolstered by ancient medical literature that attests to non-circumcised, non-Jewish men who had congenitally short foreskins. These “lipodermic” men could be liable to mockery in settings of nudity, since they bore a sign of imperfect masculinity according to a dominant Hellenistic and Roman cultural ideology of manhood. The article concludes with supporting examples from the Graeco-Roman social context and analogies to other forms of attempted humour that combine sexuality and ethnicity.
Michael Pope, “What Exactly Did Mary ‘Conceive’ in Her Womb?”, 42-53.
KEYWORDS: Luke, annunciation, semen, pregnancy, Mary, gynaecology
The language Luke uses to depict conception in his infancy narrative calls upon established medical discourse for fertilisation. My argument in this philological study is that ancient gynaecology prompts us to give full weight to the literal meaning of Gabriel’s term sullambanein (“to conceive/grasp”) and to ask what grammatical and material object, other than a son, Mary might have “grasped” in her uterus.
Esther Brownsmith, “Queer Futures and Phallic Humour in the Book of Esther,” 54-80.
KEYWORDS: Esther, eunuchs, euphemism, hands, phalli
In ancient Hebrew, the word for “hand” can also refer metaphorically to personal power—or be innuendo for the phallus. This observation serves as a key to the many appearances of “hands” in the book of Esther, from the king’s superlative “hand” to the ever-active “hands” of eunuchs. This abundance of hands has an ironic significance, alternately humorous and profound, as it points to the non-procreative nature of power in Esther’s Persia. Drawing from Lee Edelman’s theory of reproductive futurism, this article examines the upside-down, queer world of Esther, where the “hands” that matter are precisely those “hands” that society views as disabled.