It is six and a half minutes long. Feel free to leave your comments below.
NT Pod Episode 4: Does 1 Cor. 11.15 refer to a "testicle"? (mp3)
The podcast provides a summary of a talk I recently gave in Rome, at the SBL International Meeting, for which I provided a hand-out (PDF), which may be useful to some -- it summarizes the argument and gives the background texts.
Key texts: 1 Corinthians 11.1-16
Thanks to Ram2000, Me and You, for the opening theme, released under a Creative Commons agreement.
Fitzmyer's latest commentary on 1 Corinthians mentions Martin's proposal and blasts it as completely unconvincing, but without actually arguing the case.
ReplyDeleteMany thanks for the reference, Stephen. I've just looked it up. Yes, "completely far-fetched", but without engaging it. Well, perhaps in future commentaries, they'll say "See Goodacre" :)
ReplyDeleteHi Mark, I think that Bruce W. Winter deals with this issues very well and provides a great understanding of what Paul is talking about. His book is called "After Paul Left Corinth" (The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change) Bless you brother, enjoying the pod cast.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Andrew for your kind words and also for the recommendation of Winter. I've begun to read the relevant chapter already and am finding it helpful.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you've seen Murphy O'Connor's review of Fitzmyer that just came out in Revue Biblique. He points out that Fitzmyer does that (i.e. rejecting a view without an argument) quite a bit in the commentary. Thanks for the podcast.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Brian. I hadn't seen that, so thanks for the reference and the helpful comment.
ReplyDeleteBut does this undermine his basic argument that the purpose of hair in the first century was thought to be the storage of semen? This seems to me to be important background to the rhetorical tone of 1 Cor 11. Ian Paul
ReplyDeleteThanks, Ian. But even if that is the case in 1 Cor. 11, it cannot alter the difficulty that PERIBOLAION simply cannot mean "testicle" here.
ReplyDeleteHi Dr. Goodacre, love the podcast thus far. I was wondering if you've seen Dr. Michael Heiser's podcast on this very subject, where he seems to argue for it positively, citing Martin's paper, a rebuttal, and Martin' responding again in great detail? Here is the link: http://www.nakedbiblepodcast.com/naked-bible-86-the-head-covering-of-1-corinthians-1113-15/
ReplyDeleteThanks, Nathan. Oh, I hadn't realized that Mike had produced that podcast. I recall his enthusiasm for Troy Martin's article from some years ago. From his podcast, he does not engage with my response to Martin except so say that he does not find it convincing, e.g. he does not discuss either of Martin's weak alleged cases of peribolain = testicle.
ReplyDelete