Circumcision as a Malleable Symbol 3161506286, 9783161506284, 9783161516382

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Friedrich Avemarie (Marburg) Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL)

295

Nina E. Livesey

Circumcision as a Malleable Symbol

Mohr Siebeck

Nina E. Livesey, born 1953; Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Oklahoma in Norman, Oklahoma.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-151638-2 ISBN 978-3-16-150628-4 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. © 2010 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Preface This monograph is a revision of my 2007 Ph.D. dissertation, submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Dedman College at Southern Methodist University. The present work differs from the dissertation in that an entire chapter on Justin’s treatments of circumcision has been removed, and a brief history of the interpretation of circumcision (chapter five) inserted in its stead. Chapter five, while omitted from the dissertation is the result of research begun during my year-long research trip to Paris, France (2005-2006). It represents work undertaken at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France (BnF), the Bibliothèque Augustinienne and the Bibliothèque Saulchoir. I am convinced that the concentration on the ancient and medieval exegetes would not have been considered had I not been surrounded by a still visible medieval culture in Paris. Not only were the ancient and medieval textual sources readily available, but so also was the darker side of the history between Christians and Jews still visible. Perhaps I need only cite the example of the well-known female statues that frame the main and western entrance to Notre Dame cathedral. On the right stands the erect Ecclesia, standing proud, a halo framing her head, with a cup in her left hand and a tall cross-affixed shaft in her right; and on the left is the dejected and defeated Sinagoga, hips to the left and shoulders to the right, a rigid band covering her eyes blinding her, holding a broken shaft, with her crown on its side on the ground and the tablets of the law pointing downward and nearly falling from her right hand. It is my hope that the present monograph ameliorates in a small way the false and damaging image of Jews and Judaism, exemplified by these medieval statues, but that still lingers in the Christian imagination. I owe my supervising director, the now Emeritus Professor Jouette M. Bassler, my deepest gratitude for the extensive time and care she took in reviewing each and every chapter of my dissertation. The present revisions were made without her consultation and careful oversight, so that errors and omissions that remain are solely my own. I am also grateful for the many helpful comments of my two internal examiners at Southern Methodist University, Professors Jamie Clark-Soles and Valerie Karras and for the help of Professor Bruce Marshall in unpacking the writings of Augustine and Aquinas. In addition, my outside examiner Professor Bernard B. Scott, provided invaluable suggestions regarding the dissertation’s overall focus and direction. This revision incorporates many of his helpful suggestions. Again, errors and omis-

VI

Preface

sions that remain are entirely my own doing. I owe a special thanks to Professor Mark D. Nanos, who read through an earlier draft of this monograph and offered several valuable comments. Mark’s extensive work on Paul has been a steady source of inspiration to me. He, perhaps more than any other modern Pauline scholar I know, has challenged the strongly entrenched anti-Judaic interpretations within the field of Pauline studies. I would also like to thank those in my midst at the University of Oklahoma including Dean Paul Bell, Dr. Trent Gabert, Professor Charles Kimball, and Dean James Pappas for their encouragement and support. Beth McCoy, IT Specialist, has assisted me many times with the technical aspects of bringing this monograph to publication. Finally, I am most grateful to the series editor, Professor Jörg Frey without whose recommendation this monograph would not have come to publication and to the editorial staff at Mohr Siebeck, especially Tanja Mix. Much thanks is due especially to Dr. Henning Ziebritzki, who took time to meet with me on numerous occasions at various meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature. It was his willingness to review my revised dissertation that provided the necessary encouragement and motivation to complete the revisions. Last, but certainly not least, I owe my greatest debt of gratitude to my companion, Professor Steven J. Livesey. Steve has been my model of a dedicated scholar and a steady source of support and encouragement of my scholarly interests from their inception. I consider myself extremely fortunate to have such a companion in life. This book is dedicated to him. Norman, 7 October 2010

Nina E. Livesey

Table of Contents Preface .............................................................................................................V Table of Contents ......................................................................................... VII Abbreviations ..................................................................................................X

Introduction ...................................................................................................1 Chapter 1: Circumcision in 1 Maccabees, Jubilees, 2 and 4 Maccabees .....................................................................9 A. 1 Maccabees: Circumcision as a mark of allegiance to Hasmonean rule .....................................................................................10 B. Jubilees: Circumcision as a mark of allegiance to a strict legal code and the identification as a “son of the covenant” ...............................16 C. 2 Maccabees: Circumcision as a mark of pious sacrifice ..........................22 D. 4 Maccabees: Circumcision as a mark of the use of pious reason over the passions ..................................................................27 Conclusions ....................................................................................................32

Chapter 2: Circumcision in Josephus ...................................................34 Circumcision as commitment to Judaism .......................................................35 Conclusions ....................................................................................................40

Chapter 3: Circumcision in Philo ..........................................................41 Introduction ....................................................................................................41 A. De specialibus legibus 1: The mark of circumcision as the promotion of health, life and well-being ...................................................46 B. Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3: The mark of circumcision draws the mind closer to God .........................58

VIII

Table of Contents

C. De migratione Abrahami: The mark of circumcision benefits the mind and gains the respect of fellow Jews ..........................................69 D. Conclusions ...............................................................................................74

Chapter 4: Circumcision in Paul’s Letters ..........................................77 A. Circumcision in Galatians .........................................................................79 I. “The circumcision” are Jews who uphold the Jewish law ......................80 II. The mark of circumcision confers a slave-like condition on Gentiles ...87 B. Philippians: “The circumcision” are those concerned for the heavenly realm ...............................................................................94 C. 1 Corinthians: The mark of circumcision means nothing for those called heavenward ...................................................................................100 D. Circumcision in Romans .........................................................................104 I. Circumcision as a metaphor for someone who follows God’s statutes .........................................................................107 II. Circumcision as an allegory for the righteousness of faithfulness ...............................................................113 Conclusions ..................................................................................................120

Chapter 5: A Brief History of the Interpretation of Circumcision ........................................................................................123 A. Ancient and Medieval Interpreters of Circumcision ..............................124 I. Circumcision in the writings of Justin ................................................124 II. Circumcision in the writings of Augustine ..........................................131 III. Circumcision in the writings of Aquinas .............................................135 IV. Circumcision in the writings of Luther ...............................................139 B. Modern Interpreters of Circumcision ......................................................143 I. Circumcision in the writings of Rudolf Bultmann ...............................144 II. Circumcision in the writings of Ernst Käsemann ................................145 III. Circumcision as a work of law that does not bring about salvation .............................................................146 IV. Circumcision as an indication of achievement and boasting ....................................................................147 V. Circumcision as a badge of distinction ................................................148 VI. Circumcision as representative of an ineffectual religion or lifestyle ........................................................149 VII. Circumcision as the sign of a Jew .......................................................150 Conclusions ..................................................................................................153

Table of Contents

IX

Conclusion .................................................................................................155 Bibliography .................................................................................................159 Index of Ancient and Other Sources ............................................................181 Index of Modern Authors .............................................................................194 Index of Subjects ..........................................................................................197

Abbreviations Abbreviations and citation conventions for ancient literature and modern scholarship follow SBL (1999) and IATG (1992) wherever possible. ABD BDAG

BDB CCSL CSEL DPL ER IATG LSJ LXX NTS ODCC PL SBL TDNT TLNT TRE WA WSA

Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Edited by F. W. Danker. 3rd. ed. Chicago, 2000 [Based on editions by W. Bauer, F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich] Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Peabody, Mass., 1999 Corpus Christianorum: Series latina. Turnhout, 1953– Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by G. F. Hawthorne and R. P. Martin. Downers Grove, 1993 Encyclopedia of Religion. Edited by M. Eliade. 16 vols. New York, 1987 Internationales Abkürzungsverzeichnis für Theologie und Grenzgebiete. S. Schwertner. 2nd ed. Berlin, 1992 Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, H. S., Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford, 1996 Septuaginta, ed, A. Ralfs. 2 vols. in 1. Stuttgart, 1979 New Testament Studies The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Edited by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone. 3rd ed. Oxford, 2005 Patrologia latina [= Patrologiae cursus completus: Series latina]. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 217 vols. Paris, 1844–1864 The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient and Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies. Edited by P. H. Alexander et al. Peabody, Mass., 1999 Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, 1964–1976 Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. C. Spicq. Translated and edited by J. D. Ernest. 2nd ed. 3 vols. Peabody, Mass., 1996 Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Edited by G. Krause and G. Müller. Berlin, 1977– Luther, Martin: Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. [Weimarer Ausgabe] The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century. Edited by J. E. Rotelle. 20 vols. Brooklyn, 1990–

Introduction Circumcision is the bodily mark created by cutting off the genital foreskin, more commonly done on males but also occasionally performed on females.1 As one might imagine, it is a delicate and no doubt painful procedure requiring a certain amount of surgical finesse. My interest in this topic, however, does not involve aspects of the surgical practice, but instead the meaning that has been attributed to the Jewish religious/ethnic practice. As I demonstrate, the Jewish practice of circumcision, as treated in texts from the second century BCE to the first century CE, the time period to which interpreters turn for its definition of this rite, has no single monovalent meaning. One might assume, for example, that treatments of circumcision would reflect its significance as a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham as defined in the Hebrew Bible (Gen 17:11–14; Lev 12:3), yet this definition rarely surfaces within the ancient texts. To demonstrate the fundamental diversity and richness in understandings of circumcision, I survey a broad range of treatments of circumcision in the ancient texts, three of the four books of the Maccabees, the book of Jubilees, a treatise of Josephus, several writings of Philo, and four of Paul’s extant letters. Within all of these writings, the meaning of circumcision is in every instance contingent upon the context. Elements such as the overall purpose of the treatise, the intended audience, and the author’s rhetorical style and point of view play a crucial role in its meaning. By contrast, the situation within the scholarship on circumcision belies this fundamental diversity in the meaning of circumcision. While several the general reference works acknowledge the differences in understandings of circumcision, rarely is that same degree of variety reflected in the analytical discussions (i.e., lectures, commentaries, and specialized studies) on circumci1

It merits mention that circumcision, in some circles, can equally be considered the sign of a Muslim. Although circumcision is nowhere mentioned in the Qur’an, it was mandated by Muhammad and hence receives considerable support. The ceremony is often performed just prior to the onset of puberty. Girls may be circumcised as well as boys. See Kathryn Kueny, “Circumcision,” Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World 1 (2004): 148–49; See also Kathryn Kueny, “Abraham’s Test: Islamic Male Circumcision as Anti/Ante-Covenantal Practice,” in Bible and Qur’ān: Essays in Scriptural Intertextuality, ed. John C. Reeves, Society of Biblical Literature (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 166.

2

Introduction

sion in the ancient world.2 When the diversity in the meaning of circumcision is absent, distortions occur not only in the understanding of circumcision itself, but also in the ancient author’s interpretation of Jews and Judaism. Some examples should suffice to illustrate this point. In a recent monograph, the Philonic scholar Ellen Birnbaum argues that Philo is less concerned about Jews themselves and their religion than with notions of universalism and individualism.3 Her more general assessment of Philo’s philosophy is derived in part through a consideration of his treatment of circumcision in Quaestiones et solutions in Genesin 3. Through an analysis of this treatment of circumcision rather than on a range of treatments, Birnbaum states that Philo’s allegorization of this rite indicates his lack of concern for an historic or contemporary Israel.4 By contrast, scholars such as Peder Borgen and Marcel Simon cite De migratione Abrahami 16.89–93 in support of the opposite perspective, Philo’s commitment to the continuation of contemporary Judaism. Borgen remarks that De migratione Abrahami 16.89–93 “summarizes” Philo’s “attitude as an exegete.” “The symbolical, though higher and more important, practically never invalidates the literal.”5 In the same vein, Thomas Tobin writes that 2 For general reference works on the treatments of circumcision in the first and second centuries CE and beyond, see Rudolf Meyer, “περιτέμνω,” TDNT 6:81–84; Otto Betz, “Beschneidung II,” TRE 5:719–22; and Robert G. Hall, “Circumcision,” ABD 1:1025–31. Andreas Blaschke has written what can be termed a “reference book” on treatments of circumcision. He reviews circumcision in a wide variety of primarily early sources, the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, Josephus, rabbinic texts including the Targum, the New Testament, early Christian writings, and the patristic writings. His work is less focused on a comparison of treatments of circumcision than is my own. See Andreas Blaschke, Beschneidung: Zeugnisse der Bibel und verwandter Texte, Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (Tübingen: A. Francke, 1998). Shaye J. D. Cohen has worked extensively on this issue, see Shaye J. D. Cohen, Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), Shaye J. D. Cohen, Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised?: Gender and Covenant in Judaism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005). Susan Elliott provides a brief survey of Greco-Roman and Jewish views on circumcision in the ancient world. See Susan Elliott, Cutting Too Close for Comfort: Paul’s Letter to the Galatians in Its Anatolian Cultic Context (London: T & T Clark International, 2003), 233–44. 3 Ellen Birnbaum remarks, “While no one, then, would question Philo’s commitment to the Jews and their religion, his tendencies toward universalism and individualism are marked enough to undermine or at least pose a challenge to this commitment. He himself, however, rarely acknowledges or addresses this potential challenge directly.” Ellen Birnbaum, The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought: Israel, Jews, and Proselytes, ed. David M. Hay, Studia Philonica Monographs, vol. 290 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 2. 4 Birnbaum, Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought, 155–56. 5 Peder Borgen, “Philo of Alexandria,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. Michael E. Stone (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 260–61. See also Simon who writes «Ses interpre-

Introduction

3

Philo “condemns those who want to desert an observance of the Mosaic law.”6 Maren Niehoff voices yet another view of Philo’s interpretation of circumcision. Niehoff writes that Philo’s allegorical understanding of circumcision, as seen especially in De specialibus legibus 1.9–10, signifies that this rite is to be emblematic for how Jews are to respond to God’s laws in general. The allegorical passages in that treatise speak of the importance of purging the mind of thoughts of excessive pleasures. According to Neihoff, such an interpretation suggests that circumcision signifies enkrateia7 or self-control. However, by considering only certain treatments of circumcision rather than the full range of them, these Philonic scholars develop only a partial and hence false understanding of circumcision and its significance for Jews. By taking into consideration a broader range of Philo’s understanding of circumcision, they would not only bring greater clarity to his understanding of circumcision, but also to larger questions, such as whether or not he sought to diminish Jewish particularity, or the degree to which Philo considered law abidance central for Jews. As I demonstrate in chapter three, Philo’s understanding of circumcision is diverse and varies from text to text. According to him, the physical practice of circumcision signifies the promotion of health, life, and well-being (Spec. 1.1–11), benefits the mind, gains the respect of fellow Jews (Migr. 16.89–93), and draws the Jewish male closer to God (QG 3.46–52). The situation within the scholarship on Paul8 and circumcision is similar to that of Philo. Interpreters from ancient to modern times rarely consider the tations allégoriques ne diminuent en rien son respect du sens littéral.» Marcel Simon, Verus Israel: Étude sur les relations entre Chrétiens et Juifs dans l’empire Romain (135–425) (Paris: Éditions E. De Boccard, 1964), 182. 6 Thomas H. Tobin, The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation, ed. Bruce Vawter, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series, vol. 14 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1983), 155–57. 7 Maren R. Niehoff, “Circumcision as a Marker of Identity: Philo, Origen and the Rabbis on Gen 17:1–14,” Jewish Studies Quarterly 10 (2003): 101. 8 Recent articles and books devoted to the topic of circumcision and Paul are numerous and include. John M. G. Barclay, “Paul and Philo on Circumcision: Romans 2:25–29 in Social and Cultural Context,” New Testament Studies 44 (1998): 536–56, Peder Borgen, “Observations on the Theme ‘Paul and Philo.’ Paul’s Preaching of Circumcision in Galatia (Gal. 5:11) and Debates on Circumcision in Philo,” in Die Paulinische Literatur und Theologie, ed. Sigfred Pedersen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), 85–102, Peder Borgen, Paul Preaches Circumcision and Pleases Men and Other Essays on Christian Origins (Dragvoll-Trondheim: TAPIR, 1983), James D. G. Dunn, “What Was the Issue between Paul and ‘Those of the Circumcision’?,” in Paulus und das antike Judentum, ed. Martin Hengel and Ulrich Heckel (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr 1991), 295–317, Timothy W. Berkley, From a Broken Covenant to Circumcision of the Heart: Pauline Intertextual Exegesis in Romans 2:17–29, ed. Mark Allen Powell, Society of Biblical Literature: Dis-

4

Introduction

full breath of his treatments of circumcision. In doing so, they formulate understandings of this rite and of first-century Jews and Judaism that are both limited and false. To illustrate just how far understandings of circumcision have veered from Paul’s wider understanding of this rite, I dedicate an entire chapter to a brief history of the interpretation of circumcision from ancient to modern time. Below, however, are a few examples of recent scholarly assessments of Paul’s views on circumcision. Like the Philonic scholars mentioned above, Pauline scholars often employ only one of his several treatments of circumcision in support of a larger theological or philosophical position. Statements by the prolific Pauline scholar9 James D. G. Dunn illustrate this widespread tendency in Pauline scholarship. sertation Series (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), Werner E. Lemke, “Circumcision of the Heart: The Journey of a Biblical Metaphor,” in A God So Near, ed. Brent A. Strawn and Nancy R. Bowen (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbauns, 2003), 299–319, Paula Fredriksen, “Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2,” in The Galatians Debate, ed. Mark Nanos (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishing, Inc., 2002), 235–60, Neil J. McEleney, “Conversion, Circumcision and the Law,” New Testament Studies 20 (1974): 319–41, Troy W. Martin, “The Covenant of Circumcision (Genesis 17:9–14) and the Situational Antithesis in Galatians 3:28,” Journal of Biblical Literature 122, no. 1 (2003): 111–25, Troy W. Martin, “Circumcision in Galatia and the Holiness of God’s Ecclesiae,” in Holiness and Ecclesiology in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans, 2007), 219–37, Donald W. Robinson, “The Circumcision of Titus, and Paul’s ‘Liberty.’,” Australian Biblical Review 12, no. 1–4 (1964): 24–42, Joel Marcus, “The Circumcision and the Uncircumcision in Rome,” New Testament Studies 35, no. 1 (1989): 67–81, Donald W. Robinson, “We Are the Circumcision,” Australian Biblical Review 15, no. 1–4 (1967): 28–35, Brigitte Kahl, Galatians Re-Imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010), Elliott, Cutting Too Close. 9 The following is a non-exhaustive list of Dunn’s work on Paul. James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, ed. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 38 (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), 295–317, James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, ed. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 39 (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Law (Louisville: Westminster-John Knox Press, 1990), James D. G. Dunn, “Once More ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” SBL Seminar Papers (1991): 730–44, Dunn, “What Was the Issue?,” 29–317, James D. G. Dunn, “The Question of Anti-Semitism in the New Testament,” in Jews and Christians: The Partings of the Ways A.D. 70 to 135, ed. James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992), 177–211, James D. G. Dunn, “The Justice of God: A Renewed Perspective on Justification by Faith,” Journal of Theological Studies 43 (1992): 1–22, James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), James D. G. Dunn, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, ed. Henry Chadwick, Black’s New Testament Commentaries (London: A & C Black, 1993), James D. G. Dunn, “Echoes of Intra-Jewish Polemic in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians,” Journal of Biblical Literature 112 (1993): 459–77, James D. G. Dunn, “The Pauline Letters,” in Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 276–89, James D. G. Dunn, “The Status and Contribution of Paul,” in The Future of Jewish-Christian Dialogue (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1999), 169–82, James D. G. Dunn, New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005).

Introduction

5

Dunn bases his assessment of Paul’s understanding of circumcision on Romans 2 and understands circumcision fundamentally as a boundary marker Jews have set to distinguish themselves from others. According to Dunn, as a sign of the covenant between God and Israel circumcision functioned first and foremost as a marker that distinctly identified Jews.10 Dunn writes, These identity markers [circumcision, abstention from pork, and the Sabbath] identified Jewishness because they were seen by Jews themselves as fundamental observances of the covenant. They functioned as badges of covenant membership. A member of the covenant people was, by definition, one who observed these practices in particular. How could it be otherwise, since precisely these practices belong so clearly to the basic ground rules of the covenant? If we think of circumcision, no loyal Jew could ignore the explicit stipulations of Genesis 17.11

He goes on to explain that Paul objected to circumcision because the distinctive mark of identity served as a means by which Jews boasted of their privileged position before God. He writes, It is this attitude which Paul attacks in criticizing Jewish ‘boasting’, their misplaced emphasis on the outward and physical, their claim to an exclusively Jewish righteousness. It is this attitude which Paul sees as a stunted and distorted understanding of what the law requires, and therefore as falling under the curse of the law (Gal 3.10).12

Other Pauline scholars such as Hans Dieter Betz and Sam Williams represent the thoughts of many modern interpreters of Paul who consider circumcision both as a distinctive mark of identity and also as that rite representative of a means of salvation. In contrast to Dunn, Betz and Williams found their interpretation of Paul’s understanding of circumcision in Galatians and in light of Paul’s statements regarding works of law. Betz writes, “Circumcision is the external ritual symbolizing the acceptance of Judaism, even if it takes the

10 Peter Schäfer’s description of the Substantialists’ position with regard to anti-Semitism appears to undergird much of the scholarship related to circumcision as a boundary issue. According to Schäfer, the Substantialists viewed anti-Semitism as a “natural” phenomenon and “as old as Judaism itself.” It was the “simple result of the barrier which Jewry itself increasingly erected against the world in whose midst it lived.” The Substantialist Victor Tcherikover writes the following tautological statement. “The inner quality of anti-Semitism arises from the very existence of the Jewish people as an alien body among the nations. The alien character of the Jews is the central cause of the origin of anti-Semitism, and this alien character has two aspects: The Jews are alien because they are foreigners derived from another land, and they are alien because of their foreign customs which are strange and outlandish in the eyes of the local inhabitants.” Peter Schäfer, Judeophobia: Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997), 3–4. 11 James D. G. Dunn, “The New Perspective on Paul,” in Jesus, Paul and the Law (Louisville: Westminster-John Knox Press, 1990), 192 (Italics are my own.) 12 James D. G. Dunn, “Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law (Gal. 3.10–14),” in Jesus, Paul, and the Law (Louisville: Westminster-John Knox Press, 1990), 231.

6

Introduction

form of Christian-Judaism.”13 Paul’s exhortation that Galatian Gentiles avoid becoming circumcised signifies that Jewish concepts have lost their meaning for Christians;14 now faith has become the determinative factor for salvation.15 In like fashion, Williams defines circumcision in two ways, the first is as an entrance rite of Judaism. Circumcision is the ritual of entrance into a distinctive people, and one who takes that step takes upon himself the obligation to live according to the Sinai covenant in every sphere of personal and communal existence. He adopts a complete way of life. In doing so, however, he severs himself from that inclusive community where ethnic distinctions remain but are no longer in effect (Gal 3:28).16

Later, however, he argues that circumcision and other works of law are opposed to faith, and it is faith in Christ that makes one righteous. Faith, says Williams, is not “a way of life that takes its direction from requirements of Torah such as being circumcised and avoiding certain foods. Positively, faith is a way determined by Christ.”17 Thus, according to scholars such as Betz and Williams, circumcision both defines a person as a Jew but also functions negatively in that it has no ability to save a person, only faith in Christ can function in this way. The notion that circumcision does not provide a means of salvation dates to the second century, to the writings of Justin, as I demonstrate in chapter five. In contrast to this and much of the scholarship on Paul and circumcision, the meanings the ancient writer assesses for circumcision vary significantly from one letter to the next. In Galatians, Paul refers to the physical practice of circumcision as a rite that enslaves a person (Gal 5:1–6), yet in 1 Corinthians, Paul is unconcerned whether or not a person is circumcised (1 Cor 7:19). In Philippians, he speaks of himself and others as being “the circumcision,” defined in positive terms as those who worship God and boast in the Anointed Jesus (Phil 3:3), whereas in Galatians, those of the circumcision are assessed negatively, in that they have an adverse effect on Cephas, as Jews who follow the law. In Romans, Paul remarks that a person qualifies as being “circumcised,” whether physically so or not, when he follows the statutes (Rom 2:25– 29). Finally, Paul assesses the sign of circumcision allegorically as a seal signifying the righteousness of faithfulness (Rom 4:11). 13 Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 258. 14 Betz, Galatians, 262. 15 Betz, Galatians, 262–63. Hans Dieter Betz writes, “In Judaism the terms [“circumcision” and “uncircumcision”] symbolize the dividing line between those who belong to the Torah Covenant and thus are insured of their salvation and those who are outside of that covenant.” Betz, Galatians, 262. 16 Sam K. Williams, Galatians, ed. Victor P. Furnish, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997), 136–67. 17 Williams, Galatians, 67.

Introduction

7

Before proceeding with the treatments of circumcision among the ancient writings, however, some attention must be given to how ancients spoke about circumcision. In the first place, ancient authors seldom supply an explicit meaning for circumcision. Thus, one rarely finds an expression such as “circumcision signifies,“ using the Greek verb to signify (σημαίνειν) or “circumcision is,” using the Greek verb to be (εἶναι), or “circumcision means” (λέγειν). By contrast, ancient authors often speak of the function of circumcision. Philo, for instance, remarks that the mark of circumcision makes something visible (ἐμφανίζειν) (Migr. 16.92). More often, however, he refers to the benefits of circumcision. In the second place, ancient authors often simply refer to the mark of circumcision without specifically elaborating upon what it means (1 Macc 1:60– 61; Jub. 15:23–24; 2 Macc 6:10; 4 Macc 4:25; A.J. 20.2–4; Spec. 1.4–8; QG 3.46–52; Migr. 16.92; Gal 2:3, 5:1–3; Rom 2:25–26; Phil 3:5). In these instances, I have extrapolated the meaning of circumcision from its literary context and by taking into consideration the author’s intent for the treatise. In the third place, in supplying explicit meanings for circumcision or its sign, ancients often employ allegory. In keeping with the text of Genesis 17:11, the author of Jubilees, for example, refers to circumcision as the sign of the covenant (Jub 15:28). Philo refers to circumcision as a symbol (σύμβολον) of various things pertaining to the mind (Spec. 1.8, QG 3.48, Migr. 16.92), and Paul calls circumcision a sign (σημεῖον) and seal of the righteousness of faithfulness (Rom 4:11). In the fourth place, ancient authors employ the term “circumcision” as a metonym, a figure of speech whereby the name of one thing is used in place of another word of which it is an attribute. Paul, for example, employs the term “circumcision” in a metonymic sense in the place of a circumcised “Jew” or “Jews” (Gal 2:12, 6:13; Rom 3:30), but not always only for the physically circumcised (Phil 3:3). In Paul’s letter to the Galatians in which he employs circumcision as a metonym but also uses the term to refer to the physical practice itself, I demonstrate a correlation in the meaning of circumcision between two diverse uses of this term. Finally, ancient authors employ the term “circumcision” as a metaphor. Both Philo (QG 3.46, 48) and Paul (Rom 2:25–29) use the term in this sense. In the case of Paul, the notion of circumcision is not necessarily associated with the physical practice itself. As a metaphor “circumcision” also retains a unique signification. Thus, even in these cases, “circumcision’s” meaning must be derived from its context. Through these various uses, ancient authors freely assess a wide variety of meanings to circumcision’s signification. The book proceeds along the following general outline. In chapter one, I explore the diverse meanings of circumcision within the book of Jubilees and within three of the four books of the Maccabees (1, 2, and 4). While each of

8

Introduction

the books of the Maccabees refers to circumcision, and indeed the subject of circumcision is rather central and referred to in much the same way in each of these works, the meaning of circumcision nonetheless varies according to each book’s overall goal or purpose. By contrast, Jubilees, a reworking and expansion of the Genesis and part of Exodus, provides an explicit and thus more easily retrievable definition for circumcision. Chapter two is a discussion of Josephus’ narration of the circumcision of Izates, the King of Abiabene (A.J. 20.2.4). In this brief and most likely fictional tale, the meaning of circumcision is derived through an exploration of how King Izates determined to become circumcised. In chapter three, I discuss the diversity of treatments of circumcision within three of Philo’s works, De specialibus legibus 1.1–11, Quaestiones et solutions in Genesin 3.46–52, and De migratione Abrahami 16.89–93. While there are similarities between Philo’s treatment of circumcision in QG 3.46– 52 and in Spec. 1.1–11, in the former work Philo focuses primarily on circumcision’s benefit for the mind and in the latter on its more corporeal benefits for general health and fertility. Chapter four concerns Paul’s various treatments of this rite, taking into consideration his discussions of this rite in Galatians 2:11–14, 5:1–6, Philippians 3:3, 1 Corinthians 7:17–24, and Romans 2:25–29, 4:9–12. At the end of chapter four, I provide a brief evaluation of Paul’s overall assessment of circumcision as far as it concerns Gentiles of the faith. In chapter five, I survey the scholarship on circumcision within the Christian exegetical tradition. The history of the interpretation of circumcision begins with Justin’s second-century treatment of this rite and continues into the present era. This survey is warranted due to the degree of influence and distortion in the meaning of this rite within the tradition. In a concluding chapter, I sum up my findings of the ancient authors’ understandings of this rite.

Chapter 1

Circumcision in 1 Maccabees, Jubilees, 2 and 4 Maccabees Written in defense of Jewish practices and laws, the books of Maccabees1 and Jubilees provide some of the earliest extant reflections outside of the Hebrew Bible itself on Jewish rites. In these writings, specific Jewish practices such as circumcision, particular types of sacrifices, eating undefiled foods, and the adherence to the Book of the Covenant are reified as indicators of Judaism2 1 While the first two books of the Maccabees stem from different hands and time-periods, there has been a relatively long tradition along with some rational explanation, beyond the fact that they all carry the same name, for conflating these two works. In the first place, 1 and 2 Maccabees circulated together within the Septuagint and later within the Vulgate. Protestants consider them both apocryphal literature, and since the Council of Trent (1546), Catholics have declared them deutero-canonical. Solomon Zeitlin, The First Book of the Maccabees, trans. Sidney Tedesche (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), 63–64, Solomon Zeitlin, The Second Book of Maccabees, trans. Sidney Tedesche (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954), 86. In the second place, the first two books bearing this title have been considered primary sources for understanding the war between the Hasmoneans and the Seleucids during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (175–164 BCE). For instances of this trend, see Thomas Fischer, trans. Frederick Cryer, “Maccabees, Books of,” ABD 4:439; Uriel Rappaport, “Maccabean Revolt,” ABD 4:433; Zeitlin, The First Book of the Maccabees, 34–38, J. C. Dancy, A Commentary on I Maccabees (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1954), 3–8, F.-M. Abel and Jean Starcky, Les Livres des Maccabées (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1961), 16, Elias J. Bickerman, The God of the Maccabees: Studies on the Meaning and Origin of the Mac-cabean Revolt, trans. Horst R. Moehring (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1979), 23, 95, Bezalel Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus: The Jewish Struggle against the Seleucids (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 151–70. 2 It is generally agreed that parts of the biblical book of Daniel (7–12:13) refer to the reign of Antiochus IV (175–164 BCE) and that the completed work dates to approximately this same time period. While the book of Daniel mentions the desecration of burnt offerings (8:9– 13, 11:31) and the attempts to change the sacred seasons and the law (7:25), it offers no elaboration of these or other religious practices, as do the books of the Maccabees. See Dancy, A Commentary on I Maccabees, 25–28. Unlike the books of Maccabees, the book of Daniel considers that the affront to the law and sanctuary will have a definite end (7:25; 8:14; 11:35–36, 45; 12:1, 7, 11–13). After the time of desolation, the sanctuary will be restored to its proper state (καθαρισθήσεται τὸ ἅγιον) (8:14). In other words, the writer or writers of the book of Daniel do not foresee any perma-

10

Chapter 1: Circumcision in 1, 2 and 4 Maccabees and Jubilees

and staunchly defended. Each work addresses itself to the same external situation, the threat of the demise of Jewish practices, laws, and lifestyle during the reign of the Seleucid emperor Antiochus Epiphanes IV (175–164 BCE). While the three books termed “Maccabees” share a common name3 and themes, their authors, overall tone, and points of view differ. Each work defends Jewish customs4 in ways that differ dramatically from each other. For its part, Jubilees, or Little Genesis, differs from the books of the Maccabees in part due to its genre. It claims to be a replacement of the book of Genesis and promotes circumcision and other Jewish rites through divine pronouncements. In each of the writings, the authors treat circumcision as a physical practice and not as a symbol for something else. To distinguish circumcision from its symbolic meaning, I refer to it in these writings as a mark. However, circumcision in its capacity as a mark also represents a physical practice associated with a practitioner. Thus, in defining circumcision in its capacity as a physical practice or mark, I am also defining a particular type of Jew, the one who would have this mark on his body. As is the case with all of the books of the Maccabees and Jubilees, the mark of circumcision is nowhere made explicit and hence must be teased out from its literary context.

A. 1 Maccabees: Circumcision as a mark of allegiance to Hasmonean rule A. 1 Maccabees The literary context determines the understanding of circumcision in 1 Maccabees5 as a mark of allegiance to Hasmonean6 rule. The narrative clearly nent structural changes to particular religious practices, as they are presently known. Rather this author is looking for a return to “normalcy.” 3 Christians most likely applied this common name to all the books at a later date. See Fischer, ABD 4:444. Daniel Schwartz comments that while 1 and 2 Maccabees were written for Jews, there is not much evidence of Jewish readership in the centuries immediately following their appearance. By contrast, Christians showed more interest in these books than did the Jews. There is evidence, for example, that Hebrews as well as several Christian postcanonical texts borrowed from 2 Maccabees. The martyrdom stories in 2 Maccabees, in particular, attracted much attention. Daniel R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature (CEJL) (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 85–90. 4 The verb περιτέμνειν occurs three times in 1 Maccabees (1:60, 61; 2:46). The nominal antonym ἀπερίτμητος occurs once (1 Macc 1:48). The verb περιτέμνειν occurs only once in 2 Maccabees (6:10) and 4 Maccabees (4:25). 5 There is no known date for the composition of this writing. Some scholars speculate that the work was written around 100 BCE. See Steven Weitzman, “Forced Circumcision and the Shifting Role of Gentiles in Hasmonean Ideology,” Harvard Theological Review 92, no. 1 (1999): 50, Abel and Starcky, Les Livres des Maccabées, xxix, Bickerman, The God of the Maccabees: Studies on the Meaning and Origin of the Maccabean Revolt, 18. See also Goldstein who does not date this work before the last decade of the second century BCE. Jonathan

A. 1 Maccabees

11

demonstrates that circumcision and other Jewish practices are the principal reasons over which the Hasmoneans and their Gentile oppressors wage a war. To accept circumcision is to identify with the Hasmoneans. The author7 sets the stage for the ensuing battle from the opening lines of the narrative.8 The hearer/reader learns that Alexander the Great (356–332 BCE) first subdued the earth and conquered nations to the ends of the earth (1:3). His imperial descendents down to king Antiochus Epiphanes IV, described as the sinful root (ῥίζα ἁμαρτωλὸς)9 (1:10), increased evils on earth (ἐπλήθυναν κακὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ) (1:9). Antiochus perpetrated the kind of evil that warranted actions on the part of the Hasmoneans. He desecrated the temple, pilfering the sacred and costly items (1:21–24). Later, he returned to Judea and destroyed the city, killing many and taking others captive (1:30–32). In what appears to be the last straw, the king sent an official edict forbidding Israelite precepts (νόμιμα).10 The entire kingdom (1:41–50) was made to obey the king’s decree11 on pain of death (1:50). Goldstein, 1 Maccabees, Anchor Bible, vol. 41 (New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1984), 62. Andreas Blaschke comments that the original Hebrew text dates to the last half of the first century BCE. Andreas Blaschke, Beschneidung: Zeugnisse der Bibel und verwandter Texte, Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (Tübingen: A. Francke, 1998), 172. By contrast, Solomon Zeitlin, and Seth Schwartz opt for an earlier composition date. Zeitlin dates the work to between 136 and 105 BCE and Schwartz to approximately 130 BCE. Zeitlin, The First Book of the Maccabees, 25–29, Seth Schwartz, “Israel and the Nations Roundabout,” Journal of Jewish Studies 42 (1991): 36. There is almost universal agreement that the book was originally written in Hebrew; the Hebrew text(s) are no longer extant. See Dancy, A Commentary on I Maccabees, 8, Bickerman, The God of the Maccabees: Studies on the Meaning and Origin of the Maccabean Revolt, 9, Abel and Starcky, Les Livres des Maccabées, 15, Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus, 151, Zeitlin, The First Book of the Maccabees, 33. It is likely that it has a Judean origin. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 53. 6 1 and 2 Maccabees are the “main sources for reconstructing the course of the battles” of this time period. Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus, 151. For a synopsis of the Greek sources for this period, including the writings of Josephus, see Joseph Sievers, Synopsis of the Greek Sources for the Hasmonean Period: 1–2 Maccabees and Josephus, War 1 and Antiquities 12– 14, Subsidia Biblica (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2001). 7 The author is anonymous. 8 This work has been described as a “biblical historical” writing. Fisher, ABD 4:440. See also Bickerman, The God of the Maccabees: Studies on the Meaning and Origin of the Maccabean Revolt, 17. By contrast, J. C. Dancy considers that 1 Maccabees is based on eyewitness reports. Dancy, A Commentary on I Maccabees, 3, 5, 7–8. 9 Citations of 1, 2 and 4 Maccabees are taken Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979), 1040. 10 The translation is by George T. Zervos in “1 Makkabees,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and other Greek translations traditionally under that title, ed. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 481. 11 It is doubtful there ever was such a global decree. Dancy, A Commentary on I Maccabees, 75–76. According to F.-M. Abel, there is no proof that Antiochus IV organized his

12

Chapter 1: Circumcision in 1, 2 and 4 Maccabees and Jubilees

Not only are the Gentile rulers and other Gentiles to blame for these offenses but also, and perhaps more importantly,12 those Jews13 who adopt their policies.14 According to the author, disloyal Jews15 flagrantly disregard the laws.16 They are referred to as either ἄνομοι (those without the law) (2:44; own cult, only that he advanced the cult of Zeus Olympus creating the notion of a living god. Abel and Starcky, Les Livres des Maccabées, 66. By contrast, Elias Bickerman claims there was a decree, but it affected only those in Jerusalem and Judaea; and Menelaus was ultimately responsible for the persecution. Bickerman, The God of the Maccabees: Studies on the Meaning and Origin of the Maccabean Revolt, 78–88. Like Bickerman, Jonathan Goldstein remarks that the decree most likely did spread over the entire kingdom to suppress rebellious Jews. Goldstein, 1 Maccabees, 223 n. 51. 12 John Kampen demonstrates how the opposition by the lawless to the Hasmoneans is a recurrent theme within the book of 1 Maccabees (2:44, 3:5–6, 7:5, 9:23, 9:69, 11:21, 11:25, 14:14). That they are a significant force becomes apparent by the author’s repeated use of the word “many” (πολλοὶ) in describing them (1:52, 62). John Kampen, “The Books of the Maccabees and Sectarianism in Second Temple Judaism,” in The Books of the Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology: Papers of the Second International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 9–11 June, 2005, ed. Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 13–16. 13 In his book The Structure of 1 Maccabees, David S. Williams points out the chiastic structure within two of the three sections that comprise 1 Maccabees. The first section is framed by the introduction and death of Antiochus IV (1:1–10, 6:1–17). The center of this section is the account of Judas leading the Jewish revolt (3:1–26). Lawless Jews who seek to join with the Gentiles is in parallel opposition to righteous Jews defeating the Gentiles. The structure reinforces the pro-Hasmonean theme and its opposition to both lawless Jews and Gentile oppressors. David S. Williams, The Structure of 1 Maccabees, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1999), 131. 14 As Elias Bickerman puts it, “Whoever was dissatisfied with the Hasmoneans, hated their nation.” Bickerman, The God of the Maccabees: Studies on the Meaning and Origin of the Maccabean Revolt, 18. 15 Sectarianism is clearly in the making within Israel and seems to have arisen at the time of the appointment of Jonathan Maccabaeus as High Priest (153 BCE). The installation of Jonathan by a foreign ruler created a major change in self-understandings. Prior to this time, hereditary succession determined the high priesthood. Thus, Joachim Schaper explains that the installation of Jonathan, “put a definite end to the legitimate Zadokite succession, which had its roots in the time of the united monarchy,” and “made it impossible for the various ‘schools of thought’ not to take sides.” Joachim Schaper, “The Pharisees,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism, ed. William Horbury, W.D. Davies, and John Sturdy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 410. See also Shaye Cohen who writes, “[t]he heyday of Jewish sectarianism was from the middle of the second century B.C.E. to the destruction of the temple in 70 C.E.” Shaye J. D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1987), 143. For a discussion of the various sects described as philosophies, see Josephus, B.J. 2.8.2, 2.8.11–14). 16 As Bickerman remarks, the “disturbers of the peace” are Gentiles and “renegade” Jews. “The author wants to equate the Jewish opponents of the native dynasty with the pagan enemies of the people.” Bickerman, The God of the Maccabees: Studies on the Meaning and Origin of the Maccabean Revolt, 18–19.

A. 1 Maccabees

13

7:5; 9:23; 69; 11:25; 14:14) or παράνομοι (those who transgress the law) (1:11, 34; 10:61; 11:21).17 In advance of the official edict prohibiting local customs (1:41–42), they built a gymnasium and made foreskins for themselves (ἐποίησαν ἑαυτοῖς ἀκροβυστίας), removing their mark of circumcision (epispasm) (1:14–15).18 They claimed (falsely, according to this author) that evil ensues when Jews attempt to separate (χωρίζειν) from the Gentiles (ἔθνοι)19 (1:11). In addition, they persuaded many others to make a covenant with the Gentiles. In submitting to Gentile laws, they have abandoned the Holy Covenant (διαθήκη ἁγία) (1:15).20 It is with this threat to the destruction of Jews and their practices that the author introduces the topic of circumcision. Its treatment evokes a strong sense of moral outrage. 1:60. And the women21 who had circumcised22 their children they put to death (ἐθανάτωσαν) according to the ordinance (πρόσταγμα), 17 George T. Zervos translates ἄνομος as lawless and παράνομος as transgressor of the law. The KJV translates ἄνομος and παράνομος as “wicked.” The NAB varies its English usage and translates ἄνομος as “lawbreaker” (2:44) or “lawless” (7:5) and παράνομος as “breaker of the law” (1:11), “transgressor of the law” (10:61) or “sinful race” (1:34). By contrast, the NRSV and REB translate both Greek words as “renegade” (1:11, 34; 2:44; 7:5; 10:61). The word “renegade” is also used in the NJB (1:11, 34; 2:44). 18 There is considerable scholarship on Greek and Roman attitudes towards Jewish circumcision. See, for example, the work done by Louis Feldman and Peter Schäfer. Many of the examples of negative Greek and Roman attitudes toward circumcision, however, postdate both the situational period of the literature as well as its purported date of composition. For instance, Horace (Latin poet, 65–8 BCE), Petronius (Roman satirist, 27–66 CE), and Tacitus (Roman historian 56–117 CE) reflect the views of a later period. On the other hand, Feldman and Schäfer also refer to the no longer extant third-century BCE Greek comedy by Naevius Appella. The title of this comedy is taken to mean “without a foreskin.” If the title is accurately translated, it suggests not only an awareness of difference but also a sense of ridicule associated with this rite. Louis H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 153–58, Peter Schäfer, Judeophobia: Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997), 96–104. See also Frederick M. Hodges, “The Ideal Prepuce in Ancient Greece and Rome: Male Genital Aesthetics and Their Relation to Lipodermos, Circumcision, Foreskin Restoration, and the Kynodesmê,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 75 (2001): 375–405. 19 This word equally means nation and is significant within 1 Maccabees as suggested by its frequent use. The term occurs over 75 times within 1 Maccabees. By contrast, it occurs less than 25 times in 2 Maccabees, and even less in 4 Maccabees, approximately 15 times. The author consistently sees Israelites as opponents of Gentiles. 20 As John Kampen comments, there are now two covenants in Israel. Kampen, “Maccabees and Sectarianism,” 13. 21 Using 1 Maccabees as his source, Josephus recounts these events and adds that the worthiest were those who disregarded the practices prescribed by the king even if that meant their eventual torture and death (A.J. 12.5.4 §254–5). That Josephus relied only on 1 Maccabees as his source, see Abel and Starcky, Les Livres des Maccabées, 9, Bickerman, The God of the

14

Chapter 1: Circumcision in 1, 2 and 4 Maccabees and Jubilees

1:61. and they hung (ἐκρέμασαν) the babies from their necks23 and put to death their families and those who circumcised them.24

As the author portrays it, the women and their families are passive and innocent victims. The king’s agents kill them just as they burn the books of the law (1:56). These deaths as well as the other acts of destruction and abuses serve to initiate not only the military actions taken by the Hasmonean leaders but also active resistance on the part of the observant and loyal Jews. Those sympathetic to Jewish rites remain strong and prefer death (ἐπεδέξαντο ἀποθανεῖν) rather than transgress the covenant (1:62–63). The primary responders to the evil perpetrated by the Gentiles and those Jews who disregard the laws and customs are the Hasmoneans,25 a group of Israelites faithful to the traditions of the nation. They rally together in defense of the Jewish customs and laws. They defend the practices both militarily (2:42–48; 3:1–26, 42–60; 4:1–25; 5:1–8, 14–23, 28–44, 46–51, 65–68; 6:32– 47; 7:21–25, 39–50; 9:11–22, 43–49; 10:74–89; 11:20–23, 45–51, 61–74; 12:24–38; 13:43–48; 16:4–10, 23–24) and diplomatically, through “official correspondence” (8:23–32; 10:18–20, 25–45; 11:30–37, 57; 12:5–23; 13:36– 40). They go so far as to restore the rite of circumcision by forcibly26 circumMaccabees: Studies on the Meaning and Origin of the Maccabean Revolt, 98. That Josephus relied upon 1 and 2 Maccabees and possibly Jason of Cyrene, see Goldstein, 1 Maccabees, 55–56. 22 While it seems as though the women performed the operation, the next verse reports that those who performed the operations were put to death along with the women. The parallel narrative in 2 Maccabees omits the clause that refers to those who perform operation. One can assume, however, that the women referred to in both 1 and 2 Maccabees did not circumcise their own sons. See Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 281. See also Andreas Blaschke who comments that a special circumciser performed the procedure and that this reference to someone outside the family is the first trace of the Mohel mentioned in rabbinic texts. Blaschke, Beschneidung, 174. 23 What is hung from the neck is meant to indicate the reason for the execution. See Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 281. 24 The translation is by George T. Zervos in “1 Makkabees,” 481. 25 Martha Himmelfarb demonstrates how although 1 Maccabees was originally written in Hebrew and destined for Jews, it “unself-consciously” draws upon Greek notions of glory. Rather than ascribing honor to God, as is the biblical view upon which this narrative also draws, it ascribes it to human agency. This type of glory is best illustrated in Homeric poetry. Martha Himmelfarb, “‘He Was Renowned to the Ends of the Earth’ (1 Maccabees 3:9),” in Jewish Literatures and Cultures: Context and Intertext, ed. Anita Norich and Yaron Z. Elian, Brown Judaic Studies (Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2008), 88, 96–97. 26 This reference to forced circumcision has been used as evidence for the forced circumcision of those outside Israel. The literary context, however, undermines this assumption. According to the narrative, forced circumcision is meant to apply to Jewish males only. Put differently, there is no indication that the Hasmoneans are trying to make Gentiles into Jews through circumcision. The Hasmoneans are fighting against Gentiles, effectively pushing Gentiles from the borders of Israel. Note the fourth-century codex Sinaiticus contains the

A. 1 Maccabees

15

cising Jewish boys in violation of this Jewish custom within the boundary of Israel (περιέτεμον τὰ παιδάρια τὰ ἀπερίτμητα, ὅσα εὓρον ἐν ὁρίοις Ισραηλ)27 (2:46). The conflict between the Hasmoneans and the Gentile rulers and others consistently revolves around the issue of ethnic and religious practices. For instance, the Gentiles are criticized for sacrificing to idols (1:43), building their own sacrificial altars in and around towns (1:47, 54), and esteeming the gymnasium (1:13). At the same time, Gentiles are said to not honor the Jewish temple (1:21–24, 36–37, 39), priestly duties (1:46), the Sabbath day (1:43), and the Jewish festivals (1:45). In addition, the king challenged the authority of the temple and its system by establishing a competing structure, a citadel (ἄκρα), literally “a highest point” (1:33–36). As the Gentiles forced adherence to their rules (1:50, 51–53, 57–58, 62–64), the Hasmoneans responded in kind by defending and reestablishing their own sanctuary and holy places (τὰ ἅγια) (3:45–48, 4:41–58). In sum, circumcision is best understood through its literary context as a mark of allegiance to Hasmonean rule.28 According to 1 Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes IV and his followers did not simply invade Jerusalem, but they also threatened a Jewish way of life and religious system. According to the author, the destruction of the Jews and their way of life warrants a war. The Hasmoneans do not merely retaliate by killing their Gentile oppressors but they also restore or reestablish circumcision and other Jewish practices. Moreover, the Hasmoneans insist upon circumcision by forcibly circumcising all the Jewish boys that were uncircumcised within their borders. As the author portrays it, the war is to reestablish Judaism. The understanding of circumcision as a mark of allegiance receives further elaboration in Jubilees; word υἵοις, sons, and not ὁρίοις, regions, found in fifth-century codex Alexandrinus and later adopted for use in the LXX (Rahlfs’s edition). Hence, the alternate reading “they forcibly circumcised all the uncircumcised boys that they found among the sons of Israel (2:46)” is the more reasonable reading by narrative context. As Steven Weitzman remarks, the rhetorical goal in 1 Maccabees is to drive Gentiles from the borders of Israel or destroy them outright. Weitzman, “Forced Circumcision,” 46. In recounting these events, Josephus concurs that Mattathias (d. 134 BCE) circumcised those of Israel who had not been previously circumcised (A.J. 12.6.2 §278). He also mentions the forced circumcision of both the Idumeans by Hyrcanus (A.J. 13.9.1 §257) and the Itureans by Aristobulus (A.J. 13.11.3 §318). With regard to the forced circumcision of Gentiles, Weitzman convincingly argues that the circumcisions occurred closer to the end rather than the beginning of the reign of Hyrcanus (137–104 BCE). According to him, the agenda of the forced circumcision of Gentiles would not have factored into the writing of 1 Maccabees and was completed just prior to them. Weitzman, “Forced Circumcision,” 50–51. 27 Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta, 1045. 28 By contrast, Andreas Blaschke remarks that the essential function of circumcision in this passage is its expression as the separation of a Jew from other people. Blaschke, Beschneidung, 173.

16

Chapter 1: Circumcision in 1, 2 and 4 Maccabees and Jubilees

however, in that work, circumcision becomes a mark representative of adherence to a particular legal and religious code.

B. Jubilees: Circumcision as a mark of allegiance to a strict legal code and the identification as a “son of the covenant” B. Jubilees While in 1 Maccabees circumcision is a mark of allegiance to Hasmonean rule, in Jubilees29 circumcision functions as a mark of adherence to a strict legal code and identifies the male so marked as a “son of the covenant.” Known in translation as Little Genesis, and in the best extant and Ethiopic30 version as The Book of the Divisions of the times for their Jubilees and Weeks, Jubilees,31 is a rewriting of the books of Genesis and Exodus.32 The work claims to be divinely revealed by God and God’s angel to Moses.33 It exhorts its adherents to comply with legal demands that far exceed those of its scrip29 There is wide scholarly agreement that Jubilees was originally written in Hebrew. No complete Hebrew versions are extant. The most convincing evidence for an original Hebrew text is the dozen or more Hebrew fragmentary copies of Jubilees dating from 150–25 BCE found in five different caves at the Dead Sea. James C. VanderKam, “How It Rewrote the Bible,” Bible Review, no. 8 (1992): 35, 38, Michel Testuz, Les Idées Religieuses du Livre des Jubilés (Paris: Librairie Minard, 1960), 12. 30 James VanderKam has recently reedited Jubilees from Ethiopic manuscripts. James C. VanderKam, ed., The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, vol. 510 (Louvain: Aedibus E. Peeters, 1989). 31 There is considerable scholarly support for dating Jubilees to the beginning of the Maccabean era (170–140 BCE). See James C. VanderKam, “Jubilees, Book of,” ABD 3:1030; John C. Endres, Biblical Interpretation of the Book of Jubilees, ed. Robert J. Karris, The Catholical Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series, vol. 18 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1987), Jacob Milgrom, “The Concept of Impurity in Jubilees and the Temple Scroll,” Revue de Qumran 16, no. 61 (1993): 284, Hubert Lignée, “La Place du Livre des Jubilés et du Rouleau du Temple dans l’histoire du mouvement Essénien. Ces deux ouvrages ont-ils été écrits par le Maître de Justice?,” Revue de Qumran 13, no. 49– 52 (1988): 342, G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum Ad Novum Testamentum 2/2 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), 108, Ian W. Scott, “Epistemology and Social Conflict in Jubilees and Aristeas,” in Common Judaism: Explorations in Second-Temple Judaism, ed. Wayne O. McCready and Adele Reinhartz (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008), 210. 32 Jubilees covers material only up through Exodus 12. 33 For instance, the author states, “And the Lord revealed to him [Moses] both what (was) in the beginning and what will occur (in the future), the account of the division of all of the days of the law and the testimony” (1:4). Later, the angel of the presence speaks to Moses asking him to write down the account of the creation (2:1). Unless specified otherwise, all references to Jubilees are from “Jubilees,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1985).

B. Jubilees

17

tural antecedents.34 Whereas 1 Maccabees treats circumcision itself only briefly, Jubilees elaborates rather extensively on this rite. Regulations surrounding circumcision gain in number, strictness, and precision of detail over that of Scripture. A method for understanding the mark of circumcision in Jubilees is by exploring the ways in which it modifies and expands the Genesis narrative on which its treatment is based. In general, Jubilees elevates the significance of circumcision over its elaboration in Genesis by making more precise those to whom circumcision pertains, and by extending the penalties for the noncompliant. Moreover, it strengthens the notion of covenant, the agreement that circumcision confirms in Genesis 17, by collapsing the intervening chapter (Genesis 16),35 and thus essentially joining the two covenant-making ceremonies together (Genesis 15 and 17). Changes from the biblical narrative reveal the author’s perspective regarding circumcision. Beginning with Jubilees 15:15, the text reads, 15:15. And the Lord said to Abraham. ‘Sarai, your wife, will therefore not be called Sarai because Sarah is her name.’ 15:16. And I will bless her and I will give you a son from her. And I will bless him. And he will become a people. And kings of nations will come from him. 15:17. And Abraham fell on his face and he rejoiced and pondered in his heart whether a son would be born to one who was one hundred years old or (whether) Sarah, who was ninety years, would give birth.36

In these verses, the author shifts the focus from the blessing of only Sarah, found in Gen 17:16, to one in which God blesses both Sarah and her son Isaac, giving more attention to the latter than the former. As a son, Isaac qualifies for circumcision (Jub. 15:26, 28).37 In addition, Abraham exhibits more respect for divine authority in Jubilees than he does in Genesis. In Gen 17:17, skeptical of the promise of a son at his advanced age, the patriarch Abraham falls down and laughs. In Jubilees, however, Abraham admits to not a trace of doubt or skepticism and instead rejoices at the news of a son (Jub. 15:17).38 The text continues,

34 VanderKam remarks, “There is strong reason to believe that Jubilees was written by a priest.” VanderKam, ABD 3:1030 35 Jubilees pulls a mere five verses from Genesis 16, inserting these at the end of its Chapter 14. 36 The translation is by O. S. Wintermute in “Jubilees,” 86. 37 For an extensive discussion on the issue of circumcision and women in Judaism, see Shaye J. D. Cohen, Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised?: Gender and Covenant in Judaism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005). 38 The Qu’ran reflects a similar attitude: Sarah laughs at the news of a son, but not Abraham (Q 11:69–76).

18

Chapter 1: Circumcision in 1, 2 and 4 Maccabees and Jubilees

15:23. And Abraham did as the Lord said to him and he took Ishmael, his son, and all of the male servants of his house and also whomever he bought with money, every male who was in his house, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins. 15:24. And that very same day Abraham was circumcised and every man of his house and the servant of his house. 39

Whereas in Genesis 17, there is no festival associated with the circumcision of Abraham, Jubilees assigns to this event a specific date and feast day40 (Jub. 14:20, 15:1–2). It omits the ages of Abraham and Ishmael when they were circumcised (Gen 17:24–25)41 and instead emphasizes the day on which Abraham was circumcised (Jub. 15:24).42 Following this section is a lengthy interpolation, verses that have no parallel in Genesis. 15:25. This law is for all the eternal generations and there is no circumcising of days and there is no passing a single day beyond eight days because it is an eternal ordinance ordained and written in the heavenly tablets. 15:26. And anyone who is born whose own flesh is not circumcised on the eighth is not from the sons of the covenant which the Lord made for Abraham since (he is) from the children of destruction.43

While Genesis 17:12 refers to the requirement to circumcise on the eighthday, Jubilees considerably strengthens this injunction. It permits no deviation from this temporal requirement:44 to avoid circumcision results in death.45 With the expression, “there is no circumcising of days” (Jub. 15:25),46 the 39

The translation is by O. S. Wintermute in “Jubilees,” 86. According to Michel Testuz, time and its divisions are divinely ordained. To observe the festivals is an obligation and effects a harmony with God. Testuz, Les Idées Religieuses du Livre des Jubilés, 139–40. 41 Gene Davenport suggests that the author omits the age of Ishmael to avoid the need to qualify the eighth-day injunction for circumcision. Gene L. Davenport, The Eschatology of the Book of Jubilees, ed. J. C. H. Lebrahm, Studia Post-Biblica (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971), 51 n.1. 42 The Hebrew idiom on which the Ethiopic text is based is best translated as “that very same day.” See “Jubilees,” 86 n. e. 43 The translation is by O. S. Wintermute in “Jubilees,” 87. 44 Testuz remarks, «Il répète cette injonction en terms toujours plus pressants et précise qu’on ne peut se permettre aucun délai après les huit premiers jours de l’enfant, comme il est ordonné et écrit sur les Tables célestes.» Testuz, Les Idées Religieuses du Livre des Jubilés, 108. 45 E. P. Sanders remarks that in Jubilees circumcision along with Sabbath observance and the love of neighbor are commandments, which, if transgressed, have no possibility for atonement. According to him, the author treats these specific commandments with considerably more strictness than other commandments. E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Juda-ism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1977), 373. 46 Later in the Hebrew tradition, within the Mishnah and Talmud, rabbis discuss the eighth-day requirement of circumcision. These later writings diverge from the strictness found in Jubilees. In these writings, the rabbis make allowances for the need to deviate from the eighth day and, in some cases, from the necessity to circumcise altogether. For discus40

B. Jubilees

19

author plays on the verb “to circumcise,” calling attention to both the rite and the necessity of performing it on the eighth day. He uses the term “circumcision” as a metaphor. The interpolation continues, 15:26. And there is therefore no sign upon him so that he might belong to the Lord because (he is destined) to be destroyed and annihilated from the earth and to be uprooted from the earth because he has broken the covenant of the Lord our God. 15:27. Because the nature of all the angels of the presence and all the angels of sanctification was thus from the day of their creation. And in the presence of the angels of the presence and the angels of sanctification he sanctified Israel so that they might be with him and with his holy angels. 15:28. And you command the sons of Israel and let them keep this sign of the covenant for their generations for an eternal ordinance. And they will not be uprooted from the land 15:29. because the commandment was ordained for the covenant so that they might keep it forever for all the children of Israel.47

In these verses, Jubilees designates by name a select group for circumcision. Only “sons of the covenant” (Jub. 15:26), and the “sons of Israel” (Jub. 15:28) bear a “sign” (Jub. 15:26, 28) of circumcision. This is not a sign in the sense of a symbol that refers to something else; rather the word “sign” is a mark on these particular sons, 48 those reserved for election and salvation.49 Moreover, Jubilees claims divine sanction of circumcision over and above the Genesis text: two sets of angels – the angels of the presence and of sanctification, circumcised from the time of creation – set the standard for future blessings and an eternal relationship with God for those who submit to this rite (Jub. 15:27, 32). The strengthening of the rite of circumcision echoes a trend seen throughout Jubilees. Sabbath observance, for example, receives a similarly extended sions involving the deviation from the eighth-day stipulation, see m. Shabbat 19:6, b. Shabbath 137a. For the abandonment of circumcision in the case of hemophiliacs, see b. Hullin 4b. The Talmudic Rabbis offer a variety of opinions regarding the need for circumcision in the case of proselyte conversion (b. Yeb 46a). See also Neil McEleney, who states that the Talmudic Gemara “contravenes what is explicitly in Scripture, but rightly so, out of humanitarian grounds. It shows too that there was awareness that earlier law, even biblical, needed adaptation to fit circumstances not envisioned when the law was made.” Neil J. McEleney, “Conversion, Circumcision and the Law,” New Testament Studies 20 (1974): 330. 47 The translation is by O. S. Wintermute in “Jubilees,” 87. 48 Michel Testuz remarks a pious group at the interior of Israel constitutes the only true Israel. Testuz, Les Idées Religieuses du Livre des Jubilés, 173. 49 By studying the characterizations of women within the book of Jubilees, Betsy Halpern-Amaru demonstrates that the concern of the book is not that of being assimilated into Hellenism, but instead with “becoming the assimilator of others.” As she remarks, “Developed as character proof-texts, the reconstructed narratives of biblical women serve as crucial instruments in an argument for exclusivity that prohibits the acceptance of foreigners into the holy community.” Betsy Halpern-Amaru, The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees, ed. John J. Collins, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 7.

20

Chapter 1: Circumcision in 1, 2 and 4 Maccabees and Jubilees

treatment in Jubilees, a total of sixteen verses (Jub 2:17–32), over its discussion in Genesis (2:3). As with the rite of circumcision, angels of the Presence and of Sanctification participate in the celebration of the Sabbath (Jub. 2:18); it too is reserved for certain people, Jacob and his seed (Jub. 2:20); and those who fail to observe the Sabbath are to die (Jub. 2:27). Moreover, Jubilees frames its core narrative between sections that pertain to the Sabbath ritual (Jub. 2:1, 50:1–13).50 The number seven, too, representative of the Sabbath day, is the basis of its solar calendar, the main organizing principle underlying the invariable 364-day year.51 In considering the social situation to which this work responds, it seems likely that both this author and that of 1 Maccabees react to a group or groups within Israel who neglect Torah observance.52 Jubilees exhorts Israelites to return to pious obedience, echoing the criticism of the transgressors of the law in 1 Macc 1:11–15. Jubilees states, 1:10. They have forsaken my ordinances and my commandments and the feasts of my covenant and my Sabbaths and my sacred place, which I sanctified for myself among them, and my tabernacle and my sanctuary, which I sanctified for myself in the midst of the land so that I might set my name upon it and might dwell (there).53

Like 1 Maccabees, Jubilees also comments on those who reject circumcision. Twice, Jubilees refers to those who follow in the “shame” of the Gentiles (Jub. 1:9).54 The author writes, 15:33. I shall announce to you that the sons of Israel will deny this ordinance and they will not circumcise their sons according to all of this law because some of the flesh of their circumcision they will leave in the circumcision of their sons. And all of the sons of Beliar will leave their sons without circumcising just as they were born.55

This author refers to those who fail to circumcise their sons as sons of Beliar, a variant form of Belial. This name occurs several dozen times in the Hebrew 50

See VanderKam, ABD 3:1031. Several of the Qumran scrolls also conform to the 364-day solar calendar, leading some scholars to conclude that the author was a part of a splinter group that eventually became known as the Essenes. VanderKam, ABD 3:1031. 52 According to VanderKam, the book seems to be directed against the actions of the transgressors of the law depicted in 1 Mac. See James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, ed. Michael A. Knibb, Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 140. A century earlier, R. H. Charles made the same observation. R. H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees or Little Genesis: Translated from the Editor’s Ethiopic Text (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1917), lxi–lxvi. 53 The translation is by O. S. Wintermute in “Jubilees,” 53. 54 See also 3:31, where the author states that those who know “the judgment of the Law should cover their shame and they should not be uncovered as the Gentiles are uncovered.” The translation is by O. S. Wintermute in “Jubilees,” 46. See also Charles, Book of Jubilees or Little Genesis, iii. 55 The translation is by O. S. Wintermute in “Jubilees,” 87. 51

B. Jubilees

21

Bible. It is best translated as wicked or worthless. It is used to refer to the men of Gibeah (Judg 19:22, 20:13), sons of Eli (1 Sam 2:12), Nabal (1 Sam 25:17, 25), and Sheba (2 Sam 20:1). Later literature employs Belial for Satan.56 In sum, in Jubilees circumcision marks allegiance to a strict legal code and the affiliation of a select group known as the “sons of the covenant.” The fact that Jubilees strengthens scriptural injunctions indicates that it is a sectarian57 writing. Indeed, fifteen or sixteen fragmentary copies of the book were found in various caves of the Qumran community, suggestive of the fact that the Essene community58 considered this book to be authoritative.59 Thus, it is likely that this group considered themselves and no other Jews to be “sons of the covenant.” According to Jubilees, God’s command to circumcise all eightday old males was not strict enough. Faced with a crisis similar to the one encountered in 1 Maccabees,60 this author responds not through military might but instead through strict legislation. Jubilees takes a so-called priestly61 approach to circumcision. As shown, it strengthens the rite of circumcision in a number of ways: it assigns a feast day to circumcision; it prohibits any deviation from its enactment on the eighth-day; angels increase the level of sanctification for it; and it restricts those to whom circumcision applies. According to this author, circumcision is a distinctive mark, guaranteeing membership in a particular group.62

56

Michael Coogan, “Belial,” in Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, eds., Oxford Companion to the Bible (N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1993), 77. 57 Shaye Cohen’s definition for a sect fits this particular situation well. It is “a small, organized group that separates itself from a larger religious body and asserts that it alone embodies the ideals of the larger group because it alone understands God’s will.” Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, 125. 58 For a recent analysis of Qumran as the site for the Essene community, see Jodi Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002). 59 James C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1994), 39–40, 71–98,153–55. 60 Similarly, Andreas Blaschke remarks that a reason for the increased importance regarding circumcision pertains to the prohibition of it by Antiochus IV. Blaschke, Beschneidung, 136. 61 Ian Scott mentions that the author seems to be part of the “priestly aristocracy” of Jerusalem. Scott, “Epistemology and Social Conflict in Jubilees and Aristeas,” 210. 62 By contrast, Blaschke broadens the scope of circumcision in include Israel itself. He comments that in Jubilees 15 circumcision is, among other things, the condition “sin qua non” for being before God and in the community with the angels, and a sign of the exclusive membership of Israel with God. Blaschke, Beschneidung, 139.

22

Chapter 1: Circumcision in 1, 2 and 4 Maccabees and Jubilees

C. 2 Maccabees: Circumcision as a mark of pious sacrifice C. 2 Maccabees In 2 Maccabees, circumcision is a mark of pious sacrifice. This meaning is derived from the context, by the author’s treatment of circumcision as well as by lengthy saga of the martyrdoms of Eleazar and the mother and her seven sons. The author, known as an epitomizer,63 claims to have used as a source Jason of Cyrene’s five-volume history (2:23).64 Two epistles prefixed to the narrative encourage Jews to celebrate Hanukkah,65 thus providing an implied purpose for the work. While difficult to date66 and locate,67 this composite68 work is rather widely recognized as a “‘Festal Scroll,’ or an aretalogy,69 a didactic narrative of the wonder-working power of God.”70 It demonstrates 63

Fischer, ABD 4:442. Unlike 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees originated in Greek. It is most likely a product of the Diaspora. Daniel Schwartz speculates that it originated in Alexandria. Schwartz, 2 Macabees, 45–56. The author intended to condense Jason’s writing into one that would be attractive or persuasive to readers (2 Macc 2:19–32). Jason of Cyrene’s five volumes are no longer extant. See Fischer, ABD 4:442. 65 Daniel Schwartz argues that the celebration of Hanukkah was a later addition; the work was originally intended to celebrate only Nicanor’s Day. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 7–10. 66 Fischer, ABD 4:443. Fischer provides the terminus post quem as 125 BCE. Fischer, ABD 4:447. Doran claims the author composed the work in Jerusalem during the reign of John Hyrcanus (134–104 BCE). Robert Doran, Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees, ed. Bruce Vawter, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 12 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981), 112–13. According to F.-M. Abel, the work dates to 124 BCE. Abel and Starcky, Les Livres des Maccabées, 34. Attridge offers a broad range of possible dates (125–63 BCE). Harold W. Attridge, “Historiography,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseud-epigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum Ad Novum Testamentum, 2/2 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), 177. Even less specific is Bruce Metzer, who writes that 2 Maccabees was composed in Greek sometime during the first century BCE. Bruce Metzger, ed., The Oxford Annotated Apocrypha (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977), 263. More recently, however, Daniel Schwartz has concluded that it was written earlier, even before 1 Maccabees, during the 140s BCE. The fact that the book refers to Onias IV as a hero signifies that the temple in Egypt had not yet been built. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 11–15. Andreas Blaschke writes that the book had its original form in the first half of the second century BCE and took a final or definitive form between 124 BCE–70 CE. Blaschke, Beschneidung, 170. 67 Although both Fischer and Daniel Schwartz remark that the author is Alexandrian. See Fischer, ABD 4:447; Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 45 n.100. 68 Fischer, ABD 4:443. 69 The Oxford English Dictionary defines aretalogy as a narrative of miracles performed by a god or a semi-divine being. 70 Fischer, ABD 4:443. Zeitlin remarks that while 1 Maccabees may be classified more as ancient history, 2 Maccabees plays on the emotions and its purpose is to show how God’s will rules over God’s people, the Jews. Zeitlin, The Second Book of Maccabees, 69. According to Doran, 2 Maccabees is the tale of “the epiphanic deliverance of the Jews.” Doran, 64

C. 2 Maccabees

23

God’s support for the temple71 and Jewish way of life in the face of their demise by Hellenization. The widely known tragic tale72 of the martyrdom73 of a mother and her seven sons (6:18–7:42) sets the tone for the entire narrative.74 The treatment of circumcision is similar to that of 1 Maccabees in that two women are put to death for having circumcised their infant. However, 2 Maccabees places more emphasis on the aspect of personal suffering75 with regard to circumcision than does the account of 1 Maccabees (1 Macc 1:60–61).76 Whereas the audience is told only that the Greek rulers offered sacrifices on the altar in 1 Macc 1:59, in 2 Maccabees, the audience learns the Jews were ordered to eat the entrails of sacrifices (σπλαγχνίζειν) and that those who would not change over to Greek customs (τὰ Ἑλληνικά) would be killed (2 Macc 6:8–9a). With regard to circumcision, the author states,

Temple Propaganda, 108. F.-M. Abel comments that 2 Maccabees is an example of history envisioned through the lens of theology. Abel and Starcky, Les Livres des Maccabées, 18. 71 According to Barbara Organ, 2 Maccabees is as much about promoting the sanctity of the temple and personal piety as it is about narrating history. Barbara E. Organ, Is the BIBLE FACT or FICTION? : An Introduction to Biblical Historiography (New York: Paulist Press, 2004), 113. 72 Daniel Schwartz comments, “No one would claim that this story as such is anything more than a stylized didactic narrative, perhaps deriving, ultimately, from a historicization of Jeremiah 15:9, which refers to the unfortunate mother of seven who died the same day they did.” Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 299. 73 As Daniel Schwartz comments, “Martyrs, rather than soldiers, are the real heroes of the book, and the long central section of the book, Chapters 6–7, dedicated to the martyrs, provides the turning point; after those scenes and because of the blood of the those martyrs (7:38, 8:3-4), everything changes.” Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 50. See also Mark Whitters, who interprets the deaths specifically of Eleazar and the mother and her seven sons as martyrdoms. According to him, martyrdom in this book is to be understood in terms of cultic self-sacrifice. The temple and nation are reborn subsequent to these deaths. Mark F. Whitters, “Maryrdom as Cultic Death in the Books of Maccabees: Antecedents and Later Developments,” in Studies in the Greek Bible, ed. Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Assoication of America, 2008), 106–7. 74 The death of the martyrs is considered to be the most important section of the book. See John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004), 576, Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 298. 75 Justin also describes circumcision as a sign of suffering intentioned by God (dial. 16:2). Whereas the author of 2 Maccabees declares that the suffering associated with circumcision is a sign of God’s mercy and the swift and just discipline for Jews, Justin explains the suffering of Jews as a sign of God’s just punishment. In the case of Justin, the context for the suffering is the Bar Kochba revolt (130 CE). 76 For a comparison of these two accounts along with Josephus’ narration of this event (A.J. 12.5.4 §255–256), see Sievers, Synopsis of the Greek Sources for the Hasmonean Period: 1–2 Maccabees and Josephus, War 1 and Antiquities 12–14, 25.

24

Chapter 1: Circumcision in 1, 2 and 4 Maccabees and Jubilees

6:9b. And one could really see the suffering coming on. 6:10. For example, two women were brought in for having circumcised their children. They publicly paraded them around the city with their babies hanging at their breasts and then hurled them down headlong from the wall.77

The author begins by inviting the audience to “share the experience,“78 and elicits sympathy by describing details of the scene. In the first place, unlike the narration of this event in 1 Maccabees, the action remains on the women and is not deflected to the others,79 who assisted with the circumcision (1 Macc 1:61). In the second place, the scene encourages a cruel form of voyeurism, as the women are described as being stripped at least from the waist up and made to parade publically80 with their baby hung from their breast81 rather than from their neck (1 Macc 1:61). In addition, unlike the narration of this event in 1 Maccabees, here, the author provides a theological explanation for the deaths. They are to be understood as God’s discipline, and as a sign of God’s mercy. The author writes, 6:12. Now I urge those who read this book not to be depressed by such calamites, but to recognize that these punishments were designed not to destroy but to discipline our people. 6:13. In fact, it is a sign of great kindness not to let the impious alone for long, but to punish them immediately. 6:14. For in the case of the other nations the Lord waits patiently to punish them until they have reached the full measure of their sins, but he does not deal in this way with us 6:15. in order that he may not take vengeance on us afterward when our sins have reached their height. 6:16. Therefore he never withdraws his mercy from us. While he disciplines us with calamities, he does not forsake his own people.82

The sins, however, are not those of the women, but rather of the nation. Earlier the audience learns that other Jews have harmed the nation. Simon gives a 77 The translation is by Joachim Schaper in “2 Makkabees,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and Other Greek Translations Traditionally under That Title, ed. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 510. 78 The account begins with a reference to suffering that was visible (2 Macc 6:9). Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 281. 79 Andreas Blaschke speculates that these women are widows, their husbands having been killed in the attack of Antiochus against Jerusalem, and that the burden for circumcising their sons fell to them. Blaschke, Beschneidung, 170–71. 80 Andronicus is treated similarly (2 Macc 4:38). 81 Daniel Schwartz remarks that the reference to hanging from the women’s breast may be alluding to the kind of cult to which the Jews were exposed. An earlier verse refers to the fact that the temple was filled with licentiousness and reveling by the Gentiles, who amused themselves with whores (2 Macc 6:4). Those women, described as whores, may have been sacred prostitutes connected to a Syrian cult. 1 Maccabees does not mention this type of activity. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 276–77. 82 The translation is by Joachim Schaper in “2 Makkabees,” 510–11.

C. 2 Maccabees

25

false report about the funds in the temple treasury (2 Macc 3:4–12). Jason buys his way into the position of high priest and dispensed with Jewish customs and instead introduced foreign ones (2 Macc 4:7–17), and Menelaus stole the priesthood from Jason, robbed the temple of its treasures, and had the former high priest Onias, Jason’s brother, put to death (2 Macc 4:23–34). The women, then, receive the discipline for the nation; they die as innocent victims for the nation. Other and similarly defined sacrificial deaths follow those of these women. Rather than eat swine’s flesh, the Jewish scribe Eleazar (2 Macc 6:18) suffers death willingly (2 Macc 6:19) and gladly. He claims that whether he lives or dies, he cannot escape the hands of God (2 Macc 6:26). His death is to serve as an example for youth of how to die nobly for the law (2 Macc 6:28). Other faithful Jews suffer and die for the same reason. They prefer to submit themselves to torture and death rather than compromise their law, as seen in a similar in the central narrative concerning the mother and her seven sons. Some sons have their tongues cut out83 (2 Macc 7:4, 10), another is burned (2 Macc 7:3), and another has the skin torn from his head (2 Macc 7:7). All would rather die than submit to eating swine’s flesh (2 Macc 7:2). These latter suffer with the assurance of a future resurrection and redemption through the power of God (2 Macc 7:9, 14, 23, 29, 36). In addition, in contrast to 1 Maccabees, in 2 Maccabees God84 plays a lead role in human affairs. God often intervenes to preserve the nation.85 Hence, when Heliodorus86 and his bodyguards attempt to pilfer the temple treasury, angelic visitors arrive to assist: two youths (νεανίαι)87 intercede to impede Heliodorus,88 and a beautifully equipped (καλλίστῃ σαγῇ) horse with a frightening rider carrying gold weapons along with two strong and equally beautifully dressed men flog Heliodorus repeatedly (2 Macc 3:25–26). In another scene, five horsemen with gold-studded bridles appear from heaven to shield 83 To allude to cutting out the tongue means that Antiochus is being equated with a cruel oriental despot, a Persian or an Assyrian. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 302. 84 Hence Doran remarks, “God [is] the truly decisive actor in the divine drama.” Doran, Temple Propaganda, 114. See also Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 579. 85 John Collins writes, “In general, 2 Maccabees places much more emphasis on divine assistance than was the case in 1 Maccabees.” Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 579. 86 Chapter three and the incident with Heliodorus is said to set the tone for the narrative. According to John Collins, the aim of the story is to demonstrate that “God protects his temple.” Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 576. 87 According to Doran, these are examples of angelic divine helpers. Doran, Temple Propaganda, 99. 3 Maccabees mentions two angels (ἄγγελοι) appearing from heaven (3 Macc 6:18). The author of 2 Maccabees is most likely referring to angels, as 3 Maccabees 6:16–21 has been inlayed into this section of the text. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 202. 88 The phrasing in the text leaves room for the interpretation that only Heliodorus and his men saw the heavenly horse, its rider and the two angelic youths. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 201.

26

Chapter 1: Circumcision in 1, 2 and 4 Maccabees and Jubilees

and protect Judas Maccabeus in his battle against Timothy (2 Macc 10:29– 30). After praying to God for a good angel, one appears in the form of a horseman,89 who aids Judas Maccabeus in his battle against Lysias (2 Macc 11:8). Priests and others pray acknowledging God’s ability to rescue Israel from her enemies (2 Macc 1:24–29, 15:7–9). The family of Judas Maccabeus, fellow Jews, and priests call on God for help in times of distress (2 Macc 3:15–21; 13:9–12; 14:15, 34–36; 15:12) and especially before battles (2 Macc 8:1–4, 23; 10:16, 25–26; 11:6; 12:5; 15:21).90 The Jews repeatedly give credit to God for victory over their enemies (2 Macc 8:18–20, 24, 27, 29, 35; 9:5; 10:1–9; 11:9; 15:25–27, 34).91 Antagonists are punished and often killed because they resist God’s rule: Jason (2 Macc 4:11–17, 5:5–10), Antiochus Epiphanes (2 Macc 9:1–12), Menelaus (2 Macc 13:3–8), and Nicanor (2 Macc 15:6–37).92 In sum, in 2 Maccabees circumcision is a mark of pious sacrifice. Like 1 Maccabees, the meaning of circumcision is taken from the account of the women who are killed for having circumcised their infant and from the narrative context as whole. The author paints a much more detailed scene of the horror of killing the women eliciting more sympathy on the part of the hearer/reader than does the author of 1 Maccabees. Yet at the same time as the audience would experience a sense of moral outrage, the author counsels to hold one’s emotions in check. According to this author, the sacrificial deaths of the women are performed at the hand of God as discipline for God’s nation. Through the deaths of these women and martyrs, the temple and the customs of Judaism prevail. Unlike the narration of this event in 1 Maccabees, the military might of the Maccabees does not save the nation, God does. Circumcision is a mark that identifies one as a sacrificial victim93 of God’s community.

89

This is most likely the good angel prayed for in 11:6. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 401. There is a reference of Eleazar reading the Scripture and then giving a motto “God’s help” (2 Macc 8:23). The motto itself could either signal the beginning of the battle, be a type of password, or even a battle cry. See Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 340. 91 God is referred to as the Jews’ ally (σύμμᾶχος) (2 Macc 8:24, 10:16, 11:10, 12:36). This term compares God to a political power, a relationship similar to the one that Jews have with Rome (2 Macc 4:11). Josephus uses this same term to distinguish between the Hasmoneans, who had God as their ally, and the rebels of his time (A.J. 12.6.4 §285). Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 341. 92 There is a moralizing tone to these passages. In addition, Doran observes that the author of 2 Maccabees employs a common Greek rhetorical topos that he calls “just deserts.” According to him, Greek writers such as Diodorus Siculus (D.S. 19.103.4–5) and Plutarch (Theseus 11) as well as authors of Greek mythology made use of this same rhetorical device to teach a moral lesson. Doran, Temple Propaganda, 94–95. 93 It is ironic that women, those who do not themselves practice circumcision, are representative of the meaning of the mark of circumcision in this narrative. As mentioned in a pre90

D. 4 Maccabees

27

D. 4 Maccabees: Circumcision as a mark of the use of pious reason over the passions D. 4 Maccabees In 4 Maccabees94 circumcision is a mark of the use of pious reason over the passions. This sense comports well with this writing, a recasting of 2 Maccabees.95 The work itself is best described as a philosophical discourse.96 The author97 combines epideictic rhetoric and encomium (praise) to convince the audience of his or her philosophical principle that pious reason is the absolute master of the passions.98 The tragic tales of the martyrdoms99 of Eleazar and the mother and her seven sons are meant not only to tear at the emotions but vious note above, Andreas Blaschke advances the idea that the fathers were no longer living. See Blaschke, Beschneidung, 170–71. 94 Hugh Anderson offers a date of composition between 19–54 CE, roughly the same time as the agreed-upon dating of Paul’s letters. Hugh Anderson, “Maccabees, Books of,” ABD 4:453. See also Bickerman, The God of the Maccabees: Studies on the Meaning and Origin of the Maccabean Revolt, 100, Moses Hadas, The Third and Fourth Book of the Maccabees, trans. Moses Hadas (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1953), 95, David A. deSilva, 4 Maccabees: Introduction and Commentary on the Greek Text in Codex Sinaiticus, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Richard S. Hess, and John Jarick, Septuagint Commentary Series (Leiden: Brill, 2006), xiv. By contrast, F.-M. Abel dates the work to the earlier Herodian era (39–4 BCE). Abel and Starcky, Les Livres des Maccabées, xx. Other scholars, however, have dated the work to a much later era, into the latter half of the first or first half of the second century CE. See John J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in Hellenistic Diaspora, 2nd ed. (Livonia, Mich.: Dove Booksellers, 2000), 204, Jan Willem Van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees, ed. John J. Collins, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, vol. 57 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997), 77, Blaschke, Beschneidung, 176. Anderson and Blaschke are convinced that it is a product of the Diaspora. See also David deSilva, who finds evidence for the place of origin in the area between Asia Minor and Syrian Antioch deSilva, 4 Maccabees, xviii. 95 2 Maccabees is the “most pervasive source” for 4 Maccabees. deSilva, 4 Maccabees, xxx. See also Hadas, The Third and Fourth Book of the Maccabees, 92, Goldstein, 1 Maccabees, 56 n.10, Zeitlin, The Second Book of Maccabees, 71. 96 deSilva, 4 Maccabees, xxi. The author “locates” Judaism as a type of philosophy. deSilva, 4 Maccabees, 71. 97 The author is anonymous. Eusebius and Jerome ascribed authorship of 4 Maccabees to Josephus, but this does not hold for several reasons, some having to do in part with differences in writing styles. The author is knowledgeable in Greek rhetoric and ethical philosophy and employs a sophisticated Greek writing style. He is also a Jew. deSilva, 4 Maccabees, xi– xiv. 98 deSilva, 4 Maccabees, xxi. 99 Anderson writes of 4 Maccabees, “There is no doubt at all that 4 Maccabees did wield a direct influence on the development of Christian martyrology. A number of the great figures of the early church (e.g., Gregory Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Augustine) revered 4 Maccabees as if it were a Christian text and ‘adopted’ the Maccabean heroes as Christian proto-martyrs.” Anderson, ABD 4:453–54. See also deSilva, 4 Maccabees, xxxii.

28

Chapter 1: Circumcision in 1, 2 and 4 Maccabees and Jubilees

also and primarily to serve as examples of the author’s fundamental philosophical principle. The author states his or her principle and the reason for narrating the emotive tales at the outset of the book. 1:1.

1:7. 1:8.

Since I am about to discuss an eminently philosophical subject – whether pious reason100 [εὐσεβὴς λογισμός] 101 is absolute master [αὐτοδέσποτός] of the passions [τῶν παθῶν] – I would duly advise you to attend diligently to the philosophy here set forth.102 On the basis of many and diverse considerations I could show you that reason is absolute ruler of the passions [παθῶν],103 but I can demonstrate it much better from the bravery [ἀνδραγαθίας]104 of those who died for the sake of virtue [ἀρετῆς]105: Eleazaros, the seven brothers and their mother.106

While the overall thrust of the narrative is clearly philosophical, the author’s larger interest is to demonstrate how through the practice of self-mastery by means of the law one can overcome the tyrant.107 The central term “pious rea100

The author alternates between using the phrase “pious reason” (εὐσεβὴς λογισμός) (4 Macc 1:1) and “reason” (λογισμός) (4 Macc 1:7). Piety, however, is not just a Jewish religious concept, but also a core virtue in Greco-Roman culture. deSilva, 4 Maccabees, 70. 101 The author repeats the phrase pious reason (εὐσεβὴς λογισμός) numerous times within this work (4 Macc 1:1, 7; 6:31; 7:16; 8:1; 13:1; 15:23; 16:1 and 18:2), an expression otherwise absent from the Septuagint. S. Lauer finds a similar but not identical expression in the writings of Philo. He reasons that in 4 Maccabees the expression is best understood as ‘‘‘reasoning which follows the rules of piety (these rules being known to us from the divine Law)’ and, at the same time, ‘reasoning for the sake of piety.’” S. Lauer, “Eusebes logismos in 4 Macc.,” The Journal of Jewish Studies 6, no. 3 (1955): 170–71. 102 The translation is by Stephen Westerholm in Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint and other Greek translations traditionally under that title (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 531. 103 The NRSV translation of 4 Maccabees consistently translates the Greek word πάθη as emotions. Hugh Anderson, however, states that “passions” is a preferred translation to “emotions.” Hugh Anderson, “4 Maccabees,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1985), 544 n.1. See David deSilva, who also translates this Greek word as passions. deSilva, 4 Maccabees, 3. In addition, deSilva comments that unlike the Stoics, this author does not speculate as to where in the human being these passions are located. deSilva, 4 Maccabees, 68. 104 Codex Sinaiticus employs καλοκάγαθίας in place of ἀνδραγαθίας. The former means nobleness or goodness, the latter means bravery or manly virtue (LSJ 127, 869). The characteristics of bravery and virtue “sum up the Greek ideal of the good and honorable person.” deSilva, 4 Maccabees, 79. 105 This is the “central ideal of all Greek culture.” It began by referring to manliness and courage, but over time was used to describe the “totality of good qualities.” Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 294. 106 The translation is by Stephen Westerholm in Pietersma and Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint, 531. 107 As David deSilva comments, “The defeat of the tyrant by means of the martyrs’ selfmastery (4 Macc 8:15; 11:24–25), also announced in the exordium (4 Macc 1:11), represents

D. 4 Maccabees

29

son” (εὐσεβὴς λογισμός)108 is meant to capture the sense of the mind conditioned by the law. According to the author, while God fashioned humans with the passions and with the mind to control them, God gave the law as the means to bring the control to fruition. The author states, Now, when God fashioned human beings, he planted in them their passions [τὰ πάθη] and habits [τὰ ἤθη], but at the same time he enthroned the mind among the senses as a sacred governor over them all, and to this mind he gave the law. The one who adopts a way of life in accordance with it will rule a kingdom that is temperate, just, good and courageous (4 Macc 2:21–23).109 The author treats circumcision through the now familiar tale of the women and their infant son who are put to death for following the custom of circumcision. In contrast to the previous narrations of this event, however, the author of 4 Maccabees uses the tale to support his or her central philosophical principle.110 The description of the scene involving circumcision follows. 4:24. When, by means of his [Antiochus Epiphanes’] decrees, he had not been able to subvert the people’s loyalty to the law in any way but saw that all his threats and punishments were being disregarded [καταλυομένας] 4:25. so that even women, because they circumcised their sons, were thrown down headlong [κατακρημνισθῆναι] together with their infants, though they had known beforehand that they would suffer this.111

The emphasis in this treatment of circumcision is on the mind and will. In the first place, the audience is told that the threats and punishments aimed at the Jews were disregarded (4 Macc 4:24), and that the women knew beforehand (προειδυίας)112 of the fatal consequence of circumcising their son. In the second place, the women are killed not out of abject cruelty and oppression or due to divine punishment, but instead as the result of a spiteful reaction to the a practical, political fruit of pious reason’s equipping a person to be self-master over his or her passions.” deSilva, 4 Maccabees, xxvii–xxviii. deSilva would translate αὐτοδέσποτός (4 Macc 1:1) as self-mastery. This concept is the “essential goal of ethical philosophy, appearing as early as Plato and carried into the more contemporary writings of Cicero. deSilva, 4 Maccabees, 69. 108 S. Lauer finds a similar but not identical expression as this in the writings of Philo. According to him, the term can also mean “reasoning for the sake of piety.’’ Lauer, “Eusebes logismos in 4 Macc.,” 170–71. 109 The translation is by Stephen Westerholm in “4 Makkabees,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and other Greek translations traditionally under that title, ed. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 532. 110 By contrast, Andreas Blaschke comments that this treatment of circumcision provides concrete evidence in this later New Testament time for paternal laws and for Jews themselves. Blaschke, Beschneidung, 176. 111 The translation is by Stephen Westerholm in Pietersma and Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint, 533. 112 This is a feminine accusative plural perfect participle of προοράω, to look forward, or to see beforehand.

30

Chapter 1: Circumcision in 1, 2 and 4 Maccabees and Jubilees

inability of the tyrant to change his mind (4 Macc 4:24). They frustrate the tyrant, yet in doing so, they are made to appear more intelligent and nobler than he. And in the third, unlike the intended response to this event in 2 Maccabees, the audience of this account is not meant to suffer along with the women, but instead to admire the women’s bravery in the face of certain death. In this account, there is no detailed description meant to evoke compassion. For example, the audience is not told of the condition of the women and their infant prior to their being killed, nor does the author mention that the tyrants paraded the women and their infant publically (2 Macc 6:10). The audience instead hears that the king’s men dispatched mother and infant quickly and efficiently, throwing them down a precipice (κατακρημνισθῆναι) (4 Macc 4:25). The shift toward the use of the mind and to pious reason also permeates the account of the martyrdom narratives of Eleazar and the mother and her seven sons. Through dependence on the law and the use of reason, Eleazar is able to stand firm in his resolve to obey God and thereby overcome the suffering inflicted by Antiochus Epiphanes. Reason and the law guide his actions (4 Macc 5:16–17, 20–22, 34–35). His devotion to the law (4 Macc 7:1, 7–9, 15) and his use of pious reason (4 Macc 7:5, 12, 14) enable him to endure suffering and death. As the mouthpiece for Jews, Eleazar claims that his philosophy (i.e., the law), teaches self-control for the overcoming of all pleasures and desires, and it also promotes courage to endure all pain willingly (4 Macc 5:23).113 In contrast to 2 Maccabees, in which Eleazar simply resolves not to eat defiling food because acting in this way runs contrary to the law of God (2 Macc 6:23), in this account, Eleazar explains why he does not eat defiling food and how this act of resistance demonstrates self-control through reason (4 Macc 5:25–27). “He stood firm even in tortures unto death, by virtue of reason, in defense of the law” (4 Macc 6:30).114 Although they all die an excruciating death, the brothers vanquish their oppressor through the use of pious reason and training in the law. The brothers react to their certain torture and death by demonstrating devotion to the law (4 Macc 9:1, 15; 11:5, 12, 27), to piety [εὐσεβείας] (4 Macc 9:24, 29; 11:21; 13:7) and to reason (4 Macc 8:15; 13:4, 7). Even the loss of the power of communication, the tongue, does not hamper the fourth brother’s ability to reason. The brother comments that severing the tongue will not render reason speechless (γλωττοτομᾶν) (4 Macc 10:19). The mother herself115 endures sub-

113

The translation is by Stephen Westerholm in “4 Makkabees,” 533. The translation is by Stephen Westerholm in “4 Makkabees,” 534. 115 David deSilva remarks that in dwelling on the woman’s ability to master her passions, the author demonstrates an awareness of the “deeply-rooted prejudice that the female is more disposed to be led astray by the passions” than the male. The idea that the author wishes to 114

D. 4 Maccabees

31

jected to torture and put to death, but does not abandon her faith and pious reason (4 Macc 14:13–20; 15:2–3, 11; 16:4). To withstand the torture is a sign of training in the law (4 Macc 9:1, 10:10, 13:23–27) and an example of virtue (ἀρετή)116 itself. By contrast, by giving in to their fears and by obeying the edicts of the king, they evince a lack of self-mastery: cowardice (4 Macc 8:16), succumbing to the passions (4 Macc 8:28), and shame (4 Macc 9:2, 13:18). 4 Maccabees itself shows signs of a highly reasoned discourse.117 The work begins with an exordium (4 Macc 1:1–12), continues with the development (4 Macc 1:13–3:18) and narrative demonstrations of the thesis (4 Macc 3:19–17:24), and ends with a peroration118 (4 Macc 17:7–18:24) and brief conclusion (4 Macc 18:20–24).119 The martyrdom stories of Eleazar, the seven brothers and their mother are taken up in an orderly fashion and comprise the bulk of the lengthy narrative demonstration of the thesis. In addition, metaphorical language heightens the drama. For instance, in describing the fortitude of Eleazar, this author writes, 7:1. 7:2. 7:3.

For like a most skillful pilot, the reason of our father Eleazaros steered the ship of piety on the sea of the passions [τῶν παθῶν], and though buffeted by the stormings of the tyrant and overwhelmed by the mighty waves of the tortures, in no way did it turn the rudders of piety until it sailed into the haven of immortal victory.120

The martyred brothers are victorious athletes for God (4 Macc 17:15), and the mother is described as a divine soldier (4 Macc 16:14). In sum, in 4 Maccabees circumcision is a mark of pious reason over the passions and as such supports the author’s primary philosophical principle. In this treatise, the women who circumcise their infant submit to torture and death in full awareness of their actions. Their act is meant to demonstrate the convey is that the Jewish way of life provides such discipline that even a woman’s mind was able to conquer the various tortures. deSilva, 4 Maccabees, 218. 116 This word recurs multiple times within the book (4 Macc 1:2, 8, 10, 30; 2:10; 7:22; 9:8, 18, 31; 10:10; 11:2; 12:15; 13:24, 27; 17:12, 17, 23). 117 Interpreters of 4 Maccabees remark upon its Greek Asianic style. Metzger, ed., The Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, 309, M. Gilber, “Wisdom Literature,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. Michael E. Stone, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum Ad Novum Testamentum 2/2 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), 317. 118 This is the point at which the author enumerates the achievements of the martyrs and exhorts the hearers to action. It is the moment when an orator “‘lets all the streams of eloquence’ pour out, ” and generally contains a summary of the speech’s main points. deSilva, 4 Maccabees, 242. 119 See David deSilva’s outline in deSilva, 4 Maccabees, xxviii–xxix. 120 The translation is by Stephen Westerholm in “4 Makkabees,” 534. See also 4 Macc 13:6–7, 15:31–32.

32

Chapter 1: Circumcision in 1, 2 and 4 Maccabees and Jubilees

attainment of the highest rank of virtue and piety. By dying they demonstrate that they have controlled their passions. In addition, by refusing to succumb to the will of the tyrant, they show themselves to be more virtuous than he; they, like the mother of the seven sons, frustrate and conquer the tyrant (4 Macc 17:2, 18:5). According to this author, there is something inherently reasonable about obeying the law.

Conclusions Conclusions While each of these authors supports the custom of circumcision, its significance differs quite radically from text to text. Their employment of the term “circumcision,” however, is the same: each author treats circumcision as a custom or rite. Thus, I have referred to circumcision in these writings as a “mark.” As has been my contention, the meaning of the mark of circumcision is found through an examination of its literary context. In 1 Maccabees, circumcision is as a mark of political allegiance to Hasmonean rule. It identifies a particular kind of Jew, one who espouses the policies of the Hasmoneans and opposes Gentile overlords and Jewish dissenters. It has agonistic associations as well, as the audience is told that the Hasmoneans forcibly circumcised Jewish males within their own territory. In Jubilees, the mark of circumcision is also strongly supported, but for reasons that differ from those of 1 Maccabees. In this writing, one that most likely addresses a similar social situation as that of 1 Maccabees, circumcision is best defined as a mark of adherence to a strict legal code. Jubilees itself is book of divine legislation, a rewriting and strengthening of the legal requirements found in Genesis and Exodus. It places restrictions on the rite of circumcision that exceed those of Genesis and limits those eligible for this practice to those identified as “sons of the covenant,” members of a select group. This writing exhibits signs of sectarianism, the cordoning off of a select group for identification as Israel. Like 1 Maccabees, it rejects Jews who have adopted Greek customs, referring to them as those without a law or as sons of Beliar. Second and Fourth Maccabees are highly stylized works, the first is a “spiritual saga,” and the second a rhetorically sophisticated philosophical treatise. While these works are equally concerned about the larger issue of the loss of Jewish customs and assimilation into Hellenism, they do so in ways that differ both from the First Maccabees and Jubilees as well as from each other. These works are best known for their narrations of the martyrdoms of Eleazar, the seven brothers and their mother. In both works, the treatment of circumcision prefaces this larger central narrative and can be interpreted in its light. In 2 Maccabees, the author solicits the audience’s sympathy for the women who die for having circumcised their infant; its account is quite de-

Conclusions

33

scriptive and even voyeuristic. The women are paraded as cattle before the Greek tyrants, innocent victims of the torture. The author interprets their deaths as divine discipline for the sins of the nation. However, because they themselves are innocent of wrongdoing, and indeed die for upholding the honored Jewish custom of circumcision, their deaths are best viewed as sacrifices for their nation. By contrast, in 4 Maccabees, circumcision is best defined as a mark of pious reason over the passions. This author wishes to present Judaism as a philosophy superior to any other Greek philosophy. The author addresses an audience of well-educated and Hellenized Jews. This author employs the martyrdom narratives in an entirely different fashion from that of 2 Maccabees: as an example of how one can conquer pain through the use of reason and adherence to the Jewish law. In this narration, the martyrs are not mere sacrificial victims of the torture for the cause of Judaism, but instead conquerors of their own passions. Ironically, in these two treatises, the actions of the uncircumcised women serve as the best indicator for the meaning of the mark of circumcision. In the subsequent chapter, I take up the treatments of circumcision within the writings of Josephus and thereby expand the evidence for the diversity of understandings of this rite within the first century. Like these writers, Josephus also treats circumcision as a physical practice. In his Adiabene narrative, he explains how King Izates resolves to have himself circumcised in spite of the contrary advice of his Jewish mentor Ananias and his mother (A.J. 20.2-4 §17–91).

Chapter 2

Circumcision in Josephus Flavius Josephus (37–100 CE) was a politician, soldier, and historian. Born Josephus ben Mattathias and the son of a Jewish mother of the Hasmonean family, he became a Jewish general in Galilee and fought against Rome during the Jewish revolt of the late 60s. Romans captured him in 67 and pressed him into service under Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian.1 The writings of Josephus contribute greatly to our knowledge of Judaism from the time of the Maccabees to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. His earliest work is Bellum judaicum, which recounts the history of Jerusalem from Antiochus Epiphanes (164 BCE) to its destruction in 70 CE. Approximately a decade later, he wrote Antiquitates judaicae, which recounts Jewish history from Adam and Eve to events of the first century CE. In this work, he addresses Gentiles sympathetic to Judaism.2 Two other works are Vita, an autobiography originally appended to Antiquitates judaicae, and Contra Apionem, an apologetic work that defends Judaism from slander deriving from Alexandria.3 Christians preserved his writings as he refers to John the Baptist, James, the brother of Jesus, and to Jesus himself. His influence extends from the early Church Fathers beginning with Origen and continuing through to Jerome and Augustine up through the Renaissance and to the present time. Jews have largely ignored his work, considering him a traitor to the Jewish people. However, as Steve Mason remarks, Josephus continually defends Judaism, the Judean people and their God. He does not blame the Jews per se for the revolt against Rome, but rather Jewish tyrants. Josephus took a more conservative and priestly approach to Roman rule.4

1

Louis H. Feldman, “Josephus.” ABD 3:981. See also Desmond Seward, Jerusalem’s Traitor: Josephus, Masada, and the Fall of Judea (Cambridge, Mass.: Da Capo Press, 2009), 9–10, Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, ed. Geza Vermes and Fergus Milar, Second ed., 3 vols., vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Ltd., 1973), 43. 2 Steve Mason, “Josephus and Judaism,” in Enclyclopedia of Judaism, ed. Jacob Neusner, Alan J. Avery-Peck, and William Scott Gree (New York: Continuum, 1999), 556. 3 Feldman, ABD 3:982. 4 Mason, “Josephus and Judaism,” 549.

Circumcision as commitment to Judaism

35

Josephus refers to circumcision several dozen times within his large corpus of writings, yet the majority of his comments regarding circumcision5 are brief. For example, in his Antiquitates judaicae,6 he treats the circumcision of Abraham (Genesis 17) (A.J. 1.10.5 §192), mentioning that God commanded Abraham to become circumcised in order not to mix (συμφύρειν) his descendents with others.7 He narrates the forced circumcision of the Idumeans under the rule of John Hyrcanus (134–104 BCE) (A.J. 13.9.1 §257) and that of the Itureans under Aristobulus (104–103 BCE) (A.J. 13.11.3 §318). In addition, he refers, as Philo does, to the medical reasons for circumcision (C. Ap. 2.13 §143).8 Josephus recognizes that other nations also practice circumcision, but in contrast to Herodotus, he denies that Jews learned to circumcise from the Egyptians (A.J. 8.10.3 §262, C. Ap. 1.22 §169–171).

Circumcision as commitment to Judaism Circumcision as commitment to Judaism The fullest treatment of circumcision9 occurs in his Adiabene narrative10 (A.J. 20.2–4 §17–91). In this rather extensive account of King Izates of Adiabene,11

5 Josephus mentions that he wished to state the reasons for circumcision, but he never does (A.J. 1.10.5 §192). See also Schürer, History of the Jewish People, 56. 6 The work is divided into twenty books and is intended as an apology for Judaism. See Schürer, History of the Jewish People, 54. 7 H. St. J. Thackeray comments that this motive is unattested in Scripture. Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities Books I–IV, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, vol. 4, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956), 95 n. b. 8 See Jonathan Z. Smith’s brief account of circumcision in the writings of Josephus. Jonathan Z. Smith, Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jerusalem (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982), 13. 9 Josephus treats the rite of circumcision elsewhere in this treatise. He reports that Azizus king of Emesa was willing to become circumcised when Agrippa II gave his sister Drusilla to him in marriage (A.J. 20.7.1 §139). Polemo, king of Cilicia, also became circumcised when he married the sister of Agrippa II, Berenice (A.J. 20.7.3 §145). 10 Lawrence Schiffman argues that Josephus used an external source for this narrative and copied it slavishly. Lawrence H. Schiffman, “The Conversion of the Royal House of Adiabene in Josephus and Rabbinic Sources,” in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, ed. Louis H. Feldman (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987), 294. By contrast, Shaye Cohen comments, “Like all ancient historians, he molded his material to suit his own tendentious and literary aims. He inserted dramatic and explicative details; he condensed, expanded, and omitted.” Shaye J. D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979), 47. Without commenting upon how Josephus may have employed his source, Lawrence Wills claims that the story derives from an older family chronicle and that it is similar in form to ancient literature. Lawrence M. Wills, ed., Ancient Jewish Novels: An Anthology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 213.

36

Chapter 2: Circumcision in Josephus

Josephus documents how this non-Roman Gentile royal becomes exposed to Judaism by two different Jews12 and then eventually becomes circumcised. According to Izates, by becoming circumcised, he becomes a “genuine” Jew.13 Subsequent to becoming undergoing circumcision, God is said to have protected Izates and others in his household from harm, thus affirming Izates’ actions. In this narrative, circumcision is a decisive mark of commitment to Judaism.14 The Adiabene narrative15 has been called an historicized folktale.16 Its placement in the treatise interrupts17 the account of the events leading up to 11 This is a district in Mesopotamia. Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities Book XX, trans. Louis H. Feldman, vol. 10, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981), 11 n. e. 12 This narrative has been interpreted as evidence for Jewish proselytism. Bernard Bamberger refers to this narrative as the “greatest triumph of the Jewish missionary movement.” Bernard J. Bamburger, Proselytism in the Talmudic Period (N.Y.: Ktav Publishing house, inc., 1968), 225–28. Similarly, see Andreas Blaschke, who comments that this text describes the „Glazpunkt des jüdischen Proselytentums.“ Andreas Blaschke, Beschneidung: Zeugnisse der Bibel und verwandter Texte, Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (Tübingen: A. Francke, 1998), 234. 13 This narrative has been used to support opposing sides of a debate on what constitutes being a first-century Jew. Some scholars argue that this narrative demonstrates the difference between adherence and conversion to Judaism. According to some, Izates was not a Jew until he became circumcised. On this view, see Shaye J. D. Cohen, “Respect for Judaism by Gentiles According to Josephus,” Harvard Theological Review 80, no. 4 (1987): 424, Gary Gilbert, “The Making of a Jew: ‘God-Fearer’ or Convert in the Story of Izates,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 44, no. 3–4 (1991), Lawrence H. Schiffman, Who Was a Jew? Rabbinic and Halakhic Perspectives on the Jewish-Christian Schism (Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav Publishing House, Inc., 1985), 25. Taking the opposite position, Jonathan Z. Smith affirms that Izates converted to Judaism prior to his circumcision. Smith, Imagining Religion, 13. Neil J. McEleney is in basic agreement with Smith. Neil J. McEleney, “Conversion, Circumcision and the Law,” New Testament Studies 20 (1974): 328–32. John Collins, however, voices a degree of uncertainty over Izates’ religious status before his circumcision. He questions whether Izates was for a time an “uncircumcised proselyte,” (a Jew), or merely someone who could worship the God of the Jews without becoming circumcised and converting to Judaism. John J. Collins, “A Symbol of Otherness: Circumcision and Salvation in the First Century,” in To See Ourselves as Others See Us, ed. Jacob Neusner and Ernest S. Frerichs (Chico: Scholars Press, 1985), 179. Similar to Collins, Andreas Blaschke understands the Jew Ananias as an agent of a special group in the Diaspora, those who advance a non-proselyte option for God-fearers. Blaschke, Beschneidung, 236. The stricter Jew (Eleazar) and the more lenient one (Ananias) have been compared to Peter and Paul. See Wills, ed., Ancient Jewish Novels, 214. 14 John Collins remarks, “The story of Izates corroborates the view that in popular perception circumcision was a major identifying sign of Judaism.” John J. Collins, Seers, Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, Inc., 2001), 227. 15 Lawrence Schiffman argues that this account originally had a social and political purpose and was directed to local concerns in and around Adiabene. According to him, it was directed toward a powerful group of Adiabene nobles to dissuade them from overthrowing

Circumcision as commitment to Judaism

37

the Jewish Revolt of 66 CE. There are rather clear resemblances between the character of Izates and the biblical Joseph (Genesis 37–50).18 For instance, Izates, like Joseph, is the favorite son of Monobazus, king of Adiabene. While he had many siblings, he is treated as though he were an only child (μονογενῆ).19 His many half-brothers are jealous of the favor he receives from their father, and thus for his own protection, his father sends him to King Abennerigus of Charax Spasini (A.J. 20.2.1 §20–22). Later, when Izates is made king, he deals kindly toward his brothers, even though they continue to harbor resentment against him (A.J. 20.2.3 §35–37). Moreover, Izates, like Joseph, functions as a savior. He is described as the bearer of peace (A.J. 20.2.5 §49), and he donates to Jerusalem during their time of famine (A.J. 20.2.5 §53).20 Josephus portrays Izates’ decision to become circumcised as a struggle between two opposing points of view. He rejects the advice of his trusted Jewish mentor and his mother, and instead resolves to follow his own interpretation of the law, instincts, and the advice of a new teacher. According to Josephus, Izates became exposed to Judaism while residing in the district of Charax Spasini, the district to which his father sent him for safekeeping. A Jewish merchant (ἔμπορος) there named Ananias was teaching the king’s wives to worship the God of Israel, and Izates became interested in and influenced by these teachings (A.J. 20.2.3 §34–35). Later, when Izates’ father recalled him from Charax Spasini, Ananias accompanied him back to Adiabene (A.J. 20.2.3 §35). In the meantime, Izates’ mother Helena became exposed to Judaism through the teachings of another Jew, and became herself favorably disposed to Jewish laws. Josephus writes that she was carried over (μετακεκομίσθαι) to the Jewish laws (A.J. 20.2.3 §35).21

their ruler merely because he converted to Judaism. It was equally directed to the Jews in Nisibis, now under the rule of King Izates, to reassure them. Finally, it was intended to counteract Hellenistic anti-Semitism. Schiffman, “The Conversion of the Royal House of Adiabene in Josephus and Rabbinic Sources,” 307–8. 16 Wills, ed., Ancient Jewish Novels, 215. 17 Gilbert, “The Making of a Jew,” 299. 18 Josephus, Jewish Antiquities Book XX, 11 n. d. 19 See the article by Paul Winter, “ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΗΣ ΠΑΡΑ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ,” Zeitschrift für Religion und Geistesgeschichte 5 (1953). 20 Erich Gruen sees this narrative as one among several examples of the “tremendous force” that Jerusalem exercised over Jews of this time. Subsequent to their conversions, Helena, like her son Izates, take gifts to Jerusalem (A.J. 20.2.5 §49–53). Erich S. Gruen, Diaspora: Jews Amidst Greeks and Romans (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002), 247. 21 Did she convert to Judaism? On the one hand, one could argue that because women do not become circumcised, the question of her fuller commitment is not raised. On the other hand, she can be understood as not fully Jewish in that she represents a form of commitment

38

Chapter 2: Circumcision in Josephus

Suspense builds when Izates returns to Adiabene. Upon learning that his mother had become a devotee of the Jewish religion, Izates desired to become changed (μεταθέσθαι) to the ways of the Jews. However, he reasoned that to become a genuine (βεβαίως) Jew, he must become circumcised (A.J. 20.2.4 §38). Functioning as foils, 22 Ananias and his mother express their strong opposition to his plan. They were both highly concerned about Izates’ public and more permanent commitment to Judaism. For her part, Helena cautioned Izates against circumcision on the grounds that his subjects would refuse to be ruled by a king disposed to strange (ξένος) and foreign (ἀλλότριος) customs (ἔθος) (A.J. 20.2.4 §39). For his part, Ananias threatened to leave Izates’ service, arguing that he would surely suffer punishment for having taught the king these works (ἔργον) (A.J. 20.2.4 §41). Ananias attempted to convince Izates that a full zeal for (ζηλόω) the traditions of the Jews was more valid or authoritative (κυριώτερον) than becoming circumcised (A.J. 20.2.4 §41).23 The turning point in the narrative occurs when Izates encounters the Galilean Jew Eleazar. In contrast to Ananias, Eleazar is described as being strict or exacting (ἀκρῖβής) with regard to the Jewish traditions. Whereas Ananias tells Izates that God would pardon him (συγγνώμην) if he were constrained from becoming circumcised out of fear of his subjects (A.J. 20.2.4 §42), Eleazar counsels that by not practicing the traditions, Izates has committed the greatest injustice against the law and God (A.J. 20.2.4 §43–45). Thus, following on the advice of the latter, without hesitation24 Izates summons his physician and has himself circumcised. In the final phase of the narrative, God25 acts in ways that confirm the decision Izates makes.26 As Lawrence Wills describes the situation, “God’s

to Judaism that Izates comes to reject. Moreover, the narrative supports Izates; he becomes the hero of this tale, not his mother. 22 Lawrence Wills has called this narrative a morality play. He also reasons that the first Jew (Ananias) functions as a “mere foil for the second.” Wills, ed., Ancient Jewish Novels, 214. 23 John Collins comments that Ananias offers a theological principle for why Izates need not become circumcised. It is not merely a matter of convenience. Collins, “Symbol of Otherness,” 178. See also Andreas Blaschke, who sees in this narrative two different paths to salvation, a God-fearing one (without circumcision), and the proselyte one, in which circumcision is necessary. Blaschke, Beschneidung, 240. Taken within the context of the entire narrative, however, it seems that the reader/hearer is meant to understand this counsel as a convenient excuse. Ananias is trying to protect himself from potential harm. Ananias is portrayed as a weak character in the narrative, with God and Izates being strong ones. 24 L. Wills comments, “There is a certain similarity here to the view expressed in Third Maccabees: a fearless public commitment is necessary for Jewish identity in the GrecoRoman world. There should be no closet Jews.” Wills, ed., Ancient Jewish Novels, 214. 25 As Gilbert remarks, God’s protection of Izates and his family is the second and larger section of this narrative. Gilbert, “The Making of a Jew,” 299.

Circumcision as commitment to Judaism

39

providential eye will safeguard those Jews who faithfully exhibit their religious identity.”27 God dispels the continuing anxiety of Helena and Ananias (A.J. 20.2.4 §47). Josephus narrates, It was God who was to prevent their fears from being realized. For although Izates himself and his children were often threatened with destruction, God preserved them, opening a path to safety from desperate straits. God thus demonstrated that those who fix their eyes on Him and trust in Him alone do not lose the reward of their piety (A.J. 20.2.4 §48).28

God’s protection continues throughout the remainder of the Adiabene narrative.29 For instance, God safeguards Izates when his own nobles, out of hatred for the way of life of the king, attempt to remove him from his throne (A.J. 20.4.1–2 §75–81). Later, when a more pernicious threat than the first one occurs, God intercedes to save the people. In this second threat the Parthian king Vologeses descends on Adiabene with a large force. Heightening the threat, a messenger from the Parthian forces warns Izates that even his God would not be able to deliver him from this invasion (A.J. 20.4.2 §89). However, this danger is also averted when God rescues Izates and their nation (A.J. 20.4.2 §89–91). In a statement reminiscent of 2 Maccabees,30 Izates, a Jewish convert, remarks of having claimed God as his greatest ally in war (σύμμᾶχος) (A.J. 20.4.2 §90). Izates acknowledges God’s support in prayer. If it is not in vain, O sovereign Lord, that I have had a taste of Thy goodness, and that I have made it my belief that Thou art the first and only rightful Lord of all, come to my aid not only for my sake to defend me from my enemies, but also because it is Thy power that they have had the audacity to challenge (A.J. 20.4.2 §90).31 26 Shaye Cohen comments, “Adiabene prospered mightily as a result of the conversion.” Cohen, “Respect for Judaism,” 424. 27 Wills, ed., Ancient Jewish Novels, 214. 28 The translation is by Louis Feldman in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities Book XX, 25, 27. 29 Gilbert makes the insightful observation that the theme of God’s protection is not only prevalent but forms an inclusio for the entire narrative. In the opening lines of the narrative, prior to the birth of Izates, his father Monobazus hears a voice instructing him to remove his hand from the belly of his wife so as not to disturb the infant within. The infant is said to have a happy beginning and end through God’s providence (A.J. 20.2.1 §18). The final line also speaks of God’s providence (A.J. 20.4.2 §91). Gilbert, “The Making of a Jew,” 300. 30 Shaye Cohen mentions only that Josephus had a copy of 1 Maccabees. See Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 44–47, Hanan Eshel, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008), 7. Daniel Schwartz concurs that it is unlikely that Josephus knows of 2 Maccabees. If he alludes to events from this text, it is that he had access to an oral tradition of this narrative. Daniel R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature (CEJL) (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 86–87. 31 The translation is by Louis Feldman in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities Book XX, 47. Feldman comments that this prayer is similar to Hezekiah’s in 2 Kings 19:15–19. Hezekiah prays to be delivered from Sennacherib’s attack. God forces both Volgeses and Sennacherib to depart before they can attack. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities Book XX, 47 n. c.

40

Chapter 2: Circumcision in Josephus

At the close of the narrative, Izates serves as an example to others within his family. Upon seeing the king’s pious worship and the admiration of his subjects, Izates’ brother Monobazus and his other relatives became circumcised (A.J. 20.4.1 §75).32

Conclusions Conclusions In sum, according to the Adiabene narrative, circumcision is a decisive mark of commitment to Judaism. Izates’ act of circumcision required courage and the encouragement of the Jewish teacher Eleazar. Once he made the commitment to become circumcised, God intervened to protect him, his family, and his nation. While scholars have referred to this narrative in support of the variety of expressions of Judaism in the first century, remarking that Izates was a Jew without circumcision, the contours of the narrative dictate otherwise. The point of the story is that Izates made the “correct” decision by becoming circumcised. While Izates may have been a Jew prior to his circumcision, in his mind he was not a genuine or fully committed Jew without it. In this narrative, the protagonist is an outsider to the faith and desires to become part of it. In the decades following the Jewish revolt against Rome, this narrative of Izates,33 a non-Roman and non-Jew, would have been a safe medium by which to promote Judaism and circumcision to interested Gentiles. In the next chapter, I take up the subject of circumcision in the writings of Philo. Like the author of 4 Maccabees, Philo justifies the rite of circumcision through reasoned arguments aimed to appeal to the intellect. Whereas the author of 4 Maccabees refers to circumcision as a literal rite, and as what I have termed a mark, Philo refers to circumcision as a symbol for other things; he allegorizes circumcision. While the author of 4 Maccabees states that by circumcising one demonstrates the use of pious reason over the passions, Philo remarks that circumcision itself symbolizes the excision of the passions of pleasure (Spec. 1.9, Migr. 16.92) and desire (QG 3.48, 52).

32

See Cohen who writes, “For Josephus the expression ‘to be circumcised’ and ‘to adopt the customs of the Jews’ are synonymous.” Cohen, “Respect for Judaism,” 421. 33 Shaye Cohen remarks that outside of the Adiabene narrative, Antiquitates judaicae takes a different and often negative view of conversion. Cohen, “Respect for Judaism,” 424.

Chapter 3 Circumcision in Philo

Circumcision in Philo Introduction Introduction Philo (15 BCE–50 CE)1 was a well-educated Alexandrian Jewish interpreter of the Pentateuch (LXX) and provides an important voice on the subject of circumcision in the first century.2 He had an excellent command of Greek language, culture, and philosophy from which he drew extensively and continually for his own large corpus of writings.3 He was a prominent member of the Jewish community in Alexandria and witnessed and documented the pogroms of 38 CE.4 In an effort to help reinstate Jewish rights and privileges in Alexandria, he led a Jewish delegation from there to Emperor Gaius Caligula in Rome. While his mission failed, the subsequent emperor, Claudius, reinstated religious and judicial rights for Jews in Alexandria but denied them equal citizenship with Greeks.5

1

For basic bibliographic information on Philo, see Peder Borgen, “Philo of Alexandria,” ABD 5:333–42 and Peder Borgen, “Philo of Alexandria,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. Michael E. Stone (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 252–59, Samuel Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), 3–16. 2 Jenny Morris writes, “None of the Greek-Jewish writers occupies so prominent a position as Philo of Alexandria. The volume of his extant works alone makes him the most significant; none of the others can be nearly so clearly pictured as Philo as regards their thought, or their literary and philosophical endeavours.” Jenny Morris, “The Jewish Philosopher Philo,” in The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.−A.D. 135), ed. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark LTD, 1987), 813. 3 Philo’s extant works constitute thirteen volumes of The Loeb Classical Library. 4 See In Flaccum and Legatio ad Gaium. 5 Relations between Jews and Greeks in Egypt were generally good in the Ptolemaic period but degenerated when the Romans came to power (30 BCE). While the Jews tended to side with the Romans, the Greeks resisted Roman rule and directed their hostilities onto Jews. The Jews, in turn, fought to maintain their rights; some were agitating for Roman citizenship. In general, Jews were not classified as Greek citizens. They did not live under a politeia, the right of free citizenship, but rather under a politeuma, a constitution that granted them the right to observe their own ancestral customs and laws. The lack of citizenship status restricted their access to the Greek gymnasium, the main center of learning and culture.

42

Chapter 3: Circumcision in Philo

Christian Philonic scholars have used and preserved Philo’s works and consider him a precursor of Christian thought. Early exegetes such as Origen, Clement of Alexandria and Ambrose made ample use of symbolic exegesis, or allegory, prevalent in Philo to explain biblical concepts. On the other hand, Jewish Philonic scholars were slower to adopt the thoughts of Philo and have only taken more interest in his works since the sixteenth century. Modern Jewish Philonic scholars have been critical of Philo, remarking that he universalizes Jewish concepts such as Israel and the covenant, and thus denies to Judaism its own particularity or uniqueness.6 However, as I demonstrate below, an analysis of circumcision within his writings challenges this general view. While Philo allegorizes circumcision, he upholds the physical practice of this rite for Jews.7 Although Philo refers to circumcision in several works, he elaborates on this rite more fully in three treatises, De specialibus legibus 1, Quaestiones et solutions in Genesin 3, and De migratione Abrahami. Each of these three treatises falls within yet another larger scholar-defined category of Philo’s works,8 each one different from the other. The treatise De specialibus legibus However, with Augustan reforms Jews suffered economic hardship. Augustus disbanded the Ptolemaic army, a source of employment, and discarded their means of collecting revenue. In addition, Romans made distinctions between Greeks of the cities, Hellenes of the provincial towns and native Egyptians. The former two groups paid little or no poll tax, while the Egyptians and Jews paid the tax in full. Violence against Jews erupted under Gaius Caligula (37 CE). The Greeks stormed the synagogues and deprived Jews of their use. In addition, the Greeks were able to persuade Flaccus, the Roman Governor, to undermine the politeuma. Riots occurred in which Jewish property was seized and many Jews were killed. After the death of Caligula (41 CE), the Jews led a military revolt against the Greeks. Subsequent to the revolt, the new emperor, Claudius, issued a rescript that allowed Jews to continue to develop their own schools and courts of law. However, he continued the ban of Jews from the gymnasium, and categorized them not as full citizens but as residents in Alexandria. Editorial Staff, “Egypt,” EncJud 6:487–89 and Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria, 9, Lester L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, Volume Two: The Roman Period (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 399–401, E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian, Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981), 226–43, Borgen, “Philo of Alexandria,” 252–53. 6 Ellen Birnbaum, “Allegorical Interpretation and Jewish Identity among Alexandrian Jewish Writers,” in Neotestamentica Et Philonica: Studies in Honor of Peder Borgen, ed. David E. Aune, Torrey Seland, and Jarl Henning Ulrichsen, Supplements to Novum Testamentum (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2003), 320–21, Daniel Boyarin, Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 233. 7 Nikiprowetzky comments, «Mais la pensée réelle de Philo est ici l’idée abstraite indissolublement liée au symbol concret qui l’exprime et dans lequel, pour ainsi parler, elle s’incarne.» V. Nikiprowetzky, Le commentaire de l’écriture chez Philon d’Alexandrie: son caractère et sa portée, observations philologique (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977), 237–38. 8 Following on the work of Louis Massebieu (Le Classement des Oeuvres de Philon, 1889), Samuel Sandmel divides Philo’s works into four larger categories (“Miscellaneous

Introduction

43

1 comprises Philo’s “The Exposition of the Law”,9 De migratione Abrahami is one treatise of “The Allegory of the Law,”10 and Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3 is one of a set of treatises within a group known as “Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus.”11

Writings,” “The Exposition of the Law,” “The Allegory of the Law,” and “Questions and Answers to Genesis and Exodus”). Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria, 29–81. 9 This series of writings treats the Pentateuch as a book of the law. The group “The Exposition of the Law” includes De opificio mundi, De Abrahamo, De Iosepho, De decalogo, De specialibus legibus, De virtutibus, De praemiis et poenis. Philo divides this collection into three parts: the narrative of the event of creation, the historical parts and a legislative section. De opificio mundi addresses the first category: the two extant treatises on biblical patriarchs Abraham and Joseph cover the second, and the remaining treatises, De decalogo, De specialibus legibus, De virtutibus, and De praemiis et poenis comprise the legislative section. In addition, since the work of Erwin Goodenough, the treatises De vita Mosis I, II have been considered companion pieces to “The Exposition of the Law.” For the details of Goodenough’s categorization, see Erwin R. Goodenough, “Philo’s Exposition of the Law and his De vita Mosis,” Harvard Theological Review 26 (1933). For a general explanation of “The Exposition of the Law,” see Yehoshua Amir, “Authority and Interpretation of Scripture in the Writings of Philo,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 424–26. For a general discussion of its individual treatises see Borgen, “Philo of Alexandria,” 233–41, Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria, 47–76. 10 These writings comprise a large percentage of the extant works of Philo, taking up a full five volumes of the twelve devoted to him within The Loeb Classical Library. Each of the treatises in this division of writings begins with a line of Scripture. According to Yehoshua Amir, these works differ from those of “The Exposition of the Law” in that they concern not the legislation of Moses but his philosophy. Amir, “Authority and Interpretation,” 426–27. In addition, Philonic scholars have extensively debated the ability to accurately label these works as either legal treatises or philosophical works. For a brief discussion on the attempts at systematizing Philo’s works, see Borgen, ABD 5:334–36. For a list of the treatises within “The Allegory of the Law,” see Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria. 76–77. Although the change is minor, Peder Borgen categorizes Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin and Exodus and all of Philo’s allegorical treatises (as listed by Sandmel) under the single heading “Allegorical Interpretations.” See Borgen, “Philo of Alexandria,” 241–46. 11 This division of writings that consists of Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin and Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodus is preserved only in Armenian, with some Greek fragments remaining. For further information regarding the extant manuscripts in this division of writings, see Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis, ed. Jeffrey Henderson, trans. Ralph Marcus, vol. Supplement 1, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002), vii–viii. According to Yehoshua Amir, in these works, Philo “subordinated his own religiousphilosophical thinking to his task as a Bible exegete.” Amir, “Authority and Interpretation,” 428. Samuel Sandmel suggests that these writings are “preliminary notes” for Philo’s other allegorical treatises. According to Sandmel, this makes good sense when there are duplications in treatment of subjects between these writings and those of “The Allegory.” This theory, however, does not account for the numerous allegorical treatises on which there are no

44

Chapter 3: Circumcision in Philo

In the earlier history of the scholarship on Philo, scholars were in general agreement that “The Exposition of the Law” was directed to Gentiles while “The Allegory of the Law” as well as “Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus” were written to Jews.12 More recently, however, Philonic scholars have begun to reevaluate the question of Philo’s audience. In the first place, scholars began to reconsider the social situation of ancient Jews. They asked whether all ancient Jews were necessarily circumcised, and if all were similarly attached to the cult or to a synagogue. If Jews were attached, they wondered about their relative level of attachment. Along with this type of reconsideration of the social situation, scholars also began to question the degree to which Jewish writings would have made their way into the hands of non-Jews. With this reevaluation of the social situation came the realization among a growing number of Philonic scholars that Philo addressed the majority of his various treatises to Jews.13 Indeed, in the passages that concern circumcision, it is my assumption that Philo most likely addressed fellow Jews with issues of mutual concern.14 (or no extant?) preliminary writings. For a discussion of this issue, see Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria, 79–80. 12 Erwin Goodenough well exemplifies these thoughts. Goodenough, “Philo’s Exposition of the Law and his De vita Mosis,” 109, 17–18. See also Amir, “Authority and Interpretation,” 425, 27, Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria, 29–30. 13 In particular, Jenny Morris who states that there is “no direct evidence” available to accurately access Philo’s audience or to know who of his contemporaries read or heard his various works. According to her, the majority of Philo’s writings were probably intended for Jews. Morris, “The Jewish Philosopher Philo,” 817 n. 21, 89–90. In addition, Samuel Sandmel argues that “The Exposition” – the one group of writings that may have been addressed to Gentiles – could have been addressed instead to Jews “on the verge of leaving the Jewish community.” Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria, 47. Some Philonic scholars have regarded Philo’s writings as primarily synagogue homilies. See Harry A. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1947), 87, 96, Jean Daniélou, Philon d’Alexandrie (Paris: Librairie Arthème Fayard, 1958), 103. Other scholars, while equally understanding that Philo wrote for Jews, contend that Philo’s writings were not limited to the synagogue. For these scholars, Philo wrote commentaries and may have worked in conjunction with other writers in an institutional setting such as a school. See, in particular, Nikiprowetzky, Le commentaire de l’écriture chez Philon, 177–80. See also, the recent monograph by Erich Gruen who writes that Hellenic Jews addressed their message to fellow Jews. According to Gruen, these ancient Jewish writers “strove to develop their own self-identity, to gain a place in the Mediterranean world and also to establish their distinctiveness.” Erich S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), xv, 297. See also Maren R. Niehoff, “Circumcision as a Marker of Identity: Philo, Origen and the Rabbis on Gen 17:1– 14,” Jewish Studies Quarterly 10 (2003): 97 n. 28, 101. 14 Victor Tcherikover remarks, “Alexandrian literature was created not in order to exhibit certain ideas to the outer world, but to give expression to the intricate problems which developed within the Jewish community itself and which attracted the interest of its members.”

Introduction

45

Moreover, scholars have scrutinized Philo’s larger divisions of writings to determine whether or not they exhibit a progression of thought. In other words, did Philo begin as a biblical exegete and then progress to philosophic works15 typified by “The Allegory of the Law,”16 or did he begin with “The Allegory of the Law” and then move to biblical topics later in his life?17 There has been no scholarly consensus on this issue. Following on the work of A. Terian, Morris concludes that the philosophical treatises seem to have been written later and that all of Philo’s works may have been written during a shorter time span than had been previously suggested and late in his life.18 Thus, according to this assessment, De migratione Abrahami and De specialibus legibus 1 would have been composed somewhat later than Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3, clearly an exegetical treatise. As mentioned, Philo treats circumcision in all three of his so-called larger categories of writings. While there appears to be some repetition or overlap among these three treatments, the dominant meaning of this rite shifts in accordance with the writing’s overall purpose. When justifying the literal practice of circumcision (Spec. 1, Migr.), it becomes a necessary rite for the individual physical body or for the social group; yet when there is no apparent need to justify the physical practice, most likely because circumcision is already being practiced by a majority of the intended audience, it becomes much more significant for the mind and spirit (QG 3). In contrast to the treatments of circumcision surveyed to this point, Philo allegorizes circumcision: he assesses various symbolic meanings to this rite. I begin with one of Philo’s treatise De specialibus legibus 1, one of his more succinct treatments of circumcision.

Victor Tcherikover, “Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered,” Eos 48 (1956): 193. By contrast and at least within Philo’s treatise De specialibus legibus 1, Andreas Blaschke posits an audience that extends beyond just Jews to Hellenists favorably disposed toward Judaism. Andreas Blaschke, Beschneidung: Zeugnisse der Bibel und verwandter Texte, Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (Tübingen: A. Francke, 1998), 206–7. 15 Many scholars have commented upon Philo’s use of philosophy. For an extended and rather impressive list of Philo’s explicit and implicit philosophical references see Wolfson, Philo, 43–44. For a general discussion of Philo’s use of philosophy, see Borgen, ABD 5:339– 41. 16 See the discussion and chart in Émile Bréhier and M. Massebieau, “Essai sur la Chronologie de la vie et des œuvres de Philon,” Revue de l’histoire des religions 53 (1906). 17 See Morris, “The Jewish Philosopher Philo,” 841–44. 18 See Morris, “The Jewish Philosopher Philo,” 843 n.130. According to Abraham Terian, Philo had an interest in philosophy and theology throughout his life. Terian, however, does see a move from “The Questions and Answers,” written earlier, into a more “artistic” style typical of “The Allegory” written sometime later. Abraham Terian, “A Critical Introduction to Philo’s Dialogues,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt 21.1 (1984): 292–94.

46

Chapter 3: Circumcision in Philo

A. De specialibus legibus 1: The mark of circumcision as the promotion of health, life and well-being A. De specialibus legibus 1 Philo’s treatment of circumcision in De specialibus legibus 119 occurs at the head of this rather lengthy treatise, highly suggestive of its overall value. Its treatment begins as a defense against a charge of ridicule, and Philo rebuts this charge by offering various reasons why circumcision is important. He first offers four primary benefits of circumcision, justified by “divinely gifted men”20 (Spec. 1.4–8), and then provides two more reasons of his own for why this practice is of benefit to the Jewish male. While the first four benefit the body, the last two benefit the mind/soul21 and are more explicitly symbolic 22 in nature (Spec. 1.9–10).23 19 Scholars have debated the purpose of De specialibus legibus. Erwin Goodenough considers it a legal digest of actual decisions made by Jews in Egypt. Heinemann reasons it as a combination of Greco-Roman legal and philosophical issues and Belkin, a Jewish law code or halakhah practiced by Alexandrian Jews similar to that found among Palestinian Jews. Richard D. Hecht, “The Exegetical Contexts of Philo’s Interpretation of Circumcision,” in Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel, ed. Fredrick E. Greenspahn, Earle Hilgert, and Burton L. Mack (Chico: Scholars Press, 1984), 53–61. 20 In this context, these men may be the biblical patriarchs, such as Abraham and Isaac, who became circumcised and serve as a model for others. Philo, however, defers to the θεσπέσιοι in several of his treatises. F. H. Colson translates the term variously as “divinely empowered men” (Migr. 16.90), “divinely gifted men” (Spec. 1.8, 314; Virt. 8), “highly gifted men” (Spec. 3.178), or as “truly admirable people” (Praem. 43). Just what these men say and do varies considerably depending upon the individual treatise. They justify the need to consider the views of others and the importance of following customs in their entirety (Migr. 16.90). They consider that many of the laws are outward symbols of hidden things and unspoken words (Spec. 3.178). They explain ancient studies pertaining to the reasons Jews are circumcised (Spec. 1.8). Using the law, they train Jews in the community to lead virtuous lives (Spec. 1.314). They exemplify a noble use of wealth (Virt. 8). As truly admirable people, they can infer the creator from creation (Praem. 43). Philo also appears to use the term to refer to a biblical psalmist; Whitaker translates the singular noun as “sacred poet” (Plant. 29). See also Yehoshua Amir who translates the verbal form of this word as “soothsaying.” According to Amir, the link for Philo between divine inspiration and human thought is the notion of being a friend of God. Amir, “Authority and Interpretation,” 433–40. 21 Shaye Cohen remarks that these last two reasons for circumcision are symbols of “some moral quality.” Yet the notion of excessive pleasure seems to be conceived along Stoic lines of thought whereby excessive pleasure is understood as almost a physical quality that poses a real obstacle to mental health. While the notion of conceit has a moral connotation, in this context Philo appears to be aiming at the most basic (or first) religious impulse: honoring God over humankind. This first (and necessary) step seems to precede a more generalized notion of morality. Shaye J. D. Cohen, Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised?: Gender and Covenant in Judaism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), 61. 22 The dominance of the use of symbolic exegesis, most often referred to as a form of allegory, is well and often mentioned in the scholarship on Philo. As Samuel Sandmel remarks,

A. De specialibus legibus 1

47

The overriding sense of circumcision in this treatise is that of a physical rite with benefits for overall health and fertility. The four more corporeal reasons to perform circumcision are that it secures the release from a severe disease of the prepuce (πόσθη) (Spec. 1.4); it promotes the cleanliness of the whole body (Spec. 1.5); it causes a likeness (ὁμοιότης) between the circumcised member and the heart, as the circumcised member serves for the generation of living beings, the heart likewise serves as the generator of thoughts (Spec. 1.6); and it aids in producing abundant offspring (Spec. 1.7). To these four, Philo adds that circumcision symbolizes the excision of excessive and superfluous pleasure (Spec. 1.9) and the removal of conceit, the evil belief that humans alone generate life. More precisely, Philo justifies circumcision as a rite that warrants safeguarding because of its benefits for the body (Spec. 1.4–7) and soul (Spec. 1.9–10). In interpreting the significance of circumcision in this treatise, Philonic scholars have tended to overlook the first four reasons to circumcise, those that pertain to the bodily benefits in favor of the last two that concern benefits for the mind and soul.24 One explanation for this is that Philo himself sepa“So abundantly, almost ceaselessly, does Philo use allegory that at times the device can seem as if it is as important to [sic, as?] the content.” Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria, 21. Or Peder Borgen writes, “It may be maintained that Philo attempts to make the allegorical method serve his aims as a Jewish exegete. . . .to Philo, allegorical interpretation is a way in which the wisdom of the laws of Moses and Jewish religious institutions can be disclosed to the world.” Borgen, ABD 5:338. Finally, James VanderKam remarks that while Philo does not abandon the literal interpretations of the text, he was of the opinion that allegorical readings “led one to higher thoughts and abstractions, much as the soul was more elevated than the body.” James C. VanderKam, An Introduction to Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001), 140. Samuel Sandmel defines allegory as the “saying something else.” Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria, 17. Yehoshua Amir writes, “The act of allegorization, which purports to bring out the meaning really intended by Moses, consists of divesting the thing named by the word of its concreteness, leaving an intrinsic meaning which is conceptual, abstracted from all spatial-temporal being, absolutely valid, eternal.” Amir, “Authority and Interpretation,” 426. Shaye Cohen remarks that circumcision, according to Philo, is “efficacious” on two levels: the physical and the metaphysical. See Cohen, Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised?, 62. Philo himself, however, uses the term ῥητός (Migr. 16.89), translated by F. H. Colson as “literal” and σύμβολον (Migr. 16.89; Spec. 1.8), translated as “symbol,” to express a difference in how circumcision is interpreted. 23 Philo repeats these two symbolic meanings for circumcision in two other treatises: Migr. 16.92 and QG 3.46. See also QE 2.2 and QG 3.52 in which Philo refers to circumcision as symbolizing only the excision of passions (Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin), or only desires, sensual pleasures and other passions of the soul (Questions and Answers on Exodus). 24 For example, Maren Niehoff writes that in his treatment of circumcision in De specialibus legibus, Philo gives the rite of circumcision paradigmatic legal status because it symbolizes “the most central aspects of enkrateia.” Niehoff, “Circumcision as a Marker of Identity,” 101. In addition, Richard Hecht remarks that, “The crucial meaning of circumcision is first

48

Chapter 3: Circumcision in Philo

rates the first four benefits from the latter two and claims only the last two as his own.25 However, Philo’s own language undermines these assumptions regarding what is of utmost importance for the understanding of this rite. He employs the same superlative adjective “most necessary” (ἀναγκαιότατον) to refer both to his own reasons for circumcising as well as for one of the warrants of circumcision attributed to the divinely gifted men (Spec. 1.7). In addition, by beginning with the four more corporeal benefits of circumcision, he offers those and not the other more mental and spiritual benefits, a place of prominence. Furthermore, one can recognize a distinct need to justify the practice of circumcision itself, especially from its charge of ridicule (Spec. 1.1). This sense of necessity is absent from Philo’s “own” justification for circumcision. However, as I indicate below, in this treatment of circumcision, just as there is an actual connection between body and mind,26 there is also an expressed link between the benefit of circumcision for the body and the mind. Philo’s first four reasons for circumcising, confirmed by the divinely gifted men, share the common theme of the promotion of health and life. The individual aspects to which Philo explicitly refers, health, cleanliness, the associathe excision of the pleasures and passions which might potentially create confusion in the mind and second, the rejection of arrogant conceit.” Hecht, “Exegetical Contexts,” 74. Andreas Blaschke comments that the cutting of superfluous growths provides an etymological proof for Philo’s favorite expression (Lieblingsdeutung) for circumcision περιτομή as equal to περιττοῦ ἐκτομή, suggestive of Blaschke’s sense that these final two significations are more important than others. Blaschke, Beschneidung, 209. 25 As suggested by Richard Hecht, “Exegetical Contexts,” 74. Niehoff observes a development of self-confidence in the work of Philo. In comparison with Philo’s treatment of circumcision in Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin, in this treatise Philo appears to take more credit himself for its interpretation. Niehoff, “Circumcision as a Marker of Identity,” 100 n. 33. 26 Dale Martin cautions that it is a mistake to apply a radical or Cartesian (1596–1650 CE) dualism between body and soul to first-century thinkers. No ancient thinker including Plato himself would have made strict distinctions between these notions. For instance, Aristotle contrasted the word loosely understood to mean “matter” (ὕλη) not to something moderns would think of as immaterial but instead to “form” (εἴδος). In addition, Stoics would not consider the mind and body to be completely different in substance from each other, the one, immaterial and the other, material. They describe the soul’s formation as a dense breath that gradually becomes hardened. Moderns might consider this to be a type of matter. According to Martin, Philo would have understood the soul as consisting either of the same substance as that which constitutes the heavenly bodies or as “ether.” Again, while Philo would not refer to the soul as matter, neither would he refer to it as “nonmatter.” For a fuller discussion of this issue, see Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 6–15. Thus, while I use the terms “body” and “mind,” I am not suggesting that the mind is necessarily immaterial or is somehow totally distinct from the physical body. Indeed, in two of Philo’s treatments of circumcision (Spec. 1.6 and Migr. 16.93), he argues that aspects of the body and mind work in similar ways or in tandem.

A. De specialibus legibus 1

49

tion between the promotion of life and thought, and the preparation for fertility, “the most vital reason,”27 support this notion. All four reasons pertain to the external physical body, and only one reason, the third, associates one of the bodily benefits of circumcision to a complimentary benefit for the mind (Spec. 1.6). As mentioned, Philo responds to the charge that circumcision is ridiculous (Spec. 1.1).28 Philo plainly states, “I will begin with that which is an object of ridicule among many people” (Spec. 1.1).29 While not capitulating to this charge, he reveals its sting. He repeats the word for ridicule, to laugh at, (γελᾶν) twice (Spec. 1.1–2), and in the second instance, it heads up the phrase. He defends against this charge in a number of ways. In the first place, he chastises those who ridicule this practice, accusing them of taking part in childish mockery (χλεύη) and for not thinking more (φρονιμώτερον) and in more serious (σεμνότερον) ways themselves (Spec. 1.3). According to Philo, circumcision is not ridiculous; to the contrary, it is reasonable30 and worthy of esteem. In the second place, he comments that Jews are not the only nation who practices circumcision; other nations do so as well, and in particular, the Egyptians practice it.31 Philo refers to the Egyptians using three superlatives (Spec. 1.2–3), distinguishing them for their antiquity, love of philosophy and populousness (Spec. 1.2). That Philo would paint Egyptians in a positive light, however, is odd, given his own estimation of Egyptians as idol worshippers in the previous treatise (Decal. 76–80). Indeed, this idiosyncrasy has not escaped the notice

27 The translation is by F. H. Colson in Philo, “The Special Laws (De Specialibus Legibus),” in Philo, vol. 7, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998), 105. 28 According to Philo, the ridicule stems from many people and most likely implies Greco-Roman culture at large. There is evidence among Greco-Roman writers in and around the first century CE of the ridicule of Jewish circumcision. See, for example, Horace who refers to Jews as those without a foreskin (Satirae 1.5.96–104). According to Petronius, the fault of the Jews is their circumcision (Satyricon 68.4–8, 102.13–14, Fragmenta No.37Ernout). Tacitus remarks that the customs of the Jews are base and abominable; Jews adopt circumcision to distinguish themselves from other people (Histories 5.5). Josephus remarks on Apion’s ridicule of Jewish circumcision (C. Ap. 2.137). See also Hecht’s discussion of this topic in Hecht, “Exegetical Contexts,” 76. 29 The translation is by F. H. Colson in Philo, “The Special Laws (De Specialibus Legibus),” 101. 30 See Cohen, Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised?, 61. 31 F. H. Colson comments that Herodotus (2.36) is the original authority on the rite of circumcision in Egypt; Philo may be using his writings for his source. Émile Bréhier, The Philosophy of Plotinus, trans. Joseph Thomas (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1958), 615.

50

Chapter 3: Circumcision in Philo

of Philonic scholars.32 Yet the appeal to Egyptian culture serves Philo’s larger purpose of promoting the physical practice of Jewish circumcision to an Egyptian Jewish audience. As has been noted, many of the elites of that time were caught up in what has been termed Egyptomania,33 the attraction to all things Egyptian. Indeed, historians have observed that the “wisdom of the Egyptians” was proverbial both in ancient and in modern times.”34 Philo’s four reasons to circumcise are in response to this charge of ridicule, as each rationale suggests the wisdom behind the rite. The first reason is the prevention of disease. Circumcision secures the release (ἀπαλλαγή) from a disease that no man would want: a severe (χαλεπός) and hard-to-cure illness that feels like a fire in the prepuce (Spec. 1.4). The disease is called ἀνθρακα. The word ἀνθρακα comes from ἀνθραξ, which means charcoal, but it can also refer to a carbuncle or malignant tumor. In addition, such a disease would surely deter from sexual activity and hence would diminish fertility. The second reason is to encourage personal hygiene, the cleanliness (καθαριότης) of the whole body (Spec. 1.5). While the word καθαριότης may mean cleanliness or purity, Philo’s emphasis in this passage – as seen by his further elaboration of this second justification – appears to be on the former sense. 35 Yet, as Mary Douglas has cautioned, one should guard against mak32

See Erwin R. Goodenough, The Jurisprudence of the Jewish Courts in Egypt (Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1968), 30–32, Hecht, “Exegetical Contexts,” 64–65, Cohen, Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised?, 63. See also Suzanne Daniel who claims, «L’hommage à la sagesse de l’antique Égypte est un lieu commun, introduit ici pour les besoins de la cause.» Philo, De Specialibus Legibus, ed. Roger Arnaldez, Jean Pouilloux, and Claude Mondésert, Trans. Suzanne Daniel, Les Œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie, vol. 24 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1975), 13 n. 4. 33 Richard Hecht remarks that Egyptomania had greatly influenced the “fashionable circles of Roman society” at this time. As an example, Hecht cites Juvenal’s attacks on this influence (Satirae 1.129–30, 6.557–65, 6.528–40). Hecht, “Exegetical Contexts,” 77–78. In addition, Karl Galinsky remarks that the Egyptomania was mostly an “aesthetic phenomenon.” Karl Galinsky, Augustan Culture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 189. Egyptian influence may be seen in the Ara Pacis (altar to peace) constructed for Augustus (ca. 13 BCE) on the Campus Martius. The altar contains an enormous sundial whose hand is an Egyptian obelisk. Ibid., 146. Egyptian influence is also found in the painted artwork found in the study within Augustus’ house (ca. 30–20 BCE) and on a wall in what has been called the “Isiac Hall” on the Palatine hill (ca. 20 BCE). The wall paintings are inspired from the cult of Isis. Ibid., 183, 89. 34 Margaret A. Murray, The Splendour That Was Egypt: A General Survey of Egyptian Culture and Civilization (London: Sidgwick and Jackson Limited, 1954), xv. Murray remarks that Western civilization is indebted to the Egyptians for the division of time into 12 months and 365 days, the 12-hour day and night, writing materials, the first writing, and the earliest recorded history. Ibid., xviii. 35 Cohen states that in this passage, Philo’s second reason to circumcise is for the promotion of purity. He argues that Herodotus employs similar Greek words to Philo, and that his (i.e., Herodotus’s) context is that of purity. Cohen, Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised?,

A. De specialibus legibus 1

51

ing too fine a distinction between purity and cleanliness. According to her, notions of cleanness and purity are linked and pertain to a concern with dangers inherent in cultures. To purify or to clean is to ward off danger through the imposition of order.36 Philo refers to substances that might collect in the foreskin, and circumcision of the foreskin would eliminate the collection of these substances. The third reason is that circumcision creates a likeness (ὁμοιότητα) between the reproductive organ and the heart (Spec. 1.6). According to Philo, each is prepared to serve for generation, the circumcised member for the generation of living beings, the heart for the generation of thoughts.37 The connection between the penis and the heart brings to mind biblical passages that pertain to the circumcision of the heart38 (Lev 26:41; Deut 10:16; Jer 4:4, 9:26; Ezek 44:7, 9), yet Philo does not make this connection explicit,39 as he does elsewhere (QG 3.46, 48). In Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3, Philo connects the metaphor “circumcision of the heart” with the need to curb and control rebellious thoughts. In the passage at hand, however, Philo’s point is just the reverse: the circumcised member’s basic generative function has an association with a fertile mind. Philo reinforces the notion of the reciprocity of generation through his choice of words suggestive of the production of life: γένεσις, which Colson translates as “generation” but, which can also mean “origin,” “source,” and “birth,” and γόνιμος, which means “productive” or “fruitful.”

61, 230 n. 39. Yet Cohen himself acknowledges the ambiguity in the Greek word for purity/cleanliness. Moreover, his argument also turns on the context. 36 Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2002), 4–7. 37 The heart is the seat of thoughts within ancient Greek culture. According to Richard Onians, Homeric writers locate thinking in the heart and in the mid-body area. Richard Broxton Onians, The Origins of European Thought: About the Body, the Mind the Soul, the World Time, and Fate (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954), 13. In addition, the Stoics claim that a spirit force is in the heart. Philo, “The Special Laws (De Specialibus Legibus),” 615, Goodenough, Jurisprudence, 31 n.2. 38 This term has been the subject of various studies. See, for example, Werner E. Lemke, “Circumcision of the Heart: The Journey of a Biblical Metaphor,” in A God So Near, ed. Brent A. Strawn and Nancy R. Bowen (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbauns, 2003), 299–319, Timothy W. Berkley, From a Broken Covenant to Circumcision of the Heart: Pauline Intertextual Exegesis in Romans 2:17–29, ed. Mark Allen Powell, Society of Biblical Literature: Dissertation Series (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), Roger Le Déaut, “Le thème de la circoncision du coeur,” in Congress Volume, Vienna, 1980, ed. J.A. Emerton (Leiden: Brill, 1980), 178–205. 39 Cohen remarks that this argument should operate on the “physical level” in order to more closely correspond with the other three arguments in the group. In other words, Cohen does not necessarily think that Philo is making an association between the circumcision of the penis and the more spiritual notion of a circumcised heart. Cohen, Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised?, 61.

52

Chapter 3: Circumcision in Philo

Lastly, the fourth and “most important” (ἀναγκαιότατον) reason to circumcise is for the promotion of abundant offspring (Spec. 1.7). According to Philo, when sperm has no chance of falling into the folds (κόλποι) of the foreskin, it has a greater efficiency quotient. Thus, circumcision accounts, in part, for the proliferation of Jews and of those other nations that practice it. With the insistence upon circumcision as a rite that promotes fertility, a notion that pertains to both the third and fourth reasons for circumcision, Philo brings to the surface a very basic or savage40 Hebrew notion. Indeed, recently several scholars of the Hebrew bible have found that circumcision has a “primal” association with fertility. Circumcision completed the male body and made Israelite men members of the community; it symbolized “productivity and procreation” and enabled the perpetuation of the community.41 Referring to circumcision as the “fruitful cut,” Howard Eilberg-Schwartz writes that for biblical Israel, circumcision had an association with the content of the covenant between God and Abraham: the agreement that Abraham be prodigious, the father of many (Gen 17:2, 4–6).42 According to Eilberg-Schwartz, God’s promise made to Abraham through the covenant of circumcision, one that implied fertility, was of greater significance than the promises made to Adam or Noah.43 The removal of the foreskin would imply the proper functioning of the penis, its designated function for fertility.44 In the same regard, by using the metaphor “uncircumcised” for other parts of the body, such as the heart (Jer 9:25; Deut 10:16), the lips (Exod 6:12, 30), or the ears (Jer 6:10), biblical writers expressed the notion that these parts of the body did not function as God intended. In addition, according to Eilberg-Schwartz, the reference to being cut off from one’s people as a penalty for not circumcising (Gen 17:14) does not necessarily pertain to being ostracized, but may instead be a reference to the fact that the uncircumcised will become infertile.45 EilbergSchwartz remarks, 40 Howard Eilberg-Schwartz employs this term. Eilberg-Schwartz finds similarities between the meaning of circumcision in biblical Israel and peoples who circumcise in Africa, Australia or New Guniea. In The Savage in Judaism Eilberg-Schwartz aims to “tease out implicit meanings that are embedded in the practice.” According to him, these meanings are often unstated and may be instead inferred from the biblical text through metaphors used by the biblical writers. According to him, the priestly writers of the biblical texts reveal an “overwhelming preoccupation with reproduction and intergenerational continuity between males.” Howard Eilberg-Schwartz, The Savage in Judaism: An Anthropology of Israelite Religion and Ancient Judaism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990), 144. 41 Jon Berquist, Controlling Corporality: The Body and the Household in Ancient Israel (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2002), 15, 19, 30, 36, 40. 42 Circumcision, a cut on the penis, has a symbolic meaning that “make[s] it appropriate for the content which it signifies.” Eilberg-Schwartz, Savage in Judaism, 146–47. 43 Eilberg-Schwartz, Savage in Judaism, 147. 44 Eilberg-Schwartz, Savage in Judaism, 148–49. 45 Eilberg-Schwartz, Savage in Judaism, 148.

A. De specialibus legibus 1

53

The connection between circumcision and fertility explains why some commentators have been confused over whether circumcision is the covenant or simply a symbol of it (Skinner 1910, 294; Sarna 1970, 132). Circumcision is a symbol that God will make Abraham fruitful and multiply. At the same time, circumcision is also a fulfillment of that promise since the removal of the foreskin symbolically readies the organ for reproduction.46

Philo’s insistence on circumcision as the promotion of fertility also suggests that he may have been responding to the charge that circumcision curbs the practitioner’s ability to reproduce. Indeed, there is evidence that first-century Greeks and Romans saw little difference between circumcision and castration47 or physical deformity.48 Greeks may have conflated the castration of priests of the Magna Mater cult49, popular at this time, with the Jewish rite of circumcision.50 Jews as well as Greeks and Romans scorned eunichism, and that beginning with Domitian (51–96 CE), Roman emperors prohibited the practice of castration.51 Philo’s own and final two reasons for circumcision are highly symbolic in nature but also concern aspects of health and well-being. The first concerns the excision of excessive and superfluous pleasure and resonates with Philo’s interpretation of the tenth commandment. The second regards the banishment of conceit and refers back to the first commandment. Taken together, they both pertain to a Jewish male’s mental well-being. According to Philo, circumcision is a symbol of the excision of pleasures (ἡδονή) that bewitch the mind, also expressed as the excision of excessive and superfluous pleasures (Spec. 1.9). The type of pleasure to which Philo refers is primarily sexual. Philo’s play on the Greek words used to describe the excision of excessive pleasure (περιτομὴν περιττῆς ἐκτομὴν)52 calls to mind the cutting involved in this rite. Hence, in the physical act of cutting away the foreskin, excessive sexual pleasures are “removed” from the mind, pleasures that interfere with mental and emotional well-being. 46

Eilberg-Schwartz, Savage in Judaism, 148. John Bowen Polhill, “Circumcision and the Early Church: A Hermeneutical Inquiry” (Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1968), 75. 48 Louis H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 155. 49 Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament: History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age, vol. 1 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 191–94. 50 According to Susan Elliot, the association between the practitioners of the Magna Mater cult with those wishing to become circumcised is the situation Paul addresses in his letter to the Galatians. Susan Elliott, Cutting Too Close for Comfort: Paul’s Letter to the Galatians in Its Anatolian Cultic Context (London: T & T Clark International, 2003). 51 Polhill, “Circumcision and the Early Church”, 80–82. 52 See F. H. Colson and Peder Borgen who also draw attention to this play on words. Bréhier, The Philosophy of Plotinus, 105 n. b, Peder Borgen, Philo, John and Paul: New Perspectives on Judaism and Early Christianity (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 217. 47

54

Chapter 3: Circumcision in Philo

In his interpretation of the tenth commandment, Philo explains the effect of pleasure. The presentation to the mind of something which is actually with us and considered to be good, arouses and awakes the soul [ψῦχή] when at rest and like a light flashing upon the eyes raises it to a state of great elation. The sensation of the soul is called pleasure (Decal. 143).53

According to Philo, pleasure itself is a problem because, as one of the four passions54 it “stirs and shakes”55 the soul from its natural state and interferes with health or stability.56 Moreover, Philo expresses a corresponding concern regarding the excess of pleasure, with circumcision being the symbol of not just the excision of excessive sensations of sexual pleasure, albeit the hardest to be rid of, but the symbol of the excision of all other [τῶν ἄλλων ἁπασῶν] pleasures as well (Spec. 1.9). Galen sheds light on how Stoics understood the effect of an excessive passion on the soul. Galen sums up the Stoic Chrysippus’ views as follows. The excess of the impulse was also spoken of in terms of this, because they overstep the boundary of impulses which is proper to themselves and natural. What I say would be made easier to understand by means of the following examples. In walking according to impulse the movement of the legs is not excessive, but is in a sense coextensive with the impulse, so that it can come to a standstill when he [the walker] wishes, or changes direction. But in the case of those who are running according to impulse, this sort of thing is no longer the case, but the movement of the legs exceeds the impulse so that it is carried away and does not change direction obediently in this way as soon as they start to do so. I think something similar to these movements [of the legs] occurs in the impulses because of the overstepping of the symmetry which is according to reason, so that whenever one has an impulse he is not obedient with respect to it, the excess being said to be beyond the impulse in the case of the running and beyond reason in the case of impulse. For the symmetry of natural impulse is that according to reason and is as far as reason deems proper. There since the overstepping is according to this [standard] and in this way, the impulse is said to be excessive and an unnatural and irrational movement of the soul (Gal. PHP IV 2.14–18 [=SVF III 462]).57

Hence, the problem with the excess of passion is the loss of self-control. This loss, in turn, interferes with the general state of health. Philo’s second and highly symbolic reason for circumcision involves the excision of conceit. “Man should banish from the soul the grievous malady of 53 The translation is by F. H. Colson in Philo, “The Decalogue (De Decalogo),” in Philo, vol. 7, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998), 79. 54 The other three passions are fear, desire and distress. 55 Decal. 142. The translation is by F. H. Colson in Philo, “The Decalogue (De Decalogo),” 77. 56 Passions could “potentially create confusion in the mind.” Hecht, “Exegetical Contexts,” 74. 57 As quoted from Brad Inwood and Pierluigi Donini, “Stoic Ethics,” in The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, ed. Keimpe Algra, et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 702.

A. De specialibus legibus 1

55

conceit” (Spec. 1.10).58 The type of conceit that circumcision figuratively removes pertains to the false belief that humans themselves cause the generation of life. So that while circumcision promotes fertility (Spec. 1.6–7), it is false to assume humans acting alone can bring about life itself. According to Philo, some have taken pride in their ability to create life, and through this false belief have considered themselves as a god. Conceit is to deify oneself (ἐκθειάζειν) and to cover up or conceal the fact (παρακαλύπτειν) that God is the cause of all creation. This evil (πονήρα) belief runs contrary to notions of loyalty or the love of God (φιλόθεος); it needs to be removed from the mind (Spec. 1.11). Hence, the physical cutting of the foreskin “excises” the evil belief of conceit. In his discussion of the First Commandment (De decalogo), 59 Philo describes how one should honor and comprehend God. God is the best origin of all that exists (ἀρχὴ δ᾿ ἀρίστη πάντων μὲν τῶν ὄντων θεός).60 He writes, A great delusion has taken hold of the larger part of mankind in regard to a fact which properly should be established beyond all question in every mind to the exclusion of, or at least above, all others. For some have deified the four elements, earth, water, air and fire, others the sun, moon, planets and fixed stars, others again the heaven by itself, others the whole world. But the highest and the most august, the Begetter, the Ruler of the great World-city, the Commander-in-Chief of the invincible host, the Pilot who ever steers all things in safety, Him they have hidden from sight by the misleading titles assigned to the objects of worship mentioned above (Decal. 52–53).61

In this passage, Philo’s complaint is that some have not acknowledged the one true God and have instead worshipped something else.62 It is a mistaken notion to confuse God with any of the natural elements.63 Philo reserves special criticism for those who worship the work of their own hands. Those who participate in this practice clearly do not honor God.64 The Egyptians are especially guilty of this offense; they not only worship handmade wooden and other objects but also irrational animals.65 Philo laments, Horrible as all this is [the making of images], we have not reached the true horror. The worst is still to come. We have known some of the image-makers offer prayers and sacrifices to 58

The translation is by F. H. Colson in Philo, “The Special Laws (De Specialibus Legibus),” 105. 59 As Maren Niehoff remarks, by placing circumcision within De specialibus legibus, “Philo has thus assimilated the status and nature of circumcision to those [Laws] of the Decalogue.” Niehoff, “Circumcision as a Marker of Identity,” 101. 60 Decal. 52. 61 The translation is by F. H. Colson in Philo, “The Decalogue (De Decalogo),” 33. 62 For this same notion, see also Decal. 58. 63 Decal. 52–65. 64 Decal. 66–81. 65 Decal. 76–80.

56

Chapter 3: Circumcision in Philo

their own creations though they would have done much better to worship each of their two hands, or if they were disinclined for that because they shrank from appearing egotistical, to pay homage to the hammers and anvils and pencils and pincers and the other tools by which their materials were shaped (Decal. 72).66

Hence, according to Philo, the ultimate act of impiety is to worship the work of one’s hands. Such an act is sinful because it shifts the honor due to God onto some form of creation and ignores that God is the source of life and power. Thus, circumcision as the symbol of the excision of conceit helps the Jewish male to recognize and remember his place as a creature within the cosmos. It symbolizes the proper ordering of authority between God and humankind. When Philo states that one should know oneself (Spec. 1.10), he means that one should consider oneself less than God.67 Whereas this same reason for circumcision resurfaces in Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3, in that treatise the context is less on knowing one’s place vis-à-vis God and more on how the excision of conceit can serve to ready the mind for a relationship with God. A final issue to address is the placement of the treatment of circumcision at the head of De specialibus legibus 1. The foremost68 position for the rite of circumcision is odd because it does not accord with Philo’s self-defined scheme. Near the end of his analysis of De decalogo Philo explains his scheme for addressing subsequent legislation, his so-called special laws. According to him, the δέκα λόγοι (perhaps best defined as ten oracles) are κεφάλαια νόμων, translated by Colson as “summaries of the laws,”69 that run through all the sacred writings (Decal. 154). The subsequent treatises, De specialibus legibus, are considered subordinate to De decalogo and contains legislation that pertains to each of the latter’s ten larger categories. For example, Philo folds all of his discussion of the legislation regarding the priesthood (Spec. 1.79–161) and sacrifices (Spec. 1.162–256) into the first two commandments, 66

The translation is by F. H. Colson in Philo, “The Decalogue (De Decalogo),” 43. See Richard Hecht who writes that through circumcision “man learns limitations and that he is just a man.” Hecht, “Exegetical Contexts,” 78. See also Maren Niehoff, “Circumcision as a Marker of Identity,” 100. 68 For example, Suzanne Daniel argues that circumcision stands at the head and also separate from the entire treatise because circumcision as a sign of the covenant responds to the introductory verse of the De decalogo (Exod 20:2–6 and Deut 5:6–9) and symbolizes the acceptance of the covenant. («Le développement sur la circoncision placé en tête du traité des Lois Spéciales, répond en fait à ce verset introductif, puisqu’ elle symbolise précisement l’acceptation de l’Alliance, l’appartenance au peuple élu.») Philo, De Specialibus Legibus, xv. Daniel’s argument is weakened, however, by the fact that Philo does not mention the covenant either in the surrounding passages or within the passage pertaining to circumcision. 69 Philo, “The Decalogue (De Decalogo),” 83. 67

A. De specialibus legibus 1

57

and he groups much of the legislation regarding many of the feasts and subjects related to these within the fourth commandment (Spec. 2.39–222).70 As Jenny Morris explains it, Philo tries to bring the additional laws into a “systematic arrangement according to the ten rubrics of the Decalogue.”71 Philo’s treatment of circumcision, however, does not fully conform to this selfdescribed scheme. Whereas the final two reasons for circumcision refer back to Philo’s treatise De decalogo, the first four justifications do not. Indeed, in some sense, the entire passage on circumcision escapes Philo’s systematic treatment of the laws. For just after Philo interprets the rite of circumcision (Spec. 1.1–11), he states that he will now turn to the particular laws, those that would fall under the heading of the First Commandment (Spec. 1.12), suggesting that the previous discussion regarding circumcision concerned something else or some other law. By privileging the latter two symbolic or allegorical meanings of circumcision, rather than the former four, some scholars have suggested that Philo placed his treatment of circumcision first within the treatise because in its symbolic understandings circumcision suggests how all laws should be interpreted.72 While it may be tempting to understand Philo in this way, the treatise itself dictates otherwise. The practical reasons for circumcision surface first and are of primary concern: 73 Philo begins by defending the rite itself against the accusation that it is ridiculous. Philo can more easily justify the placement of circumcision at the head of and not fully integrated into a treatise regarding special laws by referring to it as a custom and not as a law. Too, by using the adversative coordinator (δέ) to

70

Philo, “The Decalogue (De Decalogo),” 83. Morris, “The Jewish Philosopher Philo,” 847–48. With regard to the Ten Commandments, Suzanne Daniel similarly explains, «ceux-ci ne constituent pas seulement les premières lois, mais aussi des catégories générales dans lesquelles peuvent se placer toutes les autres prescriptions.» Philo, De Specialibus Legibus, xi. 72 Thus, according to Maren Niehoff, in its close association with the De decalogo, circumcision assumes “paradigmatic legal significance.” He remarks that the association is apt because circumcision symbolizes “the most central aspects of enkrateia.” Niehoff, “Circumcision as a Marker of Identity,” 101. Finally, Richard Hecht comments that Philo placed the ritual of circumcision first in the treatise and separate from the other legislation because circumcision in its symbolic meanings – the excision of pleasures and passions that might confuse the mind and the elimination of “arrogant conceit” – suggests how all the laws are to be followed. Hecht writes, “Circumcision does not belong under any of the commandments of the Decalogue for it is properly the ‘vestibule’ or portal through which one must pass if one is to understand properly the nature of the nomos and its special laws.” Hecht, “Exegetical Contexts,” 74–75. 73 According to Erwin Goodenough, Philo, in this passage, is not interested at all in the allegorical meanings of the Scripture. Goodenough, Jurisprudence, 30–31. 71

58

Chapter 3: Circumcision in Philo

preface and hence separate his entire discussion of this custom, Philo actually separates circumcision from its aspect as a law.74 What is clear from Philo’s treatment is that he values circumcision as a benefit for health, the promotion of health, life itself and well-being; its treatment as first accentuates its worth.75 The first four reasons justify its benefits for health and fertility, over and against the charge of ridicule. As a symbol for the excision of sexual pleasure and the excess of every other kind of pleasure, circumcision stabilizes the mind thereby contributing to mental health. As the excision of conceit, the false belief that humans can create life when only God can, circumcision contributes to moral rectitude. To believe that humans can do the work of God interferes with the proper God-human relationship, the order of the cosmos.

B. Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3: The mark of circumcision draws the mind closer to God B. Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3 A second,76 and the lengthiest77 among all of Philo’s treatments of circumcision occurs in the third book of Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3. However, as Ralph Marcus explains, this text poses a problem for interpreters of Philo because most of the Greek original is lost. The only extant ancient versions are four books in Armenian from the fifth century.78 These extant works most likely corresponded to six books in the now lost Greek version.79 In this 74 By contrast, Maren Niehoff writes, “Though somewhat hesitantly, Philo has thus assimilated the status and nature of circumcision to those of the Decalogue. Extracted from its original covenantal context, the ritual now attains paradigmatic legal significance even though it is not one of the Ten Commandments.” Niehoff, “Circumcision as a Marker of Identity,” 101. 75 Erwin Goodenough comments that circumcision is “too important an actual practice of the Jews for him [Philo] not to treat it at once.” Goodenough, Jurisprudence, 30. 76 It is most difficult to determine the order in which these treatises were written. Samuel Sandmel, for instance, speculated that Philo wrote Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin first as a type of preliminary investigation of Genesis before writing the treatises within “The Allegory.” Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria, 79–80. 77 Whereas Philo’s discussion of circumcision in Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3 takes up a full thirteen pages in the Loeb edition, his discussion in De specialibus legibus 1 comprises only three and one half pages. 78 Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis, vii. For further discussion, see Borgen, “Philo of Alexandria,” 241–42, Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria, 79–80, Amir, “Authority and Interpretation,” 427–28. 79 According to Ralph Marcus, each of these books may have been used as weekly synagogue lessons. Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis, x–xv. See also Philo, Quæstiones et Solutiones in Genesim, ed. Roger Arnaldez, Jean Pouilloux, and Claude Mondesert, trans. Charles Mercier, Les Œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1979), 26. By

B. Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3

59

treatise, Philo addresses Jews who are already circumcised. The treatment itself falls within Philo’s exegesis on Genesis 15:7–17:27. While in the form of specialized questions and answers,80 the text is best understood as a commentary. It is broad in terms of the number of biblical verses addressed, but narrow in scope in that Philo focuses on only certain elements and/or words within verses.81 As such, he appears to be less interested in the breadth of possible subjects than on the depth of certain more specialized issues. For instance, when interpreting Gen 16:16, Philo asks why Abraham was said to be eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael (QG 3.38). From this reference to the number eighty-six Philo discusses the significance of how both the numbers eighty and six concern harmony. Specialized interests also appear to guide his treatment of circumcision. As in De specialibus legibus 1, in Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3 Philo assigns numerous individual meanings to circumcision, many of which ostensibly parallel those of De specialibus legibus 1.82 Yet Philo’s dominant meaning of circumcision in this treatise is allegorical and differs rather dramatically from De specialibus legibus 1. Whereas in De specialibus legibus 1 Philo treats circumcision as a benefit for the promotion of health, life and well-being, in Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3 circumcision serves to “strip” away mental impediments to draw the mind closer to God. In this passage on circumcision (QG 3.46–52), which consists of seven distinct questions and answers, Philo addresses several aspects of circumcision. While the list of questions varies, Philo gears nearly all of his answers toward circumcision’s symbolic benefit for the mind. It is through the mind that one communicates with God. Philo begins by distinguishing between two types of circumcision: that of the male and that of the flesh (QG 3.46). He then asks why only males are circumcised (QG 3.47), why the eight-day-old child shall be circumcised (QG 3.48), why on the eighth day (QG 3.49), why both the home-born and the purchased ones are circumcised (QG 3.50), why circumcicontrast, Peder Borgen writes that Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin and Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum are no more catechetical than Philo’s other broad categories of writings, such as “The Allegory of the Law” or “The Exposition of the Law.” Borgen, “Philo of Alexandria,” 242. 80 Philo’s exegetical form of questions and answers is not unique to the treatises Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum and Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin. See Peder Borgen and Roald Skarsten, “Quaestiones Et Solutiones: Some Observations on the Form of Philo’s Exegesis,” Studia Philonica 4 (1976–1977): 1–15. 81 As Françoise Petit remarks, Philo has a habit of cutting into the biblical text and only keeping what suits his purposes («pour n’en garder que ce qui convient à son propos»). He reduces the biblical text into essential phrases. Philo, Quæstiones et Solutiones in Genesim, 31. 82 Andreas Blaschke comments on the extensive similarities between the two treatises. See Blaschke, Beschneidung, 209.

60

Chapter 3: Circumcision in Philo

sion should be on the flesh (QG 3.51), and finally, why the legislator (God) should prescribe a death sentence on an infant not circumcised (QG 3.52). According to Philo, superfluous thoughts as well as excess desires must be trimmed back, not so much for the sake of finding one’s place in the cosmos with relation to God (De specialibus legibus 1) but instead for being in a relationship with God. Philo refers to the importance of being a “priest of God” (QG 3.46), making the mind “free and unbound” (QG 3.46), fixing the mind on God (QG 3.48), and seeing God (QG 3.49). To demonstrate Philo’s interpretation of circumcision within this passage, I indicate the extent to which Philo refers to the significance of the mind and why the development of the mind is important. From the outset, Philo places more emphasis on the beneficial effect of circumcision for the mind than for the body or flesh. He mentions two circumcisions: that of the male and that of the flesh (QG 3.46).83 He obtains these two senses, male and flesh,84 from Genesis (17:10–11). Yet he appears to call attention to two types of circumcision only to quickly abandon his discussion of the one and elaborate upon the other. In answer to the question, “What is the meaning of the words, ‘There shall be circumcised every male of you, and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin?’,”85 he states perfunctorily that circumcision of the flesh is through the genitals and focuses instead on the mind.86 According to Philo, male is synonymous with the mind (QG 3.46). One must circumcise the mind because that is the seat of “superfluous growths” or “rebellious and refractory thoughts.”87 These must be figuratively circumcised in order for the mind to become “pure and naked of every evil and passion” and to become a “priest of God” (QG 3.46). Philo adds that the figurative circumcision of the mind is the second circumcision referred to in the 83

According to Maren Niehoff, this double circumcision allows Philo to introduce a strong gender bias. Niehoff, “Circumcision as a Marker of Identity,” 96. 84 According to Richard Hecht, the two circumcisions of Genesis 17 suggest that circumcision is “directly related to the ascension of the soul. Sense perception is to be utilized, but in order to progress beyond it.” Hecht, “Exegetical Contexts,” 78. Yet, according to Hecht, this is a global meaning that Philo applies to circumcision throughout the corpus. By contrast, Maren Neihoff writes that through circumcision “the mind is restored to its original virility and purity.” It “restores Adam, the virile mind, to his original freedom and hegemony.” Niehoff, “Circumcision as a Marker of Identity,” 96. 85 The translation is by Ralph Marcus in Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis, 240– 41. 86 Marcus footnotes the English translations and indicates that Philo’s Greek word is νοῦς. The word is apparently quite important as within his extant corpus, he refers to this word 686 times. See Peder Borgen, Käre Fuglseth, and Roald Skarsten, eds., The Philo Index: A Complete Greek Word Index to the Writings of Philo of Alexandria (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2000), 234. 87 The translation is by Ralph Marcus in Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis, 241.

B. Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3

61

law, namely, the circumcision of the heart. It too refers to the removal of rebellious thoughts and arrogance. By circumcising the heart, the mind or “the sovereign part” (τὸ ἡγεμονικόν) shall be “free and unbound” (QG 3.46).88 This desired state enables the Jewish male to become a priest of God. Indeed, the pattern of beginning with aspects of circumcision that pertain to the body and moving to those that pertain to the mind occurs repeatedly in this passage. For instance, Philo moves from infant circumcision to the excision of pride (QG 3.47), from the benefit of physical circumcision in the prevention of disease of the genitals to thoughts pertaining to immortality (QG 3.48), from the four benefits of the physical practice of circumcision to the importance of circumcision for stripping the mind of conceit so that it can see God (QG 3.48), and from the circumcision of the home-born and purchased to the symbolic shaving off of ignorance (QG 3.50). The repetition of this pattern reinforces the importance of the figurative circumcision of the mind in this passage. In QG 3.47 Philo directs the course of the discussion to the subject of males and the mind. He asks, “Why does He command that only the males be circumcised?” (Gen 17:10). Philo’s emphasis on males is rather startling in that he omits the explicit connection between circumcision and covenant89 so prominent in his Genesis source. While the explicit mention of covenant is absent in QG 3.47, in the immediately preceding passages Philo does address the meaning of covenant. Philo’s definition of covenant, however, is bound up in Platonic ideas of God, in notions that pertain to the mind. According to him, the divine covenant consists of “incorporeal principles, forms and measures for the whole of all the things of which this world was made” (QG 3.40).90 Immediately after this passage, Philo writes that the covenant is God. “Do not seek it in writing, for I Myself am, in the highest sense, the genuine covenant” (QG 3.42).91 Hence, by emphasizing circumcision’s benefit for the mind, Philo does not strictly abandon a “covenantal” relationship with God. Rather Philo appears to elaborate on just how it is that circumcision can strengthen the relationship between a male and God. Hence, the subject of the male/mind is significant for Philo’s overall purpose. The mind is the member through which the relationship with God is made and sustained.

88

The translation is by Ralph Marcus in Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis, 241. The fact that Philo precludes mention of the covenant within his discussions of circumcision in general has engendered discussion in the scholarship. See Cohen, Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised?, 63, Philo, De Specialibus Legibus, XV, Hecht, “Exegetical Contexts,” 69. Niehoff remarks that Philo has “severed the ritual [circumcision], as much as he could, from Abraham and the covenantal context.” Niehoff, “Circumcision as a Marker of Identity,” 93–95. 90 The translation is by Ralph Marcus in Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis, 230. 91 The translation is by Ralph Marcus in Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis, 231. 89

62

Chapter 3: Circumcision in Philo

Philo’s distinctions between male-only and male-and-female circumcision serve to reinforce the benefits of circumcision for the male/mind (QG 3.47). Indeed, Philo prizes the Jewish custom of male-only circumcision over the Egyptian practice of circumcising men and women,92 because it is the male mind that needs controlling not the female one. According to Philo, the male requires circumcision rather than the female because he has more pleasure and desire for mating, circumcision suppresses this impulse in the male and is not necessary in the case of the female. Furthermore, the male, in part due to his elevated role in the procreation process as compared to the female,93 has the corresponding obligation to check his pride or arrogance. Circumcision “trims” the male mind of superfluous growths so that it will contain only “necessary and useful things.”94 The “circumcision” of the mind in turn paves the way for a “circumcision” of the eyes. And the significance of circumcising the eyes is to see God (QG 3.49).95 On the other hand, the female, as representative of the material realm, cannot “admit to arrogance”96 and hence has no need of circumcision. Elsewhere, Philo makes distinctions between the male and female gender based how each one is suited for rationality. According to Philo, the male gender looks for ways to control the passions, and circumcision provides such an avenue. Philo writes, “the female sex is irrational and akin to bestial passions, fear, sorrow, pleasure and desire, from which ensue incurable weaknesses and indescribable diseases. He who is conquered by these is unhappy, while he who controls them is happy” (QG 4.15).97 Of the male, Philo writes,

92

Whereas in De specialibus legibus 1, Philo uses the Egyptian practice of circumcision as an example for others to emulate, here he is anxious to distance himself from their practice of circumcision. Cohen, Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised?, 63. 93 According to Philo, the male provides the skill and the cause, whereas the female provides the only the material elements (3.47). 94 The translation is by Ralph Marcus in Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis, 242. 95 Ellen Birnbaum remarks on the prominence of the notion of “seeing God” in Philo’s writings. According to Birnbaum, “for Philo, ‘seeing God’ is the height of human happiness.” Ellen Birnbaum, The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought: Israel, Jews, and Proselytes, ed. David M. Hay, Studia Philonica Monographs, vol. 290 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 5. 96 The translation is by Ralph Marcus in Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis, 242. 97 The translation is by Ralph Marcus in Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis, 288. Given this estimation of the female, one wonders whether or not a female, according to Philo, can be in a relationship with God. Shaye Cohen comments, “Undoubtedly Philo would have argued that Jewish women, no less than Jewish men, need to suppress their lust and their pride, and that this suppression is an essential ingredient in righteousness for both sexes alike.” Cohen, Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised?, 63. Yet Philo does not say this here (or anywhere else?). Moreover, Philo’s point in this passage seems to be to elevate the mind over the body, hence the body and therefore the female as representative of it suffers through the mechanism of the comparison.

B. Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3

63

And longing for and desiring happiness, and seizing a certain time to be able to escape from terrible and unbearable sorrow, which is (what is meant by) ‘there ceased to be the ways of women’ – this clearly belongs to minds full of Law, which resemble the male sex and overcome passions and rise above all sense-pleasures and desire and are without sorrow and fear and, if one must speak the truth, without passion, not zealously practicing apathy, for this would be ungrateful and shameless and akin to arrogance and reckless boldness, but that which is consistent with the argument given, (namely) cutting the mind off from disturbing and confusing passions (QG 4.15).98

A comparison of Philo’s benefits of circumcision in Spec. 1.4–7 and QG 3.48 reveals a considerable change of focus from advantages for the body to those primarily for the mind. Moreover, in QG 3.48 benefits associated with the body often extend to those that also profit the mind. In the first place, in Philo’s explanation of the first benefit of circumcision,99 he turns his attention from that of the prevention of a disease of the genitals to that of speculations concerning immortality. While Philo elaborates upon the risk of a disease of the genitals prevalent in warmer regions, he also veers the discussion of this particular benefit to an intellectual proposition. What if humans could prevent diseases and bodily afflictions in general? “Now if there were some way of avoiding other afflictions and diseases as well by cutting off some member or part of the body, by the removal of which there would be no obstacle to the functioning of its parts, man would not be known as mortal but would be changed into immortality.”100 Whereas Maren Niehoff understands this statement to imply that circumcision is exceptional and the only type of excision or mutilation “which can literally be performed without interfering with God’s design,”101 such a sense is unwarranted by the context. It is more natural to take this speculation at face value: if it were not for diseases of the body, one could live forever with God. Indeed, this line of reasoning echoes Philo’s remarks concerning being a “priest of God” (QG 3.46), “free and unbound,” (QG 3.46), the circumcision of the mind in order to see (QG 3.47, 49) and to be saved (QG 3.52). In the second, by comparing his discussion in De specialibus legibus 1 with those found in QG 3.48, one finds a diminution of circumcision’s benefit of fertility. In Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3 fertility or the promotion of abundant offspring is not the “most vital reason,” as it is in Special Laws 1. In addition, in Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3 the placement of this benefit of circumcision shifts from fourth place (Spec. 1.7) to second place. With this change of position, the discussion involving fertility becomes 98

The translation is by Ralph Marcus in Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis, 288–

89. 99

cf. Spec. 1.4, in which this is also the first reason to circumcise. The translation is by Ralph Marcus in Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis, 243. 101 Maren Niehoff remarks that with this comment, Philo raises the question of the human place vis-à-vis God. Niehoff, “Circumcision as a Marker of Identity,” 98. 100

64

Chapter 3: Circumcision in Philo

embedded within a larger argument and as a result receives no special significance in and of itself. As you may recall, as last among the benefits of the men of old (Spec. 1.7), the physical benefit of fertility received a place of prominence. The passage in which the connection between circumcision and fertility resides presents several textual challenges. Ralph Marcus translates the central descriptive phrase, which he calls unintelligible, as follows, “But our legislator, who had in mind, and was familiar with, this result, prohibited the immediate102 circumcision of infants, having in mind the same thing, that both circumcision and desire were populousness.”103 Marcus suggests that by the word “prohibited,” Philo intended that the circumcision of infants be postponed until the eighth day. More confusing, however, is the last part of this phrase, “that both circumcision and desire were populousness.” With its rather free style, the French translation appears to avoid the difficulty. It states, «la même intention que visaient la circoncision et la volonté : la multiplication des hommes» (QG 3.48).104 Along the same lines, Marcus suggests that the original Greek may have stated that Moses (or God) considered that fertility was due to circumcision as well as desire.105 While Marcus’ suggestion makes logical sense, a tension remains: Is Philo saying that circumcision promotes fertility or puts a check on it?106 This question arises because Philo makes an association between circumcision and the curbing of desire. 102

Making the text even more confusing, the Latin/French translation of the Armenian original omits a temporal modifier. Françoise Petit translates, «Quant à notre législateur, ayant connu par réflexion les consequences, il interdit de circoncire les enfants, ayant en vue la même intention que visaient la circoncision et la volonté: la multiplication des hommes.» (Italics, my own). Philo, Quæstiones et Solutiones in Genesim III-IV-V-VI, ed. Claude Mondésert, trans. Françoise Petit, Les Œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1984), 111. 103 The translation is by Ralph Marcus in Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis, 244, 44 n. g. 104 The translation is by Françoise Petit in Philo, Quæstiones et Solutiones in Genesim IIIIV-V-VI, 111. 105 Jean-Pierre Mahé has made an attempt to clarify the entire phrase. He suggests that it should be understood to say that the legislator, in trying to prevent uncircumcision and out of a concern to promote populousness, stipulates the circumcision of infants. «Quant à notre législateur, ayant connu par réflexion les consequences (fâcheuses de l’incirconcision), il voulut les prévenir dès l’abord, considérant que la circoncision des jeunes enfants relevait du même dessein que la circoncision elle-même, et son souci était la multiplication des hommes.» Philo, Quæstiones et Solutiones in Genesim III-IV-V-VI, 111 n.7. 106 Philo appears to allude to the cutting back of fertility itself (QG 3.50). Is Philo echoing the ancient Greek notion of self-mastery (Foucault) or the concern over the loss of vital spirit through intercourse (Brown)? Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, vol. 2, The Use of Pleasure, trans. Robert Hurley (New York: Pantheon Books, 1985), 20, 31, 184, 225, Peter Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), 18–21.

B. Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3

65

While the text poses problems at the level of interpretation that cannot be easily resolved, the pairing up of the terms fertility and desire in a single phrase is both striking and anomalous. In every other association between circumcision and desire within this treatise, circumcision serves to curb it. For instance, Philo remarks that circumcision is a symbol of the appropriateness of cutting off superfluous and excessive desire by exercising continence and endurance in matters of the law; that excess desire is superfluous; and that one should cut off all other desires (QG 3.48). Hence, in contrast to the more clearly and forcefully expressed benefit of circumcision for fertility (Spec. 1.7), in this treatise the connection between circumcision and fertility, while present, is weakened due to its rather anomalous association with the concept of desire. In the third place, the emphasis on circumcision’s benefit for the mind rather than the body is apparent in Philo’s third justification of this rite. Rather than emphasizing circumcision’s benefit of bodily cleanliness (Spec. 1.5), Philo instead states that circumcision is for the sake of purity in the sacred offerings (QG 3.48). As mentioned, while one should exercise caution in making too fine a distinction between notions of purity and cleanliness, as they were most likely closely allied concepts in ancient thought, there is a difference in emphasis between the two treatises. In QG 3.48 the emphasis is not so much on the state of any Jewish male, but instead on the action and presentation of the priests for the worship of God. Thus, once again the bodily benefit of circumcision is weakened by the discussion of the priest. In the fourth, when Philo discusses the role circumcision plays in the generation of life and thoughts, the last of his four reasons to circumcise the foreskin, he returns to the concern for controlling the mind. As you may recall, in De specialibus legibus 1 Philo states that circumcision makes a likeness between the circumcised member and the heart (Spec. 1.6). He then proceeds to strengthen that connection by showing that both prepare for generation: circumcision of the heart prepares for the generation of thoughts and circumcision of the penis for living beings. There is no mention in that treatise of the notion of controlling thoughts, but rather in promoting them. By contrast, in Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3, the emphasis on the notion of generation is lacking. As in Spec. 1.2, in QG 3.48 Philo makes a connection between the circumcised member and the “circumcision of the heart.” Philo’s syllogism runs as follows: a) the penis resembles thought,107 b) thought108 is the most generative 107 The connection is strange. According to ancient science, the heart is the seat of thoughts, not the penis. See Philo, “The Special Laws (De Specialibus Legibus),” 615, Le Déaut, “Le thème de la circoncision du coeur,” 179. 108 The Greek fragment for this section has the word thoughts (τὰ νοήματα). Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis, 245 n. b. Françoise Petit translates this term more uni-

66

Chapter 3: Circumcision in Philo

force of the heart, and c) circumcision of the penis is like nothing else but the circumcision of the heart. But “circumcision of the heart,” as I demonstrate later, is elsewhere linked with the curbing of rebellious thoughts, not with the generation of thoughts in general. This benefit of circumcision is the reverse of that of Spec. 1.6. In QG 3.48 Philo not only returns to the connection between circumcision and the mind but also to circumcision’s role in controlling thoughts.109 Here, as elsewhere in this treatise, circumcision benefits the mind in need of control. Hence, there is a difference in the treatment of circumcision between De specialibus legibus 1 and Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3. In the former, Philo makes a much stronger case for the importance of the physical practice in and of itself. There his arguments revolve around the benefits of circumcision for the body. Two of the four justifications of circumcision directly pertain to fertility (Spec. 1.6–7), and the other two pertain to the avoidance of disease and cleanliness (Spec. 1.4–5). By contrast, in this treatise the benefits of circumcision for the body are diluted in favor of those that profit the mind. Philo does not emphasize the promotion of abundant offspring; he turns his attention instead to concerns involving speculations about immortality and, in a passage, albeit fraught with textual difficulties, he makes a reference to desire. The notion of desire in Philo refers not to circumcision’s benefit for the generation of life, but instead to a need for control. Finally, Philo ends this treatment of circumcision with a focus on the circumcision of the mind (QG 3.52). The context is that of God’s command for infant circumcision on the eighth day with the penalty of death for noncompliance (Gen 17:14). Philo, however, pays little heed to the literal sense implied by the noncompliance of this law and instead jumps to the “deeper meaning.” According to Philo, it is the healthy mind that is important. “For the mind which is not circumcised and purified and sanctified of the body and the passions which come through the body will be corrupted and cannot be saved.”110 Noncompliance places the mind at risk of destruction not the body.111 According to Philo, the soul or mind not circumcised risks falling into corruption. Philo has already explained that corruption is the mind dominated by superfluous growths (QG 3.46). Philo’s concern for circumcision in Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3 appears to be that it prepares the mind to draw closer to God.112 Philonic formly as “intelligence,” mental faculties. Philo, Quæstiones et Solutiones in Genesim III-IVV-VI, 113. 109 Niehoff, “Circumcision as a Marker of Identity,” 99. 110 The translation is by Ralph Marcus in Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis, 253. 111 The Greek for “to destroy” from the LXX is ἐξολεθρεύειν. It means “to eliminate by destruction, destroy utterly, root out.” BDAG 351. 112 Andreas Blaschke remarks that being free and pure and Priests of God are aims or goals of circumcision. Blaschke, Beschneidung, 196.

B. Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3

67

scholars have remarked upon Philo’s preoccupation with this subject. For instance, Henry Chadwick refers to Philo’s mystical goal. The goal is the vision of God, a mystical experience which Philo, in a notable anticipation of St. Paul, describes as ‘seeing and being seen’, as ‘drawing near to God who has drawn the mind to himself’. In this vision the mind is at rest, delighting in joy at the contemplation of God’s immutable being (to on) in wordless mental prayer that has passed beyond all petitions.113

More recently, Verna Harrison and Thomas Tobin have commented upon the prominence of the theme of a quest for God in Philo’s writings. According to Harrison, Philo is primarily concerned with “the inner workings of the human person and how he or she can arrive at moral and spiritual growth, the contemplation of God, and union with him.”114 Tobin writes, Philo’s “overall concern” is the human striving after virtue “that results in wisdom and immortality.”115 According to Philo, the spiritual benefit of circumcision is that of being a priest of God. Moreover, it is through the mechanism of a “second circumcision” or the circumcision of the heart (QG 3.46) that one can become a priest of God (QG 3.46).116 According to Roger Le Déaut, the primary meaning of circumcision of the heart within the LXX pertains to the redirecting of thoughts to God (Deut 10:16).117 The person with the circumcised heart is said to change directions, love God with all his or her heart and soul (Deut 10:12), and dispense with stubbornness.118 Whereas the person whose heart is 113

Henry Chadwick, “Philo,” in The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy, ed. A. H. Armstrong (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 148. In his work By Light, Light, Erwin Goodenough expresses sympathy with these thoughts of Chadwick. “Philo’s Judaism had as its object salvation in a mystical sense. God was no longer only the God presented in the Old Testament: He [sic] was the Absolute, connected with phenomena by His [sic] Light-stream, the Logos or Sophia. The Hope and aim of man was to leave created things with their sordid complications, and to rise to incorruption, immortality, life, by climbing the mystic ladder, traversing the Royal Road of the LightStream.” Erwin R. Goodenough, By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1935), 7. According to him, this mystic quest unites the thoughts of Philo. Goodenough, By Light, Light, 235. 114 Verna E. F. Harrison, “The Allegorization of Gender: Plato and Philo on Spiritual Childbearing,” in Asceticism, ed. Vincent L. Wimbush and Richard Valantasis (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 521. 115 Thomas H. Tobin, The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation, ed. Bruce Vawter, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series, vol. 14 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1983), 141. See also Dorothy Sly, Philo’s Perception of Women (Atlanta: Scholar’s Press, 1990), 4. 116 The translation is by Ralph Marcus in Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis, 241. 117 See Marcus’s edition where this verse is mentioned. Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis, 241 n. f. 118 Le Déaut, “Le thème de la circoncision du coeur,” 179–83.

68

Chapter 3: Circumcision in Philo

circumcised is open to God and obedient to the voice of God,119 someone with a hard heart (not “cut”) no longer hears the voice of God.120 At the end of his treatise De specialibus legibus, Philo explains what he means by circumcision of the heart. But some are uncircumcised in heart, says the law, and through their hardness of temper disobedient to the rein, plunging in unruly fashion and fighting against the yoke. These he admonishes with the words, “Circumcise the hardness of your hearts!” make speed, that is, to prune away from the ruling mind the superfluous overgrowths121 sown and raised by the immoderate appetites of the passions and planted by folly, the evil husbandman of the soul (Spec. 1.304–5).122

According to Philo, a heart circumcised of hardness can submit to the rein of God. He further explains that being under the yoke of God and God’s laws is not difficult. God asks nothing from thee that is heavy or complicated or difficult, but only something quite simple and easy. And this is just to love Him as a benefactor, or failing this to fear Him at least as a ruler and lord, and to tread in every way that will lead thee to please Him, to serve Him not half-heartedly but with thy whole soul filled with the determination to love Him and to cling to His commandments and to honour justice (Spec. 1.299–300).123

Philo comments that by circumcising the hardness of one’s heart one can also “make the sovereign part [the mind] free and unbound.”124 The sense of “free and unbound” may be gleaned from what Philo says with regard to the virtuous one in the passage just prior to the one under review. According to Philo, the virtuous one is a sojourner125 because his or her actual home is in heaven, where God abides (QG 3.45). Earth and the earthly body are only temporary abodes. Philo writes, 119

Le Déaut, “Le thème de la circoncision du coeur,” 183. Le Déaut, “Le thème de la circoncision du coeur,” 179. 121 There is a play on the Greek words for “to circumcise” and “to be superfluous.” Philo writes, “περιτέμνεσθε τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν, τὸ δὲ ἐστι, τὰς περιττευούσας φύσεις τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ” (Spec. 1.305). See Philo, “The Special Laws (De Specialibus Legibus),” 277 n. d. 122 The translation is by F. H. Colson in Philo, “The Special Laws (De Specialibus Legibus),” 277. See also QG 3.42. 123 The translation is by F. H. Colson in Philo, “The Special Laws (De Specialibus Legibus),” 273. 124 The translation is by Ralph Marcus in Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis, 241. 125 With regard to Abraham, Philo writes, “This is the aim extolled by the best philosophers, to live agreeably to nature; and it is attained whenever the mind, having entered on virtue’s path, walks in the track of right reason and follows God, mindful of His [sic] injunctions, and always and in all places recognizing them all as valid both in action and speech” (Migr. 23.128). The translation is by G. H. Whitaker and F. H. Colson in Philo, “On the Migration of Abraham (De Migratione Abrahami),” in Philo, vol. 4, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2005), 205. 120

C. De migratione Abrahami

69

The mind of the virtuous man [sic] is a sojourner in its corporeal place rather than an inhabitant. For its fatherland is the ether and the heaven, while its temporary abode is the earth and the earthly body, in which it is said to sojourn. But the Father in His benefactions to it, gives it authority over all earthly things as an ‘eternal possession,’ as He says, in order that it may never be dominated by the body but may always be the ruler and chief, acquiring it as a servant and follower (QG 3.45).126

The aim, then, of the virtuous one is to be with God and to be free of the domination of the body. In sum, while in Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3 Philo renders many of the same justifications of circumcision as he does in De specialibus legibus 1, the overall sense of circumcision is dramatically different. In Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3 circumcision has a primary sense of excising rebellious thoughts to draw the mind closer to God. One obtains this sense through a close comparison between this passage and his treatment of circumcision in De specialibus legibus 1, in which he mentions many of the same benefits of circumcision. In Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3 Philo repeatedly emphasizes circumcision’s beneficial role for the mind, and the corporeal benefits of circumcision, those that would justify the physical practice, serve instead as a springboard for mental speculation. Philo subordinates the body (female) to the mind (male). In a passage albeit fraught with numerous textual difficulties, Philo appears to combine circumcision’s benefit of fertility with the notion of desire. While the former is clearly a corporeal benefit, the latter is something that must be held in check. Thus, by linking the notions of desire with fertility, Philo undermines the full benefit of circumcision for the generation of life or thoughts. Finally, Philo makes use of the metaphor “circumcision of the heart” (QG. 3.46, 48) to suggest that by curbing rebellious thoughts one can more readily turn to God. Unlike his treatment of circumcision in De specialibus legibus 1, in which Philo justifies the practice of circumcision by extolling its benefits for the body, in this passage he seeks to advance the Jewish male toward a deeper relationship with God. Philo’s rhetoric suggests that he is addressing already circumcised Jewish males whom he believes are in need of spiritual growth.

C. De migratione Abrahami: The mark of circumcision benefits the mind and gains the respect of fellow Jews C. De migratione Abrahami In De migratione Abrahami Philo assesses circumcision as being significant for the mind when enacted bodily (Migr. 16.89–93). It is the valuation of the literal practice of circumcision over that of its allegorical meaning that ac-

126

The translation is by Ralph Marcus in Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis, 240.

70

Chapter 3: Circumcision in Philo

counts for the attention this passage receives within Philonic scholarship.127 Philo’s strong support for the physical practice of circumcision is the result of his realization that the custom is being set aside. He bolsters the physical practice of circumcision by referring to it as a law (Migr. 16.89, 92) rather than as a custom (Spec. 1.3) and by attributing several important benefits to its enactment. In this treatment of circumcision, Philo addresses the situation of Jews128 who desire to attain spiritual insight without carrying out the literal observances of the law. Philo’s strong support for the physical practice differs rather significantly from his position in Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3, in which he prioritizes the use of the mind over that of the body. In Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3, however, Philo does not refer to Jews who are setting aside the practice of circumcision. A major benefit Philo ascribes to the practice of circumcision is that it gains the respect of other Jews within the community.129 Philo argues that real happiness comes about by going along with the wishes of the others, with the majority. This type of justification of the physical practice suggests the sense 127

See Borgen, ABD 5:338; Tobin, The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation, 155–56, David Dawson, “Plato’s Soul and the Body of the Text in Philo and Origen,” in Interpretation and Allegory, ed. Jon Whitman, Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 99, Amir, “Authority and Interpretation,” 445–46, Borgen, “Philo of Alexandria,” 260–61. See also Erwin R. Goodenough, An Introduction to Philo Judaeus (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962), 79–80, Borgen, Philo, John and Paul, 65–67. 128 This reference to those who interpret differently from Philo suggests that he was a member of a group of interpreters who practiced both literal and symbolic interpretations. Tobin remarks, “While Philo probably was not the only one to maintain the validity of both levels of interpretation, he certainly seems to have been the most prominent among them.” Tobin, The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation, 156–57 n. 51. See also Andreas Blaschke, who comments that there are at least three different Jewish communities in Alexandria: the moderates of whom Philo is a member, those who interpret the laws both figuratively and literally; the radical allegorists, those who only interpret figuratively; and the literalists, the majority, who interpret the laws primarily literally and figuratively only in passing. Blaschke, Beschneidung, 213. It might be somewhat tempting to understand those who do not observe this practice as being non-Jews. But this view makes little sense of the passage. For one, the objects of dispute are the Jewish customs and laws themselves. For another, Philo mentions that “divinely empowered men” are the teachers of these persons. See also Borgen, Philo, John and Paul, 66. 129 For scholars who recognize the importance of guarding one’s reputation as one of the principal reasons for circumcision in this passage, see Wolfson, Philo, 66, Amir, “Authority and Interpretation,” 446, Borgen, Philo, John and Paul, 68, John M. G. Barclay, “Paul and Philo on Circumcision: Romans 2:25–29 in Social and Cultural Context,” New Testament Studies 44 (1998): 541, Niehoff, “Circumcision as a Marker of Identity,” 101. See also Andreas Blaschke, who comments that the literal meaning of circumcision should not be ignored out of consideration for one’s comrades (Rücksichtnahme auf die Volksgenossen.) Blaschke, Beschneidung, 213.

C. De migratione Abrahami

71

in which Jews wish to be well regarded by others. According to Philo, positive recognition comes about by conforming to laws established by others (καθεστηκότων νομίμων) (Migr. 16.88) and not by innovating change or stirring things up (κινεῖν) (Migr. 16.88). Philo upholds the thoughts of the men of old, of the “divinely empowered men” (θεσπέσιοι) (Migr. 16.90), subordinating, in turn, the opinions of these Jewish innovators. This particular treatment of circumcision falls within the context of God’s fourth gift to Abraham (Migr. 16.86–105), that of a great name (μεγαλώνυμος). The fourth gift is a two-pronged offering: the state of goodness and the good repute of others (Migr. 16.88, 89). True happiness (ἀλήθεια εὐδαιμονία) (Migr. 16.88, 93) in this life (Migr. 16.88), Philo opines, can be attained both by actually being good or moral and by being considered (δοκεῖν) of good repute by others.130 According to Philo, valuing circumcision and other laws is good in and of itself, but one may gain true happiness by not only valuing the idea of circumcision but by also practicing it. Gaining a great name requires both the thought and the action. Just subsequent to his treatment of circumcision, Philo provides an example of the importance of considering both aspects of the fourth gift (Migr. 17.95–96). Jacob’s wife Leah attains happiness because she aims both at being highly regarded on account of her thoughts (representative of the male) and outward appearance (representative of the female). Philo disparages those who do not participate in the group. The implication is that one gains the respect of others through participation in the group; by taking up the customs one contributes to the group. According to him, those who consider only the figurative aspect of the law and neglect the practice of it act as though they were living alone in a desert (ἐν ἐρημίᾳ καθ᾿ ἑαυτοὺς μόνοι ζῶντες) (Migr. 16.90). These “persons” are not fully human, possessing 130

David Dawson finds that the respect of others is “a secondary feature” of Philo’s argument because Philo appears to reverse the importance of a good reputation later in this treatise (106 ff). Dawson, “Plato’s Soul and the Body,” 100. This subsequent section, however, pertains to another gift, the state of natural worthiness. While Philo clearly subordinates the respect of others (Migr. 18.105, 19.108) to the state of natural worthiness, this gift refers to a goal of the state of perfection or the state of blessedness and not to a great name. It is also important to bear in mind that the entire treatise concerns that of migrating away from the material realm, referred to figuratively as “the land,” “kinfolk,” and “the father’s house” to a state of perfection or salvation. As a part of the material realm, then, the respect of others is diminished over that of the realm of thoughts or the mind. However, even this state of perfection, associated with the realm of the mind, comes about through following the law. Abraham “‘journeyed just as the Lord spoke to him’: the meaning of this is that as God speaks – and He speaks with consummate beauty and excellence – so the good man does everything blamelessly keeping straight the path of life, so that the actions of the wise man are nothing else than the words of God” (Migr. 23.129). The translation is by F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker in Philo, “On the Migration of Abraham (De Migratione Abrahami),” 205, 07.

72

Chapter 3: Circumcision in Philo

body and soul, but are rather disembodied souls (ἀσώματοι ψυχαὶ).131 They seem to forget that they are part of a group of fellow humans who live not in the desert but in cities and towns shared by others (Migr. 16.90).132 Philo devotes the entire second portion of this passage regarding circumcision to the importance of participation in the group. Other Jewish rites besides that of circumcision, such as Sabbath observance (Migr. 16.91) and the celebration of feasts (Migr. 16.92) require group participation. By disassociating from the group, one would ignore the “sanctity” of the Temple as well as a thousand other things (Migr. 16.92). According to Philo, Judaism is lived out in community. Jews assemble together in the synagogue every seventh day.133 Moreover, the synagogue134 is not just a place where Jews gather for worship but also, and perhaps primarily so, a place of education in Scriptures and the virtuous life.135 Philo writes, It is customary on every day when opportunity offered, and pre-eminently on the seventh day, as I have explained above, to pursue the study of wisdom with the ruler expounding and instructing the people what they should say and do, while they received edification and betterment in moral principles and conduct. Even now this practice is retained and Jews every seventh day occupy themselves with the philosophy of their fathers, dedicating that time to the 131

According to Philo, these men also explore reality in its naked truth. As Thomas Tobin comments, “The reason that Philo wants to maintain the value of both types of interpretation is that without the literal interpretation there would be no way to maintain Judaism as a community. Judaism would be reduced to a series of isolated individuals.” Tobin, The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation, 157. By contrast, David Dawson remarks that Philo is concerned with the literal observances of the commandments because through an enactment of them one can gain a clearer knowledge of their inner meanings. Dawson, “Plato’s Soul and the Body,” 100. 133 Hypothetica 7.12–15; De somniis 2.123–24; De vita Mosis 2.215–16; De specialibus legibus 2.60–64. 134 For the multi-purpose function of the synagogue in the first-century see S. Safrai, “The Synagogue,” in The Jewish People in the First Century, ed. S. Safrai and M. Stern (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 942. There are many recent studies on the subject of the history of the synagogue. Lee Levine remarks that the synagogue “functioned first and foremost as the central communal institution in each community – the Jewish public building par excellence” and by the first century CE had become a “universal Jewish institution” central for Judaism. Lee I. Levine, Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence? (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1998), 139. Thomas Tobin writes that the synagogue is a “place where Jewish exegetes, who were deeply influenced by the philosophical developments of the period, could have developed their interpretations of Scripture and where exegetical traditions could have been preserved and transmitted.” Tobin, The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation, 175–76. Finally, Steven Fine observes the connection between the development of the ancient synagogue and the broader trend of the development of collegia and “private cults” within the Greco-Roman society. See Steven Fine, This Holy Place: On the Sanctity of the Synagogue During the Greco-Roman Period (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997), 25. 135 Legatio ad Gaium 312; Hypothetica 7.12–15; De praemiis et poenis 65–66; De specialibus legibus 2.60–64. 132

C. De migratione Abrahami

73

acquiring of knowledge and the study of the truths of nature (τά τε ἀνθρώπεια καὶ θεῖα) (Mos. 2.215–16).136

Furthermore, the Essenes and Therapeutae, two Jewish sects who participate in communal living, model the ideal life of a Jew.137 These sects live out their existence as a group. The Essenes live together, eat together, share their clothes, watch out for each other, and have common goals.138 Similarly, the Therapeutae live life communally. They awaken at the same time; they pray together at regular intervals during the day; while they study alone, they do so at the same time; and they worship together on the seventh day. Finally, Philo comments that during worship they sing hymns to God by mixing (ἀναμίγυυνται)139 their individual voices. While the descriptions of the Essenes and Therapeutae are highly idealized,140 they indicate how highly Philo values this communal form of Judaism.141 While Philo is critical of those who jump directly to figurative interpretations of literal customs – because they disregard the laws themselves – he does not deny the validity of figurative interpretation. Instead, Philo considers that those who only regard the laws as symbols for the mind are putting the cart before the horse. Indeed, it is more accurate to say that Philo does not wish to separate, as the innovators attempt to do, the body from the soul or the literal from the allegorical (Migr. 16.93).142 By observing laws in their literal sense, one can gain a clearer (ἀριδηλότερον) conception of what these rites symbolize (Migr. 16.93). Indeed, the pursuit of wisdom through the analysis of symbolic meaning is clearly, for Philo, a valued occupation. For instance, Philo speaks of how the Therapeutae spend their days performing spiritual exercises. They do this by 136 The translation is by F. H. Colson in Philo, “On the Life of Moses (De Vita Mosis),” in Philo, vol. 6, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1935), 557. 137 Borgen, “Philo of Alexandria,” 248. 138 Hypothetica 11.5–12, Quod omnis probus liber sit 83–87. 139 De vita contemplativa 27–28, 83–85. 140 Samuel Sandmel questions the historical accuracy of Philo’s reporting of the Therapeutae and thereby diminishes the overall value of the treatise. See Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria, 36. The question of historicity, however, seems to me to be beside the point. By contrast, the value of the treatise is in what it reveals about Philo’s estimation of admirable character traits. 141 See Henry Chadwick who writes, “In his apologia for Judaism the supreme place is occupied not by the central worship at Zion but by the Essenes in Palestine and the Therapeutae in Egypt, monastic communities devoted to asceticism, contemplation and a withdrawn, quasi-Neopythagorean life.” Chadwick, “Philo,” 147. 142 Scholars have been critical of Philo for subjugating the body to the soul. See Boyarin, Carnal Israel, 31, Daniel Boyarin, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 38. In this passage, however, just the reverse occurs: the soul must follow the lead of the body. Through the observances carried out by the body, the soul/mind gains insight.

74

Chapter 3: Circumcision in Philo

reading Scripture, but they are seeking the wisdom of the text through a symbolic reading. “The literal words within the texts are symbols of something whose hidden nature is revealed by studying the underlying meaning.”143 The Essenes, also, when gathering together read the Scriptures and those of “special proficiency” clarify them through allegorical interpretation.144 This type of interpretation brings the community in line with the past. However, to feed the mind in this way requires the literal enactment of laws. While Philo mentions the symbolic benefits of circumcision as goods in and of themselves, he does not elaborate upon them. He mentions that circumcision represents the excision of pleasure (ἡδονή)145 and all passions (πᾶσαι πάθαι) and the lifting off (ἀναιρεῖν) of ungodly (ἀσεβής) opinion (δόξα) under which the mind supposes it alone is capable of being a progenitor (Migr. 16.92), but his primary point is that circumcision benefits the mind and gains the respect of fellow Jews. In sum, Philo’s emphasis on the benefits of circumcision in this treatise concerns aspects of the body and mind. His goal is to urge his fellow Jews to take up the practices of Judaism. He may be concerned that the loss of customs imperils the religion itself. To strengthen his argument for the obligation of the practice of circumcision, Philo refers to circumcision as a law (Migr. 16.92). He argues that its enactment will win the non-participatory Jews the social prestige and happiness they seek to gain via other avenues. Those Jews should realize that they cannot live lives to themselves, as this way of life is unnatural. In addition, Philo appeals to their larger interest when stating that circumcision garners deepened spiritual insight.

Conclusions Conclusions As I have indicated, Philo has a variety of meanings for circumcision with no one signification that predominates. Whereas in all three treatments of circumcision he repeats its symbolic significance of the excision of pleasure (QG 3.47, Spec. 1.9, Migr. 16.92) and conceit (QG 3.46, Spec. 1.10, Migr. 16.92), these are not the meanings on which he bases his estimation of circumcision within these three passages. In two of the three passages, these meanings are subordinated to the benefits circumcision provides for the physical body (De specialibus legibus 1) or for the social group (De migratione Abrahami). Only in Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3 does the 143 De vita contemplativa 28. The translation is by F. H. Colson in Philo, “On the Contemplative Life or Suppliants (De Vita Contemplativa),” in Philo, vol. 9, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1941), 129. 144 Quod omnis probus liber sit 82. 145 See also Spec. 1.9.

Conclusions

75

symbolic or allegorical signification of circumcision predominate. In Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3 circumcision is allegorically interpreted as the excision of superfluous growths of the mind. In all of three passages circumcision acquires meanings based on the rhetorical situation. In De specialibus legibus 1, in which Philo has placed this particular Jewish rite in the prominent position as first among all the special laws, it is tempting to see, as does Richard Hecht, that circumcision as a symbol of the excision of excessive pleasures and conceit is representative of the proper Jewish attitude toward the law in general.146 Yet, in this passage, Philo does not privilege these allegorical meanings of circumcision, but instead repeatedly emphasizes circumcision’s overall benefit for the promotion of health, life and well-being. In De specialibus legibus 1 Philo addresses Jewish males adversely affected by the ridicule this practice has engendered on the part of outsiders. Philo elevates the overall benefits of this rite/custom for the adult male to help dispel the effects of the ridicule. To further ease the apparent anxiety surrounding circumcision, Philo extols a similar practice in Egyptian culture, a race widely known for their wisdom. Philo demonstrates various advantages of circumcision that a male would find attractive: its use in the prevention of disease, in the promotion of cleanliness, and especially in the promotion of fertility. In Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3, Philo again addresses Jews. In this passage, there is no indication that circumcised Jews are experiencing ridicule for having become circumcised. Absent the anxiety regarding the physical practice, Philo encourages Jews to advance in their faith, to become more spiritual. Here, Philo’s treatment of circumcision is more highly allegorical than in either of the other two passages. His focus is on the significance of circumcision for the mind. Indeed, based on Philo’s interpretation of this rite in this passage, one could call him a mystic. According to him, circumcision signifies the stripping of the mind of superfluous growths and rebellious thoughts so that one can draw closer to God. The ruling metaphor in this passage is the circumcision of the heart: the stripping away of the foreskin signifies a mind that is ready to turn to God. In De migratione Abrahami, as in De specialibus legibus 1, Philo emphasizes the importance of the physical practice of circumcision. Philo’s audience is Jews who are neglecting the practice of circumcision and leading a life to themselves. These Jews value the symbolic or figurative signification of circumcision. Philo is unconvinced that Jews can lead a happy and full existence without the community. Thus, he argues that part of what it means to be happy is to have the respect of others. This respect comes from going along with the group. His treatment of circumcision falls within his larger argument regarding God’s fourth gift to Abraham, that of a great name. According to 146

Hecht, “Exegetical Contexts,” 73–74.

76

Chapter 3: Circumcision in Philo

Philo, a person becomes great based on inner qualities (those he develops himself) and on the respect the person acquires from others. In addition, Philo maintains that by practicing circumcision, the participant will gain what they claim to seek, a keener sense of the inner or symbolic meaning of circumcision. The overriding sense given to circumcision in this passage is that circumcision benefits the mind and gains the respect of fellow Jews. In the next chapter I investigate treatments of circumcision within the letters of Paul. Paul does not refer to circumcision as a benefit, as does Philo, but instead as a mark of identification, often of a Jew but not always. He employs the term “circumcision” in a variety of ways, in a literal, metaphoric, allegoric and metonymic sense. As has been the case with other ancient writers, the meaning of circumcision becomes apparent through the ways in which it is used and from its context.

Chapter 4

Circumcision in Paul’s Letters
Paul was a first-century Jew who called himself an apostle of Jesus Christ (Gal 1:1).1 Although the book of Acts relates a considerable amount of information regarding the life and travels of Paul (Acts 7:58–8:3, 9:1–31, 13:1– 18:23, 19:1–28:31),2 the most reliable historical information comes from Paul himself and is rather meager.3 In Philippians, he provides a brief autobiography, relating that he was circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the race of Israel and the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew, a Pharisee,4 a persecutor of the 1 Scholarship on the interpretations of Paul’s letters and his theology is too numerous to recount. Thus, Hans Dieter Betz writes that there is no exhaustive bibliography on Paul. Hans Dieter Betz, “Paul,” ABD 5:187. 2 The Book of Acts appears to fill in the gaps regarding questions concerning why Paul was imprisoned, how he persecuted the church, and his travels. However, this information is considered an early interpretation of Paul and not historically reliable. See Betz, ABD 5:190 and Philipp Vielhauer, “On the ‘Paulinism’ of Acts,” in Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. Leander E. Keck and J. Louis Martyn (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966), 35–50. On the subject of the reliability of the book of Acts for historical information on the first century, see especially Richard Pervo, L., Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Santa Rosa: Polebridge Press, 2006), Joseph B. Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 2006). 3 Only seven of the thirteen letters attributed to Paul in the New Testament are considered authentic. These are 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, Philemon, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Romans. Betz, ABD 5:186. Other works such as 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus (known as the Pastoral Letters), Ephesians and Colossians (where circumcision is mentioned) post-date Paul. 4 Josephus is a primary source of information on Pharisaism. According to him, the Pharisees were the most accurate interpreters of the law and a populous Jewish sect. They attributed all things to God and to Fate (providence) but also allowed for free will. They believed that all souls were immortal and in a final judgment, those who were good passed to another body and those who were evil to eternal punishment (B.J. 2.8.14). Elsewhere, Josephus recounts that the Pharisees led a simple lifestyle and tended to follow their own traditions, while also respecting their elders (A.J. 18.1.3). According to Anthony Saldarini, we know more about Pharisaism in Palestine than in the Diaspora. In Palestine, Pharisaism concerned itself with Jewish political and social issues such as tithing and the ritual preparation of foods. Anthony J. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1989), 138. In addition, one cannot make the assumption that the Pharisaism Paul refers to is the same as that found in the Mishnah, a document that dates to 200 CE. See Alan F. Segal, “Paul’s

78

Chapter 4: Circumcision in Paul’s Letters

assembly (see also Gal 1:13–14),5 and without blame according to righteousness under the law (3:5–6). Elsewhere, he calls himself an apostle of the Anointed Jesus (Rom 1:1, 1 and 2 Cor 1:1, Gal 1:1), claims to have experienced a revelation of the risen Jesus (Gal 1:12, 16; 1 Cor 15:8), and considers to have been called on a mission to the Gentiles (Gal 1:16, Rom 1:5). We also learn that he was imprisoned (Phil 1:7, 13–14, 17; 2 Cor 11:23) and strongly opposed those who attempted to undermine his teachings (Gal 5:2–12, 6:12– 13). The precise chronology of Paul’s letters is impossible to determine with any accuracy. Nonetheless, scholars have proposed various scenarios for dating them.6 On the one hand, many scholars tend to anchor the dating of Paul’s his various letters around his purported7 appearance before Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia (Acts 18:12–16). According to a Delphic inscription, Gallio held a proconsulship in Achaia between 51–53 CE. According to this theory, Paul’s Corinthian correspondence would date to his so-called appearance before Gallio. On the other hand and without recourse to the Gallio incident, most scholars agree that his letter to the Romans reflects his most mature thought,8 and thus was most likely written last.

Jewish Presuppositions,” in The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul, ed. James D. G. Dunn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 161. 5 Scholars have advanced theories on why Paul persecuted the church. See, for example, Paula Fredriksen, “Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2,” in The Galatians Debate, ed. Mark Nanos (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishing, Inc., 2002), 248–60, J. Louis Martyn, Galatians, The Anchor Bible, vol. 33a (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 161–63, Günther Bornkamm, Paul, trans. M. G. Stalker (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1969), 12. 6 Betz, ABD 5:191. See also Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans, The Anchor Bible, vol. 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 86. For a more detailed study of the chronology on the life and works of Paul, see Gerd Luedemann, Paul Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology, trans. F. Stanley Jones (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984). For arguments pertaining to when Paul would have been in Corinth, see Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth: Texts and Archaeology (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1983), 129–52. 7 Gerd Luedemann argues that it is historically probable that Jews brought Paul to trial but unlikely that there was a trial before Gallio. Luedemann, Paul Apostle to the Gentiles, 185 n.54. By contrast, L. Michael White has argued that the Bema at which Paul ostensibly spoke with Gallio did not actually exist at the time of Paul. According to him, Paul’s meeting with Gallio was a Lukan invention. See the unpublished conference paper by L. Michael White, “Paul, Gallio, and the Bema at Corinith (Acts 18:12–17)” (Paper presented at the Spring Meeting of the Westar Institute, March, 2007, Santa Rosa, California, 2007), 220. 8 James Dunn, for instance, remarks that Paul considers the letter to the Romans as “the end of a major phase of his work.” James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, ed. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 38 (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), xliii. Similarly, Joseph Fitzmyer writes that Romans is Paul’s most important work and a summary of his teachings. Fitzmyer, Romans, 103.

A. Circumcision in Galatians

79

Paul addresses the topic of circumcision in several of his extant letters. For instance, it is the primary issue addressed in his letter to the Galatians, and arises within the important topic of Jewish-Gentile relations in his letter to the Romans. An analysis of his treatments of circumcision demonstrates that he plays freely with the term, employing it in a variety of senses, and defining and redefining it in a number of different ways. For example, he employs the term “circumcision” as a metonym to refer exclusively to circumcised Jews (Gal 2:7, 9, 12, 6:13; Rom 3:30, 4:9, 12 [twice], 15:8), but also to others, those most likely not circumcised (Phil 3:3). He often uses the term to refer to a physical mark on the flesh (Gal 2:3, 5:1–4, 6, 11, 6:12–13, 15; Rom 2:25 [twice], 27, 3:1, 4:10 [twice]; Phil 3:5; 1 Cor 7:19), and in these instances rarely does he assess any additional meaning to it. In addition, Paul refers to circumcision metaphorically (Rom 2:26, 28) and uses the term “circumcision” as a metaphor (Rom 2:29). In each of these metaphorical senses, the meaning of “circumcision” functions independently from a physical mark on the flesh. Finally, Paul defines the sign of the mark of circumcision (Rom 4:11), and in this case the sign of circumcision has more significance than the practice itself. I begin with Paul’s discussions on circumcision in his vitriolic letter to the Galatians, move from there to his letter to the Philippians, then on to his first letter to the Corinthians and conclude with the letter to the Romans, his so-called final thoughts on the subject.

A. Circumcision in Galatians A. Circumcision in Galatians Circumcision is one of the major issues in Galatians and arguably the primary one. There, Paul vehemently argues for the inclusion of specifically noncircumcised Gentiles into the people of God (Gal 3:29). He strongly opposes those attempting to persuade the Galatians to become circumcised (Gal 5:2, 6:12). In his effort to convince the Galatian Gentiles (his audience) of his position, Paul reminds them of their present standing in the Anointed, a standing that does not obligate them to become circumcised. According to him, to become circumcised means to become obedient to Jewish practices and laws (Gal 5:3) and results in effectively denying the Anointed (Gal 1:6–9; 3:1–5; 4:12–21; 5:1b–12). He equates the circumcision of Gentiles to a yoke of slavery (Gal 5:1). Indeed, a state of slavery is the dominant metaphor used to describe this rite and hence an apt descriptor of it. The word “circumcision” is used in two senses throughout the letter. It is used in a literal sense as referring to the physical practice itself (Gal 2:3; 5:2– 3, 6, 11; 6:12–13, 15) and in a metaphoric one as a metonym representing Jews (Gal 2:7, 8, 9, 12; 6:13). Paul treats the subject of circumcision in two separate but thematically similar passages (Gal 2:11–14 and 5:1–6). In both

80

Chapter 4: Circumcision in Paul’s Letters

sections, opposition to his views regarding the circumcision of Gentiles influences his treatment of this subject. I. “The circumcision” are Jews who uphold the Jewish law In Gal 2:11–14, a segment from the so-called incident at Antioch, Paul discusses what he terms Cephas’9 hypocritical behavior. Namely, Paul accuses Cephas of acting in ways that contradict his own convictions. Whereas formerly he was eating with Gentiles, after certain persons from James arrived in Antioch, he withdrew. Cephas, as the text reports, was operating out of fear of “the circumcision”(Gal 2:14). The term “the circumcision” is employed as a metonym to represent Jews. A group10 of circumcised Jews11 exert their influ9

Paul uses both the names Cephas (Κηφᾶς) (Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14) and Peter (Πέτρος) (2:7) to refer to the same person. Both are nicknames and most likely ironic as they mean “rock.” See John Crossan and Jonathan Reed who write, “Simon, by the way, was his ordinary name; Peter and Cephas were bilingual nicknames, the former in Greek and Latin, the latter in Hebrew and Aramaic.” John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, In Search of Paul: How Jesus’s Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom (New York: HarperCollins, 2004), 219. See Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians, Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1979), 106, Martyn, Galatians, 172, nn. 221, 231. Some manuscripts (D F G M it vgmss syh, Ambst.) replace Cephas with Peter (Gal 2:11). By contrast, Bart Ehrman suggests that Cephas and Peter are different people. Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 335. 10 There is considerable scholarship on the identity of the influencers. For surveys on the history of this issue, see Robert Jewett, “The Agitators and the Galatian Congregation,” NTS 17 (1971): 198–212, Jost Eckert, Die urchristliche Verkündigung im Streit zwischen Paulus und seinen Gegnern nach dem Galaterbrief (Regensburg: Pustet, 1971), John J. Gunther, St. Paul’s Opponents and Their Backgrounds: A Study of Apocalyptic and Jewish Sectarian Teachings, Supplements Novum Testamentum (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973), John H. Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), E. Earle Ellis, “Paul and His Opponents: Trends in Research,” in Christianity, Judaism, and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, ed. Jacob Neusner and Morton Smith (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975), 264–98, James M. Robinson and Helmut Koester, Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 12–23, Mark Nanos, The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), 115–92. To organize the various views, Mark Nanos divides his discussion of the history of interpretation of the influencers into four groups according to the labels used to describe them: judaizers, opponents or rivals, agitators or troublemakers, and teachers. Nanos, Irony of Galatians, 115. According to Mark Nanos, under the influence of nineteenth-century German Christian theologian F. C. Baur, this term came to be used for a group of Jewish Christians from the Jerusalem churches who “dogged his [Paul’s] trail.” Nanos, Irony of Galatians, 115. The label “opponents” is very common within the scholarship on this issue. Hans Dieter Betz, for example, writes that the opponents of Paul are “Jewish-Christian missionaries rivaling Paul.” They desired to make converts from among Paul’s churches. Betz, Galatians, 7. Robert Jewett employs the term “agitators.” According to him, the agitators were Jews by birth and

A. Circumcision in Galatians

81

ence on Cephas causing him to change his behavior and act in hypocritical ways. The passage (Gal 2:11–14) reads as follows. 2:11. ῾´Οτε δὲ ἦλθεν Κηφᾶς εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν, κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην, ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν. 2:12. πρὸ τοῦ γὰρ ἐλθεῖν τινας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνήσθιεν: ὅτε δὲ ἦλθον, ὑπέστελλεν καὶ ἀφώριζεν ἑαυτόν, φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς. 2:13. καὶ συνυπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ [καὶ] οἱ λοιποὶ Ἰουδαῖοι, ὥστε καὶ Βαρναβᾶς συναπήχθη αὐτῶν τῇ ὑποκρίσει. 2:14. ἀλλ’ ὅτε εἶδον ὅτι οὐκ ὀρθοποδοῦσιν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, εἶπον τῷ Κηφᾷ ἔμπροσθεν πάντων, Εἰ σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὑπάρχων ἐθνικῶς καὶ οὐχὶ Ἰουδαϊκῶς ζῇς, πῶς τὰ ἔθνη ἀναγκάζεις Ἰουδαΐζειν; 2:11. And when Cephas came to Antioch, I stood up against him because he was blameworthy. 2:12. For before certain people from James came, he was eating with the Gentiles: but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision. 2:13. And the remaining Jews played a part along with him, so that even Barnabas was led away by their hypocrisy. 2:14. but when I saw that they were not walking toward the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, ‘If you are a Jew and live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to Judaize?’12

The article τούς (Gal 2:12) introducing the word for circumcision designates a class or group and the genitive noun circumcision (περιτομῆς) functions as a metonym for Jews. Paul has already used the word “circumcision” to refer to circumcised Jews (Gal 2:7, 8, 9) to distinguish them from the foreskinned (ἀκροβυστία) (Gal 2:7) and from Gentile people (ἔθνος) (Gal 2:8, 9). Thus, it is reasonable and indeed virtually beyond question to assume that Paul would use the same word in a similar fashion.13 Those of the circumcision are cirChristians by belief. They were trying to persuade the Galatians to become circumcised to avoid persecution from Jewish Zealots. The Zealots were themselves pressing for the circumcision of those in Judea and the surrounding countryside. Jewett, “Agitators,” 203–5. By contrast, J. Louis Martyn adopts the term “teachers” for this group. According to him, these teachers are “messianic Jews,” who are preaching another gospel, one that has the law as its foundation. Martyn, Galatians, 118–21. Finally, Mark Nanos adopts the term “influencers.” According to him, the influencers are not Jewish believers in Christ (Jewish Christians, Christian Jews or judaizers), who believe that all Christ believers must also, and like them, become circumcised, but are instead non-Christ-believing Jews, who aim to make the Galatians full members of Judaism through the ritual of circumcision. Nanos, Irony of Galatians, 6, 13, 205. 11 J. Louis Martyn translates this expression as “the circumcision party.” Martyn, Galatians, 229, 33. By contrast, Hans Dieter Betz translates it as “men of the circumcision.” Betz, Galatians, 58. 12 The translation is my own. 13 Many, if not the majority, of scholars argue that those “of the circumcision” are Jews but at the same time are also Christian. For example, Hans Dieter Betz and J. Louis Martyn understand this group to be Jewish Christians. According to Betz, “there is little reason to doubt” that the men from James are associated and perhaps sent by the same James mentioned earlier in the text, one of the pillars in Jerusalem (Gal 2:9). He links this James with

82

Chapter 4: Circumcision in Paul’s Letters

cumcised Jews, and they negatively influence Cephas to change his behavior over what it had been in the recent past. Paul is critical and disappointed that Cephas allowed himself to become influenced by these Jews. According to Paul, Cephas was worthy of blame (καταγινώσκειν) (Gal 2:11) and guilty of hypocrisy (ὑποκρίσει) (Gal 2:13). The Greek word for “hypocrisy” like the English one means, “to create a public impression at odds with one’s real purposes or motivations.”14 The hearer/reader has been told that Paul met Cephas while visiting Jerusalem (Gal 1:18). Cephas is, like Paul, a Jew (Gal 2:15), an apostle (Gal 1:19), and one of the acknowledged pillar or leaders in Jerusalem (Gal 2:9). More importantly, James, Cephas, and John agreed that Paul was to take his gospel to the foreskinned Gentiles (Gal 2:9). In so doing, his only requirement was to remember the poor (Gal 2:9). Whereas prior to the arrival in Antioch of those from James15 and those of the circumcision,16 Cephas was eating (συνήσθιεν) with Gentiles, after their arrival to Antioch, he would no longer do so and instead drew back (ὑπέστελλειν), and separated himself (ἀφώριζεν ἑαυτὸν) (Gal 2:12). If Cephas had been eating with Gentiles more freely, the impression given to observers, and one that surfaces from the context, is that these Gentiles were being considered part of the people of God.17 According to Hans Dieter Betz, the verbs (συνήσθιεν and ἀφορίζειν) refer to “cultic separation,”18 implying that Cephas acted based on religious angst or obligation. Indeed, because Cephas withthose of the circumcision whom he calls Jewish Christians. Betz, Galatians, 108–9. J. Louis Martyn also connects the party from James with those of the circumcision. He reasons that within the Jerusalem church there were some that believed that a “mission to the Gentiles” should include some law-observance. In addition, he finds that the term “from the circumcision” is a reflection of Jewish-identity but not Jewish by religion, Christian-Jews (Jews by birth, Christians by religion). This group acts through James to “impose Jewish food laws.” Martyn, Galatians, 239. By contrast, Mark Nanos argues that the influencers, those “for circumcision,” are not Christian or Christ-believing Jews but instead non-Christ-believing Jews from a local synagogue. Nanos, Irony of Galatians, 153, 97–99. 14 BDAG 1038. 15 James may well have become an important figure in the early Christian movement. From among those described as the acknowledged pillars in Jerusalem, James’ name is mentioned first. On this point, see Betz, Galatians, 99. 16 Mark Nanos raises the point that those from James and those of the circumcision are not necessarily the same group. He suggests that it may have been the case that those from James served as a time marker or trigger for the pressure brought to bear on Cephas by those of the circumcision. Mark Nanos, “What Was at Stake in Peter’s ‘Eating with Gentiles’ at Antioch?,” in The Galatians Debate, ed. Mark Nanos (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishing, Inc., 2002), 289–92. 17 Mark Nanos evaluates the situation at Antioch as such. See Nanos, “What Was at Stake in Peter’s ‘Eating with Gentiles’ at Antioch?,” 300–301. 18 Betz, Galatians, 108.

A. Circumcision in Galatians

83

drew out of fear of those of the circumcision (Gal 2:12), it is reasonable to assume that his separation from Gentiles was over an issue centrally pertinent to Jews. In other words, those of the circumcision considered that there was something illicit about Cephas, a circumcised Jew, eating with foreskinned Gentiles. The food itself is most likely not at issue,19 as it is reasonable to assume that these Jews, Barnabas, Cephas and others, were keeping to Jewish dietary laws.20 While it is unlikely that those of the circumcision considered foreskinned Gentiles in and of themselves impure, they were instead concerned about the related issue of idolatry. Pamela Eisenbaum explains, Pharisees [like Paul] did not think that there was an existential state called Gentile-ness, possessed by all Gentiles and which rendered them permanently and irredeemably impure. Impurity is caused by exposure to impure substances or by involvement in certain sinful actions.21 Idolatry tops the list of activities considered sinful. Gentiles are, by definition, people who worship other gods. Since a given Gentile may at any given time have engaged in an idolatrous act (a sacrifice, a prayer, swearing an oath – any of these are idolatrous if the name of another god is invoked), they are potentially impure, and contact with them may render a Jew impure. Jews’ avoidance of Gentiles is due, therefore, to their desire to avoid contact with anything that supports or might support idolatry, lest the Jew seem to have done something to support the worship of another god.22

That Paul refers to Gentiles as sinners (Gal 2:15) confirms this estimation of the problem envisioned by those of the circumcision. A sinner, as Eisenbaum 19

Mark Nanos has argued quite convincingly that those of the circumcision were concerned not with what kind of food was being eaten or with the fact that Jews were eating with Gentiles, threatening Jewish purity regulations in general, but instead that it was how these meals were being conducted. According to Nanos, Gentiles and Jews were eating a Jewish meal and uncircumcised Gentiles were being treated not as invited guest, but as part of the group, as Jews. The Gentiles were being treated as “full and equal members of this Jewish sub-group.” Nanos, “What Was at Stake in Peter’s ‘Eating with Gentiles’ at Antioch?,” 301, italics are his. 20 As Peter Tomson explains, Barnabas and Cephas would have been abiding by Jewish dietary laws. Thus, the abrogation of these laws was not at issue in Antioch. “Dietary laws are concerned with things one does not eat.” This includes items such as ‘unclean’ animals, blood, and the combination of meat and milk). These prohibitions apply for all Jews in all places and remain in place even today. Peter J. Tomson, “Jewish Food Laws in Early Christian Community Discourse,” Semeia 86 (1999): 199. See also Dennis Smith, who following the work of E.P. Sanders agrees that those of the circumcision would not have observed a compromise of the Jewish food laws or of any other Jewish laws at Antioch. Smith remarks that it was instead “association with Gentiles in itself” that was suspicious. Dennis E. Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 182. 21 Peter Tomson writes, “Impurity is a temporary and transferable status which basically prohibits objects or the human body from involvement in sacrificial rites.” Tomson, “Jewish Food Laws in Early Christian Community Discourse,” 199. (Italics are by Tomson.) 22 Pamela Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle (New York: HarperOne, 2009), 147–48.

84

Chapter 4: Circumcision in Paul’s Letters

remarks, is someone who worships other gods, other than the God of the Jews. Cephas, then, by withdrawing from eating with these Gentiles gives the impression that they are pose a potential risk to him and to other Jews within the community. The implication is that those of the circumcision require that these foreskinned Gentiles first take up Jewish laws including that of circumcision23 so as to assure their full allegiance to the God of Israel.24 Through these rituals, the Gentiles would become free from influences that would potentially contaminate others. Indeed, according to Shaye Cohen, Jews would consider Gentiles fully Jewish and hence free from the sin of idolatry through a conversion process to Judaism. While Cohen allows for variations in how ancient Jews determined the criteria by which a Gentile became a Jew, he finds that there are three rather commonly agreed upon categories for making this determination, practicing Jewish laws including that of circumcision, devoting oneself exclusively to the God of the Jews, and integration into the Jewish community.25 Thus, when Paul accused Cephas of compelling Gentiles to judaize (ἰουδαΐζειν)26 (Gal 2:14), he was in essence criticizing Cephas for giving into the

23

Mark Nanos goes so far as to refer to “those of the circumcision” as “the ones for circumcision.” Thus, he stresses the point that the ones of the circumcision are advocating, or have as their sole purpose, the circumcision of Gentiles. Nanos, “What Was at Stake in Peter’s ‘Eating with Gentiles’ at Antioch?,” 282. 24 According to Justin Hardin, Paul is in this letter concerned that the Gentiles not return to the imperial cult, which is according to him a form of slavery. Justin K. Hardin, Galatians and the Imperial Cult: A Critical Analysis of the First-Century Social Context of Paul’s Letter (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 138. According to Brigette Kahl, Paul’s disputes with the opponents ultimately revolve around persecution on the part of Romans. The opponents fear Roman reprisals should these Gentiles join with Jews and thereby terminate their participation in Roman religion and society. Brigitte Kahl, Galatians Re-Imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010), 81–82. 25 Shaye J. D. Cohen, “Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew,” Harvard Theological Review 82, no. 1 (1989): 26–27. 26 This is a hapax legomenon in the New Testament. Steve Mason remarks that this verb is to be associated with a “cultural movement” that “tightly connects with circumcision and the observance of Judaean law.” Steve Mason, “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Prob-lems of Categorization in Ancient History,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 38 (2007): 464. Mark Nanos is for the most part in agreement with Mason and states that “to judaize” means to make someone a Jew, normally through the process of circumcision. As Nanos writes, “In this context, for these Gentiles “to Judaize” means for (male) non-Jews to become circumcised, to complete the rite of conversion that renders them proselytes, Jews by acquisition, not birth (ascription), as were Peter, Paul, and ‘the rest of the Jews.’” Nanos, “What Was at Stake in Peter’s ‘Eating with Gentiles’ at Antioch?,” 310. See also Hans Dieter Betz, who writes that Paul regards the term “to judaize” as forcing a person to become a Jewish convert, someone obliged to keep the whole law. Betz, Galatians, 112.

A. Circumcision in Galatians

85

pressure that would require Gentiles to follow Jewish laws culminating in circumcision.27 By judaizing, Cephas was following the criteria for acceptance as determined by those of the circumcision. Paul, however, rejected their criteria for inclusion. Indeed, in the succeeding verses Paul reminds and clarifies that Gentiles need not take up Jewish laws, such as circumcision, in order to become righteous before God. In Gal 2:15–21, most likely a continuation of this same conversation between Paul and Cephas,28 Paul makes clear that performing works of law, a term that implies circumcision and the practice of other Jewish rituals,29 does not play a role in pronouncing a person righteous By contrast, James Dunn understands the term somewhat differently than these others and comments that “to judaize” does not mean to become circumcised but rather “it denotes the range of possible degrees of assimilation to Jewish customs, with circumcision as the endpoint of judaizing.” James D. G. Dunn, “The Incident at Antioch (Gal. 2.11–18),” in Jesus, Paul, and the Law (Louisville: Westminster-John Knox Press, 1990), 149. In agreement with Dunn, J. Louis Martyn and Shaye Cohen find that in this context “to judaize” means to live in the Jewish manner or to live Jewishly. Martyn, Galatians, 236, Shaye J. D. Cohen, Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 182. According to Cohen, “-izein” verbs indicate a “change in behavior” and not a “change in essence.” For a discussion of authors outside the New Testament who have employed this term, see Betz, Galatians, 112 n. 497. 27 As Mark Nanos explains, the Gentiles left behind at this meal would have logically concluded that they must become circumcised to be fully accepted as equal members in this Jewish sub-group in Antioch. Nanos, “What Was at Stake in Peter’s ‘Eating with Gentiles’ at Antioch?,” 310–11. 28 There has been considerable debate within the scholarship concerning where the episode in Antioch ends (i.e., with Gal 2:14 or 2:21). Hans Dieter Betz, arguing on the grounds of classical rhetoric, ends the account at Gal 2:14. Betz, Galatians, 113–14. J. Louis Martyn concurs but argues that Gal 2:15 functions as an “overlap” verse serving to introduce the more significant content of Gal 2:16. Martyn, Galatians, 246. The termination point of the Incident at Antioch affects how one understands the pronoun “we” in Gal 2:15. When verses 14 and 15 are considered as a unit, Paul’s “we” refers clearly to Cephas and himself. With the connection severed, verse 15 functions as a general statement. Does Paul say that all Jews know that a person is justified or made right through the faithfulness of Jesus (Gal 2:16), or that Cephas and he know this? Based on the flow of Paul’s argument, the latter appears to be the better reading of Paul; there is no strong reason to sever the incident at Gal 2:14. Thus, I would connect verses 15–21 to verses 11–14. This does not change the content of Paul’s argument but only those to whom it applies. 29 Mark Nanos argues that “works of law” is what “marks out those who are the people of the Mosaic covenant, Israelites, from those who are not.” Nanos, “What Was at Stake in Peter’s ‘Eating with Gentiles’ at Antioch?,” 315 n.109. Joseph Tyson argues similarly that with the expression “works of law,” Paul was not referring to the accomplishment of multiple commandments, but a mode of existence. “Works of law” stands for a religious system, or nomistic service, and not commandments themselves. Joseph B. Tyson, “‘Works of Law’ in Galatians,” Journal of Biblical Literature 92, no. 3 (1973): 425, 29. The comments of James Dunn reflect those of the New Perspective on Paul. Like Joseph Tyson and Mark Nanos, Dunn argues that works of law serve to identify a person as a Jew. According to Dunn, Greco-Roman writers at the time of Paul characterized Jews by their cus-

86

Chapter 4: Circumcision in Paul’s Letters

before God (Gal 2:15–16). According to Paul, God makes Gentiles righteous based on the faithfulness of Jesus, the Anointed (διὰ πίστεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ)30 (Gal 2:16).

toms. The New Perspective on Paul, however, adds a nuanced interpretation or over-arching rationale for why Paul objected to works of law for Gentiles. According to Dunn and others, Paul opposed Jewish distinctiveness and an accompanying sense of privilege. In other words, Jews were in the habit of making themselves out to be superior to the nations. Thus, Paul opposed not only works of law but also a particular Jewish attitude. James D. G. Dunn, “The New Perspective on Paul,” in Jesus, Paul and the Law (Louisville: Westminster-John Knox Press, 1990), 192. Given this passage, however, there is no warrant for the view that Paul opposed a Jewish attitude of privilege vis-à-vis the nations. Paul is himself a Jew and gives no indication of abandoning the faith. 30 I translate the phrase διὰ πίστεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ as “through the faithfulness of Jesus, the Anointed.” By this I mean that Jesus’ faithfulness makes possible God’s righteousness. In this reading, the genitive noun phrase ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ functions as a subjective genitive. The interpretation of the noun phrase as either an objective or subjective genitive has been the subject of considerable scholarly debate. A form of the locution πίστεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ occurs six times within the Pauline corpus (Gal 2:16 (twice), 3:22; Phil 3:9; Rom 3:22, 26). Richard Hays takes the position that the noun Χριστοῦ should be interpreted as a subjective genitive and James Dunn as an objective. See Richard B. Hays, “What Is at Stake?” and James D. G. Dunn, “Once More PISTIS XRISTOU,” in SBL Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 714–29, 730–44. See also Richard B. Hays, “Πιστις and Pauline Christology: What Is at Stake?,” in Pauline Theology Volume IV, Sbl Symposium Series (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 35–60, James D. G. Dunn, “Once More Πιστις Χριστου,” in Pauline Theology Volume IV (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 61–81. Morna D. Hooker, “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” New Testament Studies 35 (1989): 321–42, Sam K. Williams, “Again Pistis Christou,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 (1987): 431–47, Luke Timothy Johnson, “Rom 3:21–26 and the Faith of Jesus,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44 (1982): 77–90, George Howard, “On the ‘Faith of Christ’,” Harvard Theological Review 60 (1967): 459–65, Shuji Ota, “Absolute Use of Pistis Cristou in Paul,” Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute 23 (1997): 64–82, Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ (Chico: Scholars Press, 1983). For a comprehensive bibliography of proponents on both sides of this argument, see the 1997 article by Hays, “What Is at Stake?,” 36 nn. 3, 4. Morna Hooker explains the difference between the objective and subjective genitive reading of this phrase from a faith-based perspective. She asks, “Is it a case of believing in him [Christ], and so entering into Christ? Or is it rather that, because we are in him, we share his faith? The former interpretation, which understands the phrase πίστις Χριστοῦ as an objective genitive, throws all the emphasis on the believer’s faith. The second interpretation throws the emphasis on the role of Christ: it is his obedience and trust in God which are crucial, though of course the response of the believer is necessary; the faith which leads to righteousness is a shared faith. Now it may well be objected that we cannot share in what Christ is until we enter him, and that we enter him by believing in him, so that our faith must come first. But there is an interesting parallel in Rom 5.19, where we are told that just as through the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one man, many are made righteous. What we are is established by the work of Christ – and in fact there is no reference to the faith of the believer, either in Rom 5.19 or in the parallel in v. 18.” Hooker, “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” 337.

A. Circumcision in Galatians

87

In sum, in Gal 2:11–14 Paul uses the noun “circumcision” as a metonym to refer to Jews, who compel Gentiles to take up Jewish laws including that of circumcision. In contrast to the beliefs of Paul, these circumcised Jewish opponents insist upon the on-going need to follow Jewish laws, including circumcision, before one can be fully incorporated into the people of God. Cephas, a Jew like Paul, was not concerned with the issue of Jewish contamination by idolatrous Gentiles prior to the arrival in Antioch of those from the circumcision. Only after James arrived did he change his behavior out of fear of the circumcision. Paul accuses Cephas of judaizing Gentiles, having them take up Jewish laws culminating in circumcision. Thus, in this passage, “the circumcision” pertains to those Jews who hold to the criteria that members of the people of God abide by Jewish laws including that of circumcision. II. The mark of circumcision confers a slave-like condition on Gentiles In this next passage, Paul makes explicit both the non-necessity of circumcision for Gentiles and the connection between circumcision and the accompanying obligation to follow Jewish customs or laws (Gal 5:1–6). He refers three times to circumcision as a physical practice. The dominant metaphors Paul employs for the states of circumcision and foreskin are respectively slavery and freedom. The passage reads as follows. 5:1. 5:2. 5:3. 5:4. 5:5. 5:6. 5:1. 5:2. 5:3. 5:4. 5:5. 5:6

τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἡμᾶς Χριστὸς ἠλευθέρωσεν: στήκετε οὖν καὶ μὴ πάλιν ζυγῷ δουλείας ἐνέχεσθε. Ἴδε ἐγὼ Παῦλος λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐὰν περιτέμνησθε Χριστὸς ὑμᾶς οὐδὲν ὠφελήσει. μαρτύρομαι δὲ πάλιν παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ περιτεμνομένῳ ὅτι ὀφειλέτης ἐστὶν ὅλον τὸν νόμον ποιῆσαι. κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ οἵτινες ἐν νόμῳ δικαιοῦσθε, τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε. ἡμεῖς γὰρ πνεύματι ἐκ πίστεως ἐλπίδα δικαιοσύνης ἀπεκδεχόμεθα. ἐν γὰρ Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ οὔτε περιτομή τι ἰσχύει οὔτε ἀκροβυστία, ἀλλὰ πίστις δι’ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη. For freedom the Anointed has freed us. Thus, take a stand and do not enter again into a yoke of slavery. Look, I Paul say to you that if you should become circumcised, the Anointed will in no way benefit you. And again, I bear witness to any circumcised man, that he is indebted to perform the entire law. You who are being made right by the law have become cut off from the Anointed, you have fallen away from the grace. For we in a spirit of faithfulness await eagerly for a hope of righteousness. For in the Anointed Jesus, neither circumcision nor foreskin is strong (effective), only faithfulness working through love is effective.31

Much of this passage as well as those that surround it, concern the notions of freedom and slavery.32 The term “freedom” (ἐλευθερία) opens the passage 31

The translation is my own.

88

Chapter 4: Circumcision in Paul’s Letters

and closes the immediately preceding one. The Galatians themselves are said to belong to the free woman, Sarah, and not to the slave woman, Hagar (Gal 4:30–31).33 Paul defines the Anointed as providing freedom (Gal 5:1). 34 Earlier in the letter, he claims that an association with the Anointed means freedom.35 In that earlier passage, Paul remarks that false believers witnessed the freedom that Paul and Titus had in their association with the Anointed, an association that did not require the circumcision of Titus, a foreskinned Gentile (Gal 2:3–4). Paul considers that the benefit of association with the Anointed is the state of freedom (Gal 5:2).36 Paul sums up Gal 5:1–12 by again referring to freedom (Gal 5:13). 32

Dieter Lührmann interprets Paul as saying that freedom is the sign of the new world, defined by Christ. Dieter Lührmann, Galatians: A Continental Commentary, trans. O. C. Dean (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 95. Hans Dieter Betz states that Paul is claiming that the sole purpose of his struggles is to “preserve Christian freedom.” Betz, Galatians, 255. See also Mika Hietanen who regards Gal 5:1–12 as a discussion of the themes of freedom versus circumcision. Mika Hietanen, Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis (London: T&T Clark International, 2007), 162–73. 33 Hagar has an association with the present Jerusalem (Gal 4:25). According to J. Louis Martyn, Hagar represents the “the political-religious institution of Judaism for which the Holy City stands as a symbol.” Martyn, Galatians, 246. See also Brigette Kahl who argues that the allegory reflects Roman enslavement. Kahl, Galatians Re-Imagined, 356 n.73. On the other hand, Susan Elliott equates Hagar to the Mountain Mother, mother of the self-castrated galli. According to Elliott, Paul would have objected to circumcision because of its association with the cult of the Mother of the Gods. Susan M. Elliott, “Choose Your Mother, Choose Your Master: Galatians 4:21–5:1 in the Shadow of the Anatolian Mother of the Gods,” Journal of Biblical Literature 118, no. 4 (1999): 676–83. 34 There are several textual variants concerning the leading article in Gal 5:1. Two such variant readings have the relative pronoun ᾗ heading up the verse instead of the dative article Τῇ. As J. Louis Martyn explains, “the absence of a grammatical connective between 4:31 and 5:1 played a role in the emergence of variants.” Martyn, Galatians, 447 n.160. There is good textual support for the dative article Τῇ: ‫ *א‬A B P 33 pc sa (bo). In addition, the NRSV, NAB, KJV and RSV all translate this clause as a dative of advantage (for the benefit of freedom). Thus, the KJV translates, “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free.” 35 Peder Borgen observes the influence of Stoicism on Paul. Borgen reasons that according to Paul Christ frees a person from his passions and desires. In comparing Philo’s and Paul’s treatments of circumcision, Borgen understands Paul to say that the crucifixion of Christ and not bodily circumcision has removed the “passions and desires.” Peder Borgen, Paul Preaches Circumcision and Pleases Men and Other Essays on Christian Origins (Dragvoll–Trondheim: TAPIR, 1983), 40, Peder Borgen, “Observations on the Theme ‘Paul and Philo.’ Paul’s Preaching of Circumcision in Galatia (Gal. 5:11) and Debates on Circumcision in Philo,” in Die Paulinische Literatur und Theologie, ed. Sigfred Pedersen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), 89. 36 In contrast, both J. Louis Martyn and Hans Dieter Betz find that the benefit of Christ is the salvation he offers. Martyn, Galatians, 469. According to Hans Dieter Betz, Paul’s opponents or those influencing the Galatians find that circumcision is necessary (emphasis is that of Betz) for salvation. If the Galatians were to become circumcised, however, it would nullify

A. Circumcision in Galatians

89

Paul also refers to the contrasting state of slavery and equates the physical rite of circumcision to such a state. According to Paul, for a Galatian Gentile to take up the law (Gal 4:21) is to become entangled in (ἐνέχειν) a “yoke of slavery” (ζυγῷ δουλείας) (Gal 5:1b). The word “yoke” conjures a visual association with the rite of circumcision. It is ring-shaped object and fits over a body part, in the case of an ox, it is his head. Additionally, when placed around the head of an ox, a yoke brings the animal under the control of its master, figuratively enslaving it. While the Jewish law can be referred to positively as a yoke of responsibility, as something that is taken on willingly as an act of obedience to God (Jer 2:20, 5:5; Sir 51:26), it has no such meaning for Paul with regard to Galatian Gentiles. According to Paul, the circumcision of a Gentile renders him into a state of slavery. Furthermore, according to Paul, the custom of circumcision carries the additional obligation of following the whole law (ὅλον τὸν νόμον) (5:3).37 Intheir salvation in Christ. Betz, Galatians, 258–59. See also Andreas Blaschke, Beschneidung: Zeugnisse der Bibel und verwandter Texte, Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (Tübingen: A. Francke, 1998), 395. According to Andreas Blaschke, Paul’s stance regarding the circumcision of Gentiles brought advantages for missionaries working among the God-fearers interested in salvation. Ibid., 396. 37 The reference to the whole law has been taken to mean that the law itself entails the burdensome task of following faithfully no fewer than 613 commandments. Hans Dieter Betz comments that taking up the whole law “means doing the whole Torah, every one of the requirements, because the transgression of even one may endanger the whole effort.” Betz, Galatians, 261. Yet the first hint of 613 commandments appears only in the sixth-century Babylonian Talmud (Makkoth, 23b) – with further attempts to codify and classify the laws made in the twelfth century – and thus such a list would have been unknown to Paul or to anyone else living in the first century. E.P. Sanders’ extensive study of Jewish literary texts from 200 BCE to 200 CE has served to dispel the notion that early Judaism was at heart legalistic and based on a myriad of commandments to be strictly followed. E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1977), 427, 75, 22. Furthermore, in describing the so-called stricter sects of first-century Judaism, the Therapeutae and Essenes, neither Philo nor Josephus describe these sects as following a list of commandments, instead each author discusses their ascetic lifestyles. For instance, the Therapeutae read Scripture, seek wisdom from their ancestral philosophy, and pray alone, assembling together only on the seventh day (Philo, Contempl. 28–30, 65). Regarding the ritually strict Essenes, Josephus remarks only that they hold all things in common and do not offer sacrifices at the Temple. They tend either not to marry or to put off marrying. Neither he nor Philo mention a list of laws to be observed. (Josephus, B.J. 2.8.13; A.J. 18.1.5). Finally, even after the Rabbis undertake a codification of laws, something that takes place in the second century CE with the Mishnah and later in the sixth century culminating with two Talmuds, there continues to be flexibility regarding the laws’ interpretation with no precise universal list of commandments surfacing until the late middle ages. According to Martin Jaffee, the term normally associated with law, halakhah, is derived from the verb meaning “to walk.” As such, it denotes an active process. Halakhot are traditions and not laws. They are what became normative based on the rulings of a majority of Sages. Halakhah refers to “an

90

Chapter 4: Circumcision in Paul’s Letters

deed, this sentiment echoes that of those of the circumcision, as described above. The circumcised Jews in Antioch, those who cause Cephas to modify his behavior, also require conformity with Jewish laws. To follow the whole law means observing those statutes and commandments in place at the time and location. However, according to Paul, following the law also places one in a state of slavery (Gal 4:21–31). It is reasonable to suggest that by becoming circumcised and by being then obligated to follow the whole law, Paul is simply implying that Gentiles would become Jews.38 Paul sums up this treatment of circumcision by stating that a person’s physical condition, circumcised or foreskinned, is not effective when in the

orally transmitted report concerned with normative behavior in a particular sphere of activity” or to “the entire complex of norms deemed active within the community of the Sages.” Because this tradition is based on the decisions of human communities and their Sages, halakhot can change. Martin S. Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE–400 CE (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 75, 80–82. See also Paul Heger, The Pluralistic Halakhah (New York: Walter De Gruyter, 2003), 92 n. 135. Even in the twelfth century when Maimonides turns to classifying the 613 commandments, there was no agreed-upon system for determining whether a given law should or should not be included within this list. Joel Roth, The Halakhic Process: A Systemic Analysis (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1986), 24. See also the discussion by Menachem Elon regarding the distinctions made between Rabbinic and biblical laws. Menachem Elon, Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles, trans. Bernard Auerbach and Melvin J. Sykes, 4 vols., vol. 1 (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1994), 212–15. The work of rabbis included the complicated task of interpreting laws for their communities. It is doubtful that such systems were in place at the time of Paul. 38 According to several scholars, by taking on circumcision, Paul is indicating that these Gentiles would become Jews. Mark Nanos, for example, comments that circumcision “symbolizes a public social act of transfer for a non-Jewish person into the Jewish community and thus places him in subordination to its norms.” Nanos, Irony of Galatians, 95. According to J. Louis Martyn, circumcision is the “sign par excellence, the commandment which signifies full participation in the people of God.” Martyn, Galatians, 194. Sam Williams writes, “Circumcision is the ritual of entrance into a distinctive people, and one who takes that step takes upon himself the obligation to live according to the Sinai covenant in every sphere of personal and communal existence. He adopts a complete way of life.” Sam K. Williams, Galatians, ed. Victor P. Furnish, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997), 136–37. See also Joseph Tyson who writes, “Circumcision itself is not thought of as a single act but as a kind of existence, viz., existence as a Jew.” Tyson, “‘Works of Law’ in Galatians,” 428. Paula Fredriksen mentions that in the ancient world some Gentiles voluntarily adopted certain Jewish rites while remaining themselves in a liminal position (i.e., not fully Jews). While Fredriksen insists that there were no demands placed upon this group by Jews, their precarious cultic status (not fully pagan or Jewish) may have made them more susceptible to those who insisted upon religious requirements. Fredriksen, “Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles,” 242.

A. Circumcision in Galatians

91

Anointed.39 That is, an association with the Anointed obviates the concern regarding this physical mark or its absence. In sum, in Gal 5:1–6 circumcision pertains to the physical practice and is defined as a custom that confers a state of slavery on Gentiles. It obliges the Gentile participant to obey the whole law (5:3), effectively moving the Gentile away from a state of freedom found in the Anointed. Paul would have Gentiles included in the people of God as Gentiles. Why the Jew Paul would consider that Gentiles taking up the practice of law would render them into a state of slavery may have something to do with the fact that circumcision would require an association with Jews who answer to Rome and Roman rule.40 However, it may also signify that Paul’s revelation of the resurrected Jesus signals the end of time and the gathering of Gentiles, as Gentiles, into the people of God (as discussed below). Paul’s opponents do not recognize that the end of time approaches; they operate under a different worldview and world clock. Indeed, many scholars have remarked that Paul’s revelation of the resurrected Jesus signaled to him the dawning of a new age41 and correspondingly, a new understanding of the relationship between Jews and Gentiles. Working in part from the insights of Paula Fredriksen, John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed explain that the Hebrew tradition presented two distinct views on what happens to the nations or Gentiles at the end-time. One biblical scenario entailed the extermination of Gentiles, and another their ingathering into the fold, into the God of Israel. According to Crossan, Reed and others,42 39 J. Louis Martyn exaggerates the importance of this particular line stating that Paul is “signaling the termination of the cosmos that had at its foundation a religious pair of opposites” and “announcing the dawn of the cosmos that consists of the realm of Christ, the realm that lies beyond religious differentiations.” Martyn, Galatians, 472. Hans Dieter Betz reasons that because religious symbols are associated with a particular religion, with this statement Paul separates Gentile Christianity from Judaism and establishes a new religion. Betz, Galatians, 262–63. However, Paul does not appear to be speaking of the end of the cosmos (Martyn) nor about starting a new religion (Betz). More simply, Paul says that God makes Gentiles righteous before God through trust and without the obligation to follow the Jewish law. Paul, most likely considers that these Gentiles are Jews as he is. 40 For this perspective, see Kahl, Galatians Re-Imagined, 210–20. 41 See Richard Hays, who writes, “The crucifixion is an apocalyptic event that marks the end of the old age and the beginning of God’s new creation (6:14–15).” See also Wayne A. Meeks, ed., The HarperCollins Study Bible (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1993), 2183. 42 Crossan and Reed, In Search of Paul, 215–19, Fredriksen, “Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles,” 244. See also Dennis E. Smith who writes, “Paul’s opposition to circumcision was based on this apocalyptic perspective. When he argued that Gentiles should not be circumcised, he was in essence arguing against their becoming proselytes. To do so would be to deny the Christ event (‘if justification [for Gentiles] comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing’ Gal 2:21) and the new age that it brought, a new age in which Gentiles were ac-

92

Chapter 4: Circumcision in Paul’s Letters

Paul opted for the latter solution and based his view on texts such as Isaiah 2:2–4, 25:6–8 and Micah 4:1–4, in which there is a discussion concerning the comingling of the nations with the Jews and nothing is said about Gentile circumcision. Similarly, Mark Nanos writes, For in that age [the age to come], the dawning of which he [Paul] believes has now begun – a position that Paul himself seems to have arrived at by way of a miraculous revelation and then reexamination of the Scriptures and not merely by the articulation of this view beforehand or by examination of the empirical evidence itself – Israel and the nations would together worship the One God, the Creator of all, together as one, although remaining Israel and the nations.43

Paul’s refusal to allow Gentiles to become circumcised supports this larger understanding of his mission. Some discussion of Paul’s audience and social situation with regard to the Galatian community helps to further clarify his treatments of circumcision. One might ask, for example, how it is that Paul often refers to the Hebrew Scripture when dealing with Gentiles. For example, he speaks of God the Father (Gal 1:1, 3), of the biblical Abraham (Gal 3:6–9), and of biblical characters Sarah and Hagar (Gal 4:21–27) – suggesting by this that his Gentile audience is familiar with such notions. Speaking in terms recognizable to Jews rather than to Gentile pagans is out of place unless one acknowledges a category of Gentiles both sympathetic to and knowledgeable of Judaism. Scholars have identified such a group and often refer to them as God-fearers.44 Mark cepted by God’s grace as Gentiles; they no longer needed to become proselytes.” Dennis E. Smith, “What Did Paul Consider Rubbish?,” Forum, New Series 7, no. 2 (2004): 233. 43 Nanos, Irony of Galatians, 100. Pamela Eisenbaum argues along the same lines, “Paul also believed the resurrection of Jesus signaled that the world to come was already in the process of arriving and that it was time to reconcile non-Jews to God. Reconciling non-Jews to God also meant reconciling non-Jews to Jews, not because they were necessarily hostile to each other but because, if all people were potentially children of God, Jews and Gentiles must now be considered part of the same family; this entailed a new level of interaction and intimacy.” Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 4. 44 Lawrence H. Schiffman refers to those who associate with Jewish people as semiproselytes or God-fearers. According to him, “as a result of the general interest in Oriental religions and of the waning of the old Greco-Roman cults, many people in the Hellenistic world were attracted to various Jewish customs, including the Sabbath, synagogue attendance, and abstention from pork, among other things.” To become an actual proselyte, according to Schiffman, the male would have to convert to Judaism by becoming circumcised. Lawrence H. Schiffman, Who Was a Jew? Rabbinic and Halakhic Perspectives on the Jewish-Christian Schism (Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav Publishing House, Inc., 1985), 37. While reticent to provide a term that would admit to a specific class of people who would have been attached to a synagogue while not being fully Jews themselves, John Collins does, nevertheless, maintain that such people existed. He writes that in the first-century Diaspora, Jews were “both willing and able to attract Gentiles to their synagogues and Gentiles were eager to adopt Jewish customs.” John J. Collins, “A Symbol of Otherness: Circumcision and Salvation in the First Century,” in To See Ourselves as Others See Us, ed. Jacob Neusner and Ernest S.

A. Circumcision in Galatians

93

Nanos, for example, has written extensively on this subject and argues that Paul’s audience was composed of “righteous Gentiles.”45 According to him, a righteous Gentile was connected to a synagogue. He was considered a friendly guest; he had a liminal status, on the threshold, not quite a Jew but in the process of becoming one through a process that culminates in circumcision.46 Gentiles interested in Judaism were not an uncommon occurrence in the first century and beyond.47 Frerichs (Chico: Scholars Press, 1985), 184. For further discussion of this subject, see Louis H. Feldman, “The Omnipresence of the God-Fearers,” Biblical Archaeology Review 12, no. 5 (1986): 58–63. 45 Nanos, Irony of Galatians, 91–96. 46 As Mark Nanos comments, “One might say, during Paul’s period, for Paul as well as other Jewish voices of which we know, that it [circumcision] had become the symbol of Jewish identity sine qua non, even employed as a technical term: to be circumcised was to be a Jew, whereas to be uncircumcised was to be a non-Jew. Although a variety of views must be always recognized, circumcision among Jewish people of this time generally describes as well as labels the boundary of Jewish identity in the midst of non-Jewish world.” Nanos, Irony of Galatians, 89. Many scholars claim that circumcision was indeed the necessary final step required for full conversion to Judaism. See Schiffman, Who Was a Jew? , 25, 39, John Nolland, “Uncircumcised Proselytes?,” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods 12 (1981), Fredriksen, “Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles,” 239. See also Shaye Cohen who writes, “The Greek-speaking Jews of the second temple period and the Hebrew- (and Aramaic-) speaking Jews after 70 CE debated the meaning of circumcision and the ritual’s exact place in the conversion process, but as far as is known no (non-Christian) Jewish community in antiquity accepted male proselytes who were not circumcised. Perhaps the god of the Jews would be pleased with Gentiles who venerated him and practiced some of the laws, and perhaps in the coming eschaton Gentiles would not need to be circumcised to be part of god’s holy people; but if those Gentiles wanted to join the Jewish community in the here and now, they had to accept circumcision.” Cohen, “Crossing the Boundary,” 27. In addition, according to Cohen, for Josephus “the essence of ‘conversion’” is circumcision. Shaye J. D. Cohen, “Respect for Judaism by Gentiles According to Josephus,” Harvard Theological Review 80, no. 4 (1987): 421. By contrast, John Collins surveys propaganda literature (Sibylline Oracles 3 and 4, Letter of Aristeas and Pseudo-Phocylides), Philo, Josephus, and a conversion text from the Diaspora, Joseph and Aseneth and concludes that the propaganda literature does not require conversion and that circumcision was not a universal requirement for conversion to Judaism in the second-temple period. Collins, “Symbol of Otherness,” 163–79. See also Jonathan Z. Smith who writes, “The wide range of uses and interpretations of circumcision as a taxic indicator in early Judaism suggest that, even with respect to this most fundamental division, we cannot sustain the impossible construct of a normative Judaism. We must conceive of a variety of early Judaisms, clustered in varying configurations.” Jonathan Z. Smith, Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jerusalem (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982), 14. See also Neil J. McEleney, “Conversion, Circumcision and the Law,” New Testament Studies 20 (1974): 332. 47 Shaye Cohen, for example, recognizes seven different forms of behavior by which Gentiles beginning in the mid-second century BCE to the fifth century CE can exhibit association

94

Chapter 4: Circumcision in Paul’s Letters

In sum, in Galatians Paul refers to circumcision either as a metonym to indicate a particular kind of Jew (Gal 2:12) or in its literal sense as the practice itself (Gal 5:2, 3, 6). Early in the letter, Paul chastises Cephas for effectively trying to turn Gentiles into law-abiding Jews, those that not only follow the law but who also become circumcised. According to Paul, obedience to the law and circumcision are not necessary for Gentiles, as they are made right with God through the faithfulness of the Anointed and not through Jewish works of law. In Gal 2:11–14, the expression “the circumcision” refers to those Jews who would require law obedience and the practice of circumcision. Later, Paul argues forcibly that Galatian Gentiles avoid becoming circumcised (Gal 5:2, 3, 6). In this section of the letter, circumcision connotes a state of slavery: the circumcision of the Gentile jeopardizes his association with the Anointed and his concomitant opportunity to be free.

B. Philippians: “The circumcision” are those concerned for the heavenly realm B. Circumcision in Philippians Paul’s Letter to the Philippians is most likely a composite48 of several letters,49 which Paul composed and sent to Philippi over a short span of time. with and respect for Judaism. Conversion to Judaism entails the practice of the Jewish laws, including circumcision, the exclusive devotion to the God of Israel, and the integration into the Jewish community. Cohen, Beginnings of Jewishness, 13–33, esp. 26. See also Collins, “Symbol of Otherness,” 163–86, Fredriksen, “Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles,” 242– 43. For an analysis of Josephus’s references to Gentile attraction to Judaism see Cohen, “Respect for Judaism,” 409–30. 48 For instance, in the first section of the canonical letter, Paul claims that he is in prison (Phil 1.7, 13–14, 17); it is less clear that he is in prison in the second section of the letter in which falls his treatment of circumcision. In addition, in the central section of the letter (Phil 3:1b ff), Paul rather abruptly addresses the issues of opponents, labeling them as enemies of the cross of Christ (Phil 3:18). Verses 3:1 and 4:8–9 sound like concluding remarks. After a careful analysis of the letter, John Reumann concludes that the canonical letter consists of a redaction of three letters combined by local Christians in Philippi around the year 90–100 CE. Reumann suggests that Paul wrote three letters to the Philippians from Ephesus around the year 54–55 CE. The first letter (A) consists of Phil 4:10–20, an expression of thanks for their concern for him, with no indication that he is in prison. The second letter (B) consists of Phil 1:1–3:1 and parts of 4:1–9, and 4:21–23. In this letter, Paul is in prison in Ephesus and urges unity in the face of adversity. The third letter (C) consists of Phil 3:2–21 and perhaps 4:1–9. In this third letter, there is no evidence that Paul is in prison; he warns the Philippians against enemies. John Reumann, Philippians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2008), 3–15. 49 There have been many theories on the nature of the letter. One group considers that the canonical letter is a unit to itself. A second group would divide the canonical letter into two parts, with 3:1b–4:20 considered to be Letter A, and 1:1–3:1a Letter B. A third group would divide the canonical letter into three sections, with 4:10–20 considered to be Letter A, 1:1–

B. Circumcision in Philippians

95

While comprised of distinct units, certain themes, such as suffering50 and loss (Phil 1:12–14, 2:6–11, 3:8, 4:3) and the importance of being united in the gospel (Phil 1:4, 27, 30; 2:2, 5; 3:15; 4:2) recur and provide a sense of unity to the whole.51 In Philippians, Paul repeatedly articulates his desire to be found in the immortal Jesus. From prison (Phil 1:13)52 Paul remarks that given the choice between life and death, he would prefer the latter, existence with the immortal Anointed one (Phil 1:23). Elsewhere, Paul expresses a similar desire (Phil 3:5–8, 11). He states that his real community or citizenship is in heaven and not on earth (Phil 3:20). Paul’s desire to be found in the immortal realm plays a large role in his interpretation of the term “the circumcision.” The noun “circumcision” (περιτομή) appears twice within the letter and in close proximity to one another.53 Paul employs “circumcision” both as a metonym (Phil 3:3) and as a literal practice (Phil 3:5). While he uses the term 3:1a Letter B, and 3:2–4:1 Letter C. For a concise review of the issues and a list of the scholars who hold the various positions, see John T. Fitzgerald, “Philippians, Epistle to the,” ABD 5:320–22. See also Carolyn Osiek who reviews the various composition theories. Carolyn Osiek, Philippians Philemon, Abindgon New Testament Commentaries (Nashville: Abindgon Press, 2000), 16–21. 50 Robert Jewett comments that the letter “repeatedly makes the point that suffering for Christ is the epitome of Christian experience.” Robert Jewett, “Conflicting Movements in the Early Church as Reflected in Philippians,” Novem Testamentum 12 (1970): 367. See also Gordon Fee who writes that suffering is “the dominant motif” in Philippians.” Gordon D. Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 30. 51 John T. Fitzgerald labels Philippians a “letter of friendship.” According to him, the ancient topic of friendship concerns the idea that friends are of “one soul” (Phil 1:27; 2:2), “one mind” (2:3) and “think the same” (2:2; 4:2). Even the use of “invective” (3:2) or ridicule (3:9) to criticize enemies can be interpreted as making friendship clearer. Fitzgerald, ABD 5:320. Gordon Fee defines Philippians as a “hortatory letter of friendship.” While there are many elements of friendship, there is also the mark of persuasion and dissuasion. In sections 1:27– 2:18 and 3:1–4:3, Paul’s aim is “to persuade toward one kind of behavior and dissuade from another.” Fee, Philippians, 2–14. Other scholars have subjected the epistle to a full classical-rhetorical analysis. D. Watson and L. Bloomquist, for example, remark that Philippians is an example of deliberative rhetoric; it seeks to advise or dissuade its audience. 52 This in not the only letter in which Paul claims to write from prison. See Paul’s letter to Philemon (vv. 1, 9, 10, 13, 23). Gordon Fee remarks that Paul’s imprisonment is for the “defense of the gospel” and for its “vindication.” Fee, Philippians, 93. See also Gordon D. Fee, Philippians, ed. Grant R. Osborne, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 109, 10, 12, 13, 20. In agreement with Fee are Daniel G. Reid, “Prison, Prisoner,” DPL, 753. See also Osiek, Philippians Philemon, 39, James P. Ware, The Mission of the Church in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians in the Context of Ancient Judaism, Supplements to Novum Testamentum, vol. 120 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2005), 175. 53 Paul’s discussion of circumcision falls within Letter C of John Reumann’s compositional scheme. Reumann, Philippians, 470.

96

Chapter 4: Circumcision in Paul’s Letters

“circumcision” as a metonym elsewhere to indicate Jews (Gal 2:12), here it refers to foreskinned Gentiles54 and to the Jew, Paul. According to Paul, “the circumcision” are typified by the performance of two tasks and one thought process. All three aspects of those defined as “the circumcision” have an association with the divine realm. Paul writes (Phil 3:3), 3:3. 3:3.

ἡμεῖς γάρ ἐσμεν ἡ περιτομή, οἱ πνεύματι θεοῦ λατρεύοντες καὶ καυχώμενοι ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθότες. for we are the circumcision, those who worship in the spirit of God and boast in the Anointed Jesus and do not have confidence in the flesh.55

In the first place, Paul defines “the circumcision” as those who serve (λατρεύειν),56 render cultic service, in the spirit (Phil 3:3). The manuscript tradition presents several variant readings of the phrase denoting the worship of God,57 with some reading “serve God in the spirit,” others “serve in the spirit 54

I understand Paul’s audience to be Gentiles, yet he includes himself as part of “the circumcision,” thus, there is at least one Jew within that group of persons. See also Fee, Philippians, 297 n. 51. By contrast, based in part on the fact that Paul nowhere else uses the term “circumcision” to refer to Gentiles, Donald Robinson speculates that here too the term is meant to indicate Jewish Christians, those who are physically circumcised. Donald W. Robinson, “We Are the Circumcision,” Australian Biblical Review 15, no. 1–4 (1967): 30. 55 The translation is my own. 56 This verb is used rather extensively in the Letter to the Hebrews. In each instance, it refers to the worship or service to God. Priests offer worship in a sanctuary (Heb 8:5); others worship in a tent (Heb 13:10). It designates a worshipper(s) (Heb 9:9, 10:2). It takes as its object the living God (Heb 9:14) or God (Heb 12:28). In the LXX, it occurs approximately ninety times and only with reference to religious service, either to God or to pagan deities. Paul is influenced by this latter use of the term. See Peter T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), 360. According to Peter O’Brien, Paul uses this verb intentionally to denote service rendered to God by God’s people. O’Brien finds that Paul makes a radical shift by redefining God’s people as “Christians” and no longer as “Israel.” In contrast to O’Brien, however, I would not designate “the circumcision” as Christian, as that term post-dates Paul. 57 There are textual differences regarding the case for the noun θεός, God. Nestle-Aland has adopted the genitive case and bases its choice on the majority of texts plus additional witnesses. This list includes A B C D2 F G 0278vid. 33. 1739. 1881 M vgmss syhmg co, Ambr. Several other ancient textual witnesses, however, have the noun θεός in the dative case. These include D* P Y 075. 365. 1175 pc lat sy. Those that omit θεός altogether are much fewer and include P46 vgms. The verb to serve, λατρεύειν, to render cultic service, normally takes a dative as its object. Thus, with θεός in the dative, the phrase would read “we who serve God in spirit.” With θεός in the genitive, and understanding the dative πνεύματι as a dative designating a locative of sphere, the phrase would be similar: “we who serve in the spirit of God.” Without the θεός, the translation would be “we who serve in the spirit.” Alternatively, several commentators, Lightfoot, Fee, O’Brien and Bruce, while accepting the Nestle-Aland reading, understand the dative noun πνεύματι as instrumental of means. Thus, they translate the phrase as “we who worship by the Spirit of God.” For further discussion see Fee, Philippians, 288 n.10, O’Brien, Philippians, 360, F. F. Bruce, Philippians, New Inter-

B. Circumcision in Philippians

97

of God,” and still others as simply “serve in the spirit.” The readings are quite similar. Paul, however, is not referring to the Holy Spirit58 but to the spiritual or divine realm. In the second place, Paul describes “the circumcision” as those who boast (καυχάσθαι) in the Anointed Jesus (Phil 3:3). If Paul is basing this expression on Jeremiah 9:23–24, as Gordon Fee59 suggests, then he is equating the Anointed Jesus with the Lord or YHWH. In Jeremiah, the Lord reports that those who boast should do so in recognition that they understand whom the Lord is and that the Lord acts with love, justice, and righteousness. By boasting in the Anointed, whether or not referring to the Anointed as though he were God, Paul boasts in a “being” that is now divine. Finally, “the circumcision” concerns a negative estimation by referring to those who do not have trust (πείθειν) in the flesh (σάρξ). The word flesh likely refers to the physical practice of circumcision, 60 as the rite appears to be in view at the end of this verse and in the two verses that frame this one (Phil 3:2, 3:5). In the first instance (Phil 3:2), Paul warns against the mutilation61 (κατατομή),62 employing a word that has a lexical connection to cirnational Biblical Commentary (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1989), 106, J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1913), 145 see notes. The KJV and RSV translate as “worship God in the spirit.” This implies that they accept a variant reading not adopted by Nestle-Aland and understand θεός to be in the dative rather than in the genitive case. I am assuming the presence of θεός and treat it as a genitive. I also understand the dative for spirit (πνεύματι) as a locative of sphere and not instrumental of means. 58 By contrast, several commentators ascribe to the view that Paul worships through the aid of the Holy Spirit. See Fee, Philippians, 288, Lightfoot, Philippians, 145, O’Brien, Philippians, 360, Bruce, Philippians, 106. This understanding is also evident in several modern translations. For example, the NAB translates as “we who worship through the Spirit of God.” La Bible de Jérusalem translates as «nous qui offrons le culte selon l’Esprit de Dieu.» 59 Fee, Philippians, 301. Note, Paul uses a similar expression elsewhere. See 1 Cor 1:31, 15:31. 60 See Moisés Silva, Philippians, 2nd ed., Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2005), 149. 61 The NRSV actually translates Βλέπετε τὴν κατατομήν as “beware of those who mutilate the flesh!” Only in a footnote do the editors mention that the Greek κατατομήν is a noun and not a verb. Wayne A. Meeks, ed., The HarperCollins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006), 1995. The general sense between these two locutions is similar. The KJV has “beware of the concision.” In archaic usage, this term meant “a cutting up or off.” Among the three, the NAB translates the Greek phrase most closely to the Greek as “beware of the mutilation.” 62 BDAG 528. This word is a hapax legomenon, occurs one time, within the New Testament. Fee, Philippians, 18–19 n. 53. In Galatians (5:12) Paul employs the Greek verb ἀποκόπτειν against his so-called opponents. It means in the first instance to “cut off” or “cut away” and is translated “to castrate” (NRSV). Andreas Blaschke notes that the designation of

98

Chapter 4: Circumcision in Paul’s Letters

cumcision.63 Κατατομή means “a cutting into,” and the word of circumcision (περιτομή) means “a cutting around.” In the second (Phil 3:5), Paul heads his own mini autobiography with the fact that he is circumcised. In addition, opposition64 likely influences this third definition of circumcision. In the verse immediately preceding the one under review, Paul, and seemingly for no apparent reason,65 warns the Philippians of certain groups, or one particular group (Phil 3:2). He cautions against – as seen through the term βλέπειν, to watch, look to, or beware of – dogs (κύνες), evil workers (κακοὶ ἐργάται), and the mutilation (κατατομή). A strong indication that the group consists of Jews advocating circumcision66 is that Paul heads up the the opponents as the mutilation equates the circumcision that they call for with the forbidden mutilation, as seen in Gal 5:12. Blaschke, Beschneidung, 408. 63 Stephen Fowl comments, “This seems to be a rather clear and derisory play on the Greek word for circumcision, περιτομή/peritomē.” Stephen E. Fowl, Philippians (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2005), 146. Carol Osiek remarks that the two words are etymologically related and that Paul plays on these two related words. Osiek, Philippians Philemon, 83. See also O’Brien, Philippians, 357, Lightfoot, Philippians, 144. 64 The scholarship regarding the identification of the opposition in this letter is vast. John Gunther’s 1973 study of the issue included eighteen different descriptions of the opponents. Seventeen of the eighteen portraits pertain to Jews or Judaism. Gunther, St. Paul’s Opponents, 2. Some commentators identify the opponents as both Jewish and Gnostic. See Walter Schmithals, Paul and the Gnostics, trans. John E. Steely (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972), 87. Similarly, Carl Holladay finds that Paul was struggling against a Jewish and Gnostic over-realized eschatology. Carl R. Holladay, “Paul’s Opponents in Philippians 3,” Restoration Quarterly 12 (1969): 90. By contrast, A. Klijn writes that Paul combats Jews who preached an earthly and present way of perfection in opposition to Paul’s way of perfection that would occur in the future, with the second coming of Christ. A. F. J. Klijn, “Paul’s Opponents in Philippians iii,” Novem Testamentum 7 (1965): 279, 84. Several scholars reason that the opponents are Jewish-Christian missionaries. For example, according to Helmut Koester and Robert Jewett, the missionaries were advocating for the fulfillment of Torah commands such as circumcision. Helmut Koester, “The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Fragment,” New Testament Studies 8 (1961–1962): 331, Jewett, “Conflicting Movements,” 383–84. Similarly, Gordon Fee understands that the group is comprised of Jewish Christians and requires Torah observance. According to Fee, these opponents of Paul are urging circumcision upon the Philippians because according to them for Gentiles to “truly belong to God’s people” and obey Christ, they must observe the Torah. Fee, Philippians, 296–97. For concise summaries of the various positions, see Fitzgerald, ABD 5:323, L. Gregory Bloomquist, The Function of Suffering in Philippians, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 78 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 198–201. 65 Philippians 3:2 begins very abruptly, leading some scholars to view verses 3:2–21 as a letter to itself. As John Reumann remarks, considering the verses as a separate letter heightens the problem of the reason for the outburst and the identification of the enemies. Reumann, Philippians, 479. 66 “Paul’s use of κατατομή is an ironic paronomasia on the περιτομή which the enemies advocated.” Jewett, “Conflicting Movements,” 383. By contrast, Mark Nanos argues that the

B. Circumcision in Philippians

99

subsequent verse with the phrase “we (ἡμεῖς) are the circumcision.” Paul is likely implying that he and his foreskinned community are also “the circumcision,” a circumcision understood metaphorically and not literally.67 While the term σάρξ refers at one level to the physical practice of circumcision, it also pertains to life in general.68 Paul confirms this sense of the word σάρξ in the immediately succeeding verses (Phil 3:5–6), in which he describes his social and religious location (Phil 3:5–6). It is his earthly affiliations that Paul subordinates and considers a loss (Phil 3:7) in favor of knowing and being found in the immortal Anointed one. By contrast, he considers his true community or citizenship to be in heaven (Phil 3:20). He pronounces a negative critique on those who have their minds set on earthly affairs (Phil 3:19). Thus, Paul would abandon both the fleshly mark of circumcision as well as earthly or fleshly existence for life in heaven with the Anointed. The notion that a person could serve God without regard without affecting the physical body one way or the other is present in the writings of Philo. As shown in the previous chapter, Philo encounters Jews who would dispense with the actual practice of circumcision in favor of its symbolic signification (Migr. 16.89–93). While for Philo, the physical manifestation serves to deepen spiritual insight (Migr. 16.93), this is not the case for Paul himself or for his Gentile audience. In sum, in Philippians Paul assesses a positive meaning to the term circumcision in its metonymic sense. Circumcision refers to a group of foreskinned Gentiles, and to the Jew Paul, who worship in the spirit and boast in the term “mutilation” refers not to the Jewish rite of circumcision but to pagan practices. Pagans would be those who would “cut into” in order to invoke the Gods, whereas Jews would “cut around.” In his article “Paul’s Reversal of Jews Calling Gentiles Dogs,” Nanos surveys a wide variety of ancient literature, including the Tanakh, the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, Josephus, Rabbinic literature, and the Gospels to refute the claim that Jews have called Gentiles dogs. According to Nanos, Paul would not be reversing the invective, as many commentators assume. Rather than interpreting Paul as referring to Jews with this epithet, Nanos provides an array of alternative associations, including cult figures such as Silvanus, Diana, Cerberus, Hekate, Cybele, and the Cynics. In addition, Nanos finds “tantalizing” parallels with all three epithets, “dogs,” “mutilation,” and “evil workers,” in the story of Elijah as narrated in 1 Kings 18:1–22:40. Mark D. Nanos, “Paul’s Reversal of Jews Calling Gentiles ‘Dogs’ (Philippians 3:2): 1600 Years of an Ideo-logical Tale Wagging an Exegetical Dog?,” Biblical Interpretation 17 (2009): 448–82, 78, 79. 67 By contrast, Andreas Blaschke argues that with this expression Paul names “Christians” at the true members of God’s people. Blaschke, Beschneidung, 408. In the first place and as mentioned elsewhere, the term “Christian” is anachronistic. In the second place, there is no emphasis on the notion of a “true” community or of a “false” one. Both could be understood to be “circumcised,” but in different ways. 68 BDAG 916. See especially John Reumann who writes, “Sarx implies Paul’s negative judgment on human existence. Sarx denotes the whole person, human life destined for demise and destruction before God, not something on which real life and future hopes can be built.” Reumann, Philippians, 477.

100

Chapter 4: Circumcision in Paul’s Letters

Anointed Jesus and place no confidence in the flesh. The meaning of “the circumcision” refers to those concerned with the heavenly realm. Many of Paul’s arguments, especially in the surrounding passages, suggest his near obsession with the divine realm over the earthly one. He makes explicit his desire to be found in the Anointed and considers his real citizenship to be in heaven and not on earth.

C. 1 Corinthians: The mark of circumcision means nothing for those called heavenward C. Circumcision in 1 Corinthians Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians is his longest extant letter to the Corinthian congregation.69 It is thought that he wrote the letter from Ephesus (1 Cor 16:8), yet its precise date of composition is unknown. As mentioned, based on, scholars often date this letter around Paul’s purported appearance before Gallio (Acts 18:12–16), to around 53–55 CE.70 As is the case with Paul’s letter to the Philippians, scholars have questioned the letter’s unity; many have proposed division theories (Johann Salamo Semler (1725), Johannes Weiss (1910–1917), Walter Schmithals (1956)),71 while others reason that 1 Corinthians is one unified letter.72 Margaret Mitchell, for example, subjects the letter to a thorough rhetorical analysis and concludes that 1 Corinthians as a whole unit seeks through deliberative rhetoric to convince the Corinthians to become reconciled.73 While conceivably a single composition, 1 Corinthians 69 Hans Dieter Betz, “Corinthians, First Epistle to the,” ABD 1:1139. According to Richard Horsley, Paul spent eighteen months in Corinth, beginning from the start of the year 50 to approximately the middle of 51. Richard A. Horsley, 1 Corinthians, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), 29. According to Hans Conzelmann, Paul stayed in Corinth either during the years 49 through 51 or 50 through 52 CE. Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, trans. James W. Leitch, Hermeneia – a Critical and Historical Commentary of the Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 13. 70 Betz, ABD 1:1140. 71 Betz, ABD 1:1142–45. 72 Scholars who view 1 Corinthians as a single composition have provided various purposes for it. John White observes, “he [Paul] was convinced the disagreement cited in 1:10– 17 would not have occurred if the church had submitted to the purifying concord of God’s spirit: ‘to each is given the manifestation of the spirit for the common good’ (12:7).” John L. White, The Apostle of God: Paul and the Promise of Abraham (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1999), 28. Hans Conzelmann sees an applied theology within the letter of 1 Corinthians. He writes, “Theology is here translated into an illumination of the existence of the church and of the individual Christian in it.” Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 9. 73 Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Louisville: Westminster-John Knox Press, 1993), 67–68. In a similar vein, Richard Horsley concludes that Paul wrote this letter to “address the problem of divisions.” Horsley, 1 Corinthians, 22. Finally, in his book

C. Circumcision in 1 Corinthians

101

is comprised of many seemingly unrelated issues of concern for the Corinthian community. For instance, Paul responds to reports of discord (1 Cor 1:11, 5:1; 11:18) and immorality (1 Cor 5:1–13) within the community and advises appropriate conduct (1 Cor 7:1–11:1). He makes a defense of his authority (1 Cor 1:12, 3:1–4:5, 9:1–27), and speaks poetically about love (1 Cor 13:1–13). His brief comment regarding circumcision occurs within the context of general injunctions regarding lifestyles appropriate for the community, his audience. Paul’s remarks concerning the physical practice of circumcision are within the form of general exhortations or commands. He instructs men within the community not to change their physical condition with regard to circumcision one way or another. His seeming lack of regard for the practice of circumcision and its absence (foreskin) is best understood in the light of his more general views concerning the present world situation. According to Paul, the present time is already short (ὁ καιρὸς συνεσταλμένος ἐστίν) (1 Cor 7:29), and its present form (σχῆμα) is passing away (1 Cor 7:31). The Anointed has risen from the dead (1 Cor 15:1–5), indicative of the fact that members of the Anointed are to expect that they too will soon experience a new and resurrected life (1 Cor 1:7–8).74 The Greek root περιτέμν- of the word for circumcision occurs three times within two verses at approximately the midpoint of the letter (1 Cor 7:18–19). In the first two instances, it appears in verbal form, as a perfect passive particle (περιτετμημένος) and as a present middle imperative (περιτεμνέσθω), and in the third as a nominative noun (περιτομή). In each instance, the term refers to the physical practice of circumcision. Only when used as a noun and to refer to the physical practice does Paul define it. He writes (1 Cor 7:18–19), 7:18. περιτετμημένος τις ἐκλήθη; μὴ ἐπισπάσθω. ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ κέκληταί τις; μὴ περιτεμνέσθω. 7:19. ἡ περιτομὴ οὐδέν ἐστιν, καὶ ἡ ἀκροβυστία οὐδέν ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ τήρησις ἐντολῶν θεοῦ. 7:18. Was anyone who was called circumcised? Let him not remove the mark of circumcision. Was anyone called in foreskin? Let him not become circumcised. 7:19. Circumcision is nothing, and foreskin is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God (is something).75

The Corinthian Body, Dale Martin observes that conflicts abounded within the community, rooted in different ideologies concerning the human body. Some, like Paul, saw the body as perilously permeable and hence threatened by external elements of various sorts, while others had no such concerns and instead stressed a proper balance within the body. Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), xv. 74 The preposition ἕως (1 Cor 1:8) refers to the upper limit or “to the point of.” See BDAG 424. Thus, Paul is expecting the second coming of the Anointed before the end of the lives of those within the community. 75 The translation is my own.

102

Chapter 4: Circumcision in Paul’s Letters

The meaning of circumcision as nothing needs to be contextualized by investigating two themes that dominate Paul’s treatment of it in this passage. The first is that of a call (1 Cor 7:17–24).76 The Greek verb καλεῖν (to call) occurs eight times within the space of eight verses (1 Cor 7:17, 18 (2x), 20, 21, 22 (2X), 24) and the cognate noun “calling” occurs once (1 Cor 7:20).77 Each verbal occurrence is in a past tense. To be called is a technical term and regards a relationship with God. God, the active agent (1 Cor 7:17, 24) has called the Corinthians to be in the presence of God (παρὰ θεῷ)78 (1 Cor 7:24). Paul functions like Moses (Deut 4:32–40), reminding the Corinthians that God has called them, but also of their relationship with the Anointed (1 Cor 1:2, 4–5, 9; 6:15; 12:27). The second theme pertinent to Paul’s understanding of circumcision is that of remaining as one is (μένειν). This verb frames Paul’s injunction regarding the states of circumcision and foreskin (1 Cor 7:17, 20). Paul begins (1 Cor 7:17) by exhorting those called to live (περιπᾶτειν) lives as the Lord so distributed it (μερίζειν). By distribution, Paul means social standing, such as being a slave or freeperson (1 Cor 7:21–22) or being married or single (1 Cor 7:8, 11, 40). According to Paul, those called are already in a relationship with God and the Anointed and are to remain in their present state. While Paul exhorts that circumcision and foreskin are nothing, his command does not imply their condemnation but instead their unimportance. If the called are soon to experience the second coming of the Anointed (1 Cor 15:23) and a transformation of their physical bodies into spiritual ones (1 Cor 15:44), 79 there is no pressing need to change one’s physical state from cir76

According to Gordon Fee, “the language of ‘calling’ dominates the whole.” Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987), 308. 77 Collins, 275. 78 The Greek preposition used with the dative could have the sense of “before” God as in “in the presence of” or “near” God. Hans Conzelmann remarks that Paul most likely used the preposition to mean “before the face of.” Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 129. See also Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 321. 79 Vincent Wimbush writes, “Paul argues throughout Chapter 7 that one’s condition or status in the world has no power to affect for good or ill status with God. Because worldly statuses or conditions mean nothing with respect to status with God, as well as because the End is near, all should remain in whatever worldly condition they were in when they were called by God.” Vincent L. Wimbush, Paul the Worldly Ascetic: Response to the World and Self-Understanding According to 1 Corinthians 7 (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1987), 32–33. While I disagree that Paul is arguing against the notion of trying to please God through a change in one’s physical condition or social status, with Vincent Wimbush I agree that Paul’s statements are best understood in the light of the impending change in world events. By contrast, Margaret Mitchell views Paul as centrally concerned with the differences of opinion in the here and now. Mitchell, Paul and Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 66. Hence, with

C. Circumcision in 1 Corinthians

103

cumcised to foreskin or visa-versa. Thus, the social situation qualifies what Paul means by “nothing” (οὐδέν). Will Deming’s interpretation of this passage is helpful and pertinent. According to him, Paul reasons as a Stoic and treats circumcision and foreskin as “indifferent” things. In Stoic thought, while things had no inherent value in and of themselves, one could nevertheless make moral progress by pursing preferred indifferents and avoiding rejected ones. In this view, Paul deemed both the states of circumcision and foreskin as rejected indifferents: a person made no moral progress in pursuing either of these states. With the impending change to the world, circumcision and foreskin could be considered as indifferents. They were most likely not rejected indifferents at one time, but given the current state of the world, those called to be with the Anointed are to consider them as such. On the other hand, while Paul accords no value at this time to the states of circumcision and foreskin, he does not dismiss the need to obey God’s commands more generally. To the contrary, he argues that there is value in the observance (τήρησις) of the commandments of God (1 Cor 7:19).80 Paul employs the same Greek word ἐντολή elsewhere within his writings to refer favorably to commandments of the law (Rom 7:12–13, 13:9). Moreover, his general counsel to the Corinthians abounds with law-like commands, those that resonate with the commandments of the Torah. Indeed, those interpreters who understand Paul to be anti-nomistic have difficulty in reconciling his statement here to their overall understanding of his negative view of the law.81 Paul comments on the need to be trustworthy (1 Cor 4:2) and free of sexual immorality (1 Cor 5:1–5, 11; 6:13, 18; 10:8) and boasting (1 Cor 5:6, 10:24). regard to changing one’s present condition she writes, “But Paul does not merely advise the Corinthians to remain in their present status. He redefines their proper ultimate goal from seeking to alter earthly status (7:8, 17–24, 27, 40) into realizing one’s Christian κλῆσις (7:15, 17–24).” Ibid., 124. 80 This same formula phrased differently appears in Gal. 5:6 and 6:15 and has affinities with the so-called baptismal formula of Gal. 3:28. In Galatians 6:16, Paul calls this formulaic statement a “rule.” Betz, Galatians, 319. 81 J. Louis Martyn and Hans Dieter Betz claim that Paul could not be intending that the Corinthians obey the commandments of Torah. According to them, Paul must be speaking of some other set of commandments. Martyn observes that with the expression of God, Paul differentiates between “the promising and guiding Law of God from the cursing and enslaving Law of Sinai.” Martyn, Galatians, 519. Similarly, Andreas Blaschke writes that circumcision and foreskin are irrelevant compared with keeping the commandments of God, when the latter are understood as pertaining to the love commandment (Liebesgebote). Blaschke, Beschneidung, 401. Hans Dieter Betz writes that Paul has to develop “anew” rules of behavior for the community. Indeed, according to Betz the spelling out of the rules is “the most impressive part of Paul’s deliberation” because through this, Paul develops theological insights regarding “Greek culture and religious values.” Betz, ABD 1:1146–47.

104

Chapter 4: Circumcision in Paul’s Letters

He advises against associating with the greedy and idolaters (1 Cor 10:7, 14, 21) as well as revilers, drunkards and robbers (1 Cor 5:11). He speaks of avoiding civil law suits (1 Cor 6:1–6) and being willing to be wronged and defeated (1 Cor 6:7). He includes injunctions to be in cooperative sexual unions (1 Cor 7:3), to avoid wounding the conscience of others (1 Cor 8:7–13, 10:25–33), to provide material support for spiritual services (1 Cor 9:4–14), to exercise self-control (1 Cor 9:25–27), and to consider others before self (1 Cor 11:33–34). While circumcision and foreskin are nothing given the present social situation, abiding by other laws continues to be important and necessary. In addition, there is no reason to think that these other Pauline injunctions would not stem from the Torah. In sum, according to Paul for those called by God, the practice of circumcision and its absence (foreskin) are nothing. These physical states can be considered as rejected indifferents; a person cannot progress morally in pursuing these states. According to Paul, the Corinthians are awaiting the second coming of the Anointed, a time when their physical body will be transformed into a spiritual one. The called are already in the presence of God and belong to the Anointed one, as such they are to remain in the condition – both physical and social – of their calling and concentrate on being found blameless (ἀνέγκλητος) at the resurrection. What has value in the present time is the observance of the commandments of God, those rules, likely based on the Torah, Paul deems worthy to obey.

D. Circumcision in Romans D. Circumcision in Romans Paul’s letter to the Romans, the longest and most likely the last of Paul’s extant letters, is also the most theologically reflective. Günther Bornkamm, for example, called Romans Paul’s “theological confession.”82 The date and providence of Romans is uncertain. However, many scholars surmise that Paul wrote Romans from Corinth83 in the late 50s CE.84 As is the case with 1 82 See Günther Bornkamm, “Der Römerbrief als Testament des Paulus,” in Geschichte und Glaube, Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1971), 120–39. See also Charles Myers who comments that Romans lacks the signs of an occasional letter. Charles D. Myers, “Romans, Epistle to the,” ABD 5:819. Changwon Song considers Romans a pedagogical treatise. Changwon Song, Reading Romans as a Diatribe, Studies in Biblical Literature, vol. 59 (New York: Peter Lang, 2004), 119–22. 83 Myers, ABD 5:818. See also Fitzmyer, Romans, 85, Dunn, Romans 1–8, xliv. 84 Charles Myers dates Romans between 55 and 57, so also Dunn who dates the letter to the mid 50s. Dunn, Romans 1–8, xliii. Joseph Fitzmyer dates the letter somewhat later, between 57–58 CE. Fitzmyer, Romans, 87. See also Robert Jewett who dates the letter to the late 50s. Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 55.

D. Circumcision in Romans

105

Corinthians, in Romans Paul comments upon various topics, such as the universality of sin (Rom 1:18–3:20), the importance of faith for being made right with God (Rom 3:21–4:25), the comparison between Adam and the Anointed (Rom 5:12–21), the meaning of baptism into the Anointed (Rom 6:1–23), the Jewish law (Rom 7:1–25), the role of the spirit for those in the Anointed (Rom 8:1–39), God’s on-going relationship with Israel (Romans 9–11), and finally the types of behaviors incumbent upon those called to belong to the Anointed Jesus (Romans 12–15). As such, Romans has had a profound influence on Christian theologians and the Christian tradition as a whole throughout the centuries. Theologians from Aurelius Augustine to the modern era have relied upon Romans for their general understanding of Paul. Paul’s overarching goal in Romans is to “bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles” (Rom 1:5, 15:15–21). As is the case with Paul’s other correspondence, his intended hearers are Gentiles (Rom 1:5–6, 13; 11:13–14; 15:15–16, 25–29).85 He addresses Gentiles while carrying on a conversation with a Jew (Rom 2:17ff), even when speaking of issues that pertain to Jews (Rom 2:17–4:1–25) and to the Jewish law (Rom 7:1–25), and to the salvation of Jews (Romans 9–11).86 In Romans Paul seeks to clarify the 85 In her monograph Paul was not a Christian, Pamela Eisenbaum often remarks that Paul is speaking to Gentiles. “One must always keep in mind: Gentiles, Gentiles, Gentiles!” Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 244. 86 Much of the scholarship with regard to Paul’s audience maintains that Paul is primarily writing to Gentiles. Yet scholars qualify this statement by suggesting that in the first place, Jewish believers in Christ were also present, and in the second, Paul addresses issues that pertain equally to both Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ. Werner Kümmel, for instance, writes, “the letter characterizes its readers unambiguously as Gentile Christians.” However, two paragraphs later he writes, “Even so the Roman community is not purely GentileChristian.” “Above all, there would be no point for the appeal for mutual acceptance, with its reference to the effect of the incarnation on Jews and Gentiles (15:7 ff), if both groups were not represented in the church” (italics, his own). Werner Georg Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, trans. Howard Clark Kee, 17th ed. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1975), 309– 10. According to James Dunn, Paul clearly addressed Gentiles, but also those with a Jewish background. He remarks that Paul had three inter-related purposes for writing, those that concerned believers who were from Gentile and Jewish backgrounds. There was a missionary purpose, wrapped up in Paul’s self-evaluation as an apostle to the Gentiles (Rom 15:18–24, 28), an apologetic purpose (Rom 1:16–17), by which Paul desired to gain acceptance among the believers, and a pastoral reason that concerned countering the “potential” divisions within Roman congregations of Gentile believers hating the “less liberated Jewish” ones (Rom 11:17–25; 12:3, 16; 14:3). According to Dunn, all three of these purposes must be considered together. Dunn, Romans 1–8, xlv, lv–lviii. Alternatively, Mark Nanos’s analysis of the situation in Rome differs from that of Dunn. With regard to the audience, Nanos writes that it is important to consider the audience Paul intended. According to him, Paul’s explicit comments and implied remarks reveal that he wrote to Christian Gentiles and not to Christian Jews. With regard to the situation, Nanos

106

Chapter 4: Circumcision in Paul’s Letters

place of Gentiles within God’s realm87 and this issue is reflected in his treatments of circumcision. The noun circumcision (περιτομή) occurs fifteen times in Romans, more often than in his other extant correspondence. Paul uses the concept “circumcision” in four distinct ways: literally, to designate the bodily mark itself (Rom 2:25 [twice], 27; 3:1; 4:10 [twice]), as a metaphor (Rom 2:26, 28, 29), allegorically, as a sign of something (Rom 4:11), and as a metonym for Jews (Rom 3:30; 4:9, 12 [twice]; 15:8). Two particular passages (Rom 2:25–29, 4:9–12) merit closer analysis. Not only are the majority of references to circumcision nestled within these two passages, but also within each Paul ascribes an explicit meaning to the term. In the first passage, Paul assesses circumcision metaphorically, referring to it as a matter of the heart. In the second he allegorizes a meaning for the symbolic representation (the sign) of circumcision, defining it as a seal of the righteousness of faithfulness. Each of these extended treatments of circumcision occurs as part of a diatribe, a dialog between Paul and a fictitious Jew (Rom 2:17–4:22).88 The diatribe itself employs the rhetorical technique speech-in-character (προσωποπιία), the creation of speech for either a known or unknown character.89 In this case, Paul invents a Jewish teacher of Gentiles.90 Speech-in-character was observed in Romans as early as Origen (early third century CE).91 comments that Paul addressed Christian Gentiles (the “strong”), those presently attending synagogues in Rome of their obligation to behave properly toward and in consideration of ethnic Jews. Mark Nanos, The Mystery of Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 75– 84. 87 Caroline Johnson Hodge writes that in general, “Paul relies on the logic of patrilineal descent to create a new lineage for the Gentiles, a lineage that links Gentiles through Christ to the founding ancestor, Abraham.” Caroline E. Johnson Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 5. 88 According to Stanley Stowers, the Jewish interlocutor disappears only near the end of Chapter 4 (Rom 4:22). Stanley Kent Stowers, A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews and Gentiles (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1994), 38, 247. By contrast, Thomas Tobin argues that the majority of Paul’s letter to the Romans is a diatribe (Rom 1:16– 11:36), yet he does not explicitly state that Romans 4 continues the dialogue begun in Rom 2:17. Thomas H. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts: The Argument of Romans (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004), 96, 124–54. While James Dunn understands that the beginning of Romans 4 is a continuation of Paul’s conversation with the Jewish interlocutor, Dunn remarks that at Rom 4:4ff, Paul turns to a midrashic style. Dunn, Romans 1–8, 226, 28. Similarly, Changwon Song remarks that while nearly the entirety of Romans is in the form of a diatribe, the section Rom 3.1–11:12, while itself a diatribe, is not a continuation of the second-person singular form of a diatribe found in Rom 2:1–29. Song, Reading Romans as a Diatribe, 65– 71. 89 Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 16–17. 90 Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 144–50. See Fitzmyer, Romans, 91, 315. See also Thomas Tobin’s recent study, in which he argues that 2:17–29 is an apostrophe to a fictitious

D. Circumcision in Romans

107

I. Circumcision as a metaphor for someone who follows God’s statutes Paul’s first extended treatment of circumcision turns on a notion of the importance of following God’s statutes (Rom 2:25–29). Unlike his other treatments of circumcision that concern only Gentiles, this one involves both Jews and Gentiles. While these verses are part of a diatribe with a Jewish interlocutor, in this section, Paul does all the speaking.92 He writes, 2:25. (a) περιτομὴ μὲν γὰρ ὠφελεῖ ἐὰν νόμον πράσσῃς: (b) ἐὰν δὲ παραβάτης νόμου ᾖς, ἡ περιτομή σου ἀκροβυστία γέγονεν. 2:26. ἐὰν οὖν ἡ ἀκροβυστία τὰ δικαιώματα τοῦ νόμου φυλάσσῃ, οὐχ ἡ ἀκροβυστία αὐτοῦ εἰς περιτομὴν λογισθήσεται; 2:27. καὶ κρινεῖ ἡ ἐκ φύσεως ἀκροβυστία τὸν νόμον τελοῦσα σὲ τὸν διὰ γράμματος καὶ περιτομῆς παραβάτην νόμου. 2:28. οὐ γὰρ ὁ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ Ἰουδαῖός ἐστιν, οὐδὲ ἡ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ ἐν σαρκὶ περιτομή. 2:29. ἀλλ’ ὁ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ Ἰουδαῖος, καὶ περιτομὴ καρδίας ἐν πνεύματι οὐ γράμματι, οὗ ὁ ἔπαινος οὐκ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ. 2:25. (a) For, on the one hand, circumcision is of benefit, if you do the law, (b) On the other hand, if you should be a transgressor of the law, your circumcision becomes a foreskin. 2:26. Then, if the foreskinned should observe the statutes of the law, will not his foreskin be considered a circumcision? 2:27. and will [not] the foreskinned by nature, who accomplishes the law, judge you a transgressor of the law, notwithstanding93 [your possession of] the letter and circumcision? 2:28. For a Jew is not one visibly and circumcision is not visibly on the flesh, 2:29. rather a Jew is hidden, and circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit/breath, not in the letter, whose praise does not come from people, but from God.94

Jew in parallel with 2:1–11 addressed to a fictitious Gentile. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 84–98, 115–18. According to Song, the fictitious interlocutor represents “Jews.” Song, Reading Romans as a Diatribe, 29. 91 In his commentary on Romans, Origen remarks that Paul addresses a personae (Rom 2:17–29), and the person whom Paul addresses takes on the role of a Jew. He writes, “We need to realize, however, that the Apostle is using irony when he addresses these things to the Jews. For it is impossible to believe that those who truly rest in the law and boast in God and test what is more useful could do the things which are enumerated in this passage. The testimony he has cited, i.e., ‘the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,’ is of course from Isaiah.” Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans Books 1–5, trans.Thomas P. Scheck, The Fathers of the Church, vol. 103 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2001), 135–40. 92 The interlocutor responds in the succeeding verse, Rom 3:1. See Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 165. 93 I am partially following Robert Jewett’s translation of this verse. The question from the previous verse is brought forward and implied in this one. In addition, the preposition διὰ of the clause διὰ γράμματος καὶ περιτομῆς refers to attendant circumstances. Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, 234. 94 The translation is my own.

108

Chapter 4: Circumcision in Paul’s Letters

In Rom 2:25–29, Paul’s goal is to lead his fictitious and pretentious Jewish interlocutor95 to the logical conclusion that his mark of circumcision is of no benefit to God unless he also obeys God by observing God’s statutes. The larger unit (Rom 2:17–29) of which this short passage is a part echoes an earlier dialog Paul conducts with a fictitious and pretentious Gentile (Rom 2:1– 16).96 In each dialog, Paul maintains that it is the doers of the law, whether Gentile or Jew, whom God honors and praises (Rom 2:6–16, 25–29). According to Paul, God judges both the Gentile and Jew with equity (Rom 2:11). Paul concludes each of these two units with the notion of the importance of having the laws “written on the heart” (Rom 2:14–15, 28–29). As mentioned, although Paul debates with his fictitious and pretentious Jewish teacher of Gentiles, he is addressing a Gentile audience. That Paul intends Gentile hearers is indicated in part by his creation of a fictitious, although silent, Gentile who theoretically accomplishes the law just as the fictitious Jew transgresses it (Rom 2:26–27). In other words, Paul appeals to or plays to Gentiles. According to Paul, the Gentile exceeds the Jew in righteousness (Rom 2:27). Throughout the passage, by employing a combination of uses for the terms “circumcision” and “foreskin” (literal, metonymic, and metaphoric), Paul overturns ordinary or common understandings of circumcision. For instance, a foreskinned person becomes as though he were circumcised and a circumcised person as though he were foreskinned. A foreskinned Gentile can be metaphorically circumcised; and a person with a “circumcised heart” is not someone who is metaphorically or spiritually circumcised but instead someone who actually follows God’s statutes. In the first verse of the passage, Paul shifts from an emphasis on and value for literal circumcision to the significance of a metaphoric one. The literal mark of circumcision, claims Paul, is of benefit if the circumcised person follows the law (Rom 2:25a). However, should the circumcised Jew break the law, his literal mark of circumcision will become metaphorically a foreskin (Rom 25b). Paul, then, advances the notion that circumcision has a benefit for a person who does not break laws. In the next verse, Paul argues similarly, but this time against the valuation of the literal state of foreskin. Once again, he emphasizes the importance of 95

Stanley Stowers equates this fictitious Jewish teacher to a character type common to Hellenistic moralists, philosophers and playwrights. It is a motif of “name versus reality.” The type is a pretentious boaster; someone who pretends to be what he is not. According to Stowers, this character type is often featured in this type of diatribe style. Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 145. 96 See Stanley Stowers’s detailed discussion of these verses. As Stowers comments, “When Jesus Christ returns, God will judge the world. God will look into the mental records of Gentiles and determine to what extent they have lived lives in accord with the law.” Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 134–41.

D. Circumcision in Romans

109

following the statutes of the law. Paul begs the question of whether or not a foreskinned person, who follows the statutes of the law, can be considered circumcised. 97 The leading οὐχ anticipates a positive response. By embedding the phrase “the statutes of the law” between the subject (foreskin) and its verbal phrase (follows the statues of the law) (ἡ ἀκροβυστία τὰ δικαιώματα τοῦ νόμου φυλάσσῃ), Paul forges a very close syntactic association between the foreskinned Gentile and his following of the law. It is through this that the Gentile’s literal foreskin would be considered as “circumcision” (Rom 2:26). While Paul uses the word δικαίωμα five times and only within his letter to the Romans, it is used extensively within the LXX and refers there to statutes of the law.98 Moses, for example, sums up his speeches to the Israelites with the reminder and warning of their obligation to follow the statutes of God (Deut 26:17, 30:10). Deuteronomy 30:9b–10 states, For the Lord will again take delight in prospering you, just as he [sic] delighted in prospering your ancestors, when you obey the Lord your God by observing his [sic] commandments and decrees (τὰ δικαιώματα) that are written in this book of the law, because you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.99

Israelites, who listen to the voice of God and follow all the statutes, are spared the diseases God brought upon the Egyptians (Exod 15:26). God remains faithful to those who follow the statutes, but utterly destroys those who do not (Deut 7:10–11, 28:45, 30:16). Those who follow the statutes live a long life (Deut 4:40, 6:2). In Romans, Paul employs δικαιώμα to refer to those statutes Gentiles know instinctively (Rom 1:32).100 While Gentiles can follow God’s statutes and indeed to be considered “circumcised,” they would follow them, the practice of circumcision itself is obviously not among the statutes Paul envisions for Gentiles.101

97 This discussion and hence the transformation of the foreskinned to a “circumcised” person is absent from Robert Jewett’s commentary on Romans. He remarks that with this phrase Paul is demoting the circumcised Jew. In addition, he assumes that the pretentious Jewish teacher is boasting in the fact that he is circumcised. The notion of boasting, however, is absent from both this smaller section as well as from the larger diatribe (Rom 2:17–29). Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, 233. By contrast, Stanley Stowers states that when Gentiles keep the law, God will treat them as though they were Jews. Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 158. 98 Gottlob Schrenk. “δικαίωμα.” TDNT 2:220–21. According to Schrenk, this is also the sense in which Paul employs the term. 99 The translation is by Meeks, ed., The HarperCollins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version, 300. 100 Hence, Stanley Stowers suggests that there is a subset of the Jewish law incumbent on Gentiles. Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 157–58. 101 As Pamela Eisenbaum remarks, “Gentiles do not need to be circumcised in order to be in accord with Torah. But they are obligated to be in accord with Torah.” Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 239, 44. (Italics are of Eisenbaum.)

110

Chapter 4: Circumcision in Paul’s Letters

Paul’s choice of δικαίωμα to indicate God’s statutes over other Greek words he might equally have selected, such as ἐντολή (command or injunction), or ἔργον (work) (used in Rom 3:27, 3:28 and elsewhere) likely concerns its shared lexical root with Greek words for justice or righteousness, such as δικαιοσύνη or δίκαιος.102 Thus, it seems likely that with the phrase ἡ ἀκροβυστία τὰ δικαιώματα τοῦ νόμου φυλάσσῃ, Paul indicates that a foreskinned Gentile can not only follow the statutes of the law, but also be just. In the next verse (Rom 2:27), Paul advances the status of the foreskinned Gentile, even though not literally circumcised, over that of the circumcised Jew. According to him, the foreskinned Gentile, who accomplishes (τελοῦσα) the law, will judge the circumcised Jew who transgresses it (παραβάτην νόμου). The negative interrogatory particle οὐχ that demands a positive response is implied and carried forward from the previous verse. At the same time and as seen in the final part of this verse, Paul implies that a physical or literal circumcision is not of much use in and of itself. The long descriptive phrase that lacks an explicit verb (διὰ γράμματος καὶ περιτομῆς) complicates an already complex verse. For instance, there is confusion over how best to translate the preposition διά of the phrase. The NRSV translates the preposition as though it were a verb, as “have the written code and circumcision.103” Following the lead of Robert Jewett, I have translated the διά as “notwithstanding,” and as referring to attendant circumstances.104 An instrumental sense of διά is incorrect on grammatical grounds. The phrase modifies the accusative pronoun you σέ, and thus refers to the fictitious Jewish interlocutor. The Jew, however, is not using his circumcision to achieve anything. Paul draws his argument to a conclusion in the final two verses in which he explicitly defines both a Jew and circumcision metaphorically (Rom 2:28– 29). He defines a “Jew” as someone who is hidden and “circumcision” as of the heart. According to Paul, both a “Jew” and “circumcision” are not readily 102 Stanley Stowers, for instance, translates the word δικαιώμα as “just requirements.” By this, he captures a sense of justice, yet at the same time, the expression seems to favor the spiritualization of the law, something that Stowers otherwise rejects. It does not mean “just requirements” in the LXX, why impose such a meaning here? Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 157. 103 The NAB translates as “Indeed, those who are physically uncircumcised but carry out the law will pass judgment on you, with your written law and circumcision, who break the law. The NASB adds the participle “having” and the verb “to be.” It translates, “And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law.” The NIV translates similarly, “The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.” (Italics are my own.) 104 Robert Jewett remarks that while the precise meaning of the phrase is debated among scholars, the argument made since the nineteenth century that διά refers to attendant circumstances is “well grounded.” Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, 234.

D. Circumcision in Romans

111

apparent or visible (φανερός) (Rom 2:28), and in Rom 2:29 he refers to circumcision as a “circumcision of the heart.”105 With such definitions, Paul provides a means by which a foreskinned Gentile can be both be a “Jew” and “circumcised.” The term “circumcision of the heart” functions as a technical term within the Jewish tradition, carrying the sense of turning to God or even that of repentance, such as a turning back to God (Rom 2:29). The expression is found in Lev 26:41; Deut 10:16, 30:6; Jer 4:4, 9:25–26; and Ezek 44:7, 9, as well as in 1QS 5:5, 1QpHap 11:13, 4Q 177, 184, and Jub. 1.23.106 Within the LXX a circumcision of the heart does not replace literal circumcision, nor is there a sense of progression from the literal to the metaphorical.107 By contrast, it has the sense of a mental and spiritual exercise or discipline.108 The description of circumcision of the heart found in Deuteronomy Chapter 10 captures many of the Pauline themes found within this section of Romans (2:1–29). Deuteronomy refers to keeping the statutes of the law, the emphasis on the importance of a good or true inner disposition, God’s impartial justice, and the notion of praise in its association with God. It reads, So now, O Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you? Only to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his [sic] ways, to love him [sic], to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments [τὰς ἐντολὰς] of the Lord your God and his [sic] statutes [τὰ δικαιώματα] that I am commanding you today, for your own well-being. Circumcise, then, your hard heart, and do not be stubborn any longer. For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who is not partial and takes no bribes, who executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and who loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing. He [sic] is your praise (Deut 10:12–13, 16–18, 21a).109

The prepositional phrase ἐν πνεύματι οὐ γράμματι (in spirit not [in] letter) that serves to describe “circumcision of the heart” (περιτομὴ καρδίας) is itself ambiguous (Rom 2:29). Commentators have interpreted this verse and the larger passage in which it resides as evidence of Paul’s universal rejection of physi105 Several articles have been dedicated to this theme. See, for example, Timothy W. Berkley, From a Broken Covenant to Circumcision of the Heart: Pauline Intertextual Exegesis in Romans 2:17–29, ed. Mark Allen Powell, Society of Biblical Literature: Dissertation Series (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), John Goldingay, “The Significance of Circumcision,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 88 (2000), Werner E. Lemke, “Circumcision of the Heart: The Journey of a Biblical Metaphor,” in A God So Near, ed. Brent A. Strawn and Nancy R. Bowen (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbauns, 2003). 106 Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, 236 n. 153. 107 Goldingay, “The Significance of Circumcision,” 14. 108 Goldingay, “The Significance of Circumcision,” 15. 109 The translation is in part my own, but primarily by Meeks, ed., The HarperCollins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version, 273.

112

Chapter 4: Circumcision in Paul’s Letters

cal circumcision,110 yet literal circumcision is not in view in this verse and elsewhere Paul maintains just the reverse notion, that physical circumcision is beneficial for a Jew (Rom 2:25, 3:1–2). With the dative prepositional phrase understood instrumentally, as in the sense of “by means of,” Paul could be understood as referring to how one obtains a “circumcision of the heart.” With such a reading, Paul would be devaluing the letter or law in favor of the spirit.111 Such a reading, however, undermines what Paul says earlier with regard to how one best demonstrates that he is “circumcised” (Rom 2:25–26). It is a better reading, one truer to the context, to understand the prepositional phrase as a locative that refers to a state, condition or position.112 With this sense of the preposition, Paul would be saying that circumcision of the heart is in the spirit/breath of the person and not in the letter (of the law), literally performed. A locative sense more closely conforms to the notion of inner disposition about which Paul speaks (Rom 2:14, 28). At issue is not how one obtains or even maintains a circumcision of the heart, but instead its definition; the implied verb is εἶναι, to be. In sum, with Gentiles as his intended audience, Paul demonstrates the necessary connection between circumcision and following the statutes of the law. He begins with the declarative statement that the physical mark of circumcision is of no benefit to a Jew who transgresses the law. In the middle section (Rom 2:26–27), he switches to the subject of the foreskinned Gentile and logically reasons that by following the statutes of the law, a person foreskinned by nature can be considered as though circumcised. Paul concludes the passage with the declarative statement in which he defines circumcision as 110

For instance, John Barclay writes, “In Rom 3.1–8 Paul can still find some place for literal circumcision and the visible Jew, but only on the basis of historical priority (note the past tense in 3.2; cf. 9.3–5) and as bearers of the promises of God. Nothing can be said for them in terms of heart, Spirit and hidden reality, the values of 2.28–29. . . .Nothing can hide the fact that the stretching of biblical language in 2.28–9 threatens to subvert the historical continuity of the Jewish tradition.” John M. G. Barclay, “Paul and Philo on Circumcision: Romans 2:25–29 in Social and Cultural Context,” New Testament Studies 44 (1998): 555. See also Andreas Blaschke, who claims that in this larger section (Rom 2:17–4:25) Paul denies the soteriological significance of circumcision even for Jews. Blaschke, Beschneidung, 423. If Paul does indeed “subvert the historical continuity of the Jewish tradition,” he does not do so in this passage (Rom 2:25–29). Indeed, Paul is arguing that a Jew can have a circumcised heart by obeying the law. See also Stanley Stowers, who mentions that many interpreters read Rom 2:25–29 as though Paul were annulling Judaism, yet they disregard what Paul says in Rom 2:25 and 3:1. Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 154. 111 James Dunn, for example, applies an instrumental sense to the phrase and understands the word for spirit πνεῦμα to refer to the Holy Spirit. According to him, the contrast between the πνεῦμα and γράμμα is between the Holy Spirit and the Torah. Such a reading is forced and creates two opposing and external powers not in view in this verse. Dunn, Romans 1–8, 124. 112 LSJ 552.

D. Circumcision in Romans

113

a metaphor. Circumcision is of the heart, understood as pertaining to someone who follows the statutes of the law regardless of his physical condition (Rom 2:28–29). Although Paul does not directly address the issue of those persons negatively influencing the Gentiles to become circumcised, as he does elsewhere (Galatians), his discussion of circumcision hints at the on-going concern among Gentiles to become circumcised.113 II. Circumcision as an allegory for the righteousness of faithfulness The second passage in which Paul treats the subject of circumcision in some length is Rom 4:9–12. In Rom 4:11, Paul explicitly defines Abraham’s circumcision allegorically as a sign and seal of the righteousness of faithfulness (Rom 4:11a). For his definition of circumcision, Paul draws from two verses in Genesis (15:6 and 17:11). The treatment itself is part of his ongoing dialog with his fictitious Jewish interlocutor begun earlier (Rom 2:17). At this point in the dialog, Paul details Abraham’s physical condition at the time at which God made him righteous. Through the promptings of the fictitious Jewish interlocutor, Paul remarks that righteousness was reckoned to Abraham only on the basis of his faithfulness to God. In addition, he remarks that the purpose of Abraham’s circumcision was to make him the father of not just the circumcised Jews, but also of those who are faithful while in the state of foreskin (Gentiles) 114 so that they too can be heirs to Abraham and made righteous before God. As in the previous passage (Rom 2:25–29), here too Paul uses the words “circumcision” and “foreskin” in a variety of senses. Each word functions respectively as metonyms for Jews and Gentiles (Rom 4:9, 4:12a, b). These words also designate the physical mark of circumcision (Rom 4:10, 4:11b, c (twice each), 4:12c). Finally, in the very center of this passage, Paul allegorizes the meaning of the sign (σημεῖον) of circumcision (Rom 4:11a). Following is the passage written in dialog form between the fictitious Jewish interlocutor (I) and Paul (P).115

113

By contrast, Stanley Stowers reasons that Paul raises the issue of circumcision to expand upon the theme of inner genuineness and outer pretentiousness. Stowers, Rereading of Romans. 148 While this is a likely reason for Paul to raise the issue of circumcision, it fails to account for the fuller implication of circumcision for a Gentile, a topic that Stowers does not address. 114 According to Stanley Stowers, in Romans as a whole Paul addresses himself to the question of how Gentiles “get into a family relation so that they can stand righteous before God rather than as enemies and aliens.” Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 38, 227. 115 I am following in part Robert Jewett’s recent analysis of the dialog, where the majority of first two verses (Rom 4:9–10) are questions put into the mouth of Paul’s interlocutor. Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, 305.

114

Chapter 4: Circumcision in Paul’s Letters

I: 4:09. (a) ὁ μακαρισμὸς οὖν οὗτος ἐπὶ τὴν περιτομὴν ἢ καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν ἀκροβυστίαν; (b) λέγομεν γάρ, Ἐλογίσθη τῷ Ἀβραὰμ ἡ πίστις εἰς δικαιοσύνην. 4:10. (a) πῶς οὖν ἐλογίσθη; (b) ἐν περιτομῇ ὄντι ἢ ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ; P: 4:10. (c) οὐκ ἐν περιτομῇ ἀλλ’ ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ. 4:11. (a) καὶ σημεῖον ἔλαβεν περιτομῆς, σφραγῖδα τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐν τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ, (b) εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πατέρα πάντων τῶν πιστευόντων δι’ ἀκροβυστίας, (c) εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι [καὶ] αὐτοῖς [τὴν] δικαιοσύνην, 4:12. (a) καὶ πατέρα περιτομῆς (b) τοῖς οὐκ ἐκ περιτομῆς μόνον (c) ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς στοιχοῦσιν τοῖς ἴχνεσιν τῆς ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ πίστεως τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἀβραάμ. I: 4:09. (a) Does this blessedness, then, (extend) as far as the circumcised or also to the foreskinned? (b) For we say, ‘the faithfulness was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness.’ 4:10. (a) How, then, was it reckoned? (b) While (he was) in the state of circumcision or in (the state) of foreskin? P: 4:10. (c) Not in (the state) of circumcision but in (the state) of foreskin. 4:11. (a) and he received a sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faithfulness, (while) in (the state of) foreskin, (b) so that he might become father of all those who are faithful while116 in foreskin, (c) in order that righteousness be reckoned [also] to them (the foreskinned),117 4:12. (a) and father of circumcision (b) to those not from circumcision only (c) but also to those who follow in the footsteps of trust of our father Abraham (while) (he was) in (a state of) foreskin.118

As was the case in Rom 2:25–29, here too at issue are foreskinned Gentiles.119 The subject of foreskinned Gentiles begins and ends the passage. More telling that foreskinned Gentiles are of primary importance, however, is that throughout the discussion (Rom 4:9–12), while the words for circumcision and fore-

116 This is Robert Jewett’s translation of the preposition διά. Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, 304. 117 Stanley Stowers remarks that the RSV translation of this verse makes righteousness dependent upon the believer’s faith. The RSV states, “father of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them.” By contrast, Stowers translates verses 11c and 12 as “so that he might be father of all who trust while uncircumcised, so that they might be reckoned righteous, and father of circumcision to those who are not out of circumcision only but also [those?] who walk in the steps of the trust of our father Abraham when he was uncircumcised.” Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 243. 118 The translation is my own. 119 James Dunn observes, “Paul does not pose the question as an either-or, either circumcised or uncircumcised. He accepts that the blessedness (of righteousness, forgiveness) comes to the circumcised. His question is whether it comes to the uncircumcised as well.” Dunn, Romans 1–8, 208.

D. Circumcision in Romans

115

skin appear the same number of times, Paul’s cola or breath-units120 very often end with the word for foreskin (ἀκροβυστία) (Rom 4:9a, 4:10b, c, 4:11a, b), indicative of the privileging of this particular sound group (word/lexeme) in this brief passage.121 Paul is driving home the point that, like circumcised Jews, foreskinned Gentiles can become righteous and heirs of Abraham. In the first verse of this passage (Rom 4:9), Paul cites Genesis 15 and hence emphasizes the connection between the notion of righteousness and Abram/Abraham. Paul’s interlocutor quotes Gen 15:6, repeating what Paul articulates earlier in the dialog (Rom 4:2).122 As the interlocutor asks Paul if blessedness extends to the foreskinned as well as to the circumcised, in a seeming non sequitur, Paul responds that faithfulness was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness. Putting these words into the mouth of the interlocutor has the effect of not only reinforcing the verse from Genesis for Paul’s hearers, but also of demonstrating awareness and acquiescence on the part of Paul’s Jewish dialog partner.123 In Rom 4:10, Paul clarifies that Abraham received righteousness before he became circumcised, while he was in foreskin (Rom 4:10c). In stating this, Paul forges a physical likeness and hence natural association between the foreskinned Abraham and foreskinned people. The crux of Paul’s argument within Rom 4:9–12 falls in the last two verses (Rom 4:11–12). In these verses Paul provides an allegorical meaning for circumcision and states its purpose. For his definition, Paul gleans both the concept of a sign of circumcision and name “Abraham” (Gen 17:9–14, 23–27) 124 120 In their book Sound Mapping the New Testament, Margaret Lee and Brandon Scott explain how ancients composed compositions to be read aloud. Manuscripts were structured or woven together based on speech units. A syllable is the basic unit of speech, syllables combine to form the colon, and colons combine to form periods. A colon can be defined as a sense line or phrase. Ancient hearers “collected, organized, and preserved” the spoken texts in memory. As Lee and Scott remark, ending syllables privilege those sounds for emphasis. Margaret Ellen Lee and Bernard Brandon Scott, Sound Mapping the New Testament (Salem: Polebridge Press, 2009), 68–69, 91, 136–37, 56. 121 As Margaret Lee and Brandon Scott observe, ancient authors relied on the technique of repetition to guide their hearers’ interpretation. Repetition was an important tool in conveying emphasis and meaning, as auditors would only have had access to a text in real time. By contrast, modern silent readers, who have the luxury of rereading a text, depend upon semantic significance of words (lexemes). According to Lee and Scott, “beginning and ending sounds receive particular attention” in that they “help to define the sound group and orient an audience to a composition’s organizational patterns.” Lee and Scott, Sound Mapping, 151–52, 43. 122 Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 234. 123 Justin also puts words into the mouth of his Jewish interlocutor, Trypho, to bring about agreement to propositions. See Justin, dial. 36.1. 124 According to Dunn, “The exposition of Gen 15:6 of which chapt. 4 consists is one of the finest examples of Jewish Midrash available to us from this era.” Dunn, Romans 1–8, 197. A Midrash is an “imaginative exposition of Scripture.” BDB 207.

116

Chapter 4: Circumcision in Paul’s Letters

from Genesis 17.125 In Gen 17:5, YHWH changes Abram’s name to Abraham, and by this makes him “the father of a multitude.” The name “Abraham,” then, more so than “Abram,” refers to the incorporation of the foreskinned into the people of God.126 Indeed, the foreskinned function as the nations. In using the word “sign,” Paul borrows from the language of the covenantmaking agreement, but provides his own allegorical meaning different from that found in Gen 17:11. The word “sign” itself can have a variety of meanings, including “the notice that bears a court’s verdict, a seal or signature, the engraving on a shield, a ship’s decoration, a landmark or milestone, or a flag.”127 In ancient Greek usage the meaning is a visual “sign” by which “someone or something is recognized.” This is the sense it has in Gen 17:11,128 and thus is perhaps the best way of interpreting Paul’s use of this word. Abraham, then, received a visual sign or recognition. While in Gen 17:11, circumcision is defined as the sign (σημεῖον) of the covenant (διαθήκη),129 Paul defines instead a sign of circumcision (περιτομῇ) (Rom 4:11a).130 Defining circumcision as the sign of the covenant would undermine Paul’s argument, as the covenant is associated with literal or physical circumcision (Gen 17:10). Moreover, later in the Genesis 17 narrative, one learns of the additional stipulation that physical circumcision be performed on the eighth day after birth (Gen 17:14). As Matthew Thiessen has demonstrated, even though many modern English translations of Gen 17:14, because they are based on the Masoretic text, omit the phrase “on the eighth day,” this phrase is present in the majority of older manuscripts including many Septua-

125 Whether the Genesis 17 text was chronologically later cannot be determined. Nevertheless, Paul makes his argument based upon this assumption. See Fitzmyer, Romans, 379. 126 See Maricel Ibita, who remarks that by using the name Abraham in the place of Abram Paul “widened the scope of those who can be considered as Abraham’s children.” Ma. Maricel S. Ibita, “‘Abraham Believed God, and It Was Reckoned to Him as Righteousness’: Paul’s Usage of Gen 15,6 in Romans 4,” in The Letter to the Romans, ed. Udo Schnelle (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2009), 686. 127 Ceslas Spicq, “σημεῖον,” TLNT 3:249. 128 Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “σημεῖον,” TDNT 7:204, 219. 129 As Robert Jewett comments, “That Abraham received a σημεῖον (‘sign’) is drawn from Gen 17:11, that circumcision ‘shall be a sign of the covenant between you and me (καὶ ἔσται ἐν σημείῳ διαθήκης ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ ὑμῶν).’” Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, 318–19. 130 The word circumcision occurs in the accusative case (περιτομῆν) in several manuscripts including A C* 6. 1506. 1739. 1881. With this reading, the circumcision is in apposition to the word “sign,” no longer modifying it. Paul would thus be saying, “and he [Abraham] received a sign, circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of trust.” This alternative reading puts more emphasis on the fact of Abraham’s circumcision than does the suggested reading by Nestle-Aland (26th edition).

D. Circumcision in Romans

117

gintal witnesses.131 Therefore, it is likely that Paul would have been familiar with this biblical injunction (Phil 3:5). Genesis 17:14 states that any uncircumcised male, who has not circumcised the flesh of his foreskin on the eighth day, shall be destroyed utterly (ἐξολεθρευθήσεται). Thus, by borrowing only sparingly from Genesis 17, Paul avoids two potential legal difficulties, the covenant bound by literal circumcision, and the further stipulation that circumcision be performed on eight-day-old males. In addition, in his reworking of the Genesis material, Paul employs the word “seal” (σφραγῖδα),132 a term that has similarities to the notion of covenant (Rom 4:11a). Seals were well known in the ancient world and used as early as 3000 BCE. Ancients closed cylinders with seals to designate ownership and guarantee (authenticity). They guaranteed personal property and served as legal protection.133 When used by a king, seals designated royal authorization. Those entrusted with the king’s ring or seal (the instrument that makes the actual seal) would have had the king’s authority and power.134 In ancient religious use, seals linked the holder with the deity and would guarantee the inviolability of the cultic space to which it was affixed. For instance, a chapel could be “secured” by the deity’s seal.135 A seal also had a legal sense, such as closing or attesting something such as a will (P. Oxy I.10622 135 CE and P. Fay 1228 100 CE).136 It could designate a “plot of land” (P. Oxy VI. 9188al. 2nd century CE and P. Lond 16311 88 CE).137 When used in conjunction with terms such as “love” and “faith,” a seal denotes “close friendship” and “high worth.”138 Moreover, it could signify the securing of a relationship between peoples (Neh 10:1).139 The term “seal,” then, would likely have resonated with Paul’s ancient hearers in a number of ways. Circumcision as a seal 131 According to the evidence Matthew Thiessen marshals, texts of Gen 17:14 with the phrase “on the eighth day” are generally older than the Masoretic text on which many modern English translations are based (RSV, NEB, NIV, NJB) and thereby provide a reading closer to the original. Matthew Thiesseen, “The Text of Genesis 17:14,” Journal of Biblical Literature 128, no. 4 (2009). 132 Ernst Käsemann remarks that the Greek word for sign can mean “impress of a seal.” Thus, by this reading, the word “seal” would simply reiterate the word for sign. Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980), 115. It is more likely, however, that Paul has a larger connotation in view. 133 Gottfried Fitzer, “σφραγίς,” TDNT 7.939–40. 134 Fitzer, TDNT 7.942. 135 Fitzer, TDNT 7.943. 136 James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, A Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1959), 618. 137 Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, 619. 138 Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, 619. 139 Fitzer, TDNT 7.945, 48–49. Paul uses this term in epistles other than Romans. For example, he calls the Corinthians a seal of his apostolate (1 Cor 9:2).

118

Chapter 4: Circumcision in Paul’s Letters

would have had connotations with notions of ownership, a guarantee or confirmation, and with the securing of a relationship between peoples and their god. Thus, according to Paul, circumcision is sign or visual symbol and also a seal of ownership and the guarantee of relationship between peoples and their god. Paul, then, allegorizes the sign of circumcision as the seal of the righteousness of faithfulness. Finally, in the last part of this brief passage, Paul relates that the purpose of the sign of Abraham’s circumcision140 was to make him father of not just circumcised Jews but also of foreskinned Gentiles. The sign of Abraham’s circumcision means that foreskinned Gentiles can be considered heirs to him and made righteous (Rom 4:11b, c, 4:12c), and that circumcised Jews can be considered heirs (4:12a, b).141 While the sign of Abraham’s circumcision has significance for both foreskinned Gentiles and for circumcised Jews,142 Paul’s emphasis, as mentioned, is on foreskinned Gentiles. He begins the extended purpose clause with references to foreskinned Gentiles (Rom 4:11b), and ends with this same group,143 made evident by the second clause beginning with the dative article τοῖς (Rom 4:12c), an article that is often ignored by exegetes.144 Foreskinned persons bookend the two verses: Paul refers to the

140

Andreas Blaschke understands Paul to say that Abraham’s circumcision is empty (entleert) of all soteriological relevance and individual worth, only having meaning in that it ratifies the preceding righteousness of faith of the patriarch. Blaschke, Beschneidung, 423. 141 According to Stanley Stowers, “the Greek indicates a relation of purpose or result between Abraham’s faithfulness signified in the covenant and his fatherhood, which in turn results in the justification of Gentiles (11c) and fatherhood of Jews (12).” Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 243–44. By contrast, Andreas Blaschke comments that Paul understands one uniform way of salvation that applies equally to both Jews and Pagans. Salvation is through the belief in the mercy of God in Christ and not through Jewish circumcision. Blaschke, Beschneidung, 423. 142 Thus Jewett remarks, “In contrast to the long-standing tradition of viewing Abraham as the forefather of the Jewish people, he now becomes the ‘prototype’ of a new group of believers who remain ‘in uncircumcised foreskin.’ Abraham is the ‘father’ not just of Jews but also of Gentiles who share his faith.” Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, 319. 143 See Dagoberto López who writes that the phrase τῆς ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ πίστεως (Rom 4:12c) is an anastrophe, an inversion of expected word order that functions to call attention to itself. According to him, the inversion indicates that the larger phrase of which this phrase is a part pertains to those in the same state (i.e., the foreskinned). Dagoberto López Sojo, Abraham, Padre de Todos Nosotros, Cahiers de la Revue Biblique, vol. 64 (Paris: J. Gabalda 2005), 65. 144 The majority of exegetes do not pay heed to the second dative article (τοῖς) used to designate a group of people distinct from the group designated by the first τοῖς (Rom 4:12). Instead, by ignoring the second τοῖς, they simply assume one group of people, the circumcised. The group designed by Rom 4:12b are clearly circumcised Jews (ἐκ περιτομῆς), if one posits a second group, warranted when taking into consideration the additional τοῖς (Rom 4:12c), then this second group refers to foreskinned Gentiles (ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ).

D. Circumcision in Romans

119

foreskinned, the circumcised (twice), and then again to the foreskinned (Rom 4:11b–4:12c). In sum, in this treatment of circumcision, Paul allegorizes circumcision. According to him, circumcision is not the sign of the covenant (Gen 17:11), but instead a sign and seal of the righteousness of faithfulness. Faithfulness is based on that which Abraham exhibited when God made him righteous. This William Sanday and Arthur Headlam sum up the thoughts of the majority of interpreters concerning how the second dative article (τοῖς) (Rom 4:12c) is to be understood. They write, “As it stands the article is a solecism: it would make those who are circumcised one set of persons, and those who follow the example of Abraham’s faith another distinct set, which is certainly not St. Paul’s meaning. He is speaking of Jews who are both circumcised and believe. This requires in Greek the omission of the art. before the στοιχοῦσιν. . . .If the slip was not made by Tertius himself, it must have been made in some very early copy, the parent of all our present copies.” Rev. William Sanday and Rev. Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902), 108. Following on this sentiment, many exegetes simply ignore the second τοῖς (Rom 4:12c) in their translations and effectively create one group of circumcised persons who also follow in the footsteps of Abraham. See Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 114, Franz J. Leenhardt, L’épître de Saint Paul aux Romains, Commentaire du Nouveau Testament, vol. 8 (Genève: Labor et Fides, 1981), 22, C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans: A Shorter Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985), 89, Dunn, Romans 1–8, 195. The comments of James Dunn echo those of Sanday and Headlam. “The second τοῖς is surprising but there is no textual tradition which omits it. A slip by the amanuensis or the earliest copyists is likely.” Dunn, Romans 1–8, 196 n. g. Lucien Cerfaux not only ignores the second τοῖς (Rom 4:12c), but also understands the entirety of Rom 4:12 as referring to Christians. According to him the expression πατέρα περιτομῆς should be interpreted as “father for the spiritually circumcised.” He writes, «et il est père en circoncision (de tous les chrétiens), de ceux de la circoncision, et non seulement de ceux-ci, mais encore de tous ceux qui marchent sur les traces de la foi, reçue dans l’incirconcision, de notre père Abraham.» Lucien Cerfaux, “Abraham, «père en circoncision» des Gentils,” in Recueil Lucien Cerfaux, vol. 2, ed. Lucien Cerfaux (Gembloux: Éditions J. Duculot, S.A., 1954), 335–36. Two early editions evince some variation in this dative article. The Hort edition contains the pronoun αὐτοῖς in the place of τοῖς, and the Beza edition leaves off the τοῖς entirely. In both of these cases, the sense of the verse would shift to one group from two. The αὐτοῖς would serve to elaborate upon the first group and without the τοῖς, only one group would be in view. Thus, taking the variants as authoritative, Paul would be saying that Abraham is the father of circumcision to those who are not from the circumcision only but also walk in the footsteps of the trust of our father Abraham (while he was) in (the condition) of foreskin. These variants serve to reinforce the traditional reading of the verse. However, another group of exegetes does not ignore the second dative article in Rom 4:12 and thus understands Paul to refer to a second group of people, foreskinned Gentiles. It is the foreskinned Gentiles who walk in the footsteps of the foreskinned Abraham, not the circumcised. See Lloyd Gaston, Paul and the Torah (Vancouver: University of British Co-lumbia Press, 1987), 124, Thomas H. Tobin, “What Shall We Say That Abraham Found? The Controversy Behind Romans 4,” Harvard Theological Review 88, no. 4 (1995): 447, Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 149. This is my understanding of the verse as well.

120

Chapter 4: Circumcision in Paul’s Letters

faithfulness, moreover, came during the time when Abraham was in foreskin. By defining circumcision as the sign and seal of righteousness of faithfulness that Abraham received before he underwent the ritual of circumcision, Paul builds an affinity between the then foreskinned Abraham and the contemporary foreskinned Gentiles.145 In other words, Paul reaches out to foreskinned Gentiles.

Conclusions Conclusions Throughout his extant letters Paul uses the notion of circumcision in a variety of senses. He employs it as a metonym for circumcised Jews (Gal 2:7, 9, 12, 6:13; Rom 3:30, 4:9, 12 [twice], 15:8) but also for those not necessarily circumcised (Phil 3:3). He refers to it often in its literal sense, suggestive only of its physical mark (Gal 2:3, 5:1–4, 6, 11, 6:12–13, 15; Rom 2:25 [twice], 27, 3:1, 4:10 [twice]; Phil 3:5; 1 Cor 7:19). He assesses it metaphorically (Rom 2:26, 28), and expands the term into a metaphor, as in “circumcision of the heart” (Rom 2:29). Finally, Paul allegorizes the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of faithfulness (Rom 4:11). In Galatians, a letter in which Paul faces the prospect of his Gentile audience called to be in the Anointed becoming circumcised, he vehemently argues against this occurrence. According to him, Gentiles are righteous, free and heirs of God without becoming circumcised. In discouraging Gentiles from becoming physically circumcised, the mark of circumcision acquires the negative connotation of a slave-like condition. Paul’s negative assessment of the physical practice of circumcision is in response to certain persons influencing the Galatian Gentiles to take up this rite. In addition, Paul employs the term “circumcision” as a metonym to refer to those who uphold Jewish laws. “Those of the circumcision” are against Cephas’ custom of eating with Gentiles. In response to what appears to be their concern for purity, Cephas withdraws and is subsequently accused of “judaizing,” acting as those of the circumcision would, upholding certain Jewish laws. In Philippians, Paul defines the term “circumcision” as a metonym, representative of those concerned for the heavenly realm. Within the letter, Paul’s dominant interest is to be himself with the Anointed and he develops the me145 While Paul does not refer to the foreskinned as “the circumcision,” as he does in Philippians, he nonetheless brings Gentiles into a covenant-like relationship that pertains to Abraham’s circumcision. Thus, feminist Pauline scholars argue that in using the term “circumcision” to describe a religious community implicitly denies the full participation of women. See for example Elizabeth A. Castelli, “Romans,” in Feminist Interpretation: The Bible in Women’s Perspective, ed. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 288–89.

Conclusions

121

tonymic sense of circumcision in its light. Paul’s opponents, those referred to briefly (Phil 3:2), play at least a partial role in the development of his interpretation of circumcision. These opponents are concerned with the realm of the flesh; by contrast, those of the circumcision concern themselves almost exclusively with the realm of the spirit. In 1 Corinthians, Paul refers only to the physical mark of circumcision. In this letter, Paul states that circumcision is nothing. The lack of significance of this rite is best understood within the context of his understanding of the present state of the world, the impending second coming of the Anointed. Given this social situation, Paul counsels that those in the Anointed remain in the social and physical conditions in which they find themselves: slaves should not attempt to become freepersons (1 Cor 7:21–22) and persons should not change their marital status (1 Cor 7:27). This same advice applies to the physical conditions of circumcision and foreskin: men should remain in their present physical state (1 Cor 7:18). While Paul does not ascribe any positive or negative meaning to the physical practice of circumcision, he does speak of the importance of following other commandments of God. Finally, in Romans Paul refers positively to the notion of circumcision. In this letter Paul is concerned and indeed reflects on how Gentiles can become incorporated into the People of God. By referring to circumcision metaphorically, he first claims that a person, whether physically circumcised or not, is considered “circumcised” through following the law. Later, by reinterpreting the sign of the mark of circumcision allegorically, Paul claims that it is not the covenant (Gen 17:11) but instead a seal or confirmation of the righteousness of faithfulness. With both of these understandings of circumcision, Gentiles would qualify as being “circumcised” and hence members of the people of God. Does Paul, then, have a general and non-contradictory opinion regarding the physical practice of circumcision? I would argue that he does. To begin, with the exception of Rom 2:25 and 3:1–2 Paul primarily concerns himself with the issue of circumcision in so far as it pertains to Gentiles desirous of becoming circumcised. In other words, Paul rarely raises the issue of the value of circumcision for contemporary, historic or even biblical Jews. Furthermore, his understanding of circumcision is to be understood within the context of a foreshortened future. This worldview affects all of his treatments of circumcision and but is seen most clearly in his estimation of circumcision in 1 Corinthians. Among all of his treatments, Paul is consistently opposed to the notion of Gentiles becoming circumcised. Finally, Paul uses the term “circumcision” freely and in innovative ways so as to include Gentiles into the people of God. He either makes Gentiles metaphorically circumcised (Romans 2 and Philippians) or he defines circumcision in such a way (allegorically) so as to provide a means of including foreskinned Gentiles into a relig-

122

Chapter 4: Circumcision in Paul’s Letters

ious community whose symbolic father is the circumcised Abraham (Romans 4). In the next chapter, I address the history of the interpretation of circumcision within the Christian exegetical tradition. As the chapter indicates, interpreters from ancient to modern times attribute meanings to circumcision that differ significantly from those found within the ancient writers themselves.

Chapter 5

A Brief History of the Interpretation of Circumcision From the ancient period and up through the present time, circumcision was linked with the notion of salvation. Justin,1 one of the earliest Christian interpreters of circumcision, contributed to this evaluation by strengthening the distinction between a literal/physical and a metaphorical circumcision and by advancing the notion that while a literal/physical circumcision did not save a person, a metaphoric one did. As influenced by Paul, Justin assessed circumcision as a sign, both as a sign of Jewish suffering and as merely a sign. Later, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas followed on the thoughts of Justin and also apprised circumcision as a sign, but now as a sign that indicated faith in Christ. Each of these highly influential theologians made known that while Jews considered that literal or physical circumcision could save them, it never actually did. Beginning with the writings of Martin Luther, literal circumcision was understood somewhat differently than it had been in the past. While also interpreting circumcision through the lens of Paul, Luther based his understanding of this rite on Galatians (2:16) rather than on Romans (4:11). Rather than treating circumcision as principally a sign of faith, as his predecessors had done, he instead explained it in terms of a work of law. With this evaluation, Luther emphasized the practitioner of circumcision over the rite itself. According to him, Paul objected to circumcision and other works of law because they necessitated a self-willed effort in their accomplishment, when God’s grace passively received through faith was sufficient in and of itself for salvation. The earliest understandings of circumcision do not end with the advent of the modern period but are instead carried forward. Modern interpreters, for example, often treat circumcision in the light of Luther’s distinction between works of law and faith, emphasizing the practitioner over the practice itself. Furthermore, the antithesis between a literal/physical circumcision and a metaphoric one, begun with Justin, recur in the modern era as literal circumcision is developed in direct opposition to newer understandings of salvation. In 1

As Andreas Blaschke notes, Justin assembles important arguments against the assumption of circumcision for Gentiles, those that influence the succeeding time periods. Andreas Blaschke, Beschneidung: Zeugnisse der Bibel und verwandter Texte, Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (Tübingen: A. Francke, 1998), 485.

124

Chapter 5: A Brief History of the Interpretation of Circumcision

the modern period, circumcision comes to represent inauthentic living, inauthentic religion, or a means of exclusion. Only within the last several decades have Pauline interpreters begun to strip circumcision of its theological veneer and instead define it either anthropologically or sociologically and within its first-century Jewish context.

A. Ancient and Medieval Interpreters of Circumcision A. Ancient and Medieval Interpreters of Circumcision This section treats the interpretation of circumcision in the writings of Justin, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther. As is demonstrated, successive theologians often borrow the thoughts of their predecessors. While there is fluctuation in emphasis, the dominant understanding of circumcision throughout this period is its lack of ability to provide salvation: while Jews assumed that salvation could bring about a state of righteousness before God,2 it was ineffective in and of itself to do so. I. Circumcision in the writings of Justin Justin, known traditionally as Justin Martyr (1003–1674 CE), is considered the most influential second-century Christian apologist.5 He was born in Flavia Neapolis, formerly Shechem, a colony founded in 72 CE by Vespasian (dial. 1.1).6 He was a Samaritan (dial. 120.6), a Gentile (ἔθνος) (dial. 29.1) and uncircumcised (dial. 28.2, 29.3, 92.4). According to Eusebius, Justin taught and was martyred in Rome.7 In his lengthy treatise dialogus cum Tryphone Judaeo (Dialogue with Trypho), Justin often treats circumcision, referring to it in both a literal and metaphorical sense. Indeed, in this treatise the discussion between Justin and a Jew Trypho begins and ends with the subject of circumci-

2

The sixteenth-century theologian John Calvin expresses the thoughts of the majority. “Putabant Circuncisionem, per se, opus esse ad comparandam iustitiam idoneum.” (“They [the Jews] thought that circumcision was in itself a work sufficient for obtaining righteousness.”) Iohannis Calvini, Iohannis Calvini Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli Ad Romanos, ed. T. H. L. Parker, Studies in the History of Christian Thought (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981), 52. 3 While Justin’s exact date of birth is unknown, it is thought to be around 100 CE. ODCC, 915; Justin Martyr, The Dialogue with Trypho, trans. A. Lukyn Williams (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1930), ix. 4 Justin’s martyrdom is dated between 162 and 167 CE. ODCC, 915; Justin Martyr, St. Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies, ed. Walter J. Burghardt, John J. Dillon, and Dennis D. McManus, trans. Leslie William Barnard, Ancient Christian Writers, vol. 56 (New York: Paulist Press, 1997), 3. 5 Robert M. Grant, “Justin Martyr,” ABD 3:1133; ODCC, 915. 6 Josephus, B.J. 4.8.1 (449). 7 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.11,16.

A. Ancient and Medieval Interpreters of Circumcision

125

sion, with each partner arguing for his own and different type of circumcision for salvation. In the Dialogue Justin makes multiple arguments against the value of physical circumcision. In the first place, he associates physical circumcision with those who perform unlawful deeds, displease God and are hardhearted. In the second place, he defines circumcision as a sign of suffering, and in the third, he claims that circumcision is simply unnecessary for salvation and is merely a sign. Throughout these treatments of circumcision, he differentiates between a physical and fleshly circumcision – by explicitly using the term flesh (σάρξ)8 when referring to it – and a metaphorical or spiritual one associated with the heart. In this first argument, Justin claims that circumcision along with other Jewish ritual practices such as Sabbath observance, ritual washing, and the wearing of phylacteries do not suggest a state of blessedness (Gen 17:6–11), but were instead instituted by God as a reminder against committing unlawful deeds. Notwithstanding these rituals, Jews continue to disobey God (dial. 46.8, 67.8).9 Their behavior is confirmation of their hard heart. 10 On the other hand, Justin employs the words of Isaiah (55:3–5) to demonstrate that there is now a new law,11 and a new holy covenant, Christ (dial.

8

Justin often makes this association. See dial. 12.3; 16.2, 3; 18.3; 19.3; 23.5; 43.2; 92.4. See also dial. 123.4, in which Justin refers to Jews as shrewd and unscrupulous. With regard to Justin’s interpretation of Jewish laws, Rosemary Ruether remarks, “The laws given by Moses were intended to restrain all the vices into which the Jews had fallen in Egypt. God gave them food laws to restrain the inordinate gluttony which was their wont. He [sic] gave them the cultic law to restrain their avidity for idolatry.” Rosemary Radford Ruether, Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism (Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1997), 152. 10 With regard to Justin’s Dialogue Leonard Glick writes, “The essential Jewish deficiency is their inability to understand their own sacred text – ‘or rather not yours, but ours. For we believe and obey them, whereas you, though you read them, do not grasp their spirit.’ Jews cannot understand the real meaning of even their most fundamental rituals; they take circumcision, for example, to be a mark of their appointed status, when in fact it is precisely the opposite: a badge of suffering for a people who cannot see that what they need is to circumcise (that is, to soften) their hearts.” Leonard B. Glick, Abraham’s Heirs: Jews and Christians in Medieval Europe (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1999), 21. 11 Theodore Stylianopoulos writes that for Justin, the old law is intended only for Jews, whereas the new is for all people (dial. 11.2). Based on the authority of Scripture, Justin argues that Christ is the new law and new covenant; and based on Isa 51:4, Mic 4:1–7, and Ps 18:8 (LXX), Justin associates Christ with the law (dial. 11.2). Theodore Stylianopoulos, Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series, vol. 20 (Missoula: The Society of Biblical Literature and Scholars Press, 1975), 78, 81. Based on Jer 38:31–32 (LXX), Justin applies the term new, καινὸς, to the terms law and covenant (dial. 11.3–4, 12.3, 14.3, 43.1 et al.). Ibid., 81. By contrast, the present law is termed an old or outof-date one (παλαιὸς νόμος) (dial. 11.2, 125.5). Ibid., 81–82. 9

126

Chapter 5: A Brief History of the Interpretation of Circumcision

11.4).12 This new law abrogates13 the ineffective precepts of the old one (dial. 11.2).14 The new law does not require a circumcision on the flesh (ἐπὶ τῇ σαρκὶ) but instead lawful behavior. Justin writes, What you really need is another circumcision, though you prize that of the flesh. The New Law demands that you observe a perpetual Sabbath, whereas you consider yourselves religious when you refrain from work on one day out of the week, and in doing so you don’t understand the real meaning of that precept. You also claim to have done the will of God when you eat unleavened bread, but such practices afford no pleasure to the Lord our God. If there be a perjurer or thief among you, let him mend his ways; if there be an adulterer; let him repent; in this way he will have kept a true and peaceful Sabbath of God (dial. 12.3).15

Later in the Dialogue (15.1–7) and drawing on the prophet Isaiah (58:1–11), Justin takes up the theme of a “true fast,” one that does not entail actual fasting but instead ethical behavior. Only the “true fast” expiates from sins. God requires that the oppressed go free, that bread be shared among the hungry, that the needy receive shelter, the naked be clothed, and that there be peace among God’s people (dial. 15.4–5). Ethical persons, adherents of the new law (Christ), have a circumcision of the heart (dial. 15.7),16 a metaphorical one, and not a physical circumcision of the flesh. Justin writes, We also, therefore, because of our belief in God through Christ, even though we are uncircumcised in the flesh, have the salutary circumcision, namely, that of the heart, and we 12 According to Theodore Stylianopoulos, The Epistle of Barnabas (2.6) makes a connection, albeit indirectly, between Christ and the law. Stylianopoulos, Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law, 81, n. 8. 13 Theodore Stylianopoulos remarks, “It is interesting that Justin formulates the Christian teaching of the cessation of the law as sharply as he does. In this respect, he maintains the emphasis of the earlier tradition and does not give evidence of another view which we find in Christian writers after him in reaction to Marcion.” Stylianopoulos, Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law, 87. 14 According to Theodore Stylianopoulos, Justin has a more difficult time substantiating from Scripture that the old law has been abrogated than he does that Christ represents the new law and covenant (dial. 11.2). Stylianopoulos, Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law, 83. Similarly, Andrew Jacobs observes that given his overall negative assessment of circumcision for Christians, Justin has difficulty accounting for Jesus’ own circumcision. Andrew S. Jacobs, “Dialogical Differences: (De-)Judaizing Jesus’ Circumcision,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 15, no. 3 (2007): 298–304. 15 St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ed. Michael Slusser, trans. Thomas B. Falls, Fathers of the Church, vol. 3 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2003), 22. 16 See also dial. 113.7. The theme “circumcision of the heart” frequently recurs within the early Christian tradition. See Justin, 1 apol. 53.11; Barn. 9.6; Tertullian, Marc. 5.4.10, 5.13.7; Clement of Alexandria, paed. 1.9.79.1; Cyprian, Test. 1.8; Origen, Cels. 1.22, 5.41; hom. in Gen. 3.4.6; Jerome, Comm. Jer. 2.10 (PL 24 746 A); Epiphanius, Pan. 30.33 (PG 44 41.469 B); Ambrose, ep. 72.5–6 (PL 16 1245 A–B). Justin Martyr, Dialogue Avec Tryphon, ed. Otto Wermelinger, trans. Philippe Bobichon, Paradosis, vol. 47/2 (Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg, 2003), 660 n. 12.

A. Ancient and Medieval Interpreters of Circumcision

127

thereby hope to be just and pleasing to God, since we have already obtained this testimony from him through the words of the prophets (dial. 92.4).17

In his second argument, Justin claims that physical circumcision is a sign (σημεῖον) of suffering and alienation.18 Justin’s use of the term “sign” in conjunction with circumcision derives from Paul19 (Rom 4:11). However, in contrast to Paul Justin claims that circumcision is a sign of suffering; God is displeased with Jews and preordained to destroy them for having transgressed God’s will (Lev 26:40–41, dial. 16.1, 3).20 God’s displeasure grew when Jews killed Christ along with his prophets,21 and because to this day they persecute those who trust in Christ (dial. 16.4).22 Justin writes, 17

The translation is by Thomas Falls in St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 143. With regard to Justin’s employment of the term “sign,” Judith Lieu writes, “Thus the ‘sign’ becomes something negative, to be contrasted with ‘a work of righteousness’ (23.4–5), it is something ‘given’ which God does not desire (28.4), and separation becomes a sign not of favour and election but of predetermined punishment.” Judith M. Lieu, Image and Reality: The Jews in the World of the Christians in the Second Century (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 119. 19 While there are dissenters, it seems clear from this argument and from others that Justin knew and drew from the letters of Paul. Theodore Stylianopoulos, for example, finds what he calls “intriguing echoes of Paul” (dial. 23.4, 44.2, 92.3, 95.1, 96.1, 119.5–6). He writes, Justin “could not but have known the Pauline Letters, at least indirectly, through writing against Marcion whom he must have read, or must have known about, before refuting.” According to Stylianopoulos, Justin may have used restraint when referring directly to Paul, Marcion’s hero. Stylianopoulos, Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law, 70, 96, 103–08. In addition, Rodney Werline astutely observes the influence of Paul on Justin and writes, “While Justin clearly borrows ideas and exegetical arguments from Paul, albeit without citing him, he consistently recasts the apostle’s arguments for his own purposes and in response to the changing relationship between Jews and Christians in the mid- and late-second century CE.” Rodney Werline, “The Transformation of Pauline Arguments in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho,” Harvard Theological Review 92, no. 1 (1999): 92. By contrast, while David Rensberger concedes that Paul was the originator of certain interpretations from Genesis and Deuteronomy found in Romans and Galatians and that Justin makes use of some of these same formulations, he finds the “possibility that Justin drew them from tradition and not directly from Paul” to be entirely possible. David K. Rensberger, “As the Apostle Teaches: The Development of the Use of Paul’s Letters in Second-Century Christianity” (Ph. D. diss., Yale University, 1981), 187–89. 20 The text from Leviticus speaks of a future divine judgment. Stylianopoulos, Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law, 98. 21 This is one Justin’s most frequent accusations. See dial. 17.1–3, 26.1, 38.1, 39.1, 47.4, 93.4, 95.4, 96.2, 102.6, 108.2–3, 110.5, 112.4, 117.3, 120.4, 122.2, 123.6, 131.2, 133.6, 134.6, 136.2, 137.2. Justin Martyr, Dialogue Avec Tryphon, 631 n. 18. Judith Lieu makes the point that Justin “stands within a tradition concerning the fate of the prophets that early Christianity inherited from Judaism, a tradition in which it is characteristic of a prophet to be rejected, persecuted and even murdered by his contemporaries.” Judith M. Lieu, “Accusations of Jewish Persecutions in Early Christian Sources, with Particular Reference to Justin Martyr and the Martyrdom of Polycarp,” in Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity, ed. Graham N. Stanton and Guy G. Stroumsa (Cambridge: Cambridge University 18

128

Chapter 5: A Brief History of the Interpretation of Circumcision

For the circumcision according to the flesh from Abraham was given to you as a sign (σημεῖον),23 to set you off from (ἀπουρίζειν) the other nations and from us.24 The purpose of this was that only you might suffer (πάσχειν) what you are suffering justly at present; that your land become desolate, and your cities ruined by fire; that the fruits of your land be eaten by strangers before your eyes; that not one of you enter Jerusalem (dial. 16.2).25

Indeed, the Bar Kokhba (132–135 CE) revolt 26 provides a ready context and evidence of God’s displeasure with Jews.27 In this third and arguably most deadly of the Jewish revolts, Romans killed scores of Jews,28 and by the end (135 CE) the emperor Hadrian captured Jerusalem and barred circumcised Jews from reentry.29 Thus, the Gospel reports that Jews had Jesus, God’s son,

Press, 1998), 281. In addition, Oskar Skarsaune observes that there is already the notion of just punishment by foreign rule for killing the prophets within the Hebrew Scriptures, intertestamental writings, and the New Testament. Oskar Skarsaune, The Proof from Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-Text Tradition: Text-Type, Provenance, Theological Profile, ed. C.K. Barrett, Supplements to Novum Testamentum, vol. 56 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987), 291. 22 Indeed, the theme regarding the Jewish persecution of Christians recurs throughout the Dialogue (95.4, 96.2, 108.3, 110.5, 123.6, 133.6, 134.6, 137.2). Paula Fredriksen casts doubt on Justin’s claims of Jewish persecutions of Christians, claims that recur with some consistency in Christian literature of the period intended to formulate Christian orthodoxy. According to her, if Jews had persecuted Christians, the “abundant and continuous evidence of intimate social interaction becomes extremely difficult to account for.” Paula Fredriksen, “What ‘Parting of the Ways’?,” in The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, ed. Adam H. Becker and Annette Yoshiko Reed (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 58–60. 23 A. Lukyn Williams remarks that circumcision as a sign of racial distinction is one of two meanings that Justin assigns to this rite. The other meaning is that circumcision is not necessary in and of itself. Justin Martyr, The Dialogue with Trypho, 38 n. 1. 24 Thomas Falls inserts the word “Christians” here and elsewhere, when it is often absent in the Greek text. 25 The translation is my own. 26 At an early point in the Dialogue (1.3), the hearer/reader learns that Trypho has escaped from this revolt. See also Justin, dial. 110.6, 1 apol. 31. 27 See Jeffrey S. Siker, Disinheriting the Jews: Abraham in Early Christian Controversy (Louisville: Westminster-John Knox Press, 1991), 169.
Stephen Wilson writes that Judaea would have been depleted of its population. Stephen G. Wilson, Related Strangers:Jews and Christians 70–170 C.E. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 7. 29 St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 27 n. 22. Theodore Stylianopoulos goes so far as to suggest that Roman soldiers, those who physically guarded the entrance to the city, checked whether or not a man was circumcised prior to allowing him entrance to the city. Stylianopoulos, Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law, 139, 36. By contrast, Judith Lieu doubts that Romans made such an inspection. Lieu, Image and Reality, 123. Of course, this procedure would be ineffective for Jewish women and uncircumcised Jews. See also Justin Martyr, Iustini Martyris Dialogus Cum Tryphone, ed. H.C. Brennecke and E. Mühlenberg, trans.

A. Ancient and Medieval Interpreters of Circumcision

129

put to death, and the historical situation, when taken together provide evidence sufficient for understanding physical circumcision as a sign of suffering instigated by God. In his third argument, Justin claims that circumcision is simply not necessary. It does not effect salvation and is at best merely a sign. Many of the biblical Patriarchs lived and died without becoming circumcised and nonetheless God saved them; and although uncircumcised, women perform righteous deeds. For instance, Justin writes of Abraham, Indeed, while Abraham himself was still uncircumcised, he was justified and blessed by God because of his faith in him [sic], as the Scriptures tell us. Furthermore, the Scriptures and the facts of the case force us to admit that Abraham received circumcision for a sign, not for justification itself (dial. 23.4).30

If circumcision had been necessary, remarks Justin, God would have made Adam (Gen 1:26–28, 2:7) circumcised at birth (dial. 19.3). Although not physically circumcised, Abel (Gen 4:4)31 and Enoch (Gen 5:24)32 were both pleasing to God (dial. 19.3). While not physically circumcised, God saved Lot from destruction at Sodom (Gen 19:29); and the uncircumcised Noah33 entered the ark and saved humanity from total destruction (Gen 7:1–24, 9:1) (dial. 19.4). Arguing from nature,34 Justin maintains that women are fully capable of performing every righteous act (ἔργον δικαιοσύνης) and are not themselves circumcised. 35 Justin writes, Moreover, the fact that females cannot receive circumcision of the flesh shows that circumcision was given as a sign, not as an act of justification. For God also bestowed on women the capability of performing every good and virtuous act. We see that the physical formation of male and female is different, but it is equally evident that the bodily form is not what makes Miroslav Marcovich, Patristische Texte Und Studien, vol. 47 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997), vii–viii, Justin Martyr, Dialogue Avec Tryphon, 631 nn. 12, 13. 30 The translation is by Thomas Falls in St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 38. 31 See also Matt 23:35, 1 John 3:12, Heb 11:4. Justin Martyr, Dialogue Avec Tryphon, 637 n. 5. 32 Justin makes rather frequent reference to Enoch (dial. 23.1; 43.2; 45.2, 4; 92.2). In the Christian tradition, Enoch represents the universality of salvation not tied to the observance of the law. See also Heb 11:5–6. Justin Martyr, Dialogue Avec Tryphon, 637 n. 6. 33 See also dial. 92.2. 34 Theodore Stylianopoulos remarks that there are two principal types of arguments that Justin marshals to invalidate the law. The first and most predominant are from Scripture (LXX) and the second are from “reality.” The second category comprises arguments from the history of salvation, creation and nature or the cosmos. Stylianopoulos, Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law, 78. 35 See Shaye J. D. Cohen, Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised?: Gender and Covenant in Judaism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), 75–76. Judith Lieu remarks that church fathers that succeed Justin do not carry forward this particularly elevated status of women. Judith M. Lieu, “Circumcision, Women and Salvation,” New Testament Studies 40, no. 3 (1994): 358–70.

130

Chapter 5: A Brief History of the Interpretation of Circumcision

either of them good or bad. Their righteousness is determined by their acts of piety and justice (dial. 23.5).36

In this argument, circumcision is at best merely a sign; it is certainly not necessary for salvation. By contrast, God considers just (δίκαιος) Gentiles who trust in Christ without observing the laws (dial. 29.3). While a physical circumcision does not lead to righteousness or to salvation, a metaphorical one performed by Christ does. Allegorizing the text of Joshua (LXX, Josh 5:2–3), Justin argues that the words of Christ function as “knives of stone” (μαχαίραις πετρίναις) that perform a metaphorical circumcision. He bases the analogy between the knives of stone and words of Christ on scriptural references to Jesus as a cornerstone and a stone37 (dial. 113.6– 7).38 Justin writes, Joshua is reputed to have circumcised the people a second time by means of stone knives (which was a sign of that circumcision by which Jesus Christ himself has cut us off from idols made of stone and other materials), and to have gathered together those who everywhere from the uncircumcision, that is, from worldly error, were circumcised with stone knives, namely, the words of our Lord Jesus. For I have already pointed out that the prophets used to call him figuratively a Stone and a Rock (dial. 113.6).39

A spiritual circumcision has positive benefits that a physical circumcision lacks. It has an association with the new law; the new law emphasizes not ritual practices but proper ethical conduct (dial. 12.3). It is beneficial (salutary) in that through it one can hope to be righteous and pleasing to God (dial. 92.4, 113.7). Unlike a physical circumcision, a metaphorical one “cuts a person” from wandering away from the path of truth (dial. 41.4, 113.6). It keeps a person from a state of wickedness or vice (κακία)40 (dial. 114.4), (πονηρία) (dial. 41.4), and idolatry (dial. 113.6, 114.4). Furthermore, this type of circumcision is like baptism in that it washes sinners (ἁμαρτωλοὶ) from their sins (dial. 43.2).

36

The translation is by Thomas Falls in St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 38. A. Lukyn Williams writes, “When, however, Justin thinks of our Lord as the Stone he does not limit himself to the image as such, but insists again and again that circumcision by knives of Stone (Josh. v. 2) suggests the same thing. True circumcision of the heart is brought about only by the true Stone, the Lord Jesus Christ.” A. Lukyn Williams, Adversus Judaeos: A Bird’s-Eye View of Christian Apologiae until the Renaissance (Cambridge: The University Press, 1935), 38. 38 See dial. 114.4 and the associated texts on which it is based (Isa 28:16, Dan 2:34). For the many references to stone and rock within the Dialogue, see Justin Martyr, Dialogue Avec Tryphon, 1003–4. 39 The translation is by Thomas Falls in St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 169. (The italics are of Falls.) 40 BDAG 500. 37

A. Ancient and Medieval Interpreters of Circumcision

131

II. Circumcision in the writings of Augustine Augustine of Hippo (Aurelius Augustinus Hipponensis) (354–430 CE),41 known as the first Christian systematizer, has had a tremendous influence42 on the Christian tradition. He was born in North Africa to a pagan father and Christian mother. In his early life he lived as a Manichean and only later converted to Christianity. He composed over a hundred treatises, many of which against various so-called heretics including the Arians, Donatists, Manichaeans, and Pelagians. It is primarily through his defense of his own Christian position that he developed his theology, including his well-known theory of Original Sin, a theory that pertains to his understanding of physical circumcision. Augustine comments on circumcision both in his early and later writings. He strengthens over Justin circumcision’s association with salvation.43 While circumcision was a sign of faith, it was faith and not circumcision in and of itself that saved a person. Physical circumcision also retains its association, one that came to prominence in the writings of Justin, as a fleshly sign. Augustine’s treatments of the rite of circumcision pertain to its effectiveness in the time period before the Christ’s Passion (his suffering death on a cross) and then subsequent to it. In his later writings, Augustine turns his attention from the rite itself to its practitioner. In these later writings, the circumcised Jew becomes a negative example, a Pelagian, someone who tries to save himself without the help of God’s grace. As we shall see, many of these later treatments of circumcision recur in the writings of Martin Luther. According to Augustine, prior to the Passion of Christ, circumcision had the power to signify the remission of sins. However, while circumcision was representative of this function, the power to actually save a person was faith 41 Biographies on Augustine are numerous and include Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo, 2nd ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), Henry Chadwick, Augustine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), Gary Willis, Saint Augustine (New York: Viking, 1999). 42 As Alister McGrath writes, “It is certain that no writer, other than those of scripture, has exercised so great an influence over the development of western Christian thought as Augustine of Hippo.” Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998)., 24. Christian thoughts and attitudes, begun with Augustine, have clearly affected the views of Western culture in general. One important instance of this influence tangentially related to the subject of circumcision is his attitudes on human sexuality. See Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, vol. 2, The Use of Pleasure, trans. Robert Hurley (New York: Pantheon Books, 1985), 138. 43 According to Thomas Martin, the strong association between circumcision and salvation can be explained in part by the considerable debate concerning “the person and nature of Christ,” and “the precise makeup of the human condition in need of salvation” between the years 350 and 450 CE. Thomas F. Martin, “Pauline Commentaries in Augustine’s Time,” in Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999), 626.

132

Chapter 5: A Brief History of the Interpretation of Circumcision

(in Christ). In his treatise De nuptiis et concupiscentia (419–420 CE), Augustine clarifies the respective roles of circumcision and faith with regard to the biblical Patriarchs. From the time that circumcision was instituted in the people of God, it had the power to signify the purification from the original and ancient sin even in little ones. So too, from the time that baptism was instituted, it began to have the power to renew human beings. It is not that prior to circumcision there was no righteousness through faith. For when he was still uncircumcised, Abraham, the father of the nations, who were to follow him in faith, was justified on the basis of faith. But in earlier times, the sacrament of justification from faith was completely hidden. The same faith in the mediator, nonetheless, saved the righteous of old, little ones along with adults.44

Thus, according to Augustine, circumcision in and of itself did not purify from sin, but rather circumcision was a sign of the purification of sin, a sign of salvation. What actually saved the person was not physical circumcision itself, but faith in the mediator, faith in Christ. 45 Augustine’s views regarding the status of physical circumcision in the era subsequent to the Passion of Christ changed over the course of his writings. Early in his career, Augustine considered that a physical circumcision, while it had no power to save in and of itself, would also have no negative ramifications for its practitioner. In other words, on the condition that the practitioner not depend upon its power to save, a Christian could become circumcised and not jeopardize his salvation.46 This early view is reflected in Augustine’s understanding of the controversy over the circumcision of Titus (Gal 2:3–5). In his commentary on Paul’s letter to the Galatians (394/395 CE), Augustine states that, according to Paul, there is nothing wrong with the custom;47 the fault lies in placing one’s hope in it for salvation.48 To place one’s hope for salvation in circumcision, how44

Augustine, nupt. et conc. 2.11.24 (CSEL 42:276.24–277.4) in Augustine, On Marriage and Desire, trans. Roland J. Teske, vol. 1/24, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1998), 68. See also Augustine, civ. 16.27 (CCSL 48:531–2). In the case of infants, it was the faith of the circumcised parents that saved them. 45 Augustine has been misunderstood to say that circumcision itself did bring about salvation. Shaye Cohen clarifies this issue, “A careful reading of this and related passages shows that Augustine did not believe that circumcision itself saved humanity from the effects of original sin. Rather, he believed that circumcision was a sign of the faith that saved humanity, and still saves humanity, from original sin.” Cohen, Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised?, 85. 46 This sentiment echoes that of Justin. In his Dialogue he maintains that, in contrast to the opinions of some Christians, circumcised Christians should be allowed to live as such so long as they do not try to convince other Christ-believers to become circumcised (Justin, dial. 47.1–2). 47 Augustine refers to 1 Cor 7:19 in Gal. exp. 11.3, 41.6. 48 Augustine, Gal. exp. 11.2, 15.2, 41.7, 63.2.

A. Ancient and Medieval Interpreters of Circumcision

133

ever, would be the equivalent of committing a mortal sin. Augustine makes much the same point regarding circumcision in his small treatise de mendacio written during this same time (394/395 CE).49 In these early works, Augustine separated laws into distinct categories, dividing them into ceremonial (or sacramental) and moral ones.50 Circumcision would have naturally fallen within the former category. According to him, when Paul argued against works of law, he was primarily speaking out against the necessity of following ritual or ceremonial laws and not moral ones. Yet even given Paul’s injunction against these ceremonial laws, one could participate in them so long as one did not depend upon them for salvation. By moral laws, Augustine meant statutes such as the Ten Commandments.51 In contrast to the ceremonial ones, these moral statutes continued to have significance for Paul and therefore should be followed. In his later writings, however, Augustine’s views regarding the law changed.52 In de spiritu et littera (412 CE), a treatise he wrote in response to Pelagius,53 Augustine no longer made a distinction between ceremonial and moral laws, nor did he exhibit his former neutrality vis-à-vis individual ritual laws such as circumcision. In his later writing, any kind of law, ceremonial or moral, was to be rejected.54 The law functioned as a letter that kills when trying to accomplish its requirements without the aid of God’s grace or the Spirit.55 Moreover, a circumcised Jew became known as someone who boasts 49

In this treatise, Augustine is clear that no harm comes to either the Jew or the Gentile who might participate in circumcision. If the custom should disturb no one, the Jew may perform it; likewise, if the Gentile does not find this custom odious, he may participate in it. Augustine, mend. 8 (CSEL 41:422–24). 50 Augustine, Gal. exp. 19.1–10. 51 Augustine, Gal. exp. 19.3–4. 52 According to Alister McGrath, Augustine’s doctrine of justification changed prior to his response to Pelagius. Before 396 CE, Augustine conceived of the spiritual life as an “ascent to perfection.” Later, however, Augustine came to reject his former view, especially when forced to respond to questions posed by Simplicianus. Augustine’s later doctrine has three primary components: 1) divine and eternal predestination determines election; 2) God gives faith as a gift to humankind; faith does not depend on a person’s free will; 3) a person cannot procure justification without the aid of grace. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification 24–25. 53 Augustine is intent on countering Pelagian claims. The Pelagian tenets briefly put are that God functions in part as a law-giver rewarding and punishing people according to their deeds, and that God gave humans the ability to carry out divine commands. By contrast, Augustine claimed that human will and the carrying out of divine laws are insufficient in and of themselves to “reach perfection” and that persons are in need of the aid of the Holy Spirit. Augustine, spir. et litt. 1.1, 5.7, 23.38, 24.41, 29.51, 36.64 (CSEL 60:155, 159–60, 191, 194– 95, 207–8, 223–25). 54 Augustine, spir. et litt. 14.23 (CSEL 60:176.22–26). 55 According to Augustine, “man’s liberum arbitrium captivatum [the free will taken captive] is incapable of either desiring or attaining justification.” Even the act of faith is a gift of

134

Chapter 5: A Brief History of the Interpretation of Circumcision

in his meritorious work, or as someone who attempts to fulfill what the law demands without the help or the infusion of God’s grace.56 While physical circumcision had no value to save, and indeed was a mortal sin, Augustine, following on the writings of Justin, remarked that a metaphorical circumcision saved Christians. Augustine referred to Christians as “the circumcision,” those who did not boast in the circumcision of the flesh (Phil 3:3).57 The eighth day, known in Genesis 17:12 as the day when infant males are circumcised, became the day when Christ rose from the dead58 and removed Original Sin.59 Christ represented a rock of spiritual nourishment (1 Cor 10:4),60 who in turn became associated with the flint knives61 used to circumcise the Israelites (Jos 5:2).62 Augustine writes, “The significance of the circumcision of the flesh has been transferred to the circumcision of the heart.”63 God; God acts on the soul enabling it to come to believe. God both operates on the person to first desire to do what is good and then cooperates with this desire to promote the performance of good works. A person is unable either to perform or to desire to do what is good without the operative and cooperative grace. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification 27. 56 Augustine, spir. et litt. 8.13 (CSEL 60:164–66). In this model, the Jew becomes ensnared in a trap from which he cannot escape: in the eyes of the Christian, the law holds out no hope for salvation, and thus a Jew sins mortally by becoming circumcised. 57 Augustine, s. 169. 3 (PL 38:917). 58 Augustine, civ. 16.26 (CCSL 48:531.58–60); s. 260 (PL 38:1201–2). Augustine is not the first to associate the eighth day of circumcision with the resurrection of Christ. In the midthird century, Cyprian wrote that circumcision was “a holy sign, an anticipatory image, a prefiguring given in prophecy which has been brought to reality and fulfillment with the coming of Christ.” He goes on to explain that the eighth day is actually the first day after the Sabbath day and this was to be the day on which the Lord rose from the dead and provided circumcision of the spirit. Cyprian, ep. 64.4 (CSEL 3:2.719–20), ep. 64.4.3 in St. Cyprian of Carthage, The Letters of St. Cyprian of Carthage, vol. 3, ed. Johannes Quasten, Walter J. Burghardt, and Thomas Comerford Lawler, trans. G.W. Clarke, Ancient Christian Writers, vol. 46 (New York: Newman Press, 1986), 111. 59 Saragosse, s. 17–34, ff. 175r–176r (Raymond Étaix, “Sermon Inédit de Saint Augustin sur la Circoncision dans un ancien manuscrit de Saragosse,” Revue des Études Augustiniennes 26, no. 1–2 (1980): 70.18–19.), Augustine, c. Iul. imp. 73 (CSEL 85,1:216–17). 60 Augustine, s. 169.3 (PL 38:917). 61 See also Justin, dial. 113.6–7, 114.4. Edmond Hill remarks, “The connection between Christ and the flint knives with which Joshua circumcised the people is easier to make in Augustine’s Latin, where the knives are cultelli petrini, the adjective from petra, rock.” WSA III/5:236 n.11. 62 Augustine, s. 260 (PL 38:1201–2); s. 231.2 (PL 38:1104–5); s. 169.3 (PL 38:917–18). See also Justin, dial. 113:6–7. 63 Augustine, s. 260 (PL:1202) in Augustine, Sermons 230–272b on the Liturgical Seasons, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Edmund Hill, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1993), 185.; en. Ps. 6.2 (CCSL 38:28.22– 24)

A. Ancient and Medieval Interpreters of Circumcision

135

Finally and again following on Justin, Augustine reaffirmed circumcision’s association with the flesh by labeling it “carnis circumcisione” (“circumcision of the flesh”).64 The term “flesh” acquired numerous negative connotations. According to Augustine, people were corrupted in the flesh and hence must be justified in the spirit (John 3:6).65 The spirit and spiritual understanding saved believers,66 not the flesh. The foreskin itself, though not sin, signified sin and shame.67 In addition, flesh itself became identified with certain types of people, those who thought in a carnal way and who attributed to their own power works that could only be performed for the good with God’s help. By contrast, Christ stripped away the fleshly life,68 enabling people to lay aside those negative aspects of life that pertain to the flesh.69 III. Circumcision in the writings of Aquinas Like Augustine, Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) was also a highly influential figure for Western Christian theology. His vast writings include a commentary on the Sentences (1252–1256), various commentaries on the Hebrew Bible and New Testaments (1259–1273), his seminal multi-volume Summa Theologicæ (1266–1273), and various other works. He is known for synthesizing Christian theology.70 64 Augustine, Gal. exp. 19.3, 10; 21.5; 41.5, 54.5 in Saint Augustine, Augustine’s Commentary on Galatians, trans. Eric Plumer, Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford: Ox-ford University Press, 2003), 153, 155, 157, 199, 221. 65 Augustine, s. 294.16 (PL:1345). 66 “Intellectus spiritalis credentem saluum facit.” Augustine, en. Ps. 33, s. 1.7 (CCSL 38:279.28–29); en. Ps. 6.2 (CCSL 38:28). 67 Augustine, c. Iul. 6.7.20 (PL 44:834). 68 Augustine, s. 231.2 (PL 38:1104–5). 69 Saragosse, s. 17–34 ff. 175r–176r (Étaix, “Sermon Inédit de Saint Augustin,” 70–71.). By contrast, Paula Fredriksen views Augustine’s typological reading of circumcision, as seen in his treatise Against Faustus, in a favorable light. According to her, Augustine “rehabilitates” the Jewish sacrament of circumcision. She writes, “Precisely by virtue of its very fleshiness, insists Augustine, and indeed by virtue of its precise location in the male sexual organ, carnal circumcision symbolized the central redemptive miracle of Christianity itself: the transformation of the redeemed at the resurrection of the dead.” Paula Fredriksen, Augustine and the Jews: A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism (New York: Doubleday, 2008), 253. 70 For the dates of the Aquinas’s various writings, see James A. Weisheipl, Friar Thomas d’Aquino: His Life, Thought, and Work (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1974). In addition to James Weisheipl’s biography, see also Jean-Pierre Torrell, Initiation à Saint Thomas d’Aquin: sa personne et son oeuvre (Fribourg Suiss: Éditions Universitaires Fribourg Suisse, 1993), Jean-Pierre Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas: His Person and His Work, vol. 1, trans. Robert Royal (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2005), Angelus Walz, Saint Thomas Aquinas: A Biographical Study, trans. Sebastian Bullough (Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 1951).

136

Chapter 5: A Brief History of the Interpretation of Circumcision

Up through the thirteenth century and beyond, theologians debated the effectiveness of circumcision for salvation. Issues that Augustine seemingly resolved were readdressed. For instance, Aquinas took the side of Augustine in his well-known debate with Jerome71 and claimed that “prior to the Passion of Christ, the ceremonial laws had to be observed out of necessity of the divine command, and up to this point they had an effect” (“ante Christi passionem legalia fuerunt observanda ex necessitate divinæ jussionis, et habuerunt adhuc effectum”).72 Beginning as early as the sixth century, if not before, theologians reassessed the effectiveness of circumcision for the time period prior to the Pas-

71

The disagreements between Jerome and Augustine stem from their respective interpretations of the rebuke of Peter at Antioch (Gal 2:11–14). Jerome and Augustine disagreed over four basic issues. The first pertains to the various times when the law could and could not be followed. According to both Jerome and Augustine, there were historical periods within which the law could be followed with validity. They differed, however, on how best to divide salvation history. According to Jerome, there were only two distinct historical periods, one prior to the Passion of Christ, and one subsequent to it. In the period prior to Christ’s Passion, one could follow the law with validity; Jerome claimed that Original Sin would be removed through circumcision and that God would accept the sacrifices in the Hebrew Bible. But subsequent to the Passion, the laws were effectively dead and “whoever observed them . . .sinned mortally.” By contrast, according to Augustine, there were three periods of salvation history, one prior to the Passion in which he agreed with Jerome’s assessment of the observance of the law; one subsequent to the Passion but prior to the onset of grace and during which time converted Jews could follow the law and not sin mortally; and the time subsequent to when the “truth and grace of Christ had been proclaimed” in which law observance would be deadly for all who observed them. The second area of disagreement concerned aspects of legal observance for the apostles. According to Jerome, the apostles never actually observed the precepts but only feigned doing do and hence placed no actual value in them. According to Augustine, the apostles observed the rites of the Jewish law with genuineness but not in a way so as to consider them necessary for salvation. The third area of disagreement is similar to the second and concerns whether or not Peter actually sinned (i.e., he denied Christ) when he gave into those of the circumcision. Again, according to Jerome, Peter did not actually sin (by giving in to or observing the law) when he separated himself from the Gentiles at Antioch; he pulled away out of charity and not out of fear of the law. On the other hand, Augustine argued that Peter did sin but venially and not morally. Finally, they disagree as to whether or not Paul actually rebuked Peter. Jerome took the position that Paul only feigned the action. On the other hand, Augustine held that Paul genuinely rebuked Peter for his sin. Ad Gal. 2, 3 in Saint Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, trans. F.R. Larcher O.P. (Albany: Magi Books, Inc., 1966), 49–52. 72 Aquinas, 4 Sent. 1, 2, 5, ad 3 in Pierre Felix Mandonnet and Maria Fabianus Moos, eds., S. Thomae Aquinatis: Scriptum super libros sententiarum magistri Petri Lombardi Episcopi Parisiensis, Editio nova ed., 4 vols. (Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1929–1947), 66.

A. Ancient and Medieval Interpreters of Circumcision

137

sion of Christ and considered it to have a power in and of itself. 73 While Aquinas remained of the opinion that circumcision was less efficacious than baptism, his reason for this position changed over the course of his writings.74 In his Scriptum super libros Sententiarum (Commentary on the Sentences) (1252–1256), a work he completed early in his career, Aquinas was of the opinion that circumcision conferred sanctifying grace necessary for eternal salvation but that the grace was less powerful than that bestowed through baptism. By contrast, in his later writings Aquinas concluded that the effectiveness of the grace conferred through the rite of circumcision was equally as powerful as the grace provided through baptism, but that it was bestowed not because circumcision was in and of itself efficacious, but because circumcision was a sign of faith in the Passion of Christ yet to come. The Patriarchs were saved through the sign of circumcision, a sign that designated faith in the crucified savior, and not by the power of the rite of circumcision itself. Thus, Aquinas’s final thoughts on this issue echo those of Augustine.75 In his Scriptum super libros Sententiarum, Aquinas argued that circumcision was the remedy for and effective against Original Sin.76 It removed guilt, restored the divine vision and diminished the contagion of sin. However, even in its role in remitting sin, circumcision was never as effective as baptism would later become.77

73

Shaye Cohen remarks that Gregory the Great misunderstood Augustine and raised the practice of circumcision to the same level as baptism, as a “mystery.” Cohen, Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised?, 85. 74 While discussing the issue of circumcision, Aquinas makes the rare statement that he changed his mind regarding the effectiveness of grace (ST 3, 70, 4, c) in Saint Thomas Aquinas, Baptism and Confirmation (3a. 66–72), ed. Thomas Ricardus Heath and Thomas Cajetanus Kelly, trans. James J. Cunningham O.P., St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologiæ, vol. 57 (Westminster: Blackfriars, 1975), 169. 75 Shaye Cohen calls this a “partial retreat to the position of Augustine.” Cohen, Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised?, 86. 76 In 4 Sent. 1, 2, 5, ad 1 Aquinas remarks that the principal signification for circumcision was the removal of Original Sin (“principalis significatio ad quam circumcisio instituta est, est ablatio originalis culpæ”) in Mandonnet and Moos, eds., Mandonnet and Moos, 64. As a physical rite, circumcision has a natural relationship with Original Sin in four ways: it pertains to the member of generation, in its form as a circle it pertains to the circular relationship between the corruption between nature and persons, its associative pain is against the pleasure of concupiscence; and the spilling of the blood signifies Christ’s Passion which expiates Original Sin (4 Sent. 1, 2, 1, ad 1). See also 4 Sent. 1, 2, 2 ad 2; 3 ad 2. 77 Aquinas offered various reasons why circumcision could not be as effective as baptism: 1) the Passion had not yet arrived (4 Sent. 1, 2, 4, ad 2); 2) baptism was more perfect than circumcision (4 Sent. 1, 2, 5, ad 1); 3) circumcision was not as useful as baptism in that it was restricted to a certain people, a certain gender, and had a limited duration (4 Sent. 1, 2, 5, ad 4); 4) baptism conferred more grace (4 Sent. 1, 2, 4, ad 3); 5) the law is a shadow of a future good [“Umbram habet lex futurorum bonorum” (Heb 10:1)], but when the truth arrived, the

138

Chapter 5: A Brief History of the Interpretation of Circumcision

As to whether circumcision conferred grace, Aquinas reasoned that indeed it must have because Original Sin is only removed by grace. In contrast to those of the opinion that circumcision only removed guilt without conferring grace, Aquinas stated that just as darkness is only extinguished by the presence of light, so also the guilt of Original Sin is expelled only by the presence of grace. Hence circumcision operated in much the same way as baptism.78 However, just as the removal of Original Sin was not as effective through circumcision as it was through baptism, so too the grace conferred through this rite was itself less powerful. The grace bestowed through circumcision had the privative effect of removing guilt and restoring the divine vision and making a person worthy of eternal life, but it did not have the power to remove concupiscence.79 Aquinas referred to the debates over the degree to which circumcision conferred grace sufficient to save no fewer than three times within his writings. Accordingly, Bede, Peter Lombard, Hugh of St. Victor, and Peter of Poitiers argued that circumcision was just as efficacious as baptism against Original Sin, but that no grace was conferred through it. Others, including William of Auxerre, argued that grace was bestowed through circumcision so as to remit sins but not in so far as it would have any positive effects such as ensuring eternal life. Still others such as, Alexander of Hales, Bonaventure, and including Aquinas himself in his early work, argued that grace was bestowed through circumcision even to the extent of rendering a person worthy of eternal life, but that the grace was insufficient to repress concupiscence and hence could not deter from future sin.80 In his later work, however, Aquinas amended his earlier opinion regarding the effectiveness of grace through circumcision and concluded that he mistakenly underestimated the power of grace. Even a little grace was powerful enough to enable a person to resist concupiscence. He writes, Thus certain others have said that grace was conferred in circumcision even with the positive effect of making a person worthy of eternal life; but it did not extend to all the effects since it was not sufficient for the repression of concupiscence and the observance of the commandments of the law. At one time this was also my opinion. But if one considers the matter more carefully, it seems that such an opinion is not true, for the least amount of grace is capable of resisting any concupiscence whatever, and of avoiding every mortal sin which is committed

figure ceases (“Sed veniente veritate cessat figura.”) (4 Sent. 1, 2, 5, ad 2) in Mandonnet and Moos, eds., Mandonnet and Moos, 62. 78 Aquinas, 4 Sent. 1, 2, 4, ad 2. 79 Aquinas, 4 Sent. 1, 2, 4, ad 3. 80 Aquinas, 4 Sent. 1, 2, 4, ad 2; In Rom. 4. 2. 2. v. 12 in M. l’Abbé Bralé, ed., Commentaires de S. Thomas D’Aquin sur toutes les Épitres de S. Paul, vol. 1 (Paris: Louis Vivès, Libraire-Éditeur, 1869), 204.; Aquinas, ST 3, 62, 5

A. Ancient and Medieval Interpreters of Circumcision

139

in transgressing the commandments of the law; the smallest degree of charity has more love for God than greed has for thousands of gold and silver pieces.81

Thus, according to his later view, the grace conferred through circumcision had all the benefits and powers sufficient to save but it was not bestowed in the same way as in baptism. Aquinas adds, In baptism grace is conferred by the power of the sacrament itself which it has in so far as it is an instrument of the already realized Passion of Christ. Circumcision, on the other hand, conferred grace in so far as it was a sign of faith in the coming Passion of Christ in such as way that a man who accepted circumcision made profession of such a faith.82

According to Aquinas, as a sign of faith circumcision could not be as effective as sacramental signs associated with the New Testament. Why was this? Reasoning much like a scientist would, Aquinas maintained that a sacrament intended to bring about justification was incapable of acting in that role prior to the event that brought it about.83 Circumcision was instituted and observed prior to the Passion of Christ. Functioning as a means of salvation, when the Passion to which it referred had not already taken place, would have gone against the laws of nature. Circumcision itself could not be the conduit for sanctifying grace; it could only be a sign of faith.84 The Patriarchs of the Hebrew Bible were saved by their faith in a future event and not by circumcision itself. By contrast, the sacraments of the New Testament were both signs and causes; “they effect what they figuratively express”85 (efficient quod figurant). IV. Circumcision in the writings of Luther Western Christian Protestantism owes its inception and principal conceptions to the work of the German theologian Martin Luther (1483–1546).86 A pro81

Aquinas, ST 3a, 70, 4. The translation is by James J. Cunningham in Aquinas, Baptism and Confirmation (3a. 66–72), 169. 82 Aquinas, ST 3a, 70, 4. The translation is by James J. Cunningham in Aquinas, Baptism and Confirmation (3a. 66–72), 169. 83 Aquinas, ST 3a, 62, 6. 84 The sacraments of the law “merely acted as signs representing that faith through which men were justified” (“sed solum significabant fidem, per quam justificabantur”). Aquinas, ST 3a, 62, 6 in Saint Thomas Aquinas, The Sacraments (3a. 60–5), ed. Nihil Obstat and F. J. Bartlett, trans. David Bourke, Summa Theologicæ, vol. 56 (Westminster: Blackfriars, 1974), 73. 85 Aquinas, ST 3a, 62, 1. The translation is by David Bourke in Aquinas, The Sacraments (3a. 60–5), 54–55. 86 General biographies on Martin Luther include Heiko A. Oberman, Luther: Man between God and the Devil, trans. Eileen Walliser-Schwarzbart (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), Derek A. Wilson, Out of the Storm: The Life and Legacy of Martin Luther (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2008), Roland Herbert Bainton, Here I Stand; a Life of Martin Luther (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1950), Martin Brecht, Martin Luther, 3 vols.,

140

Chapter 5: A Brief History of the Interpretation of Circumcision

lific writer, Luther’s works include commentaries on the bible, sermons, hymns, treatises, and the translation of the Bible into German, his common language. Although urged by his father to study law, Luther instead entered the monastery to study for the priesthood. His strong objections to current religious practices, such as the “buying” of salvation through the purchase of indulgences, drove him to reformulate Christian doctrine. As a result of his dissatisfaction with these and other practices, he redefined Christian understandings regarding such notions as the relationship between God and humanity, faith, salvation, the role of the law and of the church. His various proposals for reform resulted in controversies with the papacy and his eventual excommunication.87 Luther is arguably best known for his doctrine of justification through grace by faith alone. By this Luther meant that God justifies a person only through his or her faith in the saving power of Christ’s Passion and not through reliance upon any form of human achievement or work.88 According to Luther, to be a true Christian was to know and believe this one central tenet.89 Conversely, to observe or rely upon any legal requirement or work of Jewish law opposed and denied Christ.90 The principle of justification by faith alone permeates much of Luther’s work and affects how he treats circumcision. Luther refers to circumcision over two thousand times within his entire body of writings, yet treats the topic in more detail only within a limited array of his Works, in his commentaries on Genesis and Galatians, and in several of his sermons. While treatments of circumcision prior to this point dealt principally with the ways in which circumcision itself did not actually save a person, with Luther the emphasis within treatments of circumcision changed: Luther focused on the circumcised person. After Luther, circumcision became associated with Jews, those who performed works to save themselves or to become righteous.91 trans. James L. Schaaf (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1985–1993), Martin E. Marty, Martin Luther (New York: Viking Penguin, 2004). 87 Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1988), 51. 88 Eric Gritsch, “Lutheranism,” ER 9:61. In his 1535 commentary on Galatians, Luther remarks, “The basic issue was this: Is the Law necessary for justification, or is it not? Paul and Peter are in controversy here [Gal 2:3] over this particular theme, on which the whole of Christian doctrine depends. Paul was too responsible a person to launch such a public attack on Peter in the presence of the entire church of Antioch on account of some trivial issue. He is attacking him on account of the basic doctrine of Christianity.” Commentarius in epistolam sancti Pauli ad Galatas [1531] 1535 (WA 40,1:17–19) in Martin Luther, Lectures on Galatians 1535: Chapters 1–4, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan, trans. Jaroslav Pelikan, Luther’s Works, vol. 26 (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1963), 85. 89 Luther, ad Galatas (WA 40,1: 14–15). 90 Luther, ad Galatas (WA 40,1: 26–27). 91 Similarly, Luther’s proximate contemporary John Calvin comments that Jews did not glory in it (circumcision) as a symbol of God’s grace but instead as a meritorious observation

A. Ancient and Medieval Interpreters of Circumcision

141

Like other medieval theologians, Luther participated in scholarly debates on the meaning of the practice of circumcision. Agreeing with Augustine and the later writings of Aquinas, Luther reasoned that circumcision had a value, but only as a sign. In addition, Luther assessed circumcision as a seal (Rom 4:11), as a proof of righteousness.92 He referred to it as a document and acknowledgment (ceu chirographum in confessionem)93 previously granted by God through faith. As a physical rite, circumcision provided distinctiveness for a people from whom Christ was to be born. Luther asks, Why, then, they say, was it given? Paul answers (Rom 4:11) that it might be a seal of righteousness; that is, this work had to be there in order to place this seal upon righteousness. Circumcision had to be a document as it were, acknowledging that the promise is true. 94 For what benefit, then, was circumcision given? To make known that the Savior was to be born from this circumcised nation and not from the Gentiles. He who desired by all nations did not become incarnate from all nations; He became incarnate among this one people which had been commanded by God to be circumcised.95

In his In Genesin enarrationum, an exposition or commentary on Genesis, Luther interpreted circumcision through the lens of Paul. According to Luther, Paul made two primary arguments against circumcision: 1) Abraham was made righteous from faith and not from circumcision,96 and 2) The advent of Christ obviated the need for circumcision. (“Postquam igitur Christus venit, debuit cedere circumcisio, sicut umbra soli venienti cedit.” “Therefore after

of the law. (“Neque enim ea Iudaei gloriabantur, tanquam gratiae Dei symbolo, sed quasi meritoria Legis observatione.”) According to Calvin, Paul referred to circumcision (Rom 4:9–12) because it represented the basis of becoming righteous through law observance. Calvini, Commentarius ad Romanos, 86. 92 Luther, In Gen. enarrat. (WA 42:602, 31–34; 609, 7–10; 609, 40–42; 611, 12–17). Luther offers no justification for this belief within Judaism. He appears to be advancing traditional Christian understandings of Jewish beliefs. He refers to Jews as “the Jews,” which seems to indicate unfamiliarity with actual Jews as well as the deliberate attempt to distance and isolate the group. 93 Luther, In Gen. enarrat. (WA 42:609, 13) in Martin Luther, Lectures on Gen-esis: Chapters 15–20, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan, trans. George V. Schick, Luther’s Works, vol. 3 (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1961), 85. 94 Luther, In Gen. enarrat. (WA 42:609, 13). Translated by George V. Schick in Luther, Lectures on Genesis, 85. In his Lectures on Romans, Luther writes that Abraham received a sign but nothing more. The sign signified the justification of faith through which the heart becomes purified and circumcised. See also ad Romanos (WA 56:43, 2–4); De captivitate Babylonica ecclesiae praeludium (WA 6:532, 29–32). 95 Luther, In Gen. enarrat. (WA 42:613, 17–20). Translated by George V. Schick in Luther, Lectures on Genesis, 91. In his Lectures on Romans, Luther mentions that circumcision was useful in that through the faith of a small number of Jews, God kept his promise. Luther, ad Romanos (WA 56:210, 16–19). 96 Luther, In Gen. enarrat. (WA 42:603, 26–33).

142

Chapter 5: A Brief History of the Interpretation of Circumcision

Christ came, circumcision had to give way, just as the shadow gives way to the coming of the sun.”)97 In his first argument, Luther demonstrates through scriptural proofs that circumcision is not essential for the people of God. Abraham is called blameless prior to God’s demand that he become circumcised.98 Since God waited fifteen years before requiring the circumcision of Abraham, the rite itself must not be of paramount importance.99 In views that echo those of Justin, Luther reasoned that other biblical Patriarchs such as Jonah or Joseph were not themselves circumcised and did not require the circumcision of others, yet they were nevertheless considered people of God. Given this evidence, circumcision must not have been in itself essential.100 In his second argument, he illustrates also through Scripture that circumcision has now come to an end. The expression “throughout their generations” (Gen 17:9) 101 implies that circumcision was instituted only for a fixed duration (certi temporis durationem);102 and with the coming of Christ, the time for this rite came to an end. Luther questions how Moses could legitimately insist upon circumcision when Jerusalem has been captured, the Temple destroyed, and the people scattered. According to him, there would no longer have been a kingdom to circumcise.103 It was in his Commentarius Galatas (Commentary on Galatians), however, that Luther shifted the general sense of circumcision, as he, more so than his predecessors, associated circumcision with a work of law. According to Luther, circumcision and all laws, ceremonial and moral, are powerless to save because justification is obtained not through the performance of deeds or laws but only through faith in Christ.104 As a work, circumcision is active and not 97

Luther, In Gen. enarrat. (WA 42:613, 16). The translation is my own. Luther, In Gen. enarrat. (WA 42:604, 12–20). 99 Luther, In Gen. enarrat. (WA 42:604, 6–9). 100 Luther states that Jonah did not circumcise the Ninivites, nor did Joseph require this rite from the Egyptians. Others such as Job were themselves not circumcised and nonetheless became members of the people of God. In Gen. enarrat. (WA 42:606, 15–22). 101 Luther, In Gen. enarrat. (WA 42:613, 5–6) in Luther, Lectures on Genesis, 91. 102 Luther, In Gen. enarrat. (WA 42:613, 5–6) in Luther, Lectures on Genesis, 91. 103 Luther, In Gen. enarrat. (WA 42:613, 8–11). See also In Gen. enarrat. (WA 42:638, 1–8). 104 In his later work (1535), Luther personifies the law writing, “This was truly a remarkable duel, when the Law, a creature, came into conflict with the Creator, exceeding its every jurisdiction to vex the Son of God with the same tyranny with which it vexed us, the sons of wrath (Eph. 2:3). Because the Law has sinned so horribly and wickedly against its God, it is summoned to court and accused. Here Christ says: “Lady Law, you empress, you cruel and powerful tyrant over the whole human race, what did I commit that you accused, intimidated, and condemned Me in My innocence?” Here the Law, which once condemned and killed all men [sic], has nothing with which to defend or cleanse itself. Therefore it is condemned and killed in turn, so that it loses its jurisdiction not only over Christ – whom it attacked and 98

B. Modern Interpreters of Circumcision

143

passive. By not participating in works, Christians are passive recipients of God’s grace. The only true and God-given righteousness is passively received rather than actively pursued. Luther writes, Over and above all these there is the righteousness of faith or Christian righteousness, which is to be distinguished most carefully from all the others. For they are all contrary to this righteousness, both because they proceed from the laws of emperors, the traditions of the pope, and the commandments of God, and because they consist in our works and can be achieved by us with “purely natural endowments,” as the scholastics teach, or from a gift of God. For these kinds of the righteousness of works, too, are gifts of God, as are all the things we have. But this most excellent righteousness, the righteousness of faith, which God imputes to us through Christ without works, is neither political nor ceremonial nor legal nor workrighteousness but is quite the opposite; it is a merely passive righteousness, while all the others, listed above, are active. For here we work nothing, render nothing to God; we only receive and permit someone else to work in us, namely, God. Therefore it is appropriate to call the righteousness of faith or Christian righteousness “passive.” This is a righteousness hidden in a mystery, which the world does not understand. In fact, Christians themselves do not adequately understand it or grasp it in the midst of their temptations. Therefore it must always be taught and continually exercised. And anyone who does not grasp or take hold of it in afflictions and terrors of conscience cannot stand. For there is no comfort of conscience so solid and certain as is this passive righteousness.105

According to Luther, only sinful and unrighteous persons try to become righteous on the basis of works. In so doing they not only deny Christ, the only basis of salvation, but they set themselves in the place of God and thereby break the First Commandment.106 With Luther, circumcision came to represent those persons or “workers” who tried to save themselves rather than receive the only true righteousness based on faith in Christ.

B. Modern Interpreters of Circumcision B. Modern Interpreters of Circumcision Although employing terms that differ from the past, modern interpreters of circumcision often carry forward the understandings of their ancient and medieval predecessors. In the modern era, theologians and biblical exegetes continue to assess circumcision in opposition to what they consider salvific. Circumcision represents an unacceptable lifestyle or religion, religion itself, or a sense of exclusiveness. These evaluations emphasize, as did Luther’s, the practitioner of circumcision over the rite itself. In addition, they are rooted in the fundamental dichotomy between a physical and metaphorical circumcikilled without any right anyway – but also over all who believe in Him.” ad Galatas (WA 40, 1:565, 18–27). Translated by Jaroslav Pelikan in Luther, Lectures on Galatians 1535, 370. 105 Luther, ad Galatas (WA 40, 1:40, 28–30; 41, 12–26). Translated by Jaroslav Pelikan in Luther, Lectures on Galatians 1535, 4. 106 Luther, ad Galatas (WA 40, 1: 316, 20–35).

144

Chapter 5: A Brief History of the Interpretation of Circumcision

sion begun with Justin: physical circumcision in and of itself is associated with negative characteristics that Paul denied. In this brief survey, I review treatments of circumcision in the writings of Rudolf Bultmann, Ernst Käsemann, and many others. I. Circumcision in the writings of Rudolf Bultmann Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976) was one of the most important New Testament exegetes of the twentieth century. His best-known work is titled Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (1921), known in English as The History of the Synoptic Tradition (1979). In this influential work for New Testament studies, he developed a form-critical approach to the New Testament. The son of a Lutheran pastor and the grandson of a missionary, Bultmann seems never to have considered an occupation other than service to the church and eventually became an academic theologian.107 He quickly attained the position of University Professor, beginning his career at the University of Breslau (1916). In 1920 he became Professor at Giessen and later Professor and Privatdozent at Marburg (1921), where he remained until his retirement (1951). Two of his teachers, Johannes Weiss and Wilhelm Herrmann, his Doktorväter, had a lasting influence on him. Weiss was among the History of Religions School of which Bultmann later became a distinguished member.108 Additionally, the German existentialist philosopher Martin Heidegger, his colleague at Marburg (1922–1928), had a profound influence on his understanding of Jewish law, one that can be seen in Bultmann’s treatments of circumcision. Heidegger employed the concepts of authentic and inauthentic existence to describe two possible approaches to life. According to him, when one chooses to accept the certainty of death and the nothingness of existence, one achieves authentic existence. To avoid such a radical understanding of life was to engage in inauthentic existence. Borrowing the terminology of Heidegger and applying it to the theology of Luther, Bultmann argued that authentic existence was possible when a person lived in the sphere of the spirit rather than the flesh, and when through faith one turned toward God rather than relying upon work or effort. According to Bultmann, there were two distinct and opposing spheres, the spirit and the flesh. Whereas the sphere of the spirit represented freedom, authentic existence,109 and the “miraculous power of God,”110 the sphere of 107

Norman Perrin, The Promise of Bultmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), 12. Perrin, The Promise of Bultmann, 13. 109 Rudolf Karl Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1953), 332–33. 110 Rudolf Karl Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. Kendrick Grobel, vol. 1 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1958), 336. 108

B. Modern Interpreters of Circumcision

145

the flesh was worldly, transitory and one in which there was no present reality.111 Like Augustine, Bultmann argued against a life led in the flesh. However, in contrast to Augustine, he reasoned that a life led in the flesh represented the earthly life itself, one that ends in physical death. Circumcision itself became identified with the realm of the flesh. Bultmann writes, Circumcision, an operation on the body, is ‘circumcision which is outward, in the flesh’ (Rom. 2:28 KJ). The outward cares of living are ‘trouble in the flesh’ (I Cor. 7:28 KJ). Flesh is mortal (II Cor. 4:11), and death, as the end of physical life, is ‘destruction of the flesh’ (I Cor. 5:5).112

In formulations that echo those of Luther, Bultmann remarked that the circumcised person was someone who lacked faith and led a life characterized by boasting in his own accomplishments while trusting in the flesh.113 In so doing, he tried to procure his own salvation by following the law.114 According to Bultmann, such a person led a life in opposition to God’s true demands, an inauthentic existence. Bultmann’s overall evaluation of the law is well described in his definition of sin. Sin is man’s self-powered striving to undergird his own salvation by his own strength (§ 23, 1), that striving which finds its extreme expression in ‘boasting’ and ‘‘trusting in the ‘flesh’” (§ 23, 2). . . . The reason, then, that man shall not, must not, be ‘rightwised’ by works of the Law is that he must not be allowed to imagine that he is able to procure his salvation by his own strength; for he can find his salvation only when he understands himself in his dependence upon God the Creator.115

II. Circumcision in the writings of Ernst Käsemann A student of Rudolf Bultmann, Ernst Käsemann (1906–1998) treats circumcision in much the same way as his teacher. And like Bultmann, Käsemann’s treatments of circumcision are reminiscent of several medieval interpreters of this rite. According to him, Jews believed that circumcision had its own power to save from final judgment;116 it functioned ex opere operato.117 111

Bultmann, Theologie, 331. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 233. 113 Bultmann, Theologie, 230–31. 114 Bultmann, Theologie, 276. 115 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 264. „daß die Sünde das eigenmächtige Streben des Menschen ist, im Vergessen des geschöpflichen Seins sein Sein selber zu begründen, aus eigner Kraft sein Heil zu beschaffen (§ 23, 1), jenes Streben, das im καυχᾶσθαι und πεποιθέναι ἐνσαρκι seinen extremen Ausdruck findet (§ 23, 2).‟ Bultmann, Theologie, 260. 116 Writing for the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Rudolph Meyer notes that the Genesis 17 account of the circumcision of Abraham grounds the Jewish laws in “salvation history.” Within Judaism, circumcision was considered the “precondition, sign and seal of participation in the covenant which God made with Abraham.” To break this covenant meant a loss of the “salvation mediated thereby.” According to Meyer, Paul opposed the 112

146

Chapter 5: A Brief History of the Interpretation of Circumcision

Käsemann interpreted Paul to say that circumcision was not an indispensable prerequisite for righteousness („Beschneidung nicht unumgängliche Voraussetzung der Rechtfertigung ist“).118 In addition and in thoughts that echo those of Aquinas, Käsemann remarked that trust should not be placed in the sign but rather in the reality119 („Man darf sich nicht auf ein Zeichen verlassen“).120 Like Bultmann, Käsemann associated circumcision with its practitioner and his life orientation. In the first place, Kässeman found that Paul argued that the Torah necessitated works. According to his interpretation of Paul, works of law fail on account of their association with personal achievement. He writes, Just because nomos is originally intended to be a witness to salvation, its interpretation as a summons to achievement is a Jewish misunderstanding. On the other hand the law actually reaches people only in this religious perversion, so that only Christian faith can give it back its character as promise by putting an end to pious achievement.121

In the second, works fail to provide righteousness because they do not produce the eschatological circumcision of the heart necessary to bring about the true Jew.122 Reminiscent of Bultmann’s turn to existentialism for explaining one’s situation in life, Käsemann writes that Paul understood the law as worldly and contingent, making it incompatible with integration into a person’s essential being.123 III. Circumcision as a work of law that does not bring about salvation The majority of modern interpreters who succeed Rudolf Bultmann and Ernst Käsemann are influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by the contrast between works of law and faith made prominent both by them and by the writings of Luther. Several modern interpreters label circumcision as a work of law, one that was intended to save Jews but does not. According to these commentators, Paul believed that all, Jew and Gentile alike, were to be saved Jewish view that “only physical circumcision mediates salvation both in this world and in the next.” Rudolph Meyer, “περιτέμνω, περιτομή, ἀπερίτμητος,” TDNT 6:72–84. 117 Ernst Käsemann, An die Römer (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1973), 68. 118 Käsemann, An die Römer, 107. 119 Käsemann, An die Römer, 116. 120 Käsemann, An die Römer, 109. 121 Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980), 93–94. „Gerade weil der Nomos in seiner ursprünglichen Intention als Heilszeuge gilt, ist seine Interpretation als Aufruf zur Leistung ein jüdisches Mißverständnis. Umgekehrt begegnet das Gesetz faktisch dem Menschen nur in dieser religiösen Perversion, so daß erst christlicher Glaube ihm den Charakter der Verheißung zurückgibt, indem er der frommen Leistung ein Ende setzt.“ Käsemann, An die Römer, 87. 122 Käsemann, An die Römer, 72–73. 123 Käsemann, An die Römer, 72.

B. Modern Interpreters of Circumcision

147

by faith in Christ and not by the Jewish law.124 Circumcision was the requirement for salvation made by Paul’s opponents in Galatia,125 but with the advent of Christ, Paul is of the belief that Jewish concepts have lost their meaning; salvation is to be grounded only in Christ.126 Paul, having the “future eschaton” in mind, opposes the circumcision of Gentiles because it makes righteousness dependent upon works of law rather than upon faith in the “faithfulness of Jesus Christ.”127 IV. Circumcision as an indication of achievement and boasting This interpretation of circumcision, like the previous one, concerns the practitioner of the rite more than the practice itself. Interpreters that espouse this line of thought voice the following. “For Paul, having oneself be circumcised is an attempt to achieve righteousness through the law (v. [5:] 4). . . .righteousness belongs to faith alone (v. [5:] 5).”128 “He who submits to circumcision as a legal requirement, necessary for salvation, accepts thereby the principle of salvation by law-keeping, and salvation by law-keeping implies salvation by keeping the whole law.”129 “Circumcision involves doing the Law, but doing the Law does not bring life. What is needed is an alternate principle of salvation, Christ, through whom the Law can be fulfilled (Gal 5:14).”130 The scandal (σκάνδαλον) of the cross, as one interpreter writes, is that it pulls the rug out from “personal achievement or merit” with regard to God’s salvation. By contrast, circumcision is understood to bolster selfesteem.131 Taking a slightly different approach, another commentator understands Paul to claim that works of law (i.e., circumcision and other ritual 124

E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1983), 27, 29, 68, 178, 95, 99. See also Andreas Blaschke who writes, „Weil der Christus notwendig sterben mußte, muß sein Tod zur Rechtfertigung hinreichend sein, kann das Gesetz nicht zur Gerechtigkeit führen, müssen Juden wie Heiden Sünder sein.“ Blaschke, Beschneidung, 395. (Italics are of Blaschke.) 125 Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 31, 259. 126 Betz, Galatians, 262. According to Betz, “religious symbols and practice make sense only if they correspond to and are integrated with the doctrinal presuppositions of a particular religion.” Ibid., 263. 127 Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 41 (Dallas: Word Books, Publisher, 1990), 226. 128 Dieter Lührmann, Galatians: A Continental Commentary, trans. O. C. Dean (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 96. 129 F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982), 230. 130 Frank J. Matera, Galatians, Sacra Pagina Series, vol. 9 (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1992), 189. 131 Bruce, Epistle to the Galatians, 238.

148

Chapter 5: A Brief History of the Interpretation of Circumcision

laws) cannot provide salvation because of human transgression.132 In other words, Paul maintains that all people, Gentiles and Jews, are inherently sinful, and thus incapable of fulfilling the law to the extent necessary for salvation.133 This latter view is grounded in Augustine’s understanding that humans are inherently sinful. V. Circumcision as a badge of distinction This next interpretation of circumcision regards both the rite itself as well as its practitioner. James Dunn, a proponent of the New Perspective on Paul, developed this well-known and influential view of Paul’s understanding of circumcision. According to Dunn, Paul contested circumcision not so much because it involved the attempt to earn salvation by performing works, but because it functioned as a badge of distinction about which a Jew boasted in his privileged relationship with God.134 “The typical Jewish sense of distinctiveness and privilege came to particular focus in the rite of circumcision.”135 Circumcision became “a means of Jewish ideological and nationalistic imperialism.”136 In this view, Paul wished to break down such a negative barrier between peoples.137 “Paul is primarily interested in the status of the Gentiles, in denying that those who are ‘of the law’ (Jews) are privileged, and in asserting that God righteouses in the present on the same basis as in the past.”138 For the reason of privilege, Paul sought to discontinue Jewish rites such as circumcision, the food laws and Sabbath observance so that all people could have equal access to God’s righteousness.139 Another proponent of the New Perspective writes that Paul desired to create a new people of God, a “third entity,” that is not Judaism but is instead based only on faith.140 132 “Human transgression is Paul’s explanation of why the law does not provide the life it promises.” Stephen Westerholm, Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1998), 156, 63. 133 “The law’s commandments are good (v.12), but the ‘weakness’ of the law is shown by the inability of ‘sinful flesh’ to meet its demands (8:3–4).” Westerholm, Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith, 161–62. (Citations in quotation refer to Rom 7:12 and 8:3–4.) 134 James D. G. Dunn, “Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law (Gal. 3.10–14),” in Jesus, Paul, and the Law (Louisville: Westminster-John Knox Press, 1990), 222–23. 135 James D. G. Dunn, “What Was the Issue between Paul and ‘Those of the Circumcision’?,” in Paulus und das antike Judentum, ed. Martin Hengel and Ulrich Heckel (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr 1991), 310. 136 James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 265. 137 Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 102–3. 138 Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 34. 139 Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 34. 140 Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 178. E. P. Sanders does not appear to consider the fact that his reasoning is circular. If Paul is against ethnic distinctions because unique ethnicity can tend toward the abuse of privilege and a restricted notion of salvation,

B. Modern Interpreters of Circumcision

149

VI. Circumcision as representative of an ineffectual religion or lifestyle Similarly, another group of modern scholars, who like these others makes a distinction between works of law and faith, assesses circumcision as representative of an ineffectual religion and/or lifestyle. This view resembles that of Rudolf Bultmann. One interpreter states, “Paul’s antithesis ‘by faith and not by works of the Law’ tells what faith is not: it is not a way of life that takes its direction from requirements of Torah such as being circumcised and avoiding certain foods. Positively, faith is a way determined by Christ.” People “stand justified” by Christ-faith and not by works of the law.141 According to another interpreter, circumcision represents the acceptance of Judaism understood to be something other than enlightened religion.142 The struggle between Paul and his opponents, writes another commentator, is really one between two concepts of religion: Paul favors a concept of “enlightened” religion, which is free from cultic and ritual requirements and observances, but is based upon the knowledge of the one true God; the opponents understand their religion as a cultic-ritualistic system of protection against the forces of evil.143 Yet another writes that circumcision entails the obligation to carry out all the commandments of the law (Gal 5:3), but this way of life is one of “bondage.” The religion to which circumcision appertains is characterized by religious differentiation (e.g., circumcision and foreskin) and enslavement.144 Or circumcision itself originates from the world of magic. The Maccabees defended this custom militarily and hence now circumcision conjures the image of the protection of a lifestyle through the shedding of blood.145 According to other commentators, circumcision entails a “nomistic” lifestyle. “Circumcision is not merely an entrance rite, it is a solemn commitment to a Jewish way of life which is characterized by nomistic service, i.e., doing the Law.”146 Nomistic service is simply keeping the law, and this is not life.147 The nomistic lifestyle is not conducive for Gentiles because it means attempting to become justified through works rather than through faith.148 how is it that he (Paul) would desire to have all the people of God form a new entity based only on faith? Is this not creating another unique category of people, based not on some physical sign like circumcision but on one particular doctrine? For another, can there be a person who lacks ethnic distinction? 141 Sam K. Williams, Galatians, ed. Victor P. Furnish, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997), 67, 75. (Italics are of Williams.) 142 Betz, Galatians, 258. 143 Betz, Galatians, 217. 144 J. Louis Martyn, Galatians, The Anchor Bible, vol. 33a (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 472–73. 145 Lührmann, Galatians, 96. 146 Matera, Galatians, 189. See also Longenecker, Galatians, 226. 147 Matera, Galatians, 189. 148 Longenecker, Galatians, 226.

150

Chapter 5: A Brief History of the Interpretation of Circumcision

VII. Circumcision as the sign of a Jew This understanding of circumcision differs from the others and is in large measure influenced by the writings of the twentieth-century New Testament scholar, former dean of Harvard Divinity School and Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm, Krister Stendahl (1921-2008). More so than many, if not most, New Testament exegetes, Stendhal’s interpretations fundamentally shifted the understanding of Paul,149 his mission and his view of the law. Stendahl attempted to break the Augustinian-Lutheran stranglehold on Paul. Writing in the mid-twentieth century, his perspective on Paul affects understandings of circumcision in three important ways. First, Stendahl begins with the assumption that Paul was primarily addressing Gentiles and not Jews.150 He goes so far as to say, “all the writings of the New Testament are directed to congregations containing Gentiles, . . .there is not a single writing of the New Testament which is not directed to a congregation which is primarily Gentile.”151 Second, he remarks that Paul never converted to another religion but rather that God called him on a mission to the Gentiles.152 And third, Stendahl comments that Paul himself had no problem obeying the commandments of the law.153 Paul was a proud Jew. Stendahl’s understanding of Paul’s estimation of circumcision and other aspects of the law is shorn of negative aspects. Paul was opposed to circumcision and other works of law only in so far as they concerned Gentiles. According to Stendahl, Paul argues against the notion that Gentiles must take up

149 As Stendhal himself remarks of his exegesis on Paul’s letters, “The original is there, and I have tried to point to it.” Krister Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 72. 150 Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles, 130–31, 1, 2, 15. 151 Krister Stendahl, “Paul among Jews and Gentiles,” in Paul among Jews and Gentiles: And Other Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 70. 152 As Krister Stendahl explains, Paul was called to a task of determining what happens to the law with the advent of the Messiah and what consequences ensue for Jewish and Gentile relations. “There is not – as we usually think – first a conversion, then a call to apostleship; there is only the call to work among the Gentiles.” Krister Stendahl, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” in Paul among Jews and Gentiles: And Other Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 84–85. 153 Stendahl, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” 80. For instance, Stendahl writes, “In Phil. 3 Paul speaks most fully about his life before his Christian calling, and there is no indication that he had had any difficulty in fulfilling the Law.” Stendahl seems to assume that after his call from God that Paul abandoned following the law. Recently, scholars such as Pamela Eisenbaum make explicit that Paul never ceased being a Jew. She writes, “There is no evidence that Paul’s Jewish identity is any less robust, or any less intact after his encounter with the risen Jesus than it was before.” Pamela Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle (New York: HarperOne, 2009), 142.

B. Modern Interpreters of Circumcision

151

circumcision and works of the law in order to participate in the promises of God. He writes, Paul had the very specific and limited purpose of defending the rights of Gentile converts to be full and genuine heirs to the promises of God to Israel. Their rights were based solely on faith in Jesus Christ. This was Paul’s very special stance, and he defended it zealously against any compromise that required circumcision or the keeping of kosher food laws by Gentile Christians.154

The implication, and one taken up by scholars who follow his line of thought, is that circumcision and Jewish practices would turn Gentiles into Jews. Yet, according to Stendahl, Gentiles were not opposed to this alternative. Gentiles would not have found the law burdensome. Circumcision and food laws were not “a barrier to Christianity but quite attractive to Gentiles.”155 For the first time, a prominent Pauline scholar locates Paul as a Jew and not in opposition to the law in and of itself. Paul was not dissatisfied with Judaism but instead proud of his heritage. Paul did not convert from Judaism to any other religion, rather God called him on a mission to preach his gospel to Gentiles. Paul rejected the notion that Gentiles needed to follow Jewish laws and become Jews in order to become part of the people of God. Scholars influenced by Stendahl treat circumcision as a neutral symbol signifying a Jew. In the case of a Gentile, circumcision means a conversion to Judaism. Pamela Eisenbaum, a former student of Stendahl, writes that circumcision “is what distinguishes a Jew from a Gentile.”156 She too maintains that Paul never left Judaism. According to her, the revelation of the resurrected Jesus and the apocalyptic perspective Paul adopted meant that Gentiles had no need to convert to Judaism and adopt Jewish practices along with circumcision.157 Mark Nanos,158 a strong advocate of this general assessment of Paul,159 remarks that circumcision is what defines a Jew160 and differentiates him from 154

Stendahl, “Paul among Jews and Gentiles,” 2. Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles, 70. 156 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 97. 157 Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 171. 158 Mark Nanos, The Mystery of Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), Mark Nanos, The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002). For a more extensive list of his work see Mark D. Nanos, “Website of Mark D. Nanos,” http://www.marknanos.com/. 159 Mark Nanos, “What Was at Stake in Peter’s ‘Eating with Gentiles’ at Antioch?,” in The Galatians Debate, ed. Mark Nanos (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishing, Inc., 2002), 282–318, Mark D. Nanos, “Paul’s Reversal of Jews Calling Gentiles ‘Dogs’ (Philippians 3:2): 1600 Years of an Ideological Tale Wagging an Exegetical Dog?,” Biblical Interpretation 17 (2009): 448–82, Mark D. Nanos, “Paul and Judaism: Why Not Paul’s Judaism?,” in Paul Unbound: Other Perspectives on the Apostle, ed. Mark Given (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2009), 117–60. 155

152

Chapter 5: A Brief History of the Interpretation of Circumcision

other Gentiles.161 According to Nanos, during the time of Paul and for Paul himself, circumcision became “the symbol of Jewish identity sine qua non, even employed as a technical term: to be circumcised was to be a Jew, whereas to be uncircumcised was to be a non-Jew.”162 Nanos also defines circumcision as far as it pertains to Gentiles. He writes, Circumcision symbolizes, albeit oversimplified and over individualistically set out, the completion of this rite of passage – along with, for example, ritual washing and declaration of completion by the initiate and initiator(s), and prayer and thanksgiving. Together, these actions signal the final actions of the transition process that takes place when a non-Jewish person passes from being regarded as a pagan to a liminal proselyte candidate to a proselyte (Jew).163

Nanos further explains that circumcision “symbolizes a public social act of transfer for a non-Jewish person into the Jewish community and thus places him in subordination to its norms.”164 Paul opposed circumcision for Gentiles because the resurrection of Jesus Christ signified that Gentiles are included as heirs to Abraham “by way of Christ.”165 The new age has dawned, meaning that Gentiles are to become children of Abraham without proselyte conversion.166 Nanos remarks, the One God of Israel is now calling the Jews (as Jews) and the nations (as nations).167 In the same vein, George Howard comments that a requirement of circumcision for Gentiles, effectively making them Jews, would compromise the universal nature of God.168 Similarly, 160

See George Howard, Paul: Crisis in Galatia, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), xxi, 78–79, Lloyd Gaston, Paul and the Torah (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987), 28, John G. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 206. 161 Nanos, Irony of Galatians, 89, Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 97. 162 Nanos, Irony of Galatians, 89. 163 Nanos, Irony of Galatians, 88–89. 164 Nanos, Irony of Galatians, 95. Similarly, George Howard writes that the law of Moses, which includes circumcision and special holy days and dietary laws, pertains to Jews. Circumcision is part of what defined Israel socially. Howard, Paul: Crisis in Galatia, xxvii. 165 Nanos, Irony of Galatians, 198, 12, 58, 82, 87, 204–5, 317. 166 Nanos, Irony of Galatians, 12, 58, 82, 87, 204–5, 317. See John Gager who writes that Paul preached that in Christ Gentiles “had obtained equal rights with Jews as members of the covenantal people of God.” Gager, Origins of Anti-Semitism, 211. See also Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 223. 167 Nanos, Irony of Galatians, 291. See also Howard, Paul: Crisis in Galatia, xxi, xvii, 78. George Howard comments, Paul requires a clearly defined Israel to which Gentiles are to be added. Howard, Paul: Crisis in Galatia, xxvi. 168 Howard, Paul: Crisis in Galatia, 78. Stanley Stowers writes, “If God really is the impartial God of all not just of the Jews, he will use the heroic faithfulness of chosen individuals to bring about good for Gentiles just as he did for Jews.” Stanley Kent Stowers, A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews and Gentiles (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1994), 38.

Conclusions

153

Caroline Johnson Hodge writes that Paul uses the language of kinship and ethnicity “to construct a myth of origins for Gentile followers of Christ.”169 According to her, Paul creates a new line of descendent through Abraham thereby making Gentiles coheirs with the Jews so that they may be “made righteous before the God of Israel.” While both Jews and Gentiles share Abraham as a common ancestor, Paul maintains a distinction between the two groups.170 According to Hodge, circumcision is a “ritual of fertility” that “marks male Jews as recipients of their God’s promises and blessings.”171

Conclusions Conclusions In sum, Justin began a pattern of dichotomous thinking with regard to circumcision that has endured to the present time. He divided the conceptual world into the circumcised and foreskinned. The former, he labeled fleshly, the latter, spiritual. According to him, there were no benefits to physical circumcision and indeed, it invoked God’s wrath. Justin also set in motion a strong association between circumcision and salvation, the dominant lens for the interpretation of physical circumcision down through the present time. According to him, although Jews believed it to be so, circumcision was not necessary for salvation. Finally, Justin, as influenced by Paul, strengthened circumcision’s identification as a sign. However, unlike Paul, Justin assessed physical circumcision as a sign of suffering and as merely a sign. Understanding circumcision as a sign (Gen 17:11, Rom 4:11) provided a means by which interpreters could valorize the symbolic meaning of this rite over its significance as a physical rite. Thus, Augustine interpreted circumcision as a sign of faith in Christ. The circumcised Patriarchs of the Hebrew bible were saved not on account of their circumcision, but because their circumcision was the sign of their faith in Christ. Up through the time of Aquinas and beyond, theologians debated the effectiveness of the rite of circumcision to save a person. Aquinas offered the quasi-scientific theory that as a sign of a future event, circumcision in and of itself was never as effective to save a person as baptism. Martin Luther shifted the dominant understanding of circumcision from its interpretation as a rite to its association with its practitioners. According to Luther, the circumcised person tried to justify himself without the aid of God’s grace. In doing so, he boasted in his accomplishments and led a life in opposition to the will of God. 169

Caroline E. Johnson Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 5. 170 Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs, 5. 171 Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs, 63.

154

Chapter 5: A Brief History of the Interpretation of Circumcision

Luther’s understanding of circumcision is carried forward in the writings of many prominent exegetes of the twentieth century and beyond. Combining Lutheran and existential thought, the influential New Testament scholar Rudolph Bultmann concluded that a person who engaged in circumcision was representative of a worker of law who lived an inauthentic existence; he boasted in his achievement in trying to fulfill the law. The majority of modern exegetes continue the dichotomous thinking begun with Justin. They either oppose circumcision with faith and remark as Justin did that circumcision is unnecessary for salvation, or they associate it with a particular attitude, lifestyle or religion that is now either passé, nonsalvific or exclusive. Only within the last several decades have scholars begun to assess circumcision in distinction from the influence of Justin, Augustine, and Luther, as a neutral rite, as the sign of a Jew.

Conclusion Conclusion The evidence from our primary sources dating from the second century BCE up through the first century CE reveals that the meaning of circumcision, in either its literal, metaphoric, metonymic or allegorical form is malleable. Its meaning is always contingent and based on its context. The history of the interpretation of circumcision demonstrates that distortions in the meaning of circumcision occur as secondary interpreters remove statements from their context and then modify them to suit their own purposes. As shown, Justin creatively employed several of Paul’s statements on circumcision, so that the rite became identified as fleshly sign ineffectual for salvation. From Justin’s time to the present, exegetes have faithfully advanced the interpretations of their predecessors rather than those of the ancient authors themselves. These limited and distorted understandings of circumcision contribute in turn to a grossly inadequate understanding of ancient Judaism and its complexity. As my findings indicate, ancient authors such as the writers of the books of the Maccabees, the book of Jubilees, Josephus, Philo and Paul were not limited by preconceived notions of circumcision; to the contrary, they creatively and freely attributed various meanings to circumcision to suit their specific purposes. One can speak of constancy in the meaning of the rite of circumcision only in a very limited way, one that pertains to the physical practice itself. Howard Eilberg-Schwartz, for example, offers a “primal” meaning of circumcision, one that operates on a subconscious level and whereby it is associated with issues involving male fertility. Indeed, upon close observation one can see instances across the writings of the ancient authors that involve this meaning of circumcision. In the first place, several ancient authors allude to a connection between circumcision and castration. Philo’s argument for the benefit of circumcision for fertility suggests that he was combating the misconception that circumcision was synonymous with castration (Spec. 1.1-11). And Paul makes an explicit association between circumcision and genital mutilation (Gal 5:12, Phil 3:2). In the second place, the connection between circumcision and fertility surfaces within the writings of both Philo and Paul. Philo treats this issue directly in two of his treatises (Spec. 1.6-7, QG 3.48). By using the name Abraham rather than Abram, Paul emphasizes the patriarch’s role as the father of a multitude (Rom 4:9-12). Furthermore, there was the social, exter-

156

Conclusion

nal and ancient misconception that circumcision was a form of castration. Hadrian’s (117–138 CE) ban on castration, for example, was interpreted to apply equally to circumcision. However, apart from this subconscious level of meaning, the various references to circumcision, the explanations of its benefits and the meanings ancients ascribe to it are constructed, contingent, and variable. In 1 Maccabees, in which the author seeks to justify military intervention to enforce or reinforce Jewish customs, the mark of circumcision signifies allegiance to Hasmonean rule. On the other hand, in the book of Jubilees, a text that claims to be divinely inspired Scripture, the mark of circumcision, while considered to be just as much a physical necessity as it is in 1 Maccabees, loses its political ascriptions and gains instead theological ones. In the book of Jubilees circumcision is best defined as a mark of religious identity that identifies one as a “son of the covenant.” In both 2 and 4 Maccabees the meaning of the mark circumcision is determined in large measure by the martyrdom narratives of the mother and her seven sons that occupy a central and dominant presence in those books. In 2 Maccabees, a text that attests to God’s strength and involvement in the world, the meaning of the mark circumcision is one of pious sacrifice. Women sacrifice their lives for their nation and their God. While bearing the name “Maccabees,” 4 Maccabees stems from a much later period and takes a different perspective on the central martyrdom narrative. This work attests to both God’s strength and human agency in human affairs. The author of this work portrays the martyrs as more intelligent than their oppressors. In sacrificing their lives for upholding their beliefs, the martyrs demonstrate not just piety but also reason. The mark of circumcision, in turn and as conditioned by this text, represents one who demonstrates pious reason over the passions. Contingency and variability characterize the meaning of circumcision in the works of Josephus, Philo and Paul. In Josephus’ fanciful narrative of the conversion of King Izates to Judaism, circumcision becomes the definitive sign of his true commitment to the faith. Once King Izates commits to becoming circumcised, he finds not only peace of mind but also God’s help for his nation. Philo treats circumcision in greater detail three times within his copious writings, and each time its meaning varies. In De specialibus legibus 1 Philo is concerned to justify the physical practice of circumcision against the charge of ridicule. In this treatise, he provides an array of practical benefits for the practice, those that would be attractive even to circumcision’s harsher critics. Here, the physical practice of circumcision attains its highest status among all of Philo’s treatments, as that which promotes health, life, and well-being. In Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3, a commentary on sections of the book of Genesis, there is no indication that Philo is combating ridicule this

Conclusion

157

practice has engendered. Here, the physical or bodily advantages of the practice take a back seat to spiritual ones. Without diminishing the importance of the practice itself, Philo emphasizes circumcision’s benefit for the mind. In this treatise circumcision is the mark that serves to draw the (male) mind closer to God. In De migratione Abrahami, Philo addresses the problem of the abandonment of the practice of circumcision among Jews. Sensing that certain Jews value the respect of other Jews, Philo explains that the practice of circumcision is a way in which Jews can garner this respect. Moreover, he claims that it is only through physical circumcision that a Jew can obtain spiritual insight, something these Jews also seek. In this treatise, circumcision is a mark that enables spiritual insight and the respect of fellow Jews. The meanings Paul assesses for circumcision are equally variable and dependent upon their context. In Galatians, Paul attempts to dissuade Gentiles within his community from becoming circumcised. Early in the letter, the hearer/reader learns that circumcised Jews, referred to as “those of the circumcision,” negatively influence Cephas to change his behavior. Here, circumcision is assessed metonymically as Jews who follow Jewish laws. This earlier discussion functions to cast a negative evaluation on circumcision itself. Later, Paul forcibly argues that the obligation of circumcision is unnecessary for Gentiles and will instead serve to move them from a state of freedom to slavery. According to Paul, Gentiles in the Anointed Jesus are already free; taking up the practice of circumcision will enslave them. In this section of the letter (Chapter five), the mark of circumcision confers a slave-like condition on Gentiles. In his letter to the Philippians, Paul reflects upon the advantages of being with the immortal Anointed Jesus. He would gladly suffer and die so as to gain immortal life and an association with the Anointed one. The meaning of circumcision coheres closely with this notion. Using the term “circumcision” again as a metonym, Paul assesses its meaning differently from that of Galatians 2:12. According to Paul, those called “the circumcision” worship God and trust in the Anointed, having no confidence in the flesh. Here, “the circumcision” are not earthly oriented but instead directed heavenward. Paul’s understanding of circumcision in First Corinthians is different again from his other letters. In this letter, his preoccupation is with the notion of the imminent end of time. According to Paul, those called to be members of the people of God are to experience the end of time in the not-too-distant future. Given this understanding of the world situation, the physical practice of circumcision is nothing. Those called to be with God and the Anointed are to remain in their present condition, circumcised or foreskinned. In Paul’s letter to the Romans there is little apparent external opposition to the rite of circumcision. In the passages that concern circumcision, Paul ad-

158

Conclusion

dresses issues pertaining to the relationship between Jews and Gentiles. More specifically, he seeks to demonstrate that circumcision is not a requirement for inclusion in the people of God. Indeed, Paul elucidates two ways in which foreskinned Gentiles can be considered people of God without undergoing circumcision (Rom 2:25-29, 4:9-12). In the first passage (Rom 2:25-29), by interpreting circumcision as a metaphor, Paul argues that circumcised Jews and foreskinned Gentiles are considered “circumcised” so long as they follow the statutes of the law. In Rom 4:9-12, Paul creates an allegorical interpretation for the mark of circumcision. As influenced by the Genesis text (17:11), Paul labels circumcision a sign. According to him, it is not the sign of the covenant, but instead a seal of the righteousness of faithfulness. With this meaning, Paul is attempting to convince his Gentile audience that the importance of Abraham’s circumcision was its association to his earlier act of faithfulness to God. The related notion “circumcision of the heart” functions in much the same way as the term “circumcision.” For example, in De specialibus legibus 1 in which both the circumcised organ and the heart serve a generative purpose: circumcision promotes physical life and the heart promotes thoughts (Spec. 1.6). In this treatise, the notion of a circumcised heart connotes a prolific mind. By contrast, in Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 3, “circumcision of the heart” is associated with a hard heart and refers to the need to curb rebellious thoughts and arrogance. Moreover, in Romans Paul refers to the notion of a circumcision of the heart in his argument with a fictitious Jewish teacher (Rom 2:17-29). In this passage, “circumcision of the heart” refers to obeying God’s statutes (Rom 2:26). Thus, in our primary sources from the second century BCE to the first century CE, circumcision is malleable. Its value lies in its currency as a term that resonates with a multiplicity of audiences in a multiplicity of senses.

Bibliography A. Primary Sources A. Primary Sources 4 Maccabees. Translated by H. Anderson. In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, edited by James H. Charlesworth, 531–64. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1985. Aquinas, Saint Thomas. Commentary on Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. Translated by F.R. Larcher O.P. Albany: Magi Books, Inc., 1966. –. St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologicæ. Latin Text and English Translation, Introduction, Notes, Appendices and Glossary. 61 vols. Cambridge: Blackfriars, 1964. Augustine, Saint. Augustine’s Commentary on Galatians. Translated by Eric Plumer. Oxford Early Christian Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Bralé, M. l’Abbé, ed. Commentaires de S. Thomas D’Aquin sur toutes les Épitres de S. Paul, vol. 1. Paris: Louis Vivès, Libraire-Éditeur, 1869. Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. Translated by Rev. John Owen. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1959. Calvini, Iohannis. Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. Studies in the History of Christian Thought. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981. Cyprian of Carthage, St. The Letters of St. Cyprian of Carthage, vol. 3. Translated by G.W. Clarke. Ancient Christian Writers, vol. 46. New York: Newman Press, 1986. Diodorus. History. Translated by C. H. Oldfather, Charles L. Sherman, Charles B. Wells, Russell M. Geer, and Francis R. Walton. 12 vols. The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961. Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History, Books 1–5. Translated by Roy J. Deferrari. The Fathers of the Church, vol 19. New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1953. Herodotus. History. Translated by A. D. Godley. 4 vols. The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960. Irenaeus, St. Against the Heresies. Translated by Dominic J. Unger and John Dillon. Ancient Christian Writers, vol . 55. New York: Paulist Press, 1992. –. Proof of the Apostolic Preaching. Translated by Joseph P. Smith. Ancient Christian Writers, vol 16. Westminster, Md.: The New Press, 1952. Josephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 vols. The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1926–1965. Jubilees. Translated by O.S. Wintermute. In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1985. Justin Martyr. Dialogue avec Tryphon. Translated by Philippe Bobichon. 2 vols. Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg, 2003. –. Dialogue with Trypho. Translated by Thomas B. Falls. The Fathers of the Church, vol. 3. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2003.

160

Bibliography

–. Iustini Martyris Dialogus cum Tryphone. Translated by Miroslav Marcovich. Patristische Texte und Studien, vol. 47. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997. –. St. Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies. Translated by Leslie William Barnard. Ancient Christian Writers, vol. 56. New York: Paulist Press, 1997. –. The Dialogue with Trypho. Translated by A. Lukyn Williams. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1930. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1899. Luther, Martin. Lectures on Galatians 1535: Chapters 1–4. Translated by Jaroslav Pelikan. Luther’s Works, vol. 26. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1963. –. Lectures on Galatians 1535: Chapters 5–6. Translated by Jaroslav Pelikan. Luther’s Works, vol. 27. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1964. –. Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 15–20. Translated by George V. Schick. Luther’s Works, vol. 3. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1961. –. De la Captivité Babylonienne de l’Église. ŒUVRES, vol. 2. Genève: Labor et Fides, 1966. –. Commentaire de L’Épître aux Romains (Tome 2) (Les Scolies, Chap. 3, 21 Jusqu’au Chap. 16). ŒUVRES, vol. 12. Genève: Labor et Fides, 1985. Mandonnet, Pierre Felix , and Maria Fabianus Moos, eds. S. Thomae Aquinatis Scriptum Super Libros Sententiarum Magistri Petri Lombardi Episcopi Parisiensis. Editio nova ed. 4 vols. Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1929–1947. Origen. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans Books 1–5. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. The Fathers of the Church, vol. 103. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2001. –. Contra Celsum. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Philo. Philonis Alexandrini Opera Quae Supersunt. 6 vols. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1896–1930. –. Translated by Abraham Terian et al. 36 vols. Les Œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1961–1992. –. Translated by F. H. Colson et al. 12 vols. The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1956–1962. Rotelle, John E., ed. The Works of Saint Augustine a Translation for the 21st Century. 20 vols. Brooklyn, N.Y.: New City Press, 1990–. Tacitus. The Histories and The Annals. Translated by Clifford H. Moore and John Jackson. 4 vols. The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962. Theophilus. Ad Autolycum. Translated by Robert M. Grant. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970.

B. Reference Works B. Reference Works Alexander, Patrick H., et al., eds. The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999. Alon, Gedaliah. The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age (70–640 C.E.). Translated by Gershon Levi. 2 vols. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1980. Armstrong, A. H., ed. The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Beard, Mary, John North, and Simon Price. Religions of Rome. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

B. Reference Works

161

Berkowitz, L., and K. A. Squitier, eds. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: Canon of Greek Authors and Works. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Borgen, Peder, Käre Fuglseth, and Roald Skarsten, eds. The Philo Index: A Complete Greek Word Index to the Writings of Philo of Alexandria. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2000. Cross, F. L., and E. A. Livingstone, eds. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2205. Freedman, David N., ed. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Hawthorne, G. F., and R. P. Martin, eds. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Juster, Jean. Les Juifs dans l’Empire Romain. 2 vols. New York: Burt Franklin, 1965. Kittel, G., ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott and Henry Stuart Jones, eds. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Martin, Rich, ed. Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World. 2 vols. Indianapolis: Macmillan, 2004. Meeks, Wayne A., ed. The HarperCollins Study Bible. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1993. Metzger, Bruce M., ed. The Oxford Annotated Apocrypha. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. Metzger, Bruce M., and Michael D. Coogan, eds. Oxford Companion to the Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Moulton, James Hope, and George Milligan. A Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1959. Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G. Wright, eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint and other Greek translations traditionally under that title. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979. Runia, David T. “An Index to Cohn-Wendland’s Apparatus Testimoniorum.” The Studia Philonica Annual 4 (1992): 87–96. –. “How to Search Philo.” The Studia Philonica Annual 2 (1992): 106–39. –. Philo of Alexandria: An Annotated Bibliography 1987–1996. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, vol. 57. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Schwertner, Siegfried. Internationales Abkürzungsverzeichnis für Theologie und Grenzgebiete. 2nd ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1992. Souter, Alexander. The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1927. Spicq, Ceslas. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. Translated and edited by James D. Ernest. 2nd ed. 3 vols. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996. Stern, Menahem. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism: From Herodotus to Plutarch, vol. 1. Jerusalem: Jerusalem Academic Press, 1974. Vermes, Geza, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman, eds. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135). 3 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Ltd., 1987.

162

Bibliography

C. Secondary Literature C. Secondary Literature Abel, F.-M., and Jean Starcky. Les Livres des Maccabées. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1961. Abusch, Ra’anan. “Circumcision and Castration under Roman Law in the Early Empire.” In The Covenant of Circumcision: New Perspectives on an Ancient Jewish Rite, edited by Elizabeth Wyner Mark, 75–86. Lebanon, N.H.: Brandeis University Press, 2003. Amir, Yehoshua. “Authority and Interpretation of Scripture in the Writings of Philo.” In Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by Martin Jan Mulder, 421–53. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. Applebaum, Shim’on. Jews and Greeks in Ancient Cyrene. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1979. Arias, Paolo Enrico, Max Hirmer, and Brian Shefton. A History of Greek Vase Painting. London: Thames and Hudson, 1962. Attridge, Harold W. “Historiography.” In Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, edited by Michael E. Stone, 157–84. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984. Bainton, Roland Herbert. Here I Stand: a life of Martin Luther. New York: AbingdonCokesbury Press, 1950. Bamberger, Bernard J. Proselytism in the Talmudic Period. N.Y.: Ktav Publishing house, inc., 1968. Bar-Kochva, Bezalel. Judas Maccabaeus: The Jewish Struggle Against the Seleucids. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Barclay, John M. G. Obeying the Truth: A study of Paul’s Ethics in Galatians. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988. –. “Paul and Philo on Circumcision: Romans 2:25–29 in Social and Cultural Context.” New Testament Studies 44 (1998): 536–56. Barnard, Leslie William. Justin Martyr: His Life and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Barrett, C.K. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1957. Bauer, Walter. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Philadephia: Fortress Press, 1971. Berchman, Robert M. “The Categories of Being in Middle Platonism: Philo, Clement, and Origen of Alexandria.” In The School of Moses: Studies in Philo and Hellenistic Religion, edited by John Peter Kenney, 98–140. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Berkley, Timothy W. From a Broken Covenant to Circumcision of the Heart: Pauline Intertextual Exegesis in Romans 2:17–29. Society of Biblical Literature: Dissertation Series. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. Berquist, Jon. Controlling Corporality: The Body and the Household in Ancient Israel. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2002. Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians. Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1979. Bickerman, Elias J. The God of the Maccabees: Studies on the Meaning and Origin of the Maccabean Revolt. Translated by Horst R. Moehring. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1979. –. The Jews in the Greek Age. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988. Biesecker, Barbara A. “Rethinking the Rhetorical Situation from within the Thematic of Différance.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 22, no. 2 (1989): 110–30. Birnbaum, Ellen. “Allegorical Interpretation and Jewish Identity among Alexandrian Jewish Writers.” In Neotestamentica et Philonica: Studies in Honor of Peder Borgen, edited by

C. Secondary Literature

163

David E. Aune, Torrey Seland and Jarl Henning Ulrichsen
 307–29. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2003. –. The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought: Israel, Jews, and Proselytes. Studia Philonica Monographs, vol. 290. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Bitzer, Lloyd F. “The Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 1, no. 1 (1968): 1–14. Blaschke, Andreas. Beschneidung: Zeugnisse der Bibel und verwandter Texte, Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter. Tübingen: A. Francke, 1998. Bloomquist, L. Gregory. The Function of Suffering in Philippians. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 78. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Borgeaud, Philippe. Mother of the Gods: From Cybele to the Virgin Mary. Translated by Lysa Hochroth. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1996. Borgen, Peder. “Observations on the Theme ‘Paul and Philo.’ Paul’s preaching of circumcision in Galatia (Gal. 5:11) and debates on circumcision in Philo.” In Die Paulinische Literatur und Theologie, edited by Sigfred Pedersen, 85–102. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980. –. Paul Preaches Circumcision and Pleases Men and Other Essays on Christian Origins. Dragvoll-Trondheim: TAPIR, 1983. –. Philo, John and Paul: New Perspectives on Judaism and Early Christianity. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. –. “Philo of Alexandria.” In Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, edited by Michael E. Stone, 233–82. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. Borgen, Peder, and Roald Skarsten. “Quaestiones et Solutiones: Some Observations on the Form of Philo’s Exegesis.” Studia Philonica 4 (1976–1977): 1–15. Bornkamm, Günther. “Der Römerbrief als Testament des Paulus.” In Geschichte und Glaube, 120–39. Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1971. –. Paul. Translated by M. G. Stalker. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1969. Boyarin, Daniel. A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. –. Border Lines. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. –. Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. –. “Justin Martyr Invents Judaism.” Church History 70, no. 3 (2001): 427–61. Branham, R. Bracht, and Marie-Odile Goulet-Cazé, eds. The Cynics: The Cynic Movement in Antiquity and Its Legacy. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Brecht, Martin. Martin Luther, vols. 1–3. Translated by James L. Schaaf. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1985–1993. Bréhier, Émile. Les Idées Philosophiques et Religieuses de Philon d’Alexandrie. 2nd ed. Études de Philosophie Médiévale, vol. 8. Paris: Librarie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1925. Bréhier, Émile, and M. Massebieau. “Essai sur la Chronologie de la vie et des œuvres de Philon.” Revue de l’histoire des religions 53 (1906): 1–83. Brown, Peter. Augustine of Hippo. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. –. The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988. Bruce, F. F. Philippians. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1989. –. The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982.

164

Bibliography

Bryk, Felix. Circumcision in Man and Woman: Its History, Psychology and Ethnology. Translated by M.A. David Berger. New York: American Ethnological Press, 1934. Buell, Denise Kimber. “Ethnicity and Religion in Mediterranean Antiquity and Beyond.” Religious Studies Review 26, no. 3 (2000): 243–49. Bultmann, Rudolf Karl. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1984. –. Theology of the New Testament. Translated by Kendrick Grobel. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1958. Bynum, Caroline Walker. The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity, 200–1336. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995. Byrne, Brendan S. J. Romans. Sacra Pagina Series, vol 6. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1996. Carrington, Philip. Christian Apologetics of the Second Century. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1921. Castelli, Elizabeth. “‘I will Make Mary Male’: Pieties of the Body and Gender Transformation of Christian Women in Late Antiquity.” In Body Guards, edited by Julia Epstein and Kristina Straub, 29–49. New York: Routledge, 1991. Cazeaux, Jacques. “Nul N’est Prophète en son Pays.” In The School of Moses: Studies in Philo and Hellenistic Religion, edited by John Peter Kenney, 41–81. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Cerfaux, Lucien. “Abraham, Père en Circoncision.” In Recueil Lucien Cerfaux, vol. 2, edited by Lucien Cerfaux, 333–38. Gembloux: Éditions J. Duculot, S.A., 1954. Chadwick, Henry. Augustine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. –. “Justin Martyr’s Defence of Christianity.” Bulletin of The John Rylands Library 47 (1964– 1965): 275–97. Charles, R. H. The Book of Jubilees or Little Genesis: Translated from the editor’s Ethiopic text. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1917. Clark, John R. “Look Who’s Laughing at Sex.” In The Roman Gaze: Vision, Power and the Body, edited by David Fredrick, 149–81. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 2002. Clay, Diskin. Lucretius and Epicurus. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983. Cohen, Jeremy. Living Letters of the Law. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. Cohen, Shaye J. D. “A Brief History of Jewish Circumcision Blood.” In The Covenant of Circumcision, edited by Elizabeth Wyner Mark, 30–42. Hanover: Brandeis University Press, 2003. –. Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. –. “Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew.” Harvard Theological Review 82, no. 1 (1989): 13–33. –. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1987. –. Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979. –. “Judaism at the Time of Jesus.” In Jews and Christians speak of Jesus, edited by Arthur E. Zannoni, 3–12. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994. –. “Respect for Judaism by Gentiles According to Josephus.” Harvard Theological Review 80, no. 4 (1987): 409–30. –. “The Jewish Revolt and the Destruction of the Second Temple.” In Ancient Israel: A Short History from Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple, edited by Hershel Shanks. Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1988. –. “The Rabbinic Conversion Ceremony.” Journal of Jewish Studies 41 (1990): 177–203.

C. Secondary Literature

165

–. “Was Timothy Jewish (Acts 16:1–3)? Patristic Exegesis, Rabbinic Law, and Matrilineal Descent.” Journal of Biblical Literature 105, no. 2 (1986): 251–68. –. Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised?: Gender and Covenant in Judaism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. Colish, Marcia L. The Stoic Tradition From Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985. Collins, Adela Y. “Numerical Symbolism in Jewish and Early Christian Apocalytic Literature.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt 21.2 (1984): 1221–87. Collins, John J. “A Symbol of Otherness: Circumcision and Salvation in the First Century.” In To See Ourselves as Others See Us, edited by Jacob Neusner and Ernest S. Frerichs, 163–86. Chico: Scholars Press, 1985. –. Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in Hellenistic Diaspora. 2nd ed. Livonia, Mich.: Dove Booksellers, 2000. –. Seers, Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, Inc., 2001. Conzelmann, Hans. 1 Corinthians. Translated by James W. Leitch. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975. Cordier, Pierre. “Les Romains et la Circoncision.” Revue des Etudes Juives 160, no. 3–4 (2001): 337–55. Cosgrove, Charles. “Justin Martyr and the Emerging Christian Canon.” Vigiliae Christianae 36 (1982): 209–32. Cranfield, C. E. B. Romans: A Shorter Commentary. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985. Crossan, John Dominic, and Jonathan L. Reed. In Search of Paul: How Jesus’s Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom. New York: HarperCollins, 2004. Dancy, J. C. A Commentary on I Maccabees. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1954. Daniel, Suzanne. “La Halacha de Philon selon le premier livre des Lois Spéciales.” In Philon D’Alexandrie, edited by R. Arnaldez, 221–41. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1966. Daniélou, Jean. “Circoncision et baptême.” In Theologie in Geschichte und Gegenwart, edited by J. Auer and H. Volk, 755–76. Munich: Karl Zink, 1957. –. Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture. Translated by John Austin Baker. Vol. 2, A History of Early Christian Doctrine Before the Council of Nicaea. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1973. –. Philon d’Alexandrie. Paris: Librairie Arthème Fayard, 1958. –. The Theology of Jewish Christianity. Translated by John A. Baker. Vol. 1, The Development of Christian Doctrine Before the Council of Nicaea. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1964. Davenport, Gene L. The Eschatology of the Book of Jubilees. Studia Post-Biblica, edited by J. C. H. Lebrahm. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971. Dawson, David. “Plato’s Soul and the Body of the Text in Philo and Origen.” In Interpretation and Allegory, edited by Jon Whitman, 89–107. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Deming, Will. “Paul and Indifferent Things.” In Paul in the Greco-Roman World, edited by J. Paul Sampley, 384–403. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2003. deSilva, David A. 4 Maccabees: Introduction and Commentary on the Greek Text in Codex Sinaiticus. Septuagint Commentary Series, edited by Stanley E. Porter, Richard S. Hess and John Jarick. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Doran, Robert. Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 12, edited by Bruce Vawter. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981.

166

Bibliography

Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2002. Dunn, James D. G. A Commentary on The Epistle to the Galatians. Black’s New Testament Commentaries, edited by Henry Chadwick. London: A & C Black, 1993. –. “Did Paul have a Covenant Theology? Reflection on Romans 9.4 and 11.27.” In Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C. R. De Roo, 287–307. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2003. –. “Echoes of Intra-Jewish Polemic in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.” Journal of Biblical Literature 112 (1993): 459–77. –. “How Controversial was Paul’s Christology?” In From Jesus to John, edited by Marinus de Jonge and Martinus C. de Boer, 148–67. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. –. Jesus, Paul, and the Law. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990. –. New Perspective on Paul: collected essays. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. –. “Noch Einmal ‘Works of the Law’: the Dialogue Continues.” In Fair Play, edited by Heikki Räisänen, Ismo Dunderberg, C M Tuckett, and Kari Syreeni, 273–90. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2002. –. “Once More ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ.” In Pauline Theology Volume IV, edited by E. Elizabeth Johnson, 61–81. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. –. “Paul: Apostate or Apostle of Israel?” Zeitschrift für Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 89, no. 3–4 (1998): 256–71. –. “Pauline Christology: Shaping the Fundamental Structures.” In Christology in Dialogue, 96–107. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1993. –. “Prolegomena to a Theology of Paul.” New Testament Studies 40 (1994): 407–32. –. Romans 1–8. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 38, edited by David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker. Dallas: Word Books, 1988. –. Romans 9–16. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 39, edited by David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker. Dallas: Word Books, 1988. –. “The Justice of God: a Renewed Perspective on Justification by Faith.” Journal of Theological Studies 43 (1992): 1–22. –. “The Pauline Letters.” In Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation, 276–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. –. “The Question of Anti-Semitism in the New Testament.” In Jews and Christians: The Partings of the Ways A.D. 70 to 135, edited by James D. G. Dunn, 177–211. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992. –. “The Status and Contribution of Paul.” In Future of Jewish-Christian Dialogue, 169–82. Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1999. –. “The Theology of Galatians.” SBL Seminar Papers 27 (1988): 1–16. –. The Theology of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. –. “What was the Issue between Paul and ‘Those of the Circumcision’?” In Paulus und das antike Judentum, edited by Martin Hengel and Ulrich Heckel, 295–317. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr 1991. –. “Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law (Gal. 3.10–14).” In Jesus, Paul, and the Law, 215–41. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990. –, ed. Jews and Christians: The Partings of the Ways A.D. 70 to 135 Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1992. –, ed. Paul and the Mosaic Law. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 89. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1996. –, ed. The Partings of the Ways between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity. London: SCM Press, 1991.

C. Secondary Literature

167

Eckert, Jost. Die urchristliche Verkündigung im Streit zwischen Paulus und seinen Gegnern nach dem Galaterbrief. Regensburg: Pustet, 1971. Edwards, Mark, Martin Goodman, Simon Price, and Christopher Rowland. “Introduction: Apologetics in the Roman World.” In Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews, and Christians, edited by Mark Edwards, Martin Goodman and Simon Price, 1–13. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Eilberg-Schwartz, Howard. The Savage in Judaism: An Anthropology of Israelite Religion and Ancient Judaism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990. Eisenbaum, Pamela. “Is Paul the Father of Misogyny and Antisemitism?” Cross Currents 50, no. 4 (2000–2001): 506–24. –. Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle. New York: HarperOne, 2009. Elliott, Susan M. “Choose Your Mother, Choose Your Master: Galatians 4:21–5:1 in the Shadow of the Anatolian Mother of the Gods.” Journal of Biblical Literature 118, no. 4 (1999): 661–83. –. Cutting too Close for Comfort: Paul’s Letter to the Galatians in its Anatolian Cultic Context. London: T & T Clark International, 2003. Ellis, E. Earle. “Paul and His Opponents: Trends in Research.” In Christianity, Judaism, and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975. Elon, Menachem. Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles. Translated by Bernard Auerbach and Melvin J. Sykes. 4 vols. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1994. Elsner, Jas. Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph: The Art of the Roman Empire AD 100– 450. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Endres, John C. Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series, vol. 18, edited by Robert J. Karris. Washington D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1987. Eshel, Hanan. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008. Étaix, Raymond. “Sermon Inédit de Saint Augustin sur la Circoncision dans un ancien manuscrit de Saragosse.” Revue des Études Augustiniennes 26, no. 1–2 (1980): 62–87. Fee, Gordon D. Philippians. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, edited by Grant R. Osborne. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999. –. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995. Feldman, Louis H. Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. –. “The Omnipresence of the God-Fearers.” Biblical Archaeology Review 12, no. 5 (1986): 58–63. Ferguson, Everett. “Spiritual Circumcision in Early Christianity.” Scottish Journal of Theology 41 (1988): 485–97. Fine, Steven. This Holy Place: On the Sanctity of the Synagogue during the Greco-Roman Period. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans. The Anchor Bible, vol. 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality. Vol. 3, The Care of Self. Translated by Robert Hurley. New York: Vintage Books, 1986. –. The History of Sexuality. Vol. 2, The Use of Pleasure. Translated by Robert Hurley. New York: Pantheon Books, 1985.

168

Bibliography

Fredriksen, Paula. Augustine and the Jews: A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism. New York: Doubleday, 2008. –. “Beyond the body/soul dichotomy: Augustine on Paul against the Manichees and the Pelagians.” Recherches Augustiniennes 23 (1988): 87–114. –. From Jesus to Christ. 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. –. “Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2.” In The Galatians Debate, edited by Mark Nanos, 235–60. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishing, Inc., 2002. –. “What ‘Parting of the Ways’?” In The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, edited by Adam H. Becker and Annette Yoshiko Reed, 35–63. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Gager, John G. Reinventing Paul. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. –. The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983. Galinsky, Karl. Augustan Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. Gaston, Lloyd. Paul and the Torah. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987. George, Timothy. Theology of the Reformers. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1988. Gilber, M. “Wisdom Literature.” In Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, edited by Michael E. Stone, 283–324. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984. Gilbert, Gary. “The Making of a Jew: ‘God-Fearer’ or Convert in the Story of Izates.” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 44, no. 3–4 (1991): 299–313. Glick, Leonard B. Abraham’s Heirs: Jews and Christians in Medieval Europe. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1999. –. Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Glock, C.Y., and R. Stark. Christian Beliefs and Anti-Semitism. New York: Harper & Row, 1969. Goldingay, John. “The Significance of Circumcision.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 88 (2000): 3–18. Goldstein, Jonathan. 1 Maccabees. Anchor Bible, vol. 41. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1984. Gollaher, David L. A History of the World’s Most Controversial Surgery. New York: Basic Books, 2000. Goodenough, Erwin R. An Introduction to Philo Judaeus. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962. –. By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1935. –. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988. –. “Philo’s Exposition of the Law and his De vita Mosis.” Harvard Theological Review 26 (1933): 109–25. –. The Jurisprudence of the Jewish Courts in Egypt. Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1968. –. The Theology of Justin Martyr. Jena: Walter Biedermann, 1923. Goodman, Martin. “Modeling the ‘Parting of the Ways’.” In The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, edited by Adam H. Becker and Annette Yoshiko Reed, 119–29. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Gordon, Pamela. “Some Unseen Monster: Rereading Lucretius on Sex.” In The Roman Gaze: Vision, Power and the Body, edited by David Fredrick, 86–109. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press, 2002. Grabbe, Lester L. Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian. Vol 2, The Roman Period. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.

C. Secondary Literature

169

Grant, Robert M. Greek Apologists of the Second Century. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1988. –. “The Decalogue in Early Christianity.” In Christian Life: Ethics, Morality, and Discipline in the Early Church, edited by Everett Ferguson, 1–17. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1993. Grmek, Mirko D. Diseases in the Ancient Greek World. Translated by Mireille Muellner and Leonard Muellner. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1989. Gruen, Erich S. Diaspora: Jews Amidst Greeks and Romans. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002. –. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Gundry, Robert H. Soma in Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1987. Gunther, John J. St. Paul’s Opponents and Their Backgrounds: A Study of Apocalyptic and Jewish Sectarian Teachings. Supplements Novum Testamentum. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973. Haberman, Bonna Devora. “Foreskin Sacrifice: Zipporah’s Ritual and the Bloody Bridegroom.” In The Covenant of Circumcision: New Perspectives on an Ancient Jewish Rite, edited by Elizabeth Wyner Mark, 18–29. Hanover: Brandeis University Press, 2003. Hadas, Moses. The Third and Fourth Book of the Maccabees. Translated by Moses Hadas. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1953. Halpern-Amaru, Betsy. The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Hamman, A. G. “Essai de chronologie de la vie et des œuvres de Justin.” Augustinianum 35 (1995): 231–39. Hardin, Justin K. Galatians and the Imperial Cult: A Critical Analysis of the First-Century Social Context of Paul’s Letter. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Harnack, Adolf. The Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, vol 1. Translated by James Moffatt. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904. Harrison, Verna E. F. “The Allegorization of Gender: Plato and Philo on Spiritual Childbearing.” In Asceticism, edited by Vincent L. Wimbush and Richard Valantasis, 520–34. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Hays, Richard B. “PISTIS AND PAULINE CHRISTOLOGY: What is at Stake?” In Pauline Theology Volume IV, edited by E. Elizabeth Johnson, 35–60. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. –. “PISTIS and Pauline Christology: What is at Stake?” SBL Seminar Papers (1991): 714–29. –. The Faith of Jesus Christ. Chico: Scholars Press, 1983. Hecht, Richard D. “The Exegetical Contexts of Philo’s Interpretation of Circumcision.” In Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel, edited by Fredrick E. Greenspahn, Earle Hilgert and Burton L. Mack, 51–79. Chico: Scholars Press, 1984. Heger, Paul. The Pluralistic Halakhah. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2003. Henderson, Jeffrey. The Masculate Muse: Obscene language in Attic Comedy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975. Hietanen, Mika. Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis. London: T&T Clark International, 2007. Hilgert, Earle. “Philo Judaeus et Alexandrinus: The State of the Problem.” In The School of Moses: Studies in Philo and Hellenistic Religion, edited by John Peter Kenney, 1–15. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995.

170

Bibliography

Himmelfarb, Martha. “‘He Was Renowned to the Ends of the Earth’ (1 Maccabees 3:9).” In Jewish Literatures and Cultures: Context and Intertext, edited by Anita Norich and Yaron Z. Elian, 77–97. Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2008. Hirmer, Max, and Paolo Enrico Arias. A History of Greek Vase Painting. Translated by B. B. Shefton. London: Thames and Hudson, 1962. Hodge, Caroline E. Johnson. If Sons, Then Heirs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Hodges, Frederick M. “The Ideal Prepuce in Ancient Greece and Rome: Male Genital Aesthetics and Their Relation to Lipodermos, Circumcision, Foreskin Restoration, and the Kynodesmê.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 75 (2001): 375–405. Hofer, Andrew. “The Old Man as Christ in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho.” Vigiliae Christianae 57, no. 1 (2003): 1–21. Hoffman, Lawrence A. Covenant of Blood: Circumcision and Gender in Rabbinic Judaism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996. Holladay, Carl R. “Paul’s Opponents in Philippians 3.” Restoration Quarterly 12 (1969): 77– 90. Hooker, Morna D. “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ.” New Testament Studies 35 (1989): 321–42. Horbury, William. “The Benediction of the Minim and Early Jewish-Christian Controversy.” Journal of Theological Studies, n.s. 33, no. 1 (1982): 19–61. Horner, Timothy J. Listening to Trypho: Justin Martyr’s Dialogue Reconsidered. Leuven: Peeters, 2001. Horsley, Richard A. 1 Corinthians. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998. –. Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1997. Howard, George. Paul: Crisis in Galatia. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. –. “On the ‘Faith of Christ’.” Harvard Theological Review 60 (1967): 459–65. Hyldahl, Niels. Philosophie und Christentum: Eine Interpretation der Einleitung zum Dialog Justins. Copenhagen: Prostant Apud Munksgaard, 1966. Ibita, Ma. Maricel S. “‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’: Paul’s usage of Gen 15,6 in Romans 4.” In The Letter to the Romans, edited by Udo Schnelle, 679–90. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2009. Inwood, Brad, and Pierluigi Donini. “Stoic Ethics.” In The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, edited by Keimpe Algra, Jonathan Barnes, Jaap Mansfeld and Malcolm Schofield, 675–738. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Inwood, Brad, and L. P. Gerson. Hellenistic Philosophy. Translated by Brad Inwood and L. P. Gerson. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1988. Jacobs, Andrew S. “Dialogical Differences: (De-)Judaizing Jesus’ Circumcision.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 15, no. 3 (2007): 291–335. Jaffee, Martin S. Early Judaism. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1997. –. Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE–400 CE. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Jewett, Robert. Romans: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. –. “Conflicting Movements in the Early Church as Reflected in Philippians.” Novem Testamentum 12 (1970): 362–90. –. “The Agitators and the Galatian Congregation.” New Testament Studies 17 (1971): 198– 212. John, Kaye. Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of Justin Martyr. London: J. G. & F. Rivington, 1836.

C. Secondary Literature

171

Johns, Catherine. Sex or Symbol: Erotic Images of Greece and Rome. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1982. Johnson, Luke Timothy. “Rom 3:21–26 and the Faith of Jesus.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44 (1982): 77–90. Kahl, Brigitte. Galatians Re-Imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010. Kampen, John. “The Books of the Maccabees and Sectarianism in Second Temple Judaism.” In The Books of the Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology: Papers of the Second International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 9–11 June, 2005, edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér, 11–30. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980. –. An Die Römer. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1973. Keeney, Donald Earl. “Paul’s Opponents in Acts in light of Gentile descriptions of Jews.” Ph.D. diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1987. Kennedy, George A. New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1984. Kimelman, Reuven. “Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity.” In Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. 2, edited by E. P. Sanders, A. I. Baumgarten and Alan Mendelson, 226–44. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981. King, Karen L. “The Body and Society in Philo and the Apocryphon of John.” In The School of Moses: Studies in Philo and Hellenistic Religion, edited by John Peter Kenney, 82–97. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Klijn, A. F. J. “Paul’s Opponents in Philippians iii.” Novem Testamentum 7, no. 1965 (1965): 278–284. Klijn, A. F. J. and G. J. Reinink. Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects. Supplements to Novum Testamentum, vol. 36. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973. Koester, Helmut. Introduction to the New Testament: History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age, vol. 1. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. –. “The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Fragment.” New Testament Studies 8 (1961– 1962): 317–32. Krueger, Derek. “The Bawdy and Society: The Shamelessness of Diogenes in Roman Imperial Culture.” In The Cynics: The Cynic Movement in Antiquity and Its Legacy, edited by R. Bracht Branham and Marie-Odile Goulet-Cazé, 222–39. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Kueny, Kathryn. “Abraham’s Test: Islamic Male Circumcision as Anti/Ante-Covenantal Practice.” In Bible and Qur’ān: Essays in Scriptural Intertextuality, edited by John C. Reeves, 161–82. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Kümmel, Werner Georg. Introduction to the New Testament. Translated by Howard Clark Kee. 17th ed. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1973. LaHurd, Carol Schersten. “The ‘Other’ in Biblical Perspective.” Currents in Theology and Mission 24, no. 5 (1997): 411–24. Lauer, S. “Eusebes logismos in 4 Macc.” The Journal of Jewish Studies 6, no. 3 (1955): 170– 71. Lawrence, A. W. Greek and Roman Sculpture. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1972. Le Déaut, Roger. “Le thème de la circoncision du coeur.” In Congress Volume, Vienna, 1980, edited by J.A. Emerton, 178–205. Leiden: Brill, 1980.

172

Bibliography

Lee, Margaret Ellen and Bernard Brandon Scott. Sound Mapping the New Testament. Salem: Polebridge Press, 2009. Leenhardt, Franz J. L’épître de Saint Paul aux Romains. Commentaire du Nouveau Testament, vol. 8. Genève: Labor et Fides, 1981. Lemke, Werner E. “Circumcision of the Heart: The Journey of a Biblical Metaphor.” In A God So Near, edited by Brent A. Strawn and Nancy R. Bowen, 299–319. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbauns, 2003. Levine, Lee I. Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence? Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1998. Lewis, Joseph. In the Name of Humanity! New York: Freethought Press, 1967. Lieu, Judith M. “Accusations of Jewish persecutions in early Christian sources, with particular reference to Justin Martyr and the Martyrdom of Polycarp.” In Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity, edited by Graham N. Stanton and Guy G. Stroumsa, 279–95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. –. “Circumcision, Women and Salvation.” New Testament Studies 40, no. 3 (1994): 358–70. –. Image and Reality: The Jews in the World of the Christians in the Second Century. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. –. Neither Jew Nor Greek?: Constructing Early Christianity. London: T & T Clark, 2002. Lightfoot, J. B. Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians. London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1913. Lignée, Hubert. “La Place du Livre des Jubilés et du Rouleau du Temple dans l’histoire du mouvement Essénien. Ces deux ouvrages ont-ils été écrits par le Maître de Justice?” Revue de Qumran 13, no. 49–52 (1988): 331–45. Linder, Amnon. The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation. Detroit: Wayne State University, 1987. Livesey, Nina E. “Theological Identity Making: Justin’s Use of Circumcision to Create Jews and Christians.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 18, no. 1 (2010): 51–79. Longenecker, Bruce W. “Pistis in Romans 3.25: Neglected Evidence for the ‘Faithfulness of Christ?’” New Testament Studies 39 (1993): 478–80. Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. Word Biblical Commentary, López Sojo, Dagoberto. Abraham, Padre De Todos Nosotros. Cahiers De La Revue Biblique, vol. 64. Paris: J. Gabalda, 2005. Luedemann, Gerd. Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity. Translated by M. Eugene Boring. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989. –. Paul Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology. Translated by F. Stanley Jones. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. Lührmann, Dieter. Galatians: A Continental Commentary. Translated by O. C. Dean. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992. Lullies, Reinhard and Max Hirmer. Greek Sculpture. Translated by Michael Bullock. London: Thames and Hudson, 1957. Mack, Burton L. “Moses on the Mountain Top: A Philonic View.” In The School of Moses: Studies in Philo and Hellenistic Religion, edited by John Peter Kenney, 16–28. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Magness, Jodi. The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002. Malina, Bruce J. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993. Malingrey, Anne-Marie. La Littérature Grecque Chrétienne. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1996.

C. Secondary Literature

173

Marcus, Joel. “The Circumcision and the Uncircumcision in Rome.” New Testament Studies 35, no. 1 (1989): 67–81. Mark, Elizabeth Wyner. “Wounds, Vows, Emanations: A Phallic Trope in the Patriarchal Narrative.” In The Covenant of Circumcision: New Perspectives on an Ancient Jewish Rite, edited by Elizabeth Wyner Mark, 3–17. Hanover: Brandeis University Press, 2003. Marshall, J. L. “Melchizedek in Hebrews, Philo and Justin Martyr.” Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Altchristlichen Literatur 126 (1982): 339–42. Martin, Dale B. The Corinthian Body. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. Martin, Thomas F. “Pauline Commentaries in Augustine’s Time.” In Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, edited by Allan D. Fitzgerald, 625–28. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999. Martin, Troy W. “The Covenant of Circumcision (Genesis 17:9–14) and the Situational Antithesis in Galatians 3:28.” Journal of Biblical Literature 122, no. 1 (2003): 111–25. Marty, Martin E. Martin Luther. New York: Viking Penguin, 2004. Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians. The Anchor Bible, vol. 33A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. –. Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997. Mason, Steve. “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 38 (2007): 457–512. Matera, Frank J. Galatians. Sacra Pagina Series, vol. 9. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1992. McEleney, Neil J. “Conversion, Circumcision and the Law.” New Testament Studies 20 (1974): 319–41. McGrath, Alister E. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Meeks, Wayne A. “Breaking Away: Three New Testament Pictures of Christianity’s Separation from the Jewish Communities.” In To See Ourselves as Others See Us, edited by Jacob Neusner and Ernest S. Frerichs, 93–115. Chico: Scholars Press, 1985. Mendelson, Alan. Philo’s Jewish Identity. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Metzger, Bruce. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987. Meyers, Eric M. “Ancient Synagogues: An Archaeological Introduction.” In Sacred Realm, edited by Steven Fine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Milgrom, Jacob. “The Concept of Impurity in Jubilees and the Temple Scroll.” Revue de Qumran 16, no. 61 (1993): 277–84. Millar, Fergus. The Roman Near East 31 BC–AD 337. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993. Miller, Edward L. “Is Galatians 3:28 the Great Egalitarian Text?” Expository Times 114, no. 1 (2002): 9–11. Mitchell, Margaret M. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993. Modrak, Deborah K.W. “Stoics, Epicureans, and Mental Content.” Apeiron 26 (1993): 97– 108. Moehring, Horst R. “Arithmology as an Exegetical Tool in the Writings of Philo of Alexandria.” In The School of Moses: Studies in Philo and Hellenistic Religion, edited by John Peter Kenney, 141–76. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Morris, Jenny. “The Jewish Philosopher Philo.” In The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.− A.D. 135), edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar and Martin Goodman, 809–89. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark LTD, 1987.

174

Bibliography

Munck, Johannes. Paul and the Salvation of Mankind. Richmond, Va.: John Knox Press, 1959. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. St. Paul’s Corinth: Texts and Archaeology. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1983. Murray, Michele. Playing a Jewish Game: Gentile Christian Judaizing in the First and Second Centuries CE. Studies in Christianity and Judaism. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2004. Murray, Margaret A. The Splendour that was Egypt: A General Survey of Egyptian Culture and Civilization. London: Sidgwick and Jackson Limited, 1954. Nanos, Mark D. “Paul and Judaism: Why Not Paul’s Judaism?” In Paul Unbound: Other Perspectives on the Apostle, edited by Mark Given, 117–60 Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2009. –. “Paul’s Reversal of Jews Calling Gentiles ‘Dogs’ (Philippians 3:2): 1600 Years of an Ideological Tale Wagging an Exegetical Dog?” Biblical Interpretation 17 (2009): 448–82. –. The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002. –. The Mystery of Romans. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. –. “What was at Stake in Peter’s ‘Eating with Gentiles’ at Antioch?” In The Galatians Debate, edited by Mark Nanos, 282–318. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishing, Inc., 2002. Neubrand, Maria. Abraham – Vater von Juden und Nichtjuden: eine exegetische Studie zu Röm 4. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1997. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded.” In Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, edited by Michael E. Stone, 89–156. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984. Niehoff, Maren R. “Circumcision as a Marker of Identity: Philo, Origen and the Rabbis on Gen 17:1–14.” Jewish Studies Quarterly 10 (2003): 89–123. Nikiprowetzky, V. Le commentaire de l’écriture chez Philon d’Alexandrie: son caractère et sa portée, observations philologique. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977. Nolland, John. “Uncircumcised Proselytes?” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods 12 (1981): 173–94. Nussbaum, Martha C. The Therapy of Desire. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. O’Brien, Peter T. The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991. Oberman, Heiko A. Luther: Man between God and the Devil. Translated by Eileen WalliserSchwarzbart. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982. Onians, Richard Broxton. The Origins of European Thought: About the Body, the Mind the Soul, the World Time, and Fate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954. Organ, Barbara E. Is the BIBLE FACT or FICTION? : An Introduction to Biblical Historiography. New York: Paulist Press, 2004. Osiek, Carolyn. Philippians Philemon. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000. Ota, Shuji. “Absolute Use of PISTIS CRISTOU in Paul.” Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute 23 (1997): 64–82. Paget, J. N. B. Carleton. “Barnabas 9:4: A Peculiar Verse on Circumcision.” Vigiliae Christianae 45, no. 3 (1991): 242–54. Perkins, Judith. The Suffering Self. London: Routledge, 1995. –. “The ‘Self’ as Sufferer.” Harvard Theological Review 85, no. 3 (1992): 245–72.

C. Secondary Literature

175

Pernot, Laurent. Rhetoric in Antiquity. Translated by W. E. Higgins. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2000. Perrin, Norman. The Promise of Bultmann. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969. Pervo, Richard, L. Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists. Santa Rosa: Polebridge Press, 2006. Polhill, John Bowen. “Circumcision and the Early Church: a hermeneutical inquiry.” Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1968. Quasten, Johannes. Patrology: The Beginnings of Patristic Literature. 3 vols. Utrecht, Brussels: Spectrum Publishers, 1950. Räisänen, Heikki. Paul and the Law. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1987. Rajak, Tessa. “Talking at Trypho: Christian Apologetic as Anti-Judaism in Justin’s ‘Dialogue with Trypho the Jew’.” In Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews, and Christians, edited by Mark Edwards, Martin Goodman, Simon Price and Christopher Rowland, 59–80. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. Reagan, Joseph N. The Preaching of Peter: the Beginning of Christian Apologetic. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1923. Reed, Jeffrey. “The Epistle.” In Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.–A.D. 400, edited by Stanley E. Porter, 171–93. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, Inc, 2001. Reesor, Margaret E. The Nature of Man in Early Stoic Philosophy. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1989. Reid, J. K. S. Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman Publishing Company, 1969. Remondino, P. C. History of Circumcision from Earliest Times to the Present. Philadelphia: The F. A. Davis Company, Publishers, 1900. Rensberger, David K. “As the Apostle Teaches: The Development of the Use of Paul’s Letters in Second-Century Christianity.” Ph. D. diss., Yale University, 1981. Reumann, John. Philippians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Yale Bible. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2008. Richardson, Peter. Israel in the Apostolic Church. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series, vol. 10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Rist, J. M. Stoic Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Robinson, James M., and Helmut Koester. Trajectories Through Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971. Rohde, Joachim. “Die Gegner des Paulus in Galatien nach der neueren Literatur.” In Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, edited by Albrecht Oepke. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1973. Rokéah, David. “Ancient Jewish Proselytism in Theory and in Practice.” Theologische Zeitschrift 52, no. 3 (1996): 206–23. Roth, Joel. The Halakhic Process: A Systemic Analysis. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1986. Ruether, Rosemary Radford. Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism. Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1997. Runia, David T. Exegesis and Philosophy: Studies on Philo of Alexandria. Variorum Collected Studies Series. London, 1990. –. “Philo of Alexandria, LEGATO AD GAIUM 1–7.” In Neotestamentica et Philonica: Studies in Honor of Peder Borgen, edited by David E. Aune, Torrey Seland and Jarl Henning Ulrichsen, 349–70. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2003. Rutgers, Leonard Victor. “Archaeological Evidence for the Interaction of Jews and Non-Jews in Late Antiquity.” American Journal of Archaeology 96 (1992): 101–18.

176

Bibliography

Safrai, S. “Education and the Study of the Torah.” In The Jewish People in the First Century, vol. 2, edited by S. Safrai and M. Stern, 945–70. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976. –. “The Synagogue.” In The Jewish People in the First Century, edited by S. Safrai and M. Stern, 908–44. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976. Saldarini, Anthony J. Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1989. Sanday, Rev. William , and Rev. Arthur C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902. Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1977. –. Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1983. –, ed. Jewish and Christian Self-Definitions. 3 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980. Sandmel, Samuel. Philo of Alexandria. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979. Schäfer, Peter. Judeophobia: Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997. Schaper, Joachim. “The Pharisees.” In The Cambridge History of Judaism, edited by William Horbury, W. D. Davies and John Sturdy, 402–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Schiffman, Lawrence H. “The Conversion of the Royal House of Adiabene in Josephus and Rabbinic Sources.” In Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, edited by Louis H. Feldman, 293–312. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987. –. Who was a Jew? Rabbinic and Halakhic Perspectives on the Jewish-Christian Schism. Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav Publishing House, Inc., 1985. Schmithals, Walter. Paul and the Gnostics. Translated by John E. Steely. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972. Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Edited by Geza Vermes and Fergus Milar, 2nd ed. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Ltd., 1973. Schütz, John H. Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority. Cambridge: Cambridge University 1975. Schwartz, Jacques. “L’Égypte de Philon.” In Philon d’Alexandrie, edited by R. Arnaldez, 35– 44. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1966. Schwartz, Daniel R. 2 Maccabees, Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature (CEJL). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. Schwartz, Seth. “Israel and the Nations Roundabout.” Journal of Jewish Studies 42 (1991): 16–38. Schweitzer, Albert. Die Mystik des Apostels Paulus. 2nd ed. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1954. –. The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. Translated by William B. D. Montgomery. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1956. Scott, Ian W. “Epistemology and Social Conflict in Jubilees and Aristeas.” In Common Judaism: Explorations in Second-Temple Judaism, edited by Wayne O. McCready and Adele Reinhartz, 195–213. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008. Segal, Alan F. “Paul’s Jewish Presuppositions.” In The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul, edited by James D. G. Dunn, 159–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Sevenster, Jan Nicolaas. The Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Ancient World. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975. Seward, Desmond. Jerusalem’s Traitor: Josephus, Masada, and the Fall of Judea. Cambridge, Mass.: Da Capo Press, 2009. Sievers, Joseph. Synopsis of the Greek Sources for the Hasmonean Period: 1–2 Maccabees and Josephus, War 1 and Antiquities 12–14, Subsidia Biblica. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2001.

C. Secondary Literature

177

Siker, Jeffrey S. Disinheriting the Jews: Abraham in Early Christian Controversy. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991. Silva, Moisés. Philippians. 2nd ed. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2005. Silverman, Eric Kline. “The Cut of Wholeness: Psychoanalytic Interpretations of Biblical Circumcision.” In The Covenant of Circumcision: New Perspectives on an Ancient Jewish Rite, edited by Elizabeth Wyner Mark, 43–57. Hanover: Brandeis University Press, 2003. Simon, Marcel. “From Greek Hairesis to Christian Heresy.” In Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tradition, edited by William R. Schoedel and Robert L. Wilken, 101–16. Paris: Éditions Beauchesne, 1979. –. “Situation du Judaïsme Alexandrin dans la Diaspora.” In Philon d’Alexandrie, edited by R. Arnaldez, 2–33. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1966. –. Verus Israel. Translated by H. McKeating. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. –. Verus Israel: Étude sur les Relations entre Chrétiens et Juifs dans l’Empire Romain (135– 425). Paris: Éditions E. De Boccard, 1964. Skarsaune, Oskar. “The Conversion of Justin Martyr.” Studia Theologica 30 (1976): 53–73. –. The Proof from Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-Text Tradition: Text-Type, Provenance, Theological Profile. Supplements to Novum Testamentum, vol. 56, edited by C.K. Barrett. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987. Sly, Dorothy. Philo’s Perception of Women. Atlanta: Scholar’s Press, 1990. Smallwood, E. Mary. The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981. –. “The Legislation of Hadrian and Antonius Pius against Circumcision.” Latomus 18 (1959): 334–47. –. “The Legislation of Hadrian and Antonius Pius against Circumcision: Addendum.” Latomus 20 (1961): 93–96. Smith, Dennis E. From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. –. “What Did Paul Consider Rubbish?” Forum, New Series 7, no. 2 (2004): 229–38. Smith, Jonathan Z. Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jerusalem. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982. Song, Changwon. Reading Romans as a Diatribe. Studies in Biblical Literature, vol. 59. New York: Peter Lang, 2004. Staele, Karl. Die Zahlenmystik bei Philon von Alexandreia. Translated by Karl Staehle. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1931. Stanley, Christopher D. “‘Neither Jew nor Greek’: Ethnic Conflict in Graeco-Roman Society.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 64 (1996): 101–24. Stendahl, Krister. “Paul Among Jews and Gentiles.” In Paul Among Jews and Gentiles: and other Essays, 1–77. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976. –. “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West.” In Paul Among Jews and Gentiles: and other Essays, 78–96. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976. Stowers, Stanley Kent. A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews and Gentiles. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1994. Stylianopoulos, Theodore. Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series, vol. 20. Missoula: The Society of Biblical Literature and Scholars Press, 1975. Suhl, Alfred. “Paulus und seine Briefe: Ein Beitrag zur paulinischen Chronologie.” Studien zum Neuen Testament 11 (1975). Tcherikover, Victor. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Translated by S. Applebaum. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1959.

178

Bibliography

–. “Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered.” Eos 48 (1956): 169–93. Tellbe, Mikael. Paul between Synagogue and State: Christians, Jews, and Civic Authorities in 1 Thessalonians, Romans, and Philippians. Coniectanea Biblica New Testament Series. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2001. Terian, Abraham. “A Critical Introduction to Philo’s Dialogues.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt 21, no.1 (1984): 272–94. Testuz, Michel. Les Idées Religieuses du Livre des Jubilés. Paris: Librairie Minard, 1960. Thiessen, Matthew. “The Text of Genesis 17:14.” Journal of Biblical Literature 128, no. 4 (2009): 625–42. Tobin, Thomas H. Paul’s Rhetoric in its Contexts: The Argument of Romans. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004. –. The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series, vol. 14. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1983. –. “What Shall We Say that Abraham Found? The Controversy behind Romans 4.” Harvard Theological Review 88, no. 4 (1995): 437–52. Tomson, Peter J. “Jewish Food Laws in Early Christian Community Discourse.” Semeia 86 (1999): 193–211. Torrell, Jean-Pierre. Initiation à Saint Thomas d’Aquin: sa personne et son œuvre. Fribourg Suisse: Éditions Universitaires Fribourg Suisse, 1993. –. Saint Thomas Aquinas: His Person and His Work. Translated by Robert Royal. 2 vols. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2005. Trakatellis, Bishop Demetrion. “Justin Martyr’s Trypho.” Harvard Theological Review 79, no. 1–3 (1986): 289–97. Tyloch, Witold. “Quelques Remarques sur la Provenance Essénienne du livre des Jubilés.” Revue de Qumran 13, no. 49–52 (1988): 347–52. Tyson, Joseph B. Marcion and Luke-Acts. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 2006. –. “‘Works of Law’ in Galatians.” Journal of Biblical Literature 92, no. 3 (1973): 423–31. Van Henten, Jan Willem. The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, vol. 57. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997. Van Winden, J. C. M. An Early Christian Philosopher: Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho Chapters One to Nine. Philosophia Patrum, vol. 1. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971. VanderKam, James C. An Introduction to Early Judaism. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001. –, ed. The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, vol. 510. Louvain: Aedibus E. Peeters, 1989. –. The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1994. Vielhauer, Philipp. “On the ‘Paulinism’ of Acts.” In Studies in Luke-Acts, edited by Leander E. Keck and J. Louis Martyn, 33–50. London: S.P.C.K., 1968. Walz, Angelus. Saint Thomas Aquinas: A Biographical Study. Translated by Sebastian Bullough. Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 1951. Ward, Graham. “Uncovering the Corona: A Theology of Circumcision.” In The Birth of Jesus, edited by George J. Brooke, 35–44. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000. Ware, James P. The Mission of the Church in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians in the Context of Ancient Judaism. Supplements to Novum Testamentum, vol. 120. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2005. Weisheipl, James A. Friar Thomas d’Aquino: His Life, Thought, and Work. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1974.

C. Secondary Literature

179

Weitzman, Steven. “Forced Circumcision and the Shifting Role of Gentiles in Hasmonean Ideology.” Harvard Theological Review 92, no. 1 (1999): 37–59. Werline, Rodney. “The Transformation of Pauline Arguments in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho.” Harvard Theological Review 92, no. 1 (1999): 79–93. Westerholm, Stephen. “Four Maccabees: A Paraenetic Address?” In Early Christian Paraenesis in Context, edited by James Starr and Troels Engberg-Pedersen, 191–216. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004. –. Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1998. White, John L. The Apostle of God: Paul and the Promise of Abraham. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1999. White, L. Michael. “Paul, Gallio, and the Bema at Corinith (Acts 18:12–17).” Paper presented at the Spring Meeting of the Westar Institute, Santa Rosa, California, 2007. Whitters, Mark F. “Maryrdom as Cultic Death in the Books of Maccabees: Antecedents and Later Developments.” In Studies in the Greek Bible, edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp, 97–119. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2008. Williams, A. Lukyn. Adversus Judaeos: A Bird’s-Eye View of Christian Apologiae until the Renaissance. Cambridge: The University Press, 1935. Williams, Craig A. Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Williams, David S. Stylometric Authorship: Studies in Flavius Josephus and Related Literature. Lewiston, N.Y.: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1992. –. The Structure of 1 Maccabees, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1999. Williams, Sam K. “Again Pistis Christou.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 (1987): 431– 47. –. Galatians. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997. Willis, Gary. Saint Augustine. New York: Viking, 1999. Wills, Lawrence M., ed. Ancient Jewish Novels: An Anthology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Wilson, Derek A. Out of the Storm: The Life and Legacy of Martin Luther. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2008. Wilson, Stephen G. Related Strangers: Jews and Christians 70–170 C.E. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995. Wimbush, Vincent L. Paul The Worldly Ascetic: Response to the World and Self-Understanding according to 1 Corinthians 7. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1987. Wolfson, Harry A. Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1947. Zeitlin, Solomon. The First Book of the Maccabees. Translated by Sidney Tedesche. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950. –. The Second Book of Maccabees. Translated by Sidney Tedesche. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954. Zetterholm, Magnus. The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A social-scientific approach to the separation between Judaism and Christianity. London: Routledge, 2003.

Index of Ancient and Other Sources A. Hebrew Scriptures and Septuagint Genesis 1:26–28 2:3 2:7 4:4 5:24 7:1–24 9:1 15 15:6 15:7–17:27 16 16:16 17 17:1–4 17:2 17:4–6 17:5 17:6–11 17:9–14 17:10 17:10–11 17:11 17:11–14 17:12 17:14 17:16 17:17 17:23–27 17:24–25 19:29 37–50

129 20 129 129 129 129 129 17 113, 115–16 59 17 59 5, 17, 18 44 52 52 116 125 115 61, 116 60 7, 113, 116, 119, 121, 153, 158 1 18, 134 52, 66, 116–17 17 17 115 18 129 37

Exodus 6:12 6:30

52 52

15:26 20:2–6

109 56

Leviticus 12:3 26:40–41 26:41

1 127 51, 111

Deuteronomy 4:32–40 4:40 5:6–9 6:2 7:10–11 10:12 10:12–13 10:16 10:16–18 10:21a 26:17 28:45 30:6 30:9b–10 30:10 30:16

102 109 56 109 109 67 111 51–52, 67, 111 111 111 109 109 111 109 109 109

Joshua 5:2 5:2–3

130, 134 130

Judges 19:22 20:13

21 21

1 Samuel 2:12 25:17

21 21

182

Index of Ancient and Other Sources

25:25

21

2 Samuel 20:1

21

1 Kings 18:1–22:40 19:15–19

99 39

Nehemiah 10:1

9:23–24 9:25 9:26 9:25–26 15:9 38:31–32

97 52 51 111 23 125

Ezekiel 44:7 44:9

51, 111 51, 111

Daniel 2:34 7:25 7–12:3 8:9–13 8:14 11:31 11:35–36 11:45 12:1 12:7 12:11–13

130 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Micah 4:1–4 4:1–7

92 125

117

Psalms 18:8

125

Isaiah 2:2–4 25:6–8 28:16 51:4 55:3–5 58:1–11

92 92 130 125 125 126

Jeremiah 2:20 4:4 5:5 6:10

89 51, 111 89 52

B. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Qumran Sirach 51:26

89

1 Maccabees 1:1–10 1:3 1:9 1:10 1:11 1:11–15 1:13 1:14–15 1:15 1:21–24 1:31–32 1:33–36 1:34

12 11 11 11 13 20 15 13 13 11, 15 11 15 13

1:36–37 1:39 1:41–42 1:41–50 1:43 1:45 1:46 1:47 1:48 1:50 1:51–53 1:52 1:54 1:56 1:57–58 1:59 1:60–61

15 15 13 13 15 15 15 15 10 11, 15 15 12 15 14 15 23 7, 10, 23

183

Index of Ancient and Other Sources 1:61 1:62 1:62–63 1:62–64 2:42–48 2:44 2:46 3:1–26 3:5–6 3:42–60 3:45–50 4:1–25 4:41–58 5:1–8 5:14–23 5:28–44 5:46–51 5:65–68 6:1–17 6:32–47 7:5 7:21–25 7:39–50 8:23–32 9:11–22 9:23 9:43–49 9:69 10:18–20 10:25–45 10:61 10:74–89 11:20–23 11:21 11:25 11:30–37 11:45–51 11:57 11:61–74 12:5–23 12:24–38 13:36–40 13:43–48 14:14 16:4–10 16:23–24

24 12 14 15 14 12, 13 10, 15 12, 14 12 14 15 14 15 14 14 14 14 14 12 14 12, 13 14 14 14 14 12, 13 14 12, 13 14 14 13 14 14 12, 13 12, 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 12, 13 14 14

2 Maccabees 1:24–29 2:19–32

26 22

2:23 3:4–12 3:15–21 3:25–26 4:7–17 4:11–17 4:23–34 4:38 5:5–10 6:4 6:7 6:8–9a 6:9 6:9b–10 6:10 6:12–16 6:18 6:18–17:42 6:19 6:26 6:28 7:2 7:3 7:4 7:7 7:9 7:10 7:14 7:23 7:29 7:36 7:38 8:1–4 8:3–4 8:18–20 8:23 8:24 8:27 8:29 8:35 9:1–12 9:5 10:1–9 10:16 10:25–26 10:29–30 11:6 11:8 11:9 11:10

22 25 26 25 25 26 25 24 26 24 23 23 24 24 7, 10, 30 24 25 23 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 23 26 23 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26

184

Index of Ancient and Other Sources

12:5 12:36 13:3–8 13:9–12 14:15 14:34–35 15:6–37 15:7–9 15:12 15:21 15:25–27 15:34

26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26

3 Maccabees 6:16–21 6:18

25 25

4 Maccabees 1:1 1:2 1:8 1:10 1:11 1:7–8 1:1–12 1:13–3:18 1:30 2:10 2:21–23 3:19–17:24 4:24 4:24–25 4:25 5:16–17 5:20–22 5:23 5:25–27 5:34–35 6:23 6:30 6:31 7:1 7:1–3 7:5 7:7–9 7:12 7:14 7:15 7:16 7:22

28, 29 31 31 31 28 28 31 31 31 31 29 31 29, 30 29 7, 10, 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 28 30 31 30 30 30 30 30 28 31

8:1 8:15 8:16 8:28 9:1 9:2 9:8 9:15 9:18 9:24 9:29 9:31 10:10 10:19 11:2 11:5 11:12 11:21 11:24–25 12:15 11:27 13:1 13:4 13:6–7 13:7 13:18 13:23–27 13:24 13:27 14:13–20 15:2–3 15:11 15:23 15:31–32 16:1 16:4 16:14 17:2 17:7–8:24 17:12 17:15 17:17 17:23 18:2 18:5 18:20–24

28 28, 30 31 31 30, 31 31 31 30 31 30 30 31 31 30 31 30 30 30 28 31 30 28 30 31 30 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 28 31 28 31 31 32 31 31 31 31 31 28 32 31

Jubilees 1:4 1:10

16 20

185

Index of Ancient and Other Sources 1:23 2:1 2:17–32 2:18 2:20 2:27 3:31 14 14:20 15 15:1–2 15:15–17 15:17 15:23–24 15:24

111 16, 20 20 20 20 20 20 17 18 21 19 17 17 7, 18 18

15:25 15:25–26 15:26 15:26–29 15:27 15:28 15:32 15:33 50:1–13

18 18 17, 19 19 19 7, 17, 19 19 19 20

Qumran Texts 1QpHab 11:13 1QS 5:5 4Q177 4Q184

111 111 111 111

C. New Testament Matthew 23:25

129

John 3:6

135

Acts 7:58–8:3 9:1–31 13:1–18:23 18:12–16 18:12–17 19:1–28:31

77 77 77 78, 100 78 77

2:25a 2:25b 2:26 2:26–27 2:27 2:28

Romans 1:1 1:5 1:5–6 1:13 1:16–17 1:16–11:36 1:18–3:20 1:32 2:1–11 2:1–16 2:1–29 2:6–16 2:11 2:14 2:14–15

78 78, 105 105 105 105 106 105 109 107 108 106, 111 108 108 112 108

2:28–29 2:29 3:1 3:1–2 3:1–8 3:1–11:12 3:2 3:21–4:24 3:22 3:26 3:27 3:28 3:30 4:2 4:4 4:9

2:17 2:17–29 2:17–4:1–25 2:17–4:22 2:25 2:25–29

105–6, 113 106–7, 109, 158 105, 112 106 79, 106, 112, 120–21 6–8, 106–8, 112–14, 158 108 108 79, 106, 109, 120, 158 7, 108, 112 79, 106, 108, 120 79, 106, 111–12, 120, 145 108, 110, 112–13 79, 106, 111, 120 79, 106–7, 112, 120 112, 121 112 106 112 105 86 86 110 110 7, 79, 106, 120 115 106 79, 106, 113, 115, 120

186 4:9–10 4:9–12

Index of Ancient and Other Sources

4:11a 4:11b 4:11c 4:11–12 4:12 4:12a 4:12b 4:12c 5:12–21 5:18 5:19 6:1–23 7:1–25 8:1–39 9–11 11:13–14 11:17–25 12–15 12:3 12:16 14:3 15:7 15:8 15:15–16 15:18–24 15:25–29 15:28

113 8, 106, 113–15, 155, 158 115 79, 106, 113, 115, 120 115 115 6–7, 79, 106, 113, 120, 123, 127, 141, 153 113, 115–17 113, 115, 118 113–14, 118 115 79, 114, 118–20 113, 118 113, 118 113, 118–19 105 86 86 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 106 105 105 79, 106, 120 105 105 105 105

1 Corinthians 1:2 1:4–5 1:7–8 1:8 1:9 1:10–17 1:11 1:12 1:31 3:1–4:5 4:2 5:1

102 102 101 101 102 100 102 101 97 101 103 101

4:9a 4:10 4:10b 4:10c 4:11

5:1–5 5:1–13 5:5 5:6 5:11 6:1–6 6:7 6:13 6:15 6:18 7:1–11:1 7:3 7:8 7:11 7:12 7:12–13 7:17 7:17–24 7:18 7:18–19 7:19 7:20 7:21 7:21–22 7:22 7:19 7:24 7:27 7:28 7:29 7:31 7:40 8:3–4 8:7–13 9:1–27 9:2 9:4–14 9:25–27 10:4 10:7 10:8 10:14 10:21 10:24 10:25–33 11:18 11:33–34 12:7 12:17 13:9

103 101 145 103 103–4 104 104 103 102 103 101 104 102–3 102 148 103 102 8, 102–3 102, 121 101 6–7, 9, 103, 120 102 102 102, 121 102 132 102 103, 121 145 101 101 102–3 148 104 101 117 104 104 134 104 103 104 104 103 104 101 104 100 102 103

187

Index of Ancient and Other Sources 13:1–13 15:1–5 15:8 15:23 15:31 15:44

101 101 78 102 97 102

2 Corinthians 1:1 4:11 11:23

78 145 78

Galatians 1:1 1:3 1:6–9 1:12 1:13–14 1:16 1:18 1:19 2:3 2:3–4 2:3–5 2:7 2:8 2:9 2:11 2:11–14 2:12 2:13 2:14 2:15 2:15–16 2:15–21 2:16 2:21 3:1–5 3:6–9 3:10 3:10–14 3:22 3:28 3:29 4:12–21 4:21 4:21–27 4:21–31

78, 92 92 79 78 78 78 80, 82 82 7, 79, 120, 140 88 132 79–81, 120 79, 81 79–82, 120 80, 82 8, 79–81, 85, 87, 94, 136 7, 79–83, 94, 96, 120, 157 82 80, 84–85 82–83, 85 86 85 85, 86, 123 85, 91 79 92 5 148 86 6, 103 79 79 89 92 90

4:25 4:30–31 4:31 5:1 5:1–3 5:1–4 5:1–6 5:1–12 5:1b 5:1b–12 5:2 5:2–3 5:2–12 5:3 5:6 5:11 5:12 5:13 5:14 6:12 6:12–13 6:13 6:14–15 6:15 6:16

88 88 88 79, 88 7 79, 120 6, 8, 79, 87, 91 88 89 79 79, 88, 94 79 78 89, 91, 94, 149 79, 94, 103, 120 79, 120 97–98, 155 88 147 79 78–79, 120 7, 79, 120 91 79, 103, 120 103

Ephesians 2:3

142

Philippians 1:1–3:1 1:1–3:1a 1:4 1:7 1:12–14 1:13 1:13–14 1:17 1:23 1:27 1:27–2:18 1:30 2:2 2:3 2:5 2:6–11 3:1–4:3 3:1b–4:20 3:2 3:2–21

94 94–95 95 78, 94 95 95 78, 94 78, 94 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 94 95, 97–98, 121, 155 94, 98

188 3:2–4:1 3:3 3:5 3:5–6 3:7 3:5–8 3:8 3:9 3:11 3:15 3:20 4:1–9 4:10–20 4:21–23 Philemon 1

Index of Ancient and Other Sources 95 6, 8, 79, 95–97, 120, 134 7, 79, 95, 97–98, 117, 120 78, 99 99 95 95 86, 95 95 95 95, 99 94 94 94

9 10 13 23

95 95 95 95

Hebrews 8:5 9:9 9:14 10:1 10:2 11:4 11:5–6 12:28 13:10

96 96 96 137 96 129 129 96 96

1 John 3:12

129

95

D. Josephus A.J. (Antiquitates judaicae) 1.10.5 35 8.10.3 35 12.5.4 13, 23 12.6.2 15 12.6.4 26 13.9.1 15, 35 13.11.3 15, 35 18.1.3 77 18.1.5 89 20.2.1 37, 39 20.2.3 37 20.2–4 7, 8, 33, 35, 38 20.2.5 37 20.4.1 40

20.4.1–2 20.4.2 20.7.1

39 39 35

B.J. (Bellum judaicum) 2.8.2 12 2.8.11–14 12 2.8.13 89 2.8.14 77 4.8.1 124 C. Ap. (Contra Apionem) 1.22 35 2.13 35 2.137 49

E. Philo Contempl. (De vita contemplative) 27–28 73 28 74 28–30 89 65 89 83–85 73

Decal. (De decalogo) 52 55 52–53 55 52–65 55 58 55 66–81 55

189

Index of Ancient and Other Sources 72 76–80 142 143 154

56 49 54 54 56

Hypoth. (Hypothetica) 7.12–15 72 11.5–12 73 Legat. (Legatio ad Gaium) 312 72 Migr. (De migratione Abrahami) 16.88 71 16.89 47, 70, 71 16.89–93 2, 3, 8, 69, 99 16.90 46, 71, 72 16.91 72 16.92 7, 40, 47, 70, 72, 74 16.93 48, 71, 73, 99 17.95–96 71 18.105 71 19.108 71 23.128 68 23.129 71 Mos. 1, 2 (De vita Mosis I, II) 2.215–16 72, 73 Plant. (De plantatione) 29 46 Praem. (De praemiis et poenis) 43 46 65–66 72 Prob. (Quod omnis probus liber sit) 82 74 83–87 73 QE 1, 2 (Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum I, II) 2.2 47 QG 1, 2, 3, 4 (Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin I, II, III, IV) 3.38 59 3.40 61 3.42 61, 68

3.45 3.46 3.46–52 3.47 3.48 3.49 3.50 3.51 3.52 4.15

68, 69 7, 47, 51, 59–61, 63, 66– 67, 69, 74 3, 7–8, 59 59, 61–63, 74 7, 40, 51, 59–61, 63–66, 69, 155 59–60, 62–63 59–61, 64 60 40, 47, 60, 63, 66 62–63

Somn. 1, 2 (De somniis I, II) 2.123–24 72 Spec. 1, 2, 3, 4 (De specialibus legibus I, II, III, IV) 1.1 48–49 1.1–2 49 1.1–11 3, 8, 57, 155 1.2 49, 65 1.2–3 49 1.3 49, 70 1.4 47, 50, 63 1.4–5 66 1.4–7 47, 63 1.4–8 7, 46 1.5 47, 50, 65 1.6 47–49, 51, 65–66, 158 1.6–7 55, 66, 155 1.7 47–48, 52, 63–65 1.8 7, 46 1.9 40, 47, 53–54, 74 1.9–10 3, 46–47 1.10 55–56, 74 1.11 55 1.12 57 1.79–161 56 1.162–256 56 1.299–300 68 1.304–5 68 1.305 68 1.314 46 2.39–222 57 2.60–64 72 3.178 46 Virt. (De virtutibus) 8 46

190

Index of Ancient and Other Sources

F. Other Ancient Greek and Latin Sources Ambrose ep. (epistulae) 72.5–6

294.16 126

Augustine c. Iul. (contra Iulianum) 6.7.20 135 c. Inl. imp. (opus imperfectum contra Iulianum) 73 134 civ. (de civitate dei) 16.26 134 16.27 132 en. Ps. (enarrationes in Psalmos) 6.2 134–5 33 135 Gal. exp. (epistolae ad Galatas expositio) 11.2 132 11.3 132 15.2 132 19.1–10 133 19.3 135 19.3–4 133 19.10 135 21.5 135 41.5 135 41.6 132 41.7 132 54.5 135 63.2 132 mend. (de mendacio) 8 133 nupt. et conc. (de nuptiis et concupiscentia ad Valerium comitem) 2.11.24 132 ss. (sermones) 1.7 169.3 231.2 260

135 134 134–35 134

135

spir. et litt. (de spiritu et littera) 1.7 133 5.7 133 8.13 134 14.23 133 23.38 133 24.41 133 29.51 133 36.64 133 Barnabas Barn. (Barnabas) 2.6 126 9.6 126 Clement of Alexandria paed. (paedagogus) 1.9.79.1 126 Cyprian Test. (Ad Quirinum testimonia adversus Judaeos) 1.8 126 Diodorus Siculus D. S. 19.103.4–5 26 ep. (epistulae) 64.4 64.4.3

134 134

Epiphanius Pan. (Panarion, adversus haereses) 30.33 126 Eusebius Hist. eccl. (Historia ecclesiastica) 4.11 124 4.16 124 Galen PHP IV (De Placitis Hippocratis et Platonis) 2.14–18 54

191

Index of Ancient and Other Sources Herodotus Hist. (Historiae) 2.36 49 Horace Satirae 1.5.96–104

49

Jerome Comm. Jer. (Commentariorum in Jeremiam libri VI) 2.10 126 Justin 1 apol. (apologia i) 31 128 53.11 126 dial. (dialogus cum Tryphone) 1.1 124 1.3 128 11.2 125–26 11.3–4 125 11.4 126 12.3 125–26, 130 14.3 125 15.1–7 126 15.4–5 126 15.7 126 16.1 127 16.2 23, 125, 127–28 16.3 125, 127 16.4 127 17.1–3 127 18.3 125 19.3 125, 129 19.4 129 23.1 129 23.4 127, 129 23.5 125, 129–30 26.1 127 28.2 124 28.4 127 29.1 124 29.2 124 29.3 130 38.1 127 39.1 127 41.4 130 43.1 125

43.2 44.2 45.2 45.4 46.8 47.1–2 47.4 67.8 92.2 92.3 92.4 93.4 95.1 95.4 96.1 96.2 102.6 108.2–3 110.5 110.6 112.4 113.6 113.6–7 113.7 114.4 117.3 120.4 120.6 122.2 123.6 131.2 133.6 134.6 136.2 137.2

125, 129–30 127 129 129 125 132 127 125 129 127 124–27, 130 127 127 127–28 127 127–28 127 127 127–28 128 127 130 130, 134 130 130, 134 127 127 124 127 127–28 127 127–28 127–28 127 127–28

Juvenal Satirae 1.129–30 6.557–65 6.528–40

50 50 50

Origen Cels. (Contra Celsum) 1.22 126 5.41 126 hom. in Gen. (homiliae in Genesim) 3.4.6 126

192

Index of Ancient and Other Sources

Petronius Satyricon 68.4–8 102.13–14

49 49

Plutarch Theseus

11

Tertullian Marc. (Adversus Marcionem) 5.4.10 126 5.13.7 126 Tacitus Hist. (Historiae) 5.5 49

G. Rabbinic Sources Mishnah Shabbat 19:6

Makkoth 23b

89

Sabbath 137a

19

19

Babylonian Talmud Hullin 4b 19

Yeb. (Yebamot) 46a 19

H. Middle and Later Medieval Sources Aquinas, Thomas Ad Gal. 2,3 136 In Rom. 4.2.2. v. 12

138

Sent. (Scriptum super libros Sententiarium, lib. 4) 1, 2, 1, ad 1 137 1, 2, 2, ad 2 137 1, 2, 3, ad 2 137 1, 2, 4, ad 2 137–38 1, 2, 4, ad 3 137–38 1, 2, 5, ad 1 137 1, 2, 5, ad 3 136 1, 2, 5, ad 4 137 ST (Summa Theologicae) 3, 62, 5 138 3, 70, 4, c 138 3a, 62, 1 139 3a, 62, 6 139 3a, 70, 4 138–39

Luther, Martin ad Galatas (Commentarius in epistolam sancti Pauli ad Galatas) (WA 40,1) 316, 20–35 143 40, 28–30 143 41, 12–26 143 159, 17–19 140 200, 26–27 140 239, 14–15 140 565, 18–27 143 ad Romanos (Glossa in epistolam Pauli ad Romanos) (WA 56) 43, 2–4 141 ad Romanos (Scholia in epistolam Pauli ad Romanos) (WA 56) 210, 16–19 141 De captivitate Babylonica ecclesiae praeludium (WA 6) 532, 29–32 141

193

Index of Ancient and Other Sources In Gen. enarrat. (In Genesin enarrationum) (WA 42) 602, 31–34 141 603, 26–33 141 604, 6–9 142 604, 12–20 142 606, 15–22 142 609, 7–10 141

609, 13 609, 40–42 611, 12–17 613, 5–6 613, 8–11 613, 16 613, 17–20 638, 1–8

141 141 141 142 142 142 141 142

Index of Modern Authors Abel, F., 9–13, 22–23, 27 Amir, Y., 43–44, 46–47, 58, 70 Anderson, H., 27– 28 Bamburger, B., 36 Barclay, J., 3, 70, 112 Bar-Kochva, B., 9, 11 Berkley, T., 3, 51, 111 Berquist, J., 52 Betz, H. D., 5–6, 77–78, 80–82, 84– 85, 88–89, 91, 100, 103, 147, 149 Bickerman, E., 9–13, 27 Birnbaum, E., 2, 42, 62 Blaschke, A., 2, 11, 14–15, 21–22, 24, 27, 29, 36, 38, 45, 48, 59, 66, 70, 89, 97, 99, 103, 112, 118, 123, 147 Bloomquist, G., 95, 98 Borgen, P., 2, 3, 41–43, 45, 47, 53, 58, 59–60, 70, 73, 88 Bornkamm, G., 78, 104 Boyarin, D., 42, 73 Bréhier, É., 45, 49, 53 Brown, P., 64, 131 Bultmann, R., 144–146, 149, 154 Castelli, E., 120 Cerfaux, L., 119 Chadwick, H., 4, 67, 73, 131 Cohen, S., 2, 12, 17, 21, 35, 36, 39–40, 46–47, 49–50, 61–62, 84–85, 93, 129, 132, 137 Collins, J., 19, 23, 25, 27, 36, 92 Colson, F., 46–47, 49, 53–56, 68, 71, 73– 74 Conzelmann, H., 100, 102 Crossan, J., 80, 91 Cryer, F., 9 Dancy, J., 9, 11 Daniel, S., 50, 56–57

Daniélou, J., 44 Davenport, G., 18 Dawson, D., 70–72 deSilva, D., 27–28, 30–31 Doran, R., 22, 25–26 Douglas, M., 50–51 Dunn, J., 3–4, 78, 85–86, 104–106, 112, 114–115, 119, 148 Eckert, J., 80 Ehrman, B., 80 Eilberg-Schwartz, H., 52–53, 123, 155 Eisenbaum, P., 83, 92, 105, 109, 150–152 Elliott, S., 2, 4, 53, 88 Ellis, E., 80 Elon, M., 90 Endres, J., 16 Étaix, R., 134–135 Fee, G., 95–98, 102 Feldman, L., 13, 34–36, 39, 53, 93 Fine, S., 72 Fischer, T., 9–10, 22 Fitzmyer, J., 78, 104, 106, 116 Foucault, M., 64, 131 Fowl, S., 98 Fredriksen, P., 4, 78, 90–91, 93–94, 128, 135 Galinsky, K., 50 Gaston, L., 119, 152 George, T., 140 Gilbert, G., 36–39 Glick, L., 125 Goldingay, J., 111 Goldstein, J., 10–12, 14, 27 Goodenough, E., 43–44, 46, 50–51, 57– 58, 67, 70 Grabbe, L., 42 Gruen, E., 37, 44

Index of Modern Authors Gunther, J., 80, 98 Hadas, M., 27 Hall, R., 2 Halpern-Amaru, B., 19 Hardin, J., 84 Harrison, V., 67 Hays, R., 86, 91 Headlam, A., 119 Hecht, R., 46–50, 54, 56–57, 60–61, 75 Heger, P., 90 Hietanen, M., 88 Himmelfarb, M., 14 Hodge, C., 106, 153 Hodges, F., 13 Holladay, C., 98 Hooker, M., 86 Horsley, R., 100 Howard, G., 86, 152 Ibita, M., 116 Jacobs, A., 126 Jaffee, M., 89–90 Jewett, R., 80, 95, 98, 104, 107, 109–111, 113–114, 116, 118 Kahl, 4, 84, 88, 91 Kampen, J., 12–13 Käsemann, E., 117, 119, 144–146 Klijn, A., 98 Koester, H., 53, 80, 98 Kueny, K., 1 Kümmel, W., 105 Lauer, S., 28, 29 Le Déaut, R., 51, 65, 67–68 Lee, M., 115 Lemke, W., 4, 51, 111 Levine, L., 72 Lieu, J., 127–129 Lightfoot, J., 96–98 Lignée, H., 16 Longenecker, R., 147, 149 López, D., 118 Luedemann, G., 78 Lührmann, D., 88, 147, 149 Magness, J., 21 Mahé, J., 64

195

Marcus, J., 4 Marcus, R., 43, 58, 60–64, 66–69 Martin, D., 48, 101 Martin, T., 4, 131 Martyn, J., 77–78, 81, 85, 88, 90–91, 103, 149 Mason, S., 34, 84 Massebieu, L., 42 McEleney, N., 4, 19, 36, 93 McGrath, A., 131, 133–134 Meyer, R., 2, 145 Milgrom, J., 16 Mitchell, M., 100, 102 Morris, J., 41, 44–45, 57 Murphy-O’Connor, J., 78 Murray, M. A., 50 Nanos, M., 4, 78, 80, 82–85, 90, 92–93, 98, 105, 151–152 Nickelsburg, G., 16 Niehoff, M., 3, 44, 47–48, 55–58, 60–61, 63, 66, 70 Nikiprowetzky, V., 42, 44 O’Brien, P., 96–98 Oberman, H., 139 Onians, R., 51 Organ, B., 23 Osiek, C., 95, 98 Ota, S., 86 Pervo, R., 77 Petit, F., 59, 64–65 Polhill, J., 53 Rappaport, U., 9 Reed, J., 80 Rensberger, D., 127 Reumann, J., 94–95, 98–99 Robinson, D., 96 Roth, J., 90 Ruether, R., 125 Safrai, S., 72 Saldarini, A., 77 Sanday, W., 119 Sanders, E., 18, 83, 89, 147–148 Sandmel, S., 41–44, 46–47, 58, 73 Schäfer, P., 5, 13 Schaper, J., 12, 24

196

Index of Modern Authors

Schiffman, L., 35–36, 92–93 Schmithals, W., 98, 100 Schürer, E., 34–35 Schütz, J., 80 Schwartz, D., 10, 14, 22–26, 28, 39 Scott, B., 115 Scott, I., 16, 21 Segal, A., 77 Seward, D., 34 Siker, J., 128 Silva, M., 97 Simon, M., 2 Skarsaune, O., 128 Skarsten, R., 59–60 Smith, D. E., 83, 92 Smith, J. Z., 35–36, 93 Song, C., 104, 106–107 Stendahl, K., 150–151 Stowers, S., 106–110, 112–115, 118, 152 Stylianopoulos, T., 125–129 Tcherikover, V., 5, 44 Terian, A., 45 Testuz, M., 16, 18–19 Thackeray, H., 35 Thiessen, M., 116–117 Tobin, T., 2, 3, 67, 70, 72, 106, 119

Tomson, P., 83 Torrell, J., 135 Tyson, J., 77, 85, 90 VanderKam, J., 16–17, 20–21, 47 Vielhauer, P., 77 Ware, J., 95 Weisheipl, J., 135 Weitzman, S., 10, 15 Werline, R., 127 Westerholm, S., 28–31, 148 White, J., 100 White, L. M., 78 Whitters, M., 23 Williams, A. L., 124, 128, 130 Williams, D., 12 Williams, S., 5–6, 86, 90, 149 Wills, L., 35–39 Wilson, S., 128 Wimbush, V., 67, 102 Winter, P., 37 Wolfson, H., 44–45, 70 Zeitlin, S., 9, 11, 22, 27 Zervos, G., 11, 13–14

Subject Index Abraham 17-18, 59, 71, 75, 92, 106, 114– 16, 118–20, 129, 132, 141–42, 145, 152–53, 155 Alexander the Great 11 allegory – in Philo 43–45, 47, 57, 69, 75 – in Paul 6, 113, 115, 118–21, 158 – in Justin 130 angels 16, 19, 21, 25–26 Antioch 80, 82, 85, 87, 90, 136, 140 Antiochus Epiphanes 9–11, 14–15, 21, 25–26, 28, 30, 32 baptism – as circumcision 130 – as a rite 132, 137–139, 153 Bar Kokhba revolt 23, 128 Barnabas 81, 83 Beliar 20, 32 breath–units 115 castration 53, 97, 156 Cephas (Peter) 80–85, 87, 94, 120, 136 circumcision – and fertility 8, 47, 49, 51–53, 55, 58, 63–66, 75, 153, 155 – and Original Sin 134, 137–38 – as a custom 75, 91, 132 – as a law 70, 74 – as conversion to Judaism 36, 93–94 – cultural attitudes toward 13, 49 covenant – as God 61 – Book of the 9 – holy 13 – of circumcision 1, 56, 61, 116–17, 119, 120–21, 145 – new 125–26 – Sinai 90 – sons of the 18–19, 21, 32

cult of Magna Mater 53 Decalogue 55–58 (see also Ten Commandments) diatribe 106–10, 158 disloyal Jews 12–13, 20, 32 divinely gifted men (see also men of old) 46, 48, 70–71 eighth day 18–19, 21, 59, 66, 77, 116–17, 134 Egyptians 35, 42, 49–50, 55, 62, 75, 109, 142 enkrateia 3–4 (see also self–mastery) Essenes 21, 73–74 faith in versus faith of 86 flesh – circumcision and 125, 131, 135, 145, 153, 155 – mutilation of 97 – sphere of 144–45 – sinful 148 Gallio 78, 100 God–fearers 36, 89, 92–93 Hadrian 128, 156 Hagar 59, 88, 92 Hanukkah 22 Hasmoneans 10–12, 14–16, 26, 32, 34 heart – circumcision of the 51, 61, 65–69, 75, 108, 11–113, 134, 158 – hard heart 125–26 – seat of thoughts Helena of Adiabene 37–39 Hellenization 23, 32 Heliodorus 25 Herodotus 35, 49–50

198

Index of Subjects

idolatry 83–84, 104, 125, 130 impurity 83 Isaac, Abraham’s son 17, 46 Ishmael 18, 59 Jacob 20, 71 James 34, 80–82, 87 Jewish persecution of Gentiles 127–28 judaize 80–81, 84–85, 87, 120 martyrdom 22–23, 27, 30–33, 124, 156 men of old (see also divinely gifted men) 64, 71 metaphor – in Augustine 134 – in Jubilees 19 – in Justin 124, 130, 143 – in Paul 7, 79, 87, 99, 106, 108, 111, 113, 120–21, 158 – in Philo 7, 51 metonym in Paul 7, 79, 87, 94–96, 99, 106, 108, 120, 157 Moses 16, 43, 47, 102, 109, 125, 142, 152 New Age 91, 152, 157 opponents of Paul 80–81, 84, 88–89, 94, 97–98, 121, 149 Origen 34, 42, 106–7, 126 Parthians 39 Paul’s Gentile audience 105, 108, 150 Pelagians 133 proselytes 91, 152 purity 50–51, 60, 65 Qumran 20–21 Rome and Romans 34, 36, 40–42, 53, 91, 128 Sarah 17, 88, 92 self–mastery and self–control (see also enkrateia) 28–31, 47–48, 54, 57, 64

sign, definition of 117, of circumcision – for Muslims 1 – in Aquinas 137, 139, 153 – in Augustine 131–32, 153 – in Josephus 36, 156 – in Jubilees 7, 19, 24 – in Justin 123, 125, 127–30, 153, 155 – in Luther 141 – in modern interpreters 5, 90, 116, 146, 150, 154 – in Paul 6, 79, 106, 113, 115–16, 118– 21, 158 – in Philo 56 Stoicism 28, 46–48, 51, 54, 88, 103 synagogue – Gentile adhesion to 92–93, 106 – homilies for 44, 58 – importance of 72 – Jewish adhesion to 44, 82, 72 – purposes of 72 – invading of 42 Ten Commandments (see also Decalogue) 55–58, 133 Therapeutae 73, 88–89 Titus – canonical letter to 77 – Emperor 34 – Paul’s companion in Galatians 88, 132 universalism 2 whole law 84, 89–91, 147 women – and circumcision 1, 13–14, 17, 23–26, 29–33, 37–39, 60, 62, 120, 128, 156 – discussion of 19, 37–38, 62–64, 69, 71, 129 works of law 5–6, 85–86, 90, 94, 12, 133, 142, 146–47, 149–51, 154 Zealots 81