Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Paul's persecution of the Church

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Hyam Maccoby" <h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Paul's persecution of the Church
  • Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 17:15:51 +0100


Dear Mark,

You wrote:
>On what basis do you claim that circumcision was down-graded by
> Paul for Jewish adherents, or that this is the basis of the split with the
> Jerusalem churches for Paul, or that there was such an eventual split at
all
> (during this period) because of this or any other issue? This is a key
issue
> for the discussion.

Paul refers to circumcision as a mutilation (KATATOME) (Phil. 3:2-3). The
New English Bible understands the significance of Paul's substitution of
KATATOME for the usual PERITOME by its translation, 'Beware of those who
insist on mutilation - 'circumcision' I will not call it: we are the
circumcised, we whose worship is spiritual'. Paul is using a play on words
to say that circumcision in the physical sense is only a mutilation. At the
same time, he retains the word PERITOME for the 'spiritual circumcision'
achieved by Christian faith.
Another important passage showing Paul's animus against circumcision is
Gal. 5:2-12. The last sentence of this is 'As for these agitators they had
better go the whole way and make eunuchs of themselves!' This is an even
more brutal expression of the idea of circumcision as mutilation. A literal
translation would be: 'I wish that those who are unsettling you would chop
themselves off!', i.e. would complete the mutilation by chopping off their
whole genitals. It is hard to imagine that anyone who had any respect for
circumcision as a valid rite would talk about it in this way. When Paul
says, in this passage, 'every man who receives circumcision is under
obligation to keep the entire law', this is not intended, as some argue, as
a justification of circumcision for Jews. It means (as it has always been
taken to mean by Christian commentators), 'If you become circumcised, your
will be entering the abrogated covenant of law-observance, not the Christian
one of union with Christ.'
Paul's only positive remark about circumcision is in Rom. 3:1, where he
writes: 'What is the value of circumcision? Much in every way!' Having
explained in the previous chapter that physical circumcision has no
importance, but only 'circumcision of the heart', Paul asserts that there
is nevertheless great value in circumcision because 'the Jews were entrusted
with the oracles of God'. This answer does not imply that there is any
continued value in circumcision, but simply that the Jews deserve some
residual honour for having transmitted the 'oracles', even though they have
now been afflicted with 'blindness'. They will eventually be redeemed, and
this is the 'value' of circumcision.
Paul's denigration of circumcision involved a split with the Jerusalem
Church, which adhered to circumcision as valid both for Jews and for
Gentiles who wished to become full Jews. Paul was prepared to show some
tolerance to Jewish Christians who adhered to circumcision and other Jewish
rites out of inertia, but raged against any Gentile God-fearers who showed
any desire to become full Jews by circumcision, and regarded them as
rejecting the new covenant of Christ. If Paul had retained any respect for
circumcision, he would not have objected, in the violent way he did, to the
conversion of Gentile 'God-fearers' to full Judaism (Gal. 3).
As for your question, 'What makes me think that there was a split
between Paul and the Jerusalem Church', I see this as the most plausible
interpretation of the quarrel between Paul and Peter recorded in Galatians.
I see the Book of Acts as largely concerned with covering up the split, and
representing Peter as slowly coming round to the position of Paul. Indeed,
if my account of Paul's dismissal of circumcision is correct, then such a
split was inevitable. For my full argument see THE MYTHMAKER and PAUL AND
HELLENISM.

With very best wishes,

Hyam
Dr.Hyam Maccoby
Research Professor
Centre for Jewish Studies
University of Leeds
Leeds.LS2
Direct lines: tel. +44 (0)113 268 1972
fax +44 (0)113 268 0041
e-mail: h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net>
To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 2:06 PM
Subject: [corpus-paul] Re: Paul's persecution of the Church


> on 6/2/02 9:13 AM, Hyam Maccoby at h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk wrote:
>
> >snip... Paul, however, took this decision of the
> > Jerusalem Council in a sense never intended by James; namely that
> > circumcision had been down-graded even for Jewish adherents to the Jesus
> > movement. This is what led to the eventual split between Paul and the
> > Jerusalem Church. snip...
>
> Dear Hyam,
> I quite agree with your statements about God-fearers, but not with what is
> copied here.
>
> Regards,
> Mark
> --
> Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
> 313 NE Landings Dr.
> Lee's Summit, MO 64064
> USA
> nanosmd AT comcast.net
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page