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: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Paul's persecution of the Church
  • Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 10:33:18 -0500


Dear Hyam,
Thank you for responding. While I fear that a) this discussion could go on
endlessly, and b) that we are unlikely to agree, based upon what each of us
has already argued, presumably aware of opposing views on each of these
points and passages, I will respond below to the matters you generously
raise in answering my question. I am sorry about the length, but I do hope
that it permits my reply to be clear, and the exchange of some value.

> Mark 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.
>
And Hyam responded:
> 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.

There are several issues here, and the most important one is the context of
the language used.

You note that this is a play on words; the question is then, what is the
real view of Paul, in this case (based on my question to you), about the
value Paul places on parents ensuring the continuation of circumcision for
their Jewish infants, that is, on continued Jewish identity for Jewish
families, including families of believers in Jesus, such as himself. Fair
enough?

Paul is a rhetorical guy, to say the least, and this language highly
polemical. So the surface level can be misleading if taken to be a statement
of universal fact. Now I do not think that the play on "spiritual"/"fleshly"
means he cannot hold that both aspects have their place. So he can elsewhere
call the Torah spiritual in a positive sense in Romans 7, although it is
obviously not only spiritual. It is not clear here that the "we" who "are
the circumcision..." is not a reference to the kind of Jews Paul and his
fellow-worker Jews consider themselves to be in contrast to some other Jews.
If so, it would undermine your argument. If not, then I can still see
problems with the inferences you draw. Does seeking to establish the
identity of the addressees as circumcised in the sense of the worshippers of
God in spirit mean that circumcision in the flesh is not still an honored
aspect of identity, except in the case of his rivals when they seek to make
proselytes of Gentiles in Christ? In the next verses Paul appeals to this
honored identity in the flesh to argue for his authority to hold the view he
holds, so this represents recognition of circumcision having its place. But
for Paul, that place is not to be put in play in opposition to the place of
Christ. That is a false dichotomy, in the view he expresses here.

You note that the word PERITOME is retained by Paul for spiritual
circumcision by Christian faith, but this is not so in other passages (e.g.,
v. 5; Gal. 2:7-8; Rom. 4:11-12, to name a few). But most important, it seems
to me that the emphasis here is on undermining the voice of those who
"insist" on something that Paul does not believe in this case to be
appropriate, not the something itself, in a universal sense. It is
inappropriate for non-Jews within the Christ-believing coalition to become
proselytes, Paul maintains, and thus those who "insist" upon this have the
wrong motives, he asserts, thereby they undermine the real spiritual value
of circumcision, which can thus be equated with physical mutilation, not
conversion. In other words, he is arguing that it is not the addressees'
interests but the interests of those he opposes that he accuses these others
of serving, and thus undermining their moral (spiritual) authority to
circumcise in the flesh, since they miss the "real" meaning of circumcision,
which is not to serve self-purposes, but the purposes of God. Again, where
you read anti-Jewish-identity rhetoric, I read intra/inter-Jewish rhetoric
about the identity of non-Jews and the interests of different Jewish groups
in the identity of those non-Jews. To me, in Paul's rhetoric the given value
of circumcision is understood, for Jews, the issue turns around what is
appropriate for non-Jewish members of this coalition, whose confidence in
the claims to identity that Paul has promoted are being undermined by those
whose influence he thereby opposes.

In other words, might not Paul be appealing to the fact that he too is
circumcised, just like those he opposes in this rhetoric, but that he is
also a servant of God's interests in a way that he denies to those who wish
to circumcise those among his addressees who are non-Jews? Is this not
intra- or inter-Jewish rhetoric, appealing to higher ground? If so, then it
is not an equation of circumcision with mutilation per se, any more than
Israel's prophets might be thought to equate sacrificing in the Temple with
idolatry per se. It has its honored place, but it is in the service of a
higher ideal, which must not be forgotten, or else the action is subject to
this kind of prophetic critique.

> 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.

Yes, this is brutal. It may even draw on an illusion to the castration of
the Galli; cf. Elli Elliott's work. But it is offered sarcastically, I
believe, and refers to the misapplication of the rite to those whose
interests are not thereby served--according to Paul's gospel for
non-Jews--by the unsettling policies of those who are undermining the
non-Jewish addressees' understanding of themselves as righteous ones unless
they undertake this rite. Does this mean that Paul views circumcision of
Jewish people as mutilation? It is not indicated here as far as I can see.
Again, his rhetoric is based on his view of the moral high ground he seeks
to uphold with respect to non-Jewish believers in Jesus as already members
of the people of God, when their identity is in his view being subverted by
those who would claim otherwise.

> It is hard to imagine that anyone who had any respect for
> circumcision as a valid rite would talk about it in this way.

I think this comment reveals much about how differently you and I read Paul.
I assume that I am reading situational rhetoric, just as I assume this when
reading the rabbis. If every statement is universalized, many become
ridiculous, certainly not representative of the larger belief system and
multifaceted commentary. Your judgement of Paul in this quotation does not
hold if Paul's language is taken in intra/inter-Jewish rhetorical terms.
Such rhetoric is not uncommon, compared to say, some of the Qumraners'
expressions toward fellow Jews, not to mention non-Jews. This kind of
"dissociating" (per Perelman) rhetoric is just what one might expect among
groups which agree upon the value of that which is being criticized in the
behavior of the other group.

When I heard a Baptist say that being a Baptist does not matter, or even
baptism, but faith in Jesus Christ, I did not take this to mean that he did
not value baptism or being a Baptist, but that no matter how highly he
valued them, they paled in comparison to the highest value, to which baptism
and being a Baptist point. So I read Paul, when dissociating rhetoric is
used about circumcision.

> 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.'

I do not agree with your assessment here; I find much to doubt in the
traditional Christian view of this passage. This is written to non-Jews who
have believed in Christ and thus gained the desired identity, according to
Paul's gospel. (The traditional Christian view reads this as though written
to everyman as a universal truth, not a contextualized statement, and the
ideological payoff of that view is self-evident in the history of dismissing
the place of Jewish identity it has justified). To now seek to gain (by
becoming proselytes) that which they have already (in Christ) is to
undermine the claim to what they have in Christ: that they as non-Jews
represent the people of God alongside Jews, as to be expected in the end of
the ages. For Paul, this would render Christ's death gratuitous (Gal. 2:21).

Further, the implications of Paul writing such a statement should be
considered. If he, a circumcised one, does not himself observe the whole
Torah, on what basis does he make this statement? He maintains a double
standard (that should be obvious to his addressees), and he has an argument
that is not likely to be convincing (for his addressees). Why would the
addressees not dismiss it on both counts? Why not say to Paul, "We just want
what you have, Jewish identity beyond dispute, yet without obligation to
observe the Torah, since we, like you, are Christ-believers?" It only makes
sense to rely on such rhetoric to win a point if they know him to be
Torah-observant, I think, but as a fellow-sufferer for his confession of
Christ, although not in precisely the same way as these Gentiles. Thus he
appeals to them to undertake suffering, just as he has, looking to the
suffering Christ (not for failure to observe Torah, but for non-conformity
on this policy of identifying non-Jews as full-members apart from proselyte
conversion, which has direct bearing upon the present plight of the
addressees as well as Paul; cf. 5:11).

> 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.

I do not think that this is either the only positive remark (see citations
noted above for PERITOME), or that it is as stingy an accolade as you
propose. It is not clear that that it implies no continued value in
circumcision for Jewish people, including Christ-believers. He does say that
the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable in that same letter (11:29),
and he has defined these not only in 3:1-2, but also in 9:3-5, which is
arguably the other end of the inclusio of chapters 9--11. Again, I do not
think he writes that physical circumcision has no value in universal terms,
as you take him to, but that its value is relative, and he is engaged in
making a rhetorical point in which that value is relativized to the higher
goal it should signify, a heart turned God-ward, which is what he claims for
his non-Jewish addressees on equal terms with those who are circumcised and
turned God-ward.

> 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.

This is a point about the Jerusalem churches for which I do not the
evidence, and so do not understand why Paul's view is any different from
theirs.

> 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.

This I do not know about either. I see him adhering to circumcision (as just
discussed), expecting it of Jewish believers in Christ (1 Cor. 7:17-20; Gal.
5:3), and respecting the mission to the circumcision of his fellow apostles
(Gal. 2:7-8).

> 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).

This explanation is not the only one available, and, in my view, is a choice
that runs against the evidence. Many Jewish people and groups might object
to conversion of Gentiles to proselyte standing at any given time, for any
number of reasons. I take Paul's reason to be explained as seeking to avoid
the collapsing of the claim that in Christ the nations as well as Israel are
reconciled to the One God of all humankind, whereas converting
representatives of the nations turning to Christ to proselyte standing would
undermine this claim (Gal. 3; Rom. 3:28-31). If so, then it can be argued
that it is Paul's respect for Jewish identity and expectations that are at
work in this strategy.

> 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 am working presently on the Jerusalem Meeting and Antioch Incident
recorded in Galatians, and have published a little on this already. I do not
see a split suggested, but an agreement, and an example of its compromise,
which was not allowed to pass without putting it in its place. Paul's
narrative here seems to me to underscore his claim to full agreement with
the Jerusalem leaders, even if they both arrived at their similar
understanding of these things relatively independently, and even if it is
with some stumbling along the way when faced with the social consequences of
this policy (just as the Galatians are tempted to seek to escape social
consequences). But the rhetorical purpose of the inclusion of this narrative
for the Galatians is to ensure that they understand that this is the policy
of this coalition, and it must not be compromised in order to escape social
marginalization.

> 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.

But Acts seems to present Peter way out in front of Paul on this. Peter's
experiences precede Paul's, and at the meeting, are of more importance for
the decision of James and the rest not to circumcise (proselytize) Gentile
members of this coalition. Although I do not think the Gal. 2 refers to the
same meeting, it does suggest the same kind of agreement on this matter. I
do not doubt that Acts shows agreement more than disagreement, but I do not
see that it represents or covers up the split you propose.

> 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.

I am familiar with your work, although it has been a while since I read
these two books. I hope that we might center on just a few things in
dialogue here, if you are willing.

Two issues have arisen of interest to me at least: 1) whether Paul abandoned
circumcision (and thus Jewish identity for himself and other
Christ-believing Jews); 2) whether the Jerusalem apostles held to views
different from Paul's on the circumcision of Jews and Gentiles, so that
their relationship can be represented as oppositional, as in a split.

Are there other passages or arguments you would like to raise to support
your view on these points?

I doubt we will convince each other, since we are already disposed to read
the evidence differently, and have been reading it differently for some
time, but I like to think I am open to learning and reconsideration in view
of a good argument. Why not? Two (Jewish) people disagree about Paul; so
what else is new? Actually, I think our biggest disagreement is
methodological, and has to do with what we believe that this language
represents in rhetorical terms. Our second probably arises from our very
different working dispositions/hunches as we read Paul, and our different
perceptions of the payoff for reading him one way rather than another, and
thus what we are most willing to believe that his language means.

Warmly,
Mark
--
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
313 NE Landings Dr.
Lee's Summit, MO 64064
USA
nanosmd AT comcast.net






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page