Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: [Corpus-Paul] Timothy/Titus and circumcision

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "David C. Hindley" <dhindley AT compuserve.com>
  • To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: RE: [Corpus-Paul] Timothy/Titus and circumcision
  • Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 23:48:06 -0500



>>The son of a Jewish mother and Greek father would have been classed as a
Greek.<<

I would not necessarily dispute that, although I would have added the word
"possibly" between "would" and "have," if only because the idea of
matrilineal descent is hinted at by Philo, and a lack of direct evidence for
it before the 2nd century CE (starting with the Mishna I believe) is not the
same as a lack of existence of the idea before the 2nd century CE.

I have not read David Daube's book _Ancient Jewish Law_, and I could not
find a review in the RBL site. However, an abstract of it is found in a
website maintained by The Jewish Law Association:

[Section 1:] "Conversion to Judaism and Christianity." In the
pre-exilic
period, conversion to Judaism was far more easy for a woman than for a man.
For a woman, a marriage in itself brought her within the community of her
husband. Conversely, through divorce she reverted to her original community.
The cases of Ruth and Orphah provide examples. With the exile, baptism was
introduced, first for women only, and then also for men. A difference
developed between Judaism and Christianity as to the need for circumcision;
the position of Joshua ben Hanani is highlighted. The connection of baptism
with the idea of re-birth is explored in relation to both talmudic and New
Testament sources. The last section of this essay traces the complicated
history of the rule regarding the status of the child of a Jewess and a
Gentile. The early sources assume such a child to be a Gentile. The first
movement towards the later rule (that the child is Jewish) is found in the
view of Simeon of Teman, in the second century A.D., for whom the child was
Jewish, though a mamzer. Acceptance of such a child as a full Jew is not
earlier than the 4th century. An Excursus considers the relationship of the
Book of Ruth to the Book of Esther.
http://www.mucjs.org/JLAS/collections.htm

A review of the problem from the point of view of modern Jewish
intermarriage issues, by Susan Sorek, can be found in Women in Judaism: A
Multidisciplinary Journal (2002):
http://www.utoronto.ca/wjudaism/journal/spring2002/documents/sorek.pdf
http://www.utoronto.ca/wjudaism/journal/spring2002/sorek.html

However, if Timothy would be considered "Greek" on account of his father's
ethnicity, I would think there is more significance in the statement in Acts
that his mother was Jewish than in the fact that Paul says in Galatians that
Titus, although "being a Greek," was not compelled to be circumcised when he
visited Jerusalem with Paul & Barnabas. In Acts we have to deal with the
author's agenda, which will likely color the way he portrays what details he
actually knew or presumed. In Galatians there could be several reasons, not
all of which are obvious, why Paul might speak triumphantly that his Greek
companion was not compelled to accept circumcision.

>>Could you give the reference for this incident [in which Gentiles who had
been seen reading the Jewish scriptures were said to have been ambushed by
certain Jews who demanded their immediate circumcision on threat of
death]?<<

Hippolytus [died 236 CE], _Refutation of All Heresies_ ix.26:

The Essenes have, however, in the lapse of time, undergone divisions,
and they do not preserve their system of training after a similar manner,
inasmuch as they have been split up into four parties ... But the adherents
of another party, if they happen to hear any one maintaining a discussion
concerning God and His laws--supposing such to be an uncircumcised person,
they will closely watch him and when they meet a person of this description
in any place alone, they will threaten to slay him if he refuses to undergo
the rite of circumcision. Now, if the latter does not wish to comply with
this request, an Essene spares not, but even slaughters. And it is from this
occurrence that they have received their appellation, being denominated (by
some) Zelotae, but by others Sicarii." (Ante-Nicene Fathers series, book V)

Hippolytus was apparently trying, in a confused way, to expand upon
Josephus' descriptions of Essenes in _War_ ii.119-161 and _Ant_ xviii.18-22,
so it not certain whether this contains a genuine bit of information about
(choose one) Essenes/Zealots/Sicarii, or the somewhat fictional product of
his schismatic mind.

I am aware of two other cases where Gentiles who had sought the protection
of Jews were forced to be circumcised:

Josephus _War_ 2.454 (ch 10):

Metilius, who was the Roman general [still holed up with the remnants
of
his garrison in the towers of Herod's palace in the early stages of the
revolt], sent to Eleazar, and desired that they would give them security to
spare their lives only; but agreed to deliver up their arms, and what else
they had with them. The others readily complied with their petition, sent to
them Gorion, the son of Nicodemus, and Ananias, the son of Sadduk, and
Judas, the son of Jonathan, that they might give them the security Of their
right hands, and of their oaths; after which Metilius brought down his
soldiers; which soldiers, while they were in arms, were not meddled with by
any of the seditious, nor was there any appearance of treachery; but as soon
as, according to the articles of capitulation, they had all laid down their
shields and their swords, and were under no further suspicion of any harm,
but were going away, Eleazar's men attacked them after a violent manner, and
encompassed them round, and slew them, while they neither defended
themselves, nor entreated for mercy, but only cried out upon the breach of
their articles of capitulation and their oaths. And thus were all these men
barbarously murdered, excepting Metilius; *for when he entreated for mercy*,
and promised that he would turn Jew, and be circumcised, they saved him
alive, but none else.

Josephus _Vita_ 123 (ch 23):

At this time it was [i.e., during the revolt when Josephus was
"governing"
Galilee] that two great men, who were under the jurisdiction of the king
[Agrippa] came to me out of the region of Trachonius, bringing their horses
and their arms, and carrying with them their money also; and when the Jews
*would force them to be circumcised, if they would stay among them*, I would
not permit them to have any force put upon them, (11) but said to them,
"Every one ought to worship God according to his own inclinations, and not
to be constrained by force; and that these men, who had fled to us for
protection, ought not to be so treated as to repent of their coming hither."
And when I had pacified the multitude, I provided for the men that were come
to us whatsoever it was they wanted, according to their usual way of living,
and that in great plenty also.

The undercurrent I see here is a desire on the part of some Jews that
Gentiles who seek refuge with Jews be circumcised. I am not sure if this was
only applicable in "Jewish" territory (but what defines that? The first
example above occurred in Judaea, while the second example occurred in
Galilee, and in the empire, Jews were accorded the accorded the status of an
"ethos" that had legal authority outside of the borders of Judaea, where
this "ethos" was "governed"), or whether it was the principal of the thing.
I am referring to eschatological expectations that envisioned major changes
in the world's political situation in which the Jewish people would take the
leading role, a belief (whether justified or not) held not just by some Jews
but apparently also by some Gentiles. The "principal" would be a
rationalization that seeking favor with the Jewish people out of fear of
unspecified future changes should come at the price of conversion.

Whether Paul's Gentile followers also saw themselves as seeking refuge with
Jews (rather than simply associating more closely with them) does not make
much difference when it comes to examining the motivations of the
circumcision party. It was really the latter, who strove to see the
conversion of Paul's Gentile followers, who perceived that these Gentiles
were seeking refuge. If the Gentile followers of Paul were seeking to lay
claim to the promises God made to Abraham's children, it is not hard to
imagine how they could have felt that they were seeking refuge among Jews.

Paul's attitude does not appear to have been so eschatologically driven as
that of the others who urged circumcision, although the Pauline letters do
refer to the "day" a few times (e.g., Rom 2:5, 16; 1 Cor 1:8, 3:13, 5:5: 2
Cor 1:14; Eph 4:30; Phil 1:6, 10, 2:16; 1 Thes 5:2, 4: 2 Thes 1:10, 2:2-3; 2
Tim 1:12, 18 & 4:8, not all of which may be original to paul but indicating
the strength of the concept). Paul seems to have held an opinion similar to
that of Josephus, that the matter should be an issue of free choice, not
compulsion, although he does not appear to think circumcision would actually
benefit Gentiles in any way and tries to persuade his followers not to
undergo the rite.

After all, the ramifications of their conversion would have a ripple effect
throughout both the Gentile and Jewish communities in the regions where the
converts lived. This was, incidentally, exactly the concern that Queen
Helena of Adiabene had when her sons were persuaded by a hard-line Jewish
merchant to undergo circumcision. She herself had a different Jewish advisor
who had recommended that the sons remain faithful Gentiles.

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA

PS: The Hasmonaean princes had managed to persuade the formerly Gentile
peoples of Idumaea and parts of Ituraea to convert in exchange for the right
to continue to possess their lands as Jews and enjoy the political benefits
that would accrue to those who join an expanding Jewish state. The Idumaeans
were marginalized peoples within the sphere of Nabatean control, and the
Ituraeans were marginalized by the Syrians, as they were thought, even in
Roman times, to be more "Arab" than Syrian. I wonder if anything can be made
of this idea of marginalization and refuge seeking on the part of Paul's
Gentile followers, especially when considering the time Paul spent in
"Arabia" (which I might suggest meant he was actually active in Ituraea, and
possibly employed in the army of a Herodian prince).






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page