Conversion, Circumcision and the Law

Neil J. McEleney

doi:10.1017/S0028688500014831

Conversion, Circumcision and the Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009

Neil J. McEleney

Show author details

Neil J. McEleney: Affiliation:
(Jerusalem, Israel)

Article contents

Abstract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Type: Short Studies
Information: New Testament Studies , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , April 1974 , pp. 319 - 341

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500014831 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 319 note 1} The author's article in the Tyndale Bulletin XXIII examines other parts of Mark iv and paralles.

^{page 319 note 2} Davies, W. D., ‘Torah and Dogma: a comment’, H.T.R. LXI (1968), 87–105.Google Scholar Here, see pp. 100–2.

^{page 319 note 3} For one, Cranfield, C. E. B., ‘St Paul and the Law’, S.J.T. XVII (1964), 43–68.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 1} The authorship of Ephesians is not an issue here, for as Zerwick, M. remarks, ‘Whoever may have done the actual writing of the epistle, Paul is the source of the material of the epistle; and it can be read with the other Pauline writings as a part of a single body of Christian teaching.’ The Epistle to the Ephesians (London: Burns & Oates, 1969), p. viii.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 2} See D. L. L., , ‘Strangers and Gentiles’, Encyclopedia Judaica xv (Jerusalem: Keter, 1971), 419–21.Google Scholar

^{page 321 note 1} For further details see Kuhn, K. G., ‘προσήλυτος’, T.D.N.T. VI, 727–44;Google Scholar here, p. 731. In even greater detail, see Allen, W. C., ‘On the meaning of ΠΡΟΣΗΛΥΟΣ in the Septuagint’, The Expositor (Fourth Series), x (1894), 264–75.Google Scholar

^{page 321 note 2} These are the ‘lion converts’ and the ‘Mordecai convenrts’ of kid 75a-76a.

^{page 321 note 3} Josephus, , Ant. 13. 257–8.Google Scholar Later, Herod the Great, an Idumaean, is contemptuously called a half-Jew (ήμιιουδαίος), Ant. 14. 403.

^{page 321 note 4} Ant. 13. 318.

^{page 321 note 5} Ant. 13. 397. Πέλλαν (ταύτηngr; δε κατέσκαψαν ούΧ ύποσΧομένων τῶν ένοικιούντων ές τά πάτρια τῶν 'Ιουδαίων έθη μεταβαλεīσθαι).

^{page 321 note 6} Ant. 18. 82. Fulvia is described as νομίνοις προσεληλυθυίατοός 'lουδαίκοίς.

^{page 321 note 7} Ant. 20. 34. γυναίκας … έδιδ ασκεν αύτάς τόν θεόν σέβειν ώς 'lουδαιοις πάτριον.

^{page 321 note 8} Ant. 20. 35. κάκείκνον όμοιως συνανέπεισεν.

^{page 321 note 9} Ant. 20. 35.Google Scholar συνεβεβήκει δέ και τήν ‘ελένην όμοιως ύϕ’ έτέρου τινός:'lουδαιου διδαχθεισαν εις τούς έκεινων μετακεκομισθαι νόμους.

^{page 321 note 10} Ant. 20. 43–6.Google Scholar

^{page 322 note 1} Ant. 20. 75.Google Scholar έθχον έpgr;ιθυμιαν και αύτοι τά πάτρια καταλιπόντες έθεσι χρῆσθαι τοις 'lουδαιων.

^{page 322 note 2} Ant. 16. 225.Google Scholar Σύλλαιος δέ, άξιούνξων αύτòν έγγραϕῆναι τοίς τῶν 'lουδαιων έθεσι κ:αι τότε γαμείν … ούχ ύπομεινας άλλά … άπαλλάττετεται.

^{page 322 note 3} Ant. 20. 139.Google Scholar μή βουληθεις τά 'lουςαιων ἒθη μεταλαbgr;είν.

^{page 322 note 4} Ibid.

^{page 322 note 5} Ant. 20. 145.Google Scholar πειθει Πολεμωνα, … περιτεμόμ:εενον άλαλέσθαι πρός γάμον αύθήν.

^{page 322 note 6} Ant. 20. 146.Google Scholar [Πολέμων] ό δ' άμα το⋯ τε γάμου και το⋯ τοίς ἒθεσι τῶν 'lουδαιων έμμένειν άπέλλακο.

^{page 322 note 7} War 2. 454.Google Scholar οι … άπεσϕάληαν άπαντες πλήν Μετιλ:ιου, το⋯τον λάρ ικετεύσντα και μέχρι περιτομῆς ιουδαισειν ύποχόμεενον διέσωσαν μόνον.

^{page 322 note 8} Life, 113. ούκ ειασα βιασθῆναι, ϕάσκων δείν δείν [άνθρωπον] κατά τήν έαυτο⋯ προαιρεσιν τόν θεόν εύσεβείν άλλά μή μετά βιας.

^{page 322 note 9} Ibid.

^{page 322 note 10} War 2. 463.Google Scholar έκαστοι τούς ιουδαισοντας είχον έν ύποψιἀ … και μεmgr;ιλμένον ώς βεβαιως άγγòϕυλον έϕοβείτο.

^{page 322 note 11} War 2. 560.Google Scholar έδεδοικεισαν δέ τάς έαυτῶν γυναίκας άπάσας πλήν όλιγων ύπeegr;λμένας τῆ 'lουδαι‥κῆ θρησκεια.

^{page 322 note 12} War 7. 45.Google Scholar άει τε προσαλόμενοι ταίς θρησκειαις πολύ πλῆθος 'Eλλήνων, κάκεινους κάκεινους τρόπω τπινι μοίραν αύτῶν πεποιηντο.

^{page 322 note 13} C.Ap. 2. 280–4Google Scholar.

^{page 323 note 1} Converts are often notoriously zealous. The sense of the passage is that the casuistry of the Pharisaic convert is even more pronounced. Obviously, in its context, this is not a favourable judgement on either the Pharises or their converts.

^{page 323 note 2} That is, Jews by birth and Jews by conversion.

^{page 323 note 3} E.g. Sir. ii. 7, 8, 9, 15, etc.

^{page 323 note 4} Josephus, , Ant. 20, 34–48, 75–6.Google Scholar

^{page 323 note 5} Ant. 20, 34;Google Scholar see p. 321 n. 7.

^{page 323 note 6} Ant. 20. 35;Google Scholar see p. 321 n. 8.

^{page 323 note 7} Ibid.; see p. 321 n. 9.

^{page 323 note 8} Ant. 20. 38;Google Scholar see following note.

^{page 324 note 1} Ibid. Πυθόμενος δέέάνυ τοις '∣ονδαιων έθεσιν Хαίρειν τήν μητέρα τήν έαυτο⋯ έσπευσε κα∣ αύτός εις έκεινα μεταθέσθαι, νομίзων τε μή άν ειναι βεβαιως '∣ουδαīος, εί μή περιτέμοιτο, πράττειν ήν έτοιμος.

^{page 324 note 2} Ant. 20. 41.Google Scholar δυνάμενον δ' αύτòν έϕη και χωρις τῆς πεπιτομῆς τò θείον σέβειν, εἴλε πάντως κέκρικε зηλο⋯ν τά πάτρια τῶν 'lουδαιων. το⋯τ' εiacgr;ναι κυρον το⋯ περιτέμνεσθαι.

^{page 324 note 3} Ant. 20. 43.Google Scholar πάνυ περigr; τά πάτρια δοκῶν δοκριβής είναι….

^{page 324 note 4} Ant. 20. 45.Google Scholar

^{page 324 note 5} Ant. 20. 46.Google Scholar

^{page 324 note 6} C.Ap. 2. 123.Google Scholar

^{page 324 note 7} C.Ap. 2. 209–10.Google Scholar

^{page 324 note 8} C.Ap. 2. 210.Google Scholar τούς δ' έκ παρέρλου προσιòντας άναμινυσθαι τῆ συνηθεία ούκ ήθέλησεν.

^{page 325 note 1} C.Ap. 2. 261.Google Scholar

^{page 325 note 2} War 7. 45.Google Scholar κάκεινος τρόπω τινι μοίραν αuacgr;τῶν πεποιηντο.

^{page 325 note 3} Philo, , The Special Laws, 1, 52.Google Scholar

^{page 325 note 4} IQS 2: 19 f.; 6: 8.

^{page 325 note 5} CD 14: 4, 6.

^{page 325 note 6} bShek. i: 6.

^{page 325 note 7} Kuhn, ‘προσήλτος’, 741.

^{page 325 note 8} Ibid. 743.

^{page 326 note 1} One of the clearest examples in the Septuagint, II Chr. v. 6, has been completely misunderstood in Strack, H. and Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, II, 719.Google Scholar The Hebrew speaks of ‘King Solomon and all the community of Israel who were gathered around him before the Ark…’. The Greek reads, ‘King Solomon and all the community (συναλωλή) of Israel, both the God-fearers (ϕοβούμενοι) and those who were gathered to them (αύτῶν, i.e. the God-fearers) before the Ark…’. Strack-Billerbeck, and others following them, take the ϕοβύμενοι to be half-converts by reading a triple division in the text: ‘Die ganze Gemeinde Israel u. ολ ϕοβούμενοι “die Gottesfürchtigen” (= Halbproselyten) u. ολ έπισυνηλμένοι, “ihre zur Gemeinde Hinzugetanen” (= Ganzproselyten).’. This sandwiches the haif-proselytes between two groups of full Jews. Actually, the Septuagint gives a twofold division: the whole community of Israel, i.e. the God-fearers; and those who were joined to them, i.e. the converts. Thus the God-fearers here are Jews by birth.

^{page 326 note 2} Josephus, , C.Ap. 2. 171.Google Scholar

^{page 326 note 3} C.Ap. 2. 217.Google Scholar

^{page 326 note 4} M. Simon, ’Sur les débuts du prosélytismejuif’, pp. 509–20 of Caquot, A. and Philonenko, M. (eds.), Hommages à André Dupont-Sommer (Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1971), says (p. 513)Google Scholar, ‘Dans le roman de Joseph et Aséneth, que son plus récent commentateur incline à dater du debut du IIe si`cle ap. J.-C., ce sont en général les Hébreux, Lévi, Benjamin, Joseph, qui sont qualifiés de θεοσεβείς ou de ϕοβούμενοι τòν θεόν (ou κύριον), au point que ces expressions paraissent être des synonymes purs et simples de Israélites.’ See Philonenko, M., Joseph et Aséneth (Leiden: Brill, 1968), p. 142,Google Scholar note on 4: 9. The references are 4: 9, 22: 8, 27: 2.

^{page 327 note 1} Simon, p. 518.

^{page 327 note 2} Deissmann, A., Light from the Ancient East (London: Hodder & Stoughton, ⁴ 1927), p. 452.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 3} Acts xiii. 43.

^{page 327 note 4} Acts xiii. 26.

^{page 327 note 5} Acts xviii. 12–17.

^{page 327 note 6} Acts xviii. 7. The New American Bible describes him as a Gentile, a designation it adds to the original text.

^{page 327 note 7} Frey, J.-B., Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum (Rome: Pont. Inst. di Archeol. Cristiana, I, 1936; II, 1952), II, 18–19Google Scholar n. 754.

^{page 327 note 8} Deissmann, , Light…, p. 452Google Scholar n. 2.

^{page 327 note 9} Frey, 1, 141 n. 202.

^{page 327 note 10} Josephus, , Ant. 20. 34.Google Scholar

^{page 328 note 1} Acts xvi. 14.

^{page 328 note 2} Josephus, , Ant. 20. 195Google Scholar; Life 16.

^{page 328 note 3} Ant. 14. 110 (cf. Ant. 12. 50 together with Aristeas 42).

^{page 328 note 4} Ant. 20. 38–46.

^{page 328 note 5} Ant. 20. 42.

^{page 328 note 6} Ant. 20. 43–6.

^{page 328 note 7} This passage is among fragments ‘Ex Catena Inedita Cod. Reg. No. 1825 in Bibliotheca Regis Christianissimi’ and included in Richter, M. C. E., Bibliotheca Sacra Patrum Ecclesiae Graecorum – Pars II – Philonis Judaei Operum Omnium Tom. VI (Leipzig: Schwickert, E.: 1829), pp. 241–2.Google Scholar The passage is given as if it were a commentary on Exod. xxii. 19 (and so Kuhn cites it in ‘ποσήλυτος, p. 732), but it does not fit that text. Belkin conjectures, more aptly, that it is a comment on Lev. xix. 33–4. Apparently, however, the text comments on Exod. xxiii. 9 (which is cited in the commentary of Philo), and the heading in the edition of Richter is due to the error of reading ‘Exod. xxii. 19’ for ‘Exod. xxiii. 9.’

^{page 329 note 1} Belkin, S., Philo and the Oral Law: The Philonic Interpretation of Biblical Law in Relation to the Palestinian Halakah (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1940), p. 47.Google Scholar

^{page 329 note 2} All Talmudic references in this essay are to the Soncino edition unless otherwise noted.

^{page 329 note 3} Kuhn, ‘ποσήλυτος’, p. 738.

^{page 330 note 1} Again, Yeb 8: I speaks of an uncircumcised priest.

^{page 330 note 2} The translation is that of Danby, H., The Mishnah (London: Oxford University Press, 1933), p. 513.Google Scholar

^{page 330 note 3} I.e., a Samaritan, who in some rabbinic legislation is considered an Israelite.

^{page 331 note 1} Shechitah () is slaughter according to Jewish ritual. The additions in brackets are supplied by I. Epstein, the translator of this Tractate for the Soncino Edition.

^{page 332 note 1} Yeb. 46a; see A.Z. 59a.

^{page 332 note 2} Souilhé, J., Épictéte: Entretiens Livre II (Paris: Société d'Éditions ‘Les belles lettres’, 1945), pp. 35–6.Google Scholar … τί ύποκρίνη 'Ιουδαιἴον ω┬ν 'Ελλην; ούΧ όρᾷς, πῶς έκαστος λέλεται 'Ιουδαι⁃ος, πῶς Σύρος, πῶς ^Agr;ίλύπτιος; καί όταν τινά έπαμϕοτερίзοντα ίδωμεν λέλειν “ούκ έστι τῷ όντι καί καλείται 'Ιουδαῖος. Ούτως καί τούτοις ά λέλομεν, έϕ' οίς ώς είδότες αύτά έπαιρόμεθα.

^{page 332 note 3} Meyer, R., ‘περιτέμνω’, T.D.N.T. vi, 80.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 1} Josephus, , Ant. 20. 268.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 2} Ant. 1. 192.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 3} Ant. 20. 44–5.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 4} Meyer, ’περιτέμνω’, 77–8.

^{page 333 note 5} Josephus notes the separateness of Judaism brought about by circumcision: ‘…to the intent that his posterity should be kept from mixing with others, God charged him to have them circumcised…’. This motive is not mentioned in Scripture (Ant. 1. 192).

^{page 333 note 6} H. Freedman translated and annotated this tract for the Soncino Talmud. The translation of the addition to Nedarim 3: 11 is also his.

^{page 333 note 7} Shab 135a.

^{page 334 note 1} .

^{page 334 note 2} “Εστη τό αīμα τῆ⋯ περιτομῆς το⋯ παιδιου μου.

^{page 334 note 3} Shab 137b.

^{page 335 note 1} Whether one places the incident of Gal. ii. 11–14 before (as I have done) or after the Apostolic council at Jerusalem (Acts xv), it remains true that the judaizers seem not to have given up in their attempts to impose a tighter discipline upon the whole Church.

^{page 337 note 1} Houlden, J. H., Paul's Letters from Prison (Baltimore: Penguin, 1970), pp. 237–8.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 2} See also Nedarim 3: II.

^{page 337 note 3} E.g. Life 43–3 which tells of the Gentile attack upon Gischala and the Jewish reprisal after it.

^{page 338 note 1} Josephus speaks with pride of the Jewish ability to sustain persecution for the Law. C.Ap. 1. 42–3; 1. 190–3; 2. 218–19; 2. 232–5.

^{page 338 note 2} The translation is that of Hadas, M., Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas) (N.Y.: Harper and Brothers, 1951).Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 3} Aristeas, 130.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 4} Aristeas, 139–42.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 5} Josephus alleges separatism as a reason for circumcision too. Ant. 1. 192.Google Scholar

Article contents

Conversion, Circumcision and the Law

Abstract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests