Casper

I can accept that, no problem.

steve_bnk

Why should language back then be any different then today? Word usage will vary with context and the speaker.

Solo

But then again there are historicists who who do not accept that Rom 15:8 is a reference to an earthly "ministry" of Jesus.

What should that be saying, Doug ?

Jiri

Doug Shaver

That some historicists try harder than others.

Solo

Try harder what, Doug, ...twist the meaning of the text to suit their purposes ?

Jiri

radius

I don't think so. Josephus uses the word only in a purely literal way. Acts refers to those of the circumcision ("οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς") and Romans has a few similar references. But the word περιτομὴ is not used on its own to represent the Jews as such. The closest is what seems to be a chiastic construct in Colossians 3:11, where Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised’ are crossed over: Ἕλλην καὶ Ἰουδαῖος, περιτομὴ καὶ ἀκροβυστία

While the NT seeks, for theological reasons, to refashion 'circumcision' as an abstract state or condition, Romans 15:8 appears to me to refer simply to the religious practice of circumcision. Bible translators frequently supply the definite article (or even "the circumcised"), but it is not in the original of Romans 15:8. The word is a singular noun, and I can see no clear reason for treating it as a kind of metonymy here for Jews.

Doug Shaver

Try harder to find references in Paul to an earthly Jesus.

Whether that requires any twisting of the meaning of the text depends on the text, I suppose. If you presuppose Jesus' historicity, I don't think it's much of a reach to construe Romans 15:8 as a reference to his earthly ministry. But if even some historicists don't construe it that way, then it's obviously not a necessary construal.

Solo

IMHO, nothing in (the genuine) Paul references Jesus' earthly ministry (except perhaps the 'Abba, Father' cry, Rom 8:15, Gal 4:6). His one and only authority are the instructions and revelations of the risen Lord which he correlates with the Jewish scriptural traditions.

The case for historical Jesus, i.e. the probability that the NT references by and large a single historical individual, is not dependent on misconstruing Paul. To my mind, it is vouched for by the Palestinian traditions about Jesus, which are independent of Paul's soteriology. Even if we have but the scantiest evidence for the Nazarene/ Ebionite views of Jesus, through the heresiarachs of the Church, they confirm that Jesus was thought of by them as a fully human, a traditional Jewish prophetic figure. To consider them as secondary, re-Judaizing development, flies in the face to the Pauline corpus.

Jiri

spamandham

...unless Paul was referring to a metaphorical circumcision rather than a physical one at this point.

premjan

Egyptians also circumcised. Perhaps the Jewish custom was borrowed?