[B-Greek] Study of PERITEMNO
Bart Torbert
Bart.Torbert at ihsenergy.com
Mon Apr 5 10:56:03 EDT 2004
Dear Iver,
Your Joshua example is off the mark of what we are dealing with in Acts
16:3. The Joshua passage contains more evidence to work with.
The multiple knives can directly be seen as meaning multiple people would
do the circumcisions Joshua was in the position of ruling a nation. Of
course he could not personally circumcise everybody. All that was
practically possible for Joshua to do would be to order that many others
circumcise the masses
What we have with Paul and Timothy is a smaller scale, very personal
situation. It would be possible for Paul to circumcise a single person.
He would have a vested interest to do it himself. This same thing can be
seen in the two quotes regarding Abraham and Isaac.
Applying a cultural filter to ambiguous text is fine. But I am not sure
there is enough knowledge on ancient practices to say that having a local
mohel do the job is more "reasonable". From the cultural information I
have come up with, there are compelling reasons and the cultural structure
that would have allowed Paul to do it himself. So unless you have some
sources that give details of circumcision practices 2,000 years ago, what
either of us has to say is pure speculation.
I think we may be dealing with a very special, confined usage of PERITEMNO.
While in general it is non specific as to who did what to whom, the
examples that have been presented so far when the subject and the person
responsible are mentioned, it is used to specify exactly who performed the
circumcision.
Bart Torbert
bart.torbert at ihsenergy.com
"Iver Larsen"
<iver_larsen at sil.
org> To
"Bart Torbert"
04/04/2004 01:49 <Bart.Torbert at ihsenergy.com>,
PM <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
cc
Please respond to Subject
<iver_larsen at sil. RE: [B-Greek] Study of PERITEMNO
org>
> However, look at Acts 7:8
> And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so [Abraham] begat
> Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day
> I doubt anyonne would argue that someone else other than Abraham
> would have circumcised Isaac.
This was a special case since Abraham was the first to start this ritual.
> So, my thoughts are that in most cases the word is used in a non-specific
> fashion as to who did what to whom. But when specific names are brought
> in, then the intent is to show exactly who preformed the ritual on whom.
No, that is not a reasonable deduction from one special case. The text is
ambiguous since the language allows for either possibility. One can only
try
to make a reasonable guess from cultural and contextual background. In the
case of Paul and Timothy in Acts 16:3 it seems reasonable to me that the
locally recognized Jewish circumciser did the job as it was to be a
testimony to the Jewish community. It would not be such a testimony if Paul
had done this in private and secrecy.
What do you think about Joshua 5:2-3,5? Did Joshua personally circumcise
the
many thousands of Israelites? If so, why need a plurality of knives?:
RSV: At that time the LORD said to Joshua, "Make flint knives and
circumcise
the people of Israel again the second time." 5.3 So Joshua made flint
knives, and circumcised the people of Israel at Gibeath-haaraloth. ... all
the people that were born on the way in the wilderness after they had come
out of Egypt had not been circumcised."
REB: At that time the LORD said to Joshua, 'Fashion knives out of flint,
and
make Israel a circumcised people again.' 5.3 So Joshua made knives of
flint,
and the Israelites were circumcised at Gibeath-haaraloth.
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list