¹ For a broad comparative survey see Chadwick, H., ‘St Paul and Philo of Alexandria’, BJRL 48 (1966) 286–307Google Scholar; anthropology and allegory are frequent topics for comparison. On our topic of circumcision see Borgen, P., Philo, John and Paul. New Perspectives on Judaism and Early Christianity (Atlanta: Scholars, 1987) 61–71, 233–54Google Scholar. The present essay follows up my fuller analysis of Paul and Philo, among other Jews, Diaspora, in Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117CE) (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996)Google Scholar.

² Berkeley: University of California, 1994. His thesis is partly adumbrated in Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture (Berkeley: University of California, 1993) 1–10, 231–5.Google Scholar

³ I have summarized my assessment in Jews, 158–80. See also Borgen, P., ‘Philo of Alexandria: A Critical and Synthetic Survey of Research since World War II’, in ANRW 2.21.1, 98–154.Google Scholar

⁴ Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Alexandria (Berkeley: University of California, 1992) 73–126Google Scholar. Cf. Christiansen, I., Die Technik der allegorischen Auslegungswissenschaft bei Philon von Alexandrien (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [P. Siebeck], 1969)Google Scholar: Philo used allegory to discover the general in the particularity of the Scriptural text (42–6), but regarded Scripture as a uniquely trustworthy guide to the truth (152–71).

⁵ Note the close parallel in Quaest. Gen. 3.48, where the same six explanations are offered (with slight variation in order) and the same distinction is drawn between the first four (as ‘widely known facts’) and the last two (as ‘symbolical things’). In 3.47 Philo explains why for Jews it is only males who receive circumcision: because the male derives more pleasure from sex and because the male provides the ‘art and cause’ of the offspring (pleasure and pride in causation are what need to be checked). This affirms still more the appropriateness of male circumcision and ties the allegorical meanings still tighter to the literal practice. See the comparison of these passages by Hecht, R. D., ‘The Exegetical Contexts of Philo's Interpretation of Circumcision’, in Greenspahn, F. E. et al. , eds., Nourished with Peace. Studies inHellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel (Chico: Scholars, 1984) 51–79.Google Scholar

⁶ Philo's targets here are usually dubbed ‘extreme’ allegorists, but that is to adopt his partisan perspective; it is preferable to term them ‘pure’ in that they are devoted purely to the allegorical sense of the law. See further Hay, D. M., ‘Philo's References to Other Allegorists’, Studia Philonica 6 (1979–1980) 41–75, at 47–9.Google Scholar

⁷ See also Schwartz, D., Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [P. Siebeck], 1992) 15–19.Google Scholar

⁸ Philo's inconsistency is often caused by the variant demands of the biblical text on which he comments; see Dillon, J., The Middle Platonists: A Study of Platonism 80 B.C. to A.D. 200 (London: Duckworth, 1977) 146–8.Google Scholar

⁹ It has sometimes been suggested, on the basis of Quaest. Exod. 2.2, that Philo was not rigorous about circumcision in relation to proselytes (e.g. Wolfson, H. A., Philo [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1948] 2.369–71Google Scholar; McEleney, N. J., ‘Conversion, Circumcision and the Law’, NTS 20 [1974] 319–41, at 328–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Borgen, P., Philo, John and Paul, 61–71, 217–24Google Scholar). But a close reading of the text reveals otherwise. Philo is explaining how the Scriptures (Exod 22.20; 23.9 LXX) can refer to the Israelites in Egypt as ‘proselytes’ although they were not circumcised (the end of the section confirms that this question is its central theme). The reference to the ψυϰὴ τοῦ προσηλύτου (Exod 23.9) helps him to find the answer in the common ‘circumcision of pleasures and desires’. But this explanation is required only because Philo knows that proselytes are circumcised and thus prima facie not comparable to the Israelites in Egypt. The ‘not … but’ structure of the statement (προσήλυτός ὲστιν οὺϰ ὸ περιτμηθεὶς τὴν ἀκροβυστίαν ἀλλὰ ό τὰς ἡδονὰς καὶ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας καὶ τῆς ψυϰῆς) shifts the weight of the meaning of ‘proselyte’ onto ethical discipline, but only for tactical, exegetical reasons which presuppose that, in its normal sense, ‘proselyte’ means ‘one who has been physically circumcised’. There is thus no justification for finding here a programmatic denial that bodily circumcision was necessary for entry into the Jewish community (pace Borgen, 65, 221, proposing a partial parallel with Rom 2.28–9). See also Nolland, J., ‘Uncircumcised Proselytes?’, JSJ 12 (1981) 173–94, at 173–9.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Thus I cannot agree with J. J. Collins’ assertion that ‘Philo's allegorical understanding of the significance of circumcision inevitably detracts from the importance of the physical rite, even though he defends that too’ (‘A Symbol of Otherness: Circumcision and Salvation in the First Century’, in J. Neusner and E. S. Frerichs, eds., ‘To See Ourselves as Others See Us’. Christians, Jews,‘Others’ in Late Antiquity [Chico: Scholars, 1985] 163–86, at 173)Google Scholar. His claim (ibid.) that Philo could have agreed with Paul at Rom 2.28–9 is what I wish to contest in this essay.

¹¹ Since the identity of the partner is made explicit only in 2.17, it is possible that the earlier verses have wider reference (to any ‘righteous’ persons), while subsequently proving to be of specific relevance to Jews.

¹² On the use of terms here, and their likely polemical nuances in Rome, see Marcus, J., ‘The Circumcision and the Uncircumcision in Rome’, NTS 35 (1989) 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ For the Diaspora see Barclay, , Jews, 411–12Google Scholar, and for rabbinic Judaism, Hoffman, L., Covenant of Blood. Circumcision and Gender in Rabbinic Judaism (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1996)Google Scholar. Josephus considered circumcision essential for ethnic continuity (Ant. 1.192).

¹⁴ Of course, circumcision is normally regarded as one of the requirements of the law (e.g. Josephus, Ant. 20.44–5; cf. Lev 12.3), so that Paul's argument here (and in 1 Cor 7.19) must have sounded doubly strange.

¹⁵ To take a Christian analogy, all Christian churches would assert that faith is a necessary condition for valid baptism (faith of the parents or sponsors, if not of the baptizand); but few would accept that, so long as one believes, it matters not at all whether one is physically, literally baptized. The physical sacrament represents, among other things, a publicly recognizable sign of belonging to a specific community, just as circumcision signified membership of a discrete ethnic group.

¹⁶ The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1932) 43.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Black's NT Commentaries; London: A. & C. Black, 1962) 60Google Scholar; Cranfield, C. E. B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC Commentaries; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975) 1.175Google Scholar, claiming the word-play is well-known in Judaism, but with no supporting evidence.

¹⁸ Philo associates Judah with praise to God (e.g. Plant. 135), but not with ‘being praised’; cf. Josephus Ant. 1.304; T. Jud. 1.4; Grabbe, L. L., Etymology in Early Jewish Interpretation: The Hebrew Names in Philo (Atlanta: Scholars, 1988) 170.Google Scholar

¹⁹ An die Römer (HNT 8a; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck] 1980) 73Google Scholar. Dunn, J. D. G., Romans 1–8 (Word Biblical Commentary 38a; Waco: Word, 1988) 1.123Google Scholar considers Paul may be using word-play ‘even though he could not expect it to be grasped by all or many of his Greek-speaking hearers’. An alternative explanation is preferable if we take Paul to be a purposeful communicator.

²⁰ ‘Der wahre Jude und sein Lob’, Symbolae Arctoae 1 (1922) 39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar, with many illustrations from Epictetus.

²¹ Clearly non-Jews would find nothing reprehensible about Paul's non-physical redefinition of ‘Jew’ and ‘circumcision’, since the physical rite was an object of ridicule among both Greeks (e.g. Philo, Spec. Leg. 1.1–2) and Romans (e.g. Petronius Frag. 37; Martial 9.94). Perhaps there also lies behind Paul's phrase consciousness of an accusation that he has abandoned literal circumcision in order to gain honour (for himself and his converts) from non-Jews (cf. Gal 1.10; 1 Thess 2.4–6). If so, his implied defence is that his redefined Jew is not interested in human praise, only in God's.

²² This point stands however one views the precise stage of the relationship between ‘the Matthean community’ and the Jewish synagogues; see Stanton, G. N., A Gospel for a New People. Studies in Matthew (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1992) 113–68Google Scholar. The parallel between Rom 2.29 and Matt 6 was discussed by Schweizer, E., ‘“Der Jude im Verborgenen …, dessen Lob nicht von Menschen, sondern von Gott kommt.” Von Röm 2,28f und Mt 6,1–18’, in Gnilka, J., ed., Neues Testament und Kirche. Für Rudolf Schnackenburg (Freiburg: Herder, 1974) 115–24Google Scholar. However, Schweizer overlooked the social correlation of these phrases and detected only a putative common critique of Judaism as concerned with gaining merit in the eyes of one's neighbours; cf. Wilckens, U., Der Brief an die Römer (EKK; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener) 1.156.Google Scholar

²³ J. L. Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (Nashville: Abingdon, 1968) showed that this question underlay many of the Johannine disputes with Jews. His thesis stands, even if the precise correlation with the birkath ha-minim is problematic to some degree.

²⁴ See further T. Seland, Establishment Violence in Philo and Luke. A Study of Non-Conformity to the Torah and Jewish Vigilante Reactions (Leiden: Brill, 1995).

²⁵ It is not clear whether ‘if I still preach circumcision’ represents a current claim about Paul's preaching and, if so, whence it springs. Borgen's thesis (Philo, John and Paul, 233–54) that Paul's moral teaching could be understood in a Philonic sense as ‘ethical circumcision’ is unconvincing; see my Obeying the Truth. A Study of Paul's Ethics in Galatians (Edinburgh: T. &T. Clark, 1988) 50–1.

²⁶ Circumcision: Suetonius Domitian 12.2; Petronius Satyricon 102.14; Tacitus Histories 5.5.2; Juvenal Sat 14.99. Sabbath-observance: Philo Legatio 155–8; Ovid Ars Amatoria 1.76; Juvenal Sat. 14.105–6 etc.

²⁷ A Radical Jew, 78–9; Rom 2.25–9 is discussed twice, 78–81 and 93–7.

²⁸ See R. P. Carroll, Jeremiah (OT Library; London: SCM, 1986) 158. The circumcision of fruit trees (Lev 19.23–5) seems to be a different matter, perhaps reflecting an early association of the rite with fertility; so H. Eilberg-Schwartz, The Savage in Judaism (Bloomington: Indiana University, 1990) 141–76.

²⁹ To define its meaning as ‘the interior motivation of human actions’ (J. A. Fitzmyer, Romans [Anchor Bible 33; New York: Doubleday] 322) seems to represent an unwarranted idealizing.

³⁰ For this complex passage see Carroll, Jeremiah, 249–52. The immediately preceding verses concern boasting (cited in 1 Cor 1.31), a theme of obvious relevance to Rom 1–4. That might suggest that this whole passage exercised some direct influence on the paragraph we are considering.

³¹ See R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (London: SCM, 1952) 220–7 and, for a critique of inappropriate anthropological models, D. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale, 1995)6–15.

³² For discussion see, e.g., E. Käsemann, ‘The Spirit and the Letter’, in Perspectives on Paul (London: SCM, 1971) 138–66 and S. Westerholm, ‘Letter and Spirit: The Foundation of Pauline Ethics’, NTS 30 (1984) 229–48. On 2 Cor 3.6, see R. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale, 1989) 122–53.

³³ ‘Flesh’ and ‘Spirit’ appear in 2.28–9 in indirect, but not direct, antithesis; on the roots and meaning of this word-pair in Pauline theology see my Obeying the Truth, 178–215 (esp. 185–7 with reference to E. Brandenburger's strained Philonic reading of the Pauline antithesis).

³⁴ Thus one may say that 2.28–9 refers implicitly to Christian believers (both Jewish and Gentile), although the rhetorical flow of the letter prevents Paul from doing more than set up the category into which he will subsequently fit them. It is just possible that Gentile Christians are in view in 2.14–16; so, e.g., Cranfield, Romans, 1.155–63; N. T. Wright, ‘The Law in Romans 2’, in J. D. G. Dunn, ed., Paul and the Mosaic Law (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1996) 131–50. But the position of φύσει in 2.14 and the lack of definitely Christian vocabulary argue against this; so, e.g. Dunn, Romans 1–8, 98–107.

³⁵ Strictly speaking, 2.28–9 contains the antithesis between ‘evident’ and ‘hidden’ Jew, but only ‘evident’ circumcision. However, the close parallel between ‘Jew’ and ‘circumcision’ in 2.28 implies that the ‘evident’/‘hidden’ antithesis is applicable to circumcision as well, the ‘hidden’ corresponding to ‘the circumcision of the heart’.

³⁶ E.g. A Radical Jew, 7–8, 67–8, 74, 80, where even baptism and the Christian community are regarded as ‘spiritual’ and therefore ‘allegorical’.

³⁷ An early draft of this paper was read in a NT graduate seminar at Duke University in November 1996; I am grateful for the advice of those present and the supplementary suggestions of the convener and host, Professor Richard Hays.