How a culturally misunderstood “conversion” caused an accidental “revolution”

It has been presumed that Paul was preaching a revolutionary theology to his non-Jewish audience.  The references to Leviticus have seemed to some to be accidental, because of the presumption that Paul had a conversion from Judaism to a revolutionary new creed.  However, In Romans we find other references to text which indicate not only that Paul’s theology was not new, it was not very revolutionary.  And what he preached did not diverge from normative Jewish praxis.

 One of the references which has puzzled Christian scholars and theologians is Paul’s injunction to “Circumcise your hearts.”  A great deal of speculation has been devoted to exactly what Paul might have meant by this.  Such speculation would end if those same scholars and theologians would bother to go back to their TaNaKh and discover that Paul was quoting Deuteronomy:

The Hebrew text of Deut 10:16 says: 

עוד ושׁתק לא ועפכם לבבכם ערלת את ומלתם

Circumcise your hearts and stiffen your neck no more.

The LXX text is somewhat different: 

Και περιτεμεισθε την σκλεροκαρδιαν υμων, και τον τραχηλον υμων ου σκληρυνειτε.

And you will circumcise your hardheartedness and you will not harden your neck.

The Hebrew text of Deut 30:6 is:

חייך למען ךשׁובכל־נפ בכל־לבבך אלהיך את־יהוה לאהבה זרעך ואת־לבב את־לבבך אלהיך יהוה ומל

The Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your progeny to love the lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul so you will live.

In the LXX, this verse is:

Και περικαθαριει Κυριος την καρδιαν σου, και την καρδιαν του σπερματος σου, αγαπαω  Κυριον τον θεον σου εξ ολης της καρδιας σου, και εξ ολης της ψθχης σου, ινα ζης συ.

And the Lord will purge your heart and the heart of your seed to love the Lord your God will all your heart and with all your soul that you will live.

Paul, in Romans 2:29 says:

Αλλ ο εν τω κρυπτω ιουδαιος;

* But is he a Judean in secret? 

This is traditionally translated “but he is a Jew who is one inwardly.”  That makes no sense. The punctuation tells us that this is a question. The pronoun is not a relative pronoun.  Κρυπτω  is generally translated as «secret,» so why in this case should it be translated «inwardly»? 

Και περιτομη καρδιας, εν πνευματι, οθ γραμματι, ου ο επαινος ουκ εξ ανθρωπων, αλλ εκ του θεου.

* And is [it] a circumcision of the heart in spirit, not in letter?  His praise is not from humans but from God.

This is consistent with the Hebrew text rather than with the LXX, and it suggests that Paul was attempting his own translation of the Hebrew text for his communities, rather than using the existing Greek text.  (This would also account for why Paul invented the word arsenokoitai, which does not appear in the LXX—it would seem that he was attempting to create a Greek word that approximated the heart of the Hebrew text, which is not apparent from the LXX).

It seems here that Paul is distinguishing between brit dam and brit milah.  The two terms are largely unknown in the non-Jewish world.  Brit dam, literally “blood contract” is circumcision as it is performed on a male whose parentage is Jewish—it is the circumcision that is ordinarily thought of when one thinks of circumcision.  Brit milah (literally “contract of word,” as Paul translated it into Greek), is circumcision performed on a male whose parentage is not originally Jewish, as part of a male conversion to Judaism.

As previously discussed regarding the theosebia, Greco-Romans revered the human form, and did not believe in physical mutilation as a sign of devotion to a cultic practice.  To reassure his non-Jewish community in Rome that physical circumcision was not necessary in order to be accepted into Judean practice, Paul cites Deuteronomy which confirms that circumcision of the heart is as valid an identifier of Judean practice as circumcision of the penis. 

With this question, it seems that Paul is asking if the male who identifies himself as a practicing member of Judean Temple worship is a male who was born to Judean parents, but who has foregone circumcision of the penis in favor of Deuteronomically acceptable “circumcision of the heart” (in order to appear assimilated and Greek—“civilized,” or because there was no mohel available to perform the physical surgery), or if the male is of non-Jewish parentage, and is practicing Deuteronomically acceptable “circumcision of the heart” for the same reasons.

It is arguable that Paul is attempting his own Greek translation of the Hebrew text because he was aware of the divergence that existed between the LXX and the Hebrew, and he wanted his communities to receive “real” Judean praxis, rather than the redacted praxis as outlined in the LXX translation of Deut.  Regarding transmission of “real” Judaism, one could say that little has changed in the past 2000 years, as witnessed by the Reform Movement accepting patrilineal descent (something that is not accepted among other streams of Judaism), and the ongoing attempts of the Haredim to obstruct Nashot HaKotel (the black-hat Orthodox if Israel and the Women of the Wall, who are seeking to pray normative Jewish prayers, in normative Jewish prayer attire, at the Western Wall).

Paul’s theology is neither new nor is it revolutionary.  The communities he was cultivating were not being cultivated into a radical new form of Judaism, but were being introduced into existing Judean praxis, and were being reassured that their mode of praxis would be considered acceptable to normative Judeans.

What made Paul radical was that as a self-proclaimed Pharisee, he would have been one of those opposed theosebia—non-Judeans who liked Judean “philosophy” but who did not want to have the surgery necessary to become fully functioning members of the Temple in Jerusalem.  His “conversion” on the road to Damascus was the realization that it was possible to communicate Judean practice to non-Judeans in a way that would be acceptable to both.  He discovered for himself a way to include theosebia in legitimate Judean practice.