Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
CIRCUMCISION VS MUTILATION
#1
I have stumbled across the usage of the term mutilation at the end of Philippians 3:2.

Roth translates in the AENT "circumcised in the flesh",

Please advise me as to what Aramaic term is used here to designate circumcision and is it the most correct and pointed term in the Aramaic for denoting circumcision. Is it a direct cognate with the Hebrew for this procedure.

thank you
Reply
#2
carvston Wrote:I have stumbled across the usage of the term mutilation at the end of Philippians 3:2.

Roth translates in the AENT "circumcised in the flesh",

Please advise me as to what Aramaic term is used here to designate circumcision and is it the most correct and pointed term in the Aramaic for denoting circumcision. Is it a direct cognate with the Hebrew for this procedure.

thank you

Hi Carvston,

Totally different phrase here. Psq bsra (mutilation of the flesh). The formal term for biblical circumcision is gzrtha.

+Shamasha
Reply
#3
Interesting, Paul. Norton's translation of Philippians 3:2 says like this "Beware of the dogs; beware of the evil workers; beware of [those who] cut off flesh."
Reply
#4
Its literal meaning allows for '[those who] cut off flesh,' but may I ask which 'cutting of the flesh,' while not being referred to by the standard Aramaic term for circumcision and while we still know it is this which Paul alludes, is not mutilation? This phrase is given to show the contrast between the righteous faith of Avraham and the works of the 'religious' in the flesh. This may be referring to those who are circumcised, but I would rather suggest that the men of which Paul writes are they who are causing to be circumcised the new believers prior to faith having come. This interpretation surely helps to better understand the context, and is much better than suggesting Paul would poo-poo on the rite of circumcision, which was no mutilation in Avraham.

Read what Thayer's lexicon has to say about the parallel Greek word [which is also not circumcision]: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...ongs=G2699
Reply
#5
I found Norton's translation interesting, because Latin verb mutilare means "to cut off."
Reply
#6
Mutilation mutilations, sf The act of mutilation and its outcome, mutilation, p ext. uglify, disfigurement; to cut, to amputate, to cripple, to truncate; (p ext.) to disfigure, to deform. (<Fr. Mutiler, lat. Mutilare) - V. mutilation.


For example "circumcised" is not same with "mutilated" in Galatians 2:7-8.
Reply
#7
If they were not sent by God to circumcise, such as those who reject God's Messiah, and thus God....then they are only mutilators of the flesh, while they in thier deception think they are doing God's will....just as those who "marry" a person outside of God's will and sanction, are not at all married in His eyes, but are fornicators, not married people.

It's more a designation of the term, than the definition of the word that is being revealed, while the words are not the same. The Apostle Paul is making a statement there, that those who go around trying to do God's will, in their religious practices, which may have even been established by God, but who are not sanctioned by God to do so, are really practicing a false circumsision, which is amounts to only a mutilation of the flesh. We know this is what he is talking about, because the next verse in the passage he says this:

Phil 3:3 "For we are The Circumcision, who serve God in Spirit, and glory in Eshu M'shikha, and are not confident in/upon flesh,..."

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)