The Mutilators of Philippians 3:2-3.

[John D. Brey]

Circumcision is not simply an incision of the male sex organ; it is an inscription, a notation, a marking. This marking, in turn, is the semiological seal, as it were, that represents the divine imprint on the human body. . . The opening of circumcision, in the final analysis, is transformed in the Zohar into a symbol for the task of exegesis. . . The uncovering of the phallus is conceptually and structurally parallel to the disclosure of the text.​

​

Professor Elliot R. Wolfson, The Circle in the Square, p, 30.​

A discussion of the mutilators of Philippians 3:2-3 produces a double-entendre since Philippians 3:2-3 speaks of a particular group of mutilators while most of those who try to interpret Philippians 3:2-3 clearly mutilate the truth concerning what Paul is calling mutilation and whom he's calling mutilators. Professor Wolfson's statement above is too perfect since Paul's brilliant sarcasm targets those mutilating the exegesis and interpretation of Genesis 17:10-11 as much as his sarcasm is centered around the mutilation of the flesh that's in the crosshairs of those two verses.

Right in line with Professor Wolfson's statement, Paul is attacking a category of people who mutilate the text that's the textual account of the meaning and purpose of circumcision. Justifying Wolfson's statement, Paul is claiming a direct and undeniable relationship between mutilating the text of Genesis 17:10-11 for no good reason, and mutilating the flesh in the crosshairs of that text for no good reason. Exegesis that mutilates the meaning of the text for no good reason makes the text imply the flesh is being mutilated for no good reason. Paraphrasing Jerry Lee Lewis, we could say there's a whole lotta mutilation going on.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilators of flesh. For we are the circumcision, we who worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.​

Philippians 3:2-3.​

Paul reveals that in the Hebrew text of Genesis chapter 17, there are two distinct Hebrew words being interpreted and mistranslated as "circumcision" (מלל and מול). Verse 10 of chapter 17 uses the word מול, while verse 11 uses the word מלל. Paul translates the latter, מלל, into the Greek κατατομην, which, translates into English as, to scratch, cut, or mutilate. He then uses a different Greek word to translate מול (the word in verse 10); he uses the Greek word περιτομη, which in English means "circumcision" or to "circumcise." What Paul is revealing, is that in Genesis chapter 17, the Jewish interpretation and translation conflates two distinct words מלל (κατατομην, scratch, cut, mutilate) and מול (περιτομη, circumcision) as though they're speaking of the same thing.

Paul uses sanctified sarcasm to imply that anyone who thinks מול is מלל (or conflates them) can't be anything but a "mutilator" of the flesh and the text of Genesis 17:10-11, since if the word מלל (to cut, scratch, or mutilate) means the same thing as מול "circumcision," then "the circumcision" המול is speaking of "mutilators of the flesh," since the words would then not have distinct --different ---meanings. Paul is saying that if "circumcision" מול, and the sign of circumcision מלל, mean the same thing, then they're being used as a tautology in Genesis 17:10-11. If they mean the same thing, then all circumcision can possibly refer to is is mutilating the flesh. "The circumcision" המול, are then merely those with mutilated flesh.

But that's absurd. Mutilating the flesh is called a "sign" אות signifying what מול "circumcision" actually means. If it means merely cutting and or mutilating the flesh, then to be "the circumcision" המול, is merely to be a mutilator of the flesh. Paul is pointing out that Jewish exegeters who treat the text this way (i.e. interpreting מול and מלל as though they're talking about the same thing) can't be anything but mutilators of the flesh since they're undeniably saying mutilated flesh is the fulfillment of circumcision, rather than that mutilating the flesh somehow signfies what circumcision is all about. Paul on the other hand implies that mutilating the flesh מלל, though a strange "sign" אות indeed, signifies something that isn't the mutilation of the flesh. Paul distinguishes between the "sign" of circumcision, מלל, versus what the sign signifies.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilators of flesh. For we are the circumcision, we who worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.​

Philippians 3:2-3.​

Paul reveals that in the Hebrew text of Genesis chapter 17, there are two distinct Hebrew words being interpreted and mistranslated as "circumcision" (מלל and מול). Verse 10 of chapter 17 uses the word מול, while verse 11 uses the word מלל. Paul translates the latter, מלל, into the Greek κατατομην, which, translates into English as, to scratch, cut, or mutilate. He then uses a different Greek word to translate מול (the word in verse 10); he uses the Greek word περιτομη, which in English means "circumcision" or to "circumcise." What Paul is revealing, is that in Genesis chapter 17, the Jewish interpretation and translation conflates two distinct words מלל (κατατομην, scratch, cut, mutilate) and מול (περιτομη, circumcision) as though they're speaking of the same thing.

Paul uses sanctified sarcasm to imply that anyone who thinks מול is מלל (or conflates them) can't be anything but a "mutilator" of the flesh and the text of Genesis 17:10-11, since if the word מלל (to cut, scratch, or mutilate) means the same thing as מול "circumcision," then "the circumcision" המול is speaking of "mutilators of the flesh," since the words would then not have distinct --different ---meanings. Paul is saying that if "circumcision" מול, and the sign of circumcision מלל, mean the same thing, then they're being used as a tautology in Genesis 17:10-11. If they mean the same thing, then all circumcision can possibly refer to is is mutilating the flesh. "The circumcision" המול, are then merely those with mutilated flesh.

But that's absurd. Mutilating the flesh is called a "sign" אות signifying what מול "circumcision" actually means. If it means merely cutting and or mutilating the flesh, then to be "the circumcision" המול, is merely to be a mutilator of the flesh. Paul is pointing out that Jewish exegeters who treat the text this way (i.e. interpreting מול and מלל as though they're talking about the same thing) can't be anything but mutilators of the flesh since they're undeniably saying mutilated flesh is the fulfillment of circumcision, rather than that mutilating the flesh somehow signfies what circumcision is all about. Paul on the other hand implies that mutilating the flesh מלל, though a strange "sign" אות indeed, signifies something that isn't the mutilation of the flesh. Paul distinguishes between the "sign" of circumcision, מלל, versus what the sign signifies.

It is striking that in our verse the milah itself is called "brit," implying that the very act of circumcision constitutes fulfillment of the covenant. In the next verse, however, milah is called "sign brit," a sign of the covenant, implying that the fulfillment of the covenant entails more than the act of circumcision.​

​

The Hirsch Chumash, Genesis 17:10.​

Read the quotation from Rabbi Hirsch a couple times. If we remove some of the verbiage being used to protect his own confusion, he׳s questioning how the act of circumcision מלל, can constitute the fulfillment of the act of circumcision מול; the fulfillment being the word מול, and the act being the word מלל. By conflating the two words מול and מלל, and using the word "circumcision" for both of them, the text is mutilated (made a meaningless tautology) for no good reason. And yet, Rabbi Hirsch knows better:

Milah does not generally mean: to cut, to circumcise; only in connection with "brit milah" does it occur in this sense.​

​

Ibid.​

Here, Rabbi Hirsch starts down the slippery slop of this examination. Milah ---מול ---doesn't even mean to cut, scratch, or mutilate. Only when when it's conflated with מלל does it ever get translated, to cut, scratch, or mutilate. Only when the meaning of "circumcision" is in danger of being carefully examined does the word מול suddenly get interpreted as though it means the same thing as מלל. ----So what does מול mean when its meaning isn't being mutilated to make mutilation of the flesh מלל the sole purpose of "circumcision" מול?

. . . As a verb, then, milah means: to oppose, to the limit. To be sure, milah in connection with orlah means "to cut off" . . . The cutting, however, is merely a means, whereas the end and intention is to oppose, to the limit . . ..​

​

Ibid.​

Not only does Rabbi Hirsch concede that the word מול never means to cut, scratch, or mutilate (that's the word מלל), but he goes further by pointing out that when the word מול isn't being mutilated so far as its correct meaning is concerned, it means "to oppose" --something-- "to the limit." ------We need only note that the word מול in Genesis 17:10 has a heh-prefix ---המול--- (himmol) rather than a heh-suffix ----מולה---(milah) in order to see that Genesis 17:10 is speaking not of "circumcision" itself ---מולה (milah), but, where the heh-prefix isn't ignored, Genesis 17:10 is speaking of "the circumcision" ---"every male among you, i.e., the circumcision." The text doesn't say "every male will be circumcised" מולה (milah)," there's not even grammar for "will be" in the text. The text simply says, "every male among you, i.e., the circumcision."

So what, or more precisely, who, is "the circumcision" המול (himmol)? It's those who "oppose" ----something (yet to be determined)----"to the limit" (Rabbi Hirsch). "The circumcision" is a particular group of people who oppose מול something to the limit.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

​

So what, or more precisely, who, is "the circumcision" המול (himmol)? It's those who "oppose" ----something (yet to be determined)----"to the limit" (Rabbi Hirsch). "The circumcision" is a particular group of people who oppose מול something to the limit.

Properly exegeted, Genesis 17:10 says:

This is my covenant which you shall guard . . . every man among you, i.e., the circumcision המול . . ..​

Every man among you, i.e., the circumcision, shall guard the covenant. But how?

You shall cut, scratch, mutilate נמלתם the flesh of your uncircumcised body and it will be a sign of the covenant between me and you.​

​

Genesis 17:11.​

The Hebrew text is implying that creating a particular sign is how the the cadre called "the circumcision" will guard the covenant.

This is my covenant which you shall guard . . . every man among you, i.e., the circumcision המול, shall cut, scratch, mutilate ונמלתם the flesh of your uncircumcised body and it will be a sign of the covenant between me and you.​

​

Genesis 17:10-11.​

There are three important notations in Genesis 17 up to this point. There's a "covenant" ---with dimensions formerly undisclosed to Abraham concerning him and his future offspring ---there's a command to "guard" שמר this formerly undisclosed element of the covenant, and finally, there's a disclosure of how this new wrinkle of God's relationship to Abraham and his offspring is to be guarded: cut, scratch, mutilate, the flesh of the formerly uncircumcised body.

As a noun, המול or מילה (himmol or milah), "the circumcision," or "circumcision," speaks of a unique cadre of persons who are commanded to guard this new wrinkle of the covenant between God and Abraham. But as a verb, מלל, the word means to cut, scratch, or mutilate, so that Genesis 17:10-11 is clearly relating this special cadre ---"the circumcision" המול ----as those who "guard" אות this newly revealed covenant relationship between God and man. They do so by cutting, scratching, mutilating, their formerly uncircumcised bodies, to produce the "sign" of the covenant, which sign of the covenant, Rabbi Hirsch reveals is a marked opposition to the flesh of the uncircumcised body:

. . . As a verb, then, milah means: to oppose, to the limit. To be sure, milah in connection with orlah means "to cut off" . . . The cutting, however, is merely a means, whereas the end and intention is to oppose, to the limit . . ..​

​

Ibid.​

The sign of the covenant is, as Rabbi Hirsch points out, opposition, opposing to the utter limit, even drawing blood from, the flesh of the uncircumcised body. Thus, Abraham's natural posterity will "guard" שמר the newly revealed element of the covenant by producing a sign in the flesh of their uncircumcised body, after which, i.e., the production of the safe-guarding sign, Abraham's offspring will be known as "the circumcision" המול .



John

 

[John D. Brey]

The sign of the covenant is, as Rabbi Hirsch points out, opposition, opposing to the utter limit, even drawing blood from, the flesh of the uncircumcised body. Thus, Abraham's natural posterity will "guard" שמר the newly revealed element of the covenant by producing a sign in the flesh of their uncircumcised body, after which, i.e., the production of the safe-guarding sign, Abraham's offspring will be known as "the circumcision" המול .

So what's the problem in these verses that causes Jewish tradition to turn the literal meaning of the Hebrew upside down and inside out leaving the tautology that inspires St. Paul to call these exegetes mutilators of the text and flesh?

Where the literal Hebrew is made clear, there's a clear problem for Jews and Judaism. The text is implying that Abraham's natural posterity are the "guardians" of this new wrinkle in the covenant between God and mankind, and not, as they suppose, the direct or sole target of the covenant.

"The circumcision" המול in Genesis 17:10 is the people God has chosen as the "guardians" of the covenant and not necessarily the subject of the covenant. It's that unacceptable truth that acts as the prism through which Judaism must read the Hebrew in a tautological manner ----i.e., the circumcision is those who are circumcised ----leaving no meaning to what it means to be "circumcised" except that you've had the flesh of your uncircumcised body cut, scratched, and mutilated. You're the circumcision in the sense that you have a mutilated body: you're the mutilators of the flesh who glory in that meaningless tautology under the misconception that it has hidden spiritual meaning.

The idea of "the circumcision" being those who "guard" the covenant by producing a sign of the covenant distinguishes between guarding the covenant versus being the actuality of the covenant. To produce a sign of the covenant, without saying what the sign signifies, implies that those producing the sign of the covenant are merely guarding the covenant, and not necessarily entering the covenant, unless it be conceded that guarding the covenant in some sense enters the guardians into the covenant too.

Still, being entered into the covenant as guardians, those who guard it, takes all the fun and glory out of being the actuality of the covenant in such a manner that once the flesh is cut to guard the covenant the covenant has been enacted, ratified, and completed. The tautology produced by making the production of the sign of the covenant the covenant ratification (rather than a "sign" of when and how it will be ratified), is the impetus for a form of Jewish exclusiveness that's at the heart and soul of antisemitism since the tautological logic of this defacing of a text that has clear and simple meaning ---in order to make it tautological ---makes the very flesh in the crosshairs of the cutting and bleeding, i.e., the flesh the covenant opposes vehemently (even to the point of blood), the guardian and producer of "the circumcision" (i.e., the paternal offspring of the organ Abraham symbolically, significally, and as the very sign of the covenant, is supposed to opposed to the limit).




John

 

[John D. Brey]

You're the circumcision in the sense that you have a mutilated body: you're the mutilators of the flesh who glory in that meaningless tautology under the misconception that it has hidden spiritual meaning.

Pointing out the tautological insignificance of the idea that those who circumcise are the circumcision ---and then implying that Jews simply don't have to worry about the lack of meaning to the sign of circumcision since they're Jews ----would, as strange as that sounds, in fact have a thoughtful and legitimate rescue-mechanism if we were simply to imply that the sign of circumcision is a decree, or chok חק, i.e., one of the irrational, or supra-rational, decrees from God whose meaning is not given with the giving of the decree. Along these very lines, the producing of the sign of the covenant (by cutting the flesh of the uncircumcised body) can indeed legitimately be considered a chok, a decree, that is, a supra-rational commandment that Jews don't have to worry about not knowing the meaning of.

This seemingly viable solution to all the foregoing is violated fairly easily simply by establishing the real distinction between an interpretation of Genesis 17 that concedes it's a chok (a commandment whose meaning is neither known nor to be questioned), versus a tautology. When we do that, distinguish between a chok versus a tautology, Paul's rather shocking sarcastic vehemence in Philippians 3:2-3 appears to be viable if not wholly justified.




John

 

[John D. Brey]

This seemingly viable solution to all the foregoing is violated fairly easily simply by establishing the real distinction between an interpretation of Genesis 17 that concedes it's a chok (a commandment whose meaning is neither known nor to be questioned), versus a tautology. When we do that, distinguish between a chok versus a tautology, Paul's rather shocking sarcastic vehemence in Philippians 3:2-3 appears to be viable if not wholly justified.

A chok, isn't a tautology since whereas a tautology is a phrase that's grammatically elusive in that it seems to be saying something, for instance, "He descended down," when it's not, since the verb "descending" incorporates the concept "down," so that "down," is a tautological redundancy that has, adds, no meaning to the statement, on the other hand a chok is a command or decree which has meaning that simply isn't given or discerned in the context of the commandment or decree.

A chok isn't a decree without meaning but a decree whose significance will be revealed at a future time. For instance, as a chok, the meaning of cutting, scratching, mutilating the flesh, though a strange sign-language indeed, has a real significance that will dovetail perfectly with the tangible elements of the sign (cutting, scratching, mutilating the flesh) when what the sign signifies is revealed. Until then, the sign might seem hopelessly irrational, but when the significance is revealed, it will be a major aha moment.

Paul is using this distinction between a chok versus a tautology in the statement found in Philippians 3:2-3. He's pointing out that if the noun המול "the circumcision" and the verb מלל "circumcise," aren't merely a tautology, "the circumcision are the circumcised" (but what is it to be "circumcised"? it's to be "the circumcision"), that is, if the noun and the verb function in a non-tautological way (but without reference to a "sign" function), then the only viable meaning of the relationship between the noun and the verb is that "the circumcision" --the noun--- are "the mutilators of the flesh"---the verb.

If mutilation of the flesh isn't a "sign" of circumcision, a sign signifying something other than itself, then cutting, scratching, mutilating the flesh, is the whole, sole, significance of the noun --"the circumcision" and the verb "circumcise." In Paul's parlance, all those who take part in a Judaism that exegetes Genesis 17:10-11 this way, are, by their chosen exegetical mutilation of the text, nothing but mutilators of the flesh too.

Given the choice between accepting the undeniable logic of Paul --i.e., the circumcision are the mutilators of the flesh (that's all they are) ---versus a tautology: the circumcision are those who circumcise, and those who circumcise are the circumcision (where the fact that to circumcise is to mutilate the flesh is treated as though it signifies nothing except that the circumcision has been circumcised after the flesh is cut), Judaism chooses the latter, as though the fact that the cut takes place on the flesh that determines male-gender, that that flesh is mutilated to the point of it being caused to bleed, has no seminal significance whatsoever. It could just as easily and meaningfully have been a command to cut, scratch, mutilate, the pinky on the right hand, since where the cut takes place, that it takes place, how it takes place, signifies nothing but the fact it was commanded to take place, and has taken place, and is now complete.

In the same sense that a tautology always sounds like a non-tautological statement even though it's not, the quasi-tautological statement above sound very similar to a chok, though it's not, since although the meaning of a sign that's a chok is unknown, it's not non-existent, or unintended: it's merely eschatological; the meaning and the sign will eventually unite causing the ultimate spiritual aha moment. To treat a sign that's a chok, in this case ritual circumcision, as though it has no eschatological meaning awaiting revelation at some future time, distorts normal human thought not in a way that's legitimate, as in waiting for the eventual meaning of a chok to arrive, but rather, practicing a ritual with unknown dimensions as though the practice and the ritual conflate sign and signified by denying either of them have a meaning that relates to one another produces something exponentially more dangerous than a garden-variety tautology. It creates what Baudrillard referred to as a "simulation" in contradistinction to a mere facade.

To dissimulate [conceal the truth] is to pretend not to have [or to allow to remain hidden] what one has. To simulate is to feign to have what one doesn't have. One implies a [hidden] presence, the other an absence [pretending to be a presence].​

​

Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation, p. 3 (brackets mine).​

A chok conceals the truth until God's good time. A chok is like pretending not to have a meaning when it's just being hidden until God's good time. A tautology has no meaning and the truth of that is revealed without too much trouble for the discerning. The Jewish exegesis of Genesis17:10-11 is a "simulation." It feigns to have what it doesn't have (meaning and purpose). Were it a chok, it would imply the hidden presence of a meaning. If it were merely the purposeful employment of a tautology, it's merely a dissimulation; simply a fake-out or a confused statement that's sometimes difficult to untangle on the first or second go around. A "simulation," on the other hand, pretends to be something when it's nothing:

"Whoever fakes an illness can simply stay in bed and make everyone believe he is ill. Whoever simulates an illness produces in himself some of the symptoms" (Littre). Therefore, pretending, or dissimulating, leaves the principle of reality intact: the difference is always clear, it is simply masked, whereas simulation threatens the difference between the "true" and the "false," the "real" and the "imaginary." Is the simulator sick or not given that he produces "true" symptoms?​

​

Ibid.​

​

​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

"Whoever fakes an illness can simply stay in bed and make everyone believe he is ill. Whoever simulates an illness produces in himself some of the symptoms" (Littre). Therefore, pretending, or dissimulating, leaves the principle of reality intact: the difference is always clear, it is simply masked, whereas simulation threatens the difference between the "true" and the "false," the "real" and the "imaginary." Is the simulator sick or not given that he produces "true" symptoms?​

​

Ibid.​

​

Paul's calling the purveyors of the traditional exegesis of Genesis 17:10-11 "mutilators" isn't intended as a simple pejorative. Paul is seeing a particular form of Jewish exegesis very much in the light Jean Baudrillard was seeing a world of signs and symbols not anchored by a transcendental root or signifier:

. . . simulators attempt to make the real, all of the real, coincide with their models of simulation. But it is no longer a question of either maps [vs.] . . . territories. Something has disappeared: the sovereign difference between one and the other, that constituted the charm of abstraction. . . simulation is inaugurated by the liquidation of all referentials . . . it is a question of substituting the signs of the real for the real . . .​

​

Ibid. p. 2.​

In the Jewish interpretation of Genesis 17:10-11, the sign of the reality of the covenant (cutting, scratching, mutilating, the flesh) is liquidated of all referential meaning or purpose thereby inaugurating the age of a circumscript simulation that substitutes for a potential meaning otherwise referred to by the sign. The working relationship between a sign and its referent is short-circuited so that the sign becomes a simulation and not an arrow pointing to the meaning the sign is holding water for.

Such is simulation, insofar as it is opposed to representation. Representation stems from the principle of the equivalence of the sign and of the real . . . Simulation, on the contrary, stems from . . . the radical negation of the sign as value, from the sign as the reversion and death sentence of every reference.​

​

Ibid.​

But what happens if, when, a simulation ---such as the Jewish interpretation of Genesis 17:10-11 ---comes in contact with a representative interpretation that seeks to find an equivalence for the sign rather than negating the sign as a valuable arrow pointing to a reasonable equivalence? What would happen if the "sign" of cutting, scratching, mutilating, the male-organ (that traditionally fathers Jewish firstborns) was interpreted to imply the miraculous birth of an eschatological Jewish firstborn conceived as though his father's male-male organ had been so mutilated ---for real rather than as a ritual or sign ---that his birth necessitates a virgin conception resulting in his birth functioning as the most fitting equivalence and referent for the symbolic cutting, mutilating, and bleeding of the male-organ? What happens when a simulation is threatened with a fitting referential interpretation of the sign previously simulated and radically negated?



John

 

[paarsurrey]

Philippians 3:2-3.

Philippians contains neither the teachings of Moses nor of Jesus-Yeshua the truthful Israelite Messiah, please, right?
If yes, then kindly quote from Moses and or Yeshua, please.
Right?

Regards

 

[John D. Brey]

What happens when a simulation is threatened with a fitting referential interpretation of the sign previously simulated and radically negated?

Whereas representation attempts to absorb simulation by interpreting it as a false representation, simulation envelops the whole edifice of representation itself as a simulacrum.​

​

Ibid. p. 6.​

A"simulacrum" is the quintessential idol:

Simulacra are copies that depict things that either had no original, or that no longer have an original.[1] Simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time.[2]​

​

Wikipedia, Simulacra and Simulation.​

The Jewish exegesis of Genesis 17:10-11, simulates the idea that there's a relationship between verse 10 (which speaks of "the circumcision"), and verse 11 (which speaks of the "sign" of circumcision). It's just that when carefully examined, the Jewish "sign" of circumcision doesn't signify anything but merely marks those who are circumcised: the verb and the noun function as though there's no significant difference between the noun and the verb except that the verb names the noun and the noun is named by the verb (which is a tautology). When in the first century of the current era, a group of Jewish zealots offered a fitting referent for the sign of circumcision (i.e., a fitting referent for cutting, scratching, mutilating the flesh), what Judaism formerly treated as a "simulation" (of the relationship between a sign and a referent), a simulation without reference to an actual referent, was forcibly transformed into a "simulacrum."




John

 

[paarsurrey]

Philippians 3:2-3.

Philippians contains neither the teachings of Moses nor of Jesus-Yeshua the truthful Israelite Messiah, please, right?
If yes, then kindly quote from Moses and or Yeshua, please.
Right?

One could see the reality of the above " Philippians contains neither the teachings of Moses nor of Jesus-Yeshua the truthful Israelite Messiah " from the following:

Holy Bible King James Version (Red Letter Edition)
The Roman Catholic Holy Bible with the words of Jesus in red.
World Messianic Bible
right?

Regards

 

[John D. Brey]

One could see the reality of the above " Philippians contains neither the teachings of Moses nor of Jesus-Yeshua the truthful Israelite Messiah " from the following:

Holy Bible King James Version (Red Letter Edition)
The Roman Catholic Holy Bible with the words of Jesus in red.
World Messianic Bible
right?

Regards

I can't really quote from Jesus or Moses since they're dead. All we have are statements from them written not by them, but by others.

Originally I thought you were questioning the interpretation I gave of Philippians 3:2-3? I noted very different verbiage in the list of Bibles you gave. The NIV is closest to the reading I gave earlier in the thread. The Greek word translated "concision" in the KJV isn't being translated with much precision. BDAG Greek Lexicon says:

​

κατατομή, ῆς, ἡ (s. τέμνω; Theophr., HP 4, 8, 12; Synes., Ep. 15 p. 272d; Eutecnius p. 23, 28; CIG I 160, 27f; Jer 48:37 Sym.; ‘incision, notch’, etc.) mutilation, cutting in pieces w. περιτομή in wordplay, prob. to denote those for whom circumcision results in (spiritual) destruction Phil 3:2 (for similar wordplay cp. Diog. L. 6, 24 τ. μὲν Εὐκλείδου σχολὴν ἔλεγε χολήν, τ. δὲ Πλάτωνος διατριβὴν κατατριβήν).—DELG s.v. τέμνω. M-M. TW.​

​

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). In A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 528). University of Chicago Press.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

​

Simulacra are copies that depict things that either had no original, or that no longer have an original.[1] Simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time.[2]​

​

Wikipedia, Simulacra and Simulation.​

The Jewish exegesis of Genesis 17:10-11, simulates the idea that there's a relationship between verse 10 (which speaks of "the circumcision"), and verse 11 (which speaks of the "sign" of circumcision). It's just that when carefully examined, the Jewish "sign" of circumcision doesn't signify anything but merely marks those who are circumcised: the verb and the noun function as though there's no significant difference between the noun and the verb except that the verb names the noun and the noun is named by the verb (which is a tautology). When in the first century of the current era, a group of Jewish zealots offered a fitting referent for the sign of circumcision (i.e., a fitting referent for cutting, scratching, mutilating the flesh), what Judaism formerly treated as a "simulation" (of the relationship between a sign and a referent), a simulation without reference to an actual referent, was forcibly transformed into a "simulacrum."

Whereas at first there's a willingness to simulate a quasi-referential relationship between the sign of circumcision versus the fulfillment of circumcision, later, when the facade of the attempted simulation is uncovered, and here, in what Rabbi Hirsch relates as the very sin qua non of Jewish symbolism, Judaism is forced, consciously, subconsciously, religiously, or however it occurs, to circumscribe "the circumcision" within a prophylactic skene, or fore skene, which transforms the initial simulation into a simulacrum. "Such would be the the successive phases . . .":

it [the sign or image] is the reflection of a profound reality . . ..​

​

Simulacra and Simulation, p. 6.​

In a cursory reading, the sign of circumcision is a profound reflection of some reality symbolized by the nature of the sign.

it masks and denatures a profound reality . . ..​

​

Ibid.​

Where the sign of circumcision has started its transformation into a simulacrum, it begins to mask and distort, or change, hide, a profound reality.

it masks the absence of a profound reality . . ..​

​

Ibid.​

If the significance of the relationship between the sign and the referent is destroyed, then the sign masks the absence of a profound reality; the sign now stops the gaze that would transpierce the sign on the way to gaining insight concerning the reality the sign was merely a preparatory sign-post pointing toward. Now the sign becomes prophylactic rather than part of a seminal process.

it has no relation to any reality whatsoever: it is its own pure simulacrum. . .​

​

The transition from signs that dissimulate something to signs that dissimulate that there is nothing marks a decisive turning point. The first reflects a theology of truth and secrecy (to which the notion of ideology still belongs). The second inaugurates the era of simulacra and of simulation, in which there is no longer a God to recognize his own, no longer a Last Judgment to separate the false from the true, the real from its artificial . . ..​

​

Ibid.​

Alas, in the final stage, circumcision isn't a sign somehow signifying the nature and meaning of the transformation from Abram to Abraham as that transformation would relate to the mutilation of his male flesh (i.e, the sign of the transformation). Nor is it a sign signifying some eschatological event in the future such that the nature of the event will be a fitting referent for the sign of mutilating that particular flesh. In the last stage, there's no reality whatsoever that that sign signifies. It's its own pure simulacrum such that Judaism must find ever newer and ever more brilliant means of hiding the fact that the summum bonum of Jewish existence, the quintessential sign of that existence, is, for Judaism, nothing but a pure unadulterated simulacrum that threatens to codify the concept Paul voices in Phillippians 3:2-3 when he points out that as a simulacrum circumcision signifies nothing except that some persons take a peculiar pride in their insignificant mutilation of the text and the flesh that would otherwise be experienced as the seminality and significance of Genesis 17:10-11.



John