05_Biblica_1_A_Ferda_Layout 1 30/01/13 13:17 Pagina 574 574 TUCKER S. FERDA Some who have had a father who reveres the Sabbath, worship nothing but the clouds, and the divinity of the heavens, and see no difference between eating swine’s flesh, from which their father abstained, and that of man; and in time they take to circumcision (Juvenal, Saturae 15.96-106 LCL). The school of Shammai say: If a man become a proselyte on the day before Passover he may immerse himself and consume his Passover-offering in the evening. And the School of Hillel say: He that separates himself from his uncircumcision is as one that sep- arates himself from a grave (m. Pesah 8.8 Danby). In the Mishnah, the opinions of Shammai and Hillel are parallel such that “become a proselyte” in the description of Shammai’s opinion corresponds to “separate himself from his uncircumcision” in the description of Hillel’s opinion. Thus, it is assumed that cir- cumcision is the key step 56. In the others, circumcision is clearly considered the defining step in becoming part of the people of God. Thus, the process in Eph 1,13 from hearing and believing to being sealed with the Spirit corresponds to the process of Jewish prose- lytism in some circles which moved from acknowledgement of the one God (and the forsaking of pagan gods) to undergoing the rite of circumcision. This formal similarity with Eph 1,13-14 can be re- garded as further evidence that in Eph 1,13 “sealed” functions as circumcision in making God-fearers partakers in God’s promises. Thirdly, there is evidence that circumcision was contentious in the community/communities AE addressed and caused division between Jews and Gentiles. Detailed discussion of the Sitz im Leben of Eph- Here I side with J. NOLLAND, “Uncircumcised Proselytes”, JSJ 12 56 (1981) 173-194, in his debate with N.J. MCELENEY, “Conversion, Circumci- sion and the Law”, NTS 20 (1973) 319-341. McEleney argues that, for Philo, “embracing the creed (of one God)” or “circumcising the pleasures” was suf- ficient (cf. Virtues 179; QE 2.2) for the proselytization of Gentiles, and high- lighted that the rabbis debated this very issue (cf. b. Yebam. 46a). Nolland argues convincingly, however, that Philo’s statements are occasional and not to be taken as blanket statements about proselytism in general (cf. Philo’s at- tack on the allegorists of circumcision in Migration 89-105) and that the rab- binic statements are best understood as examples of “idealistic” debates about the Torah rather than practical debates about how proselytism actually worked. See also E.P. SANDERS, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE–66 CE (London – Philadelphia, PA 1992) 11. © Gregorian Biblical Press 2012 - Tutti i diritti riservati