hi ed
I read through Acts 15 and yes, its curious how Paul and Barnabas take up the first 10 verses with a question of whether the Gentiles should circumcise or not. And then get an answer about meat food and sex.
The Oxford Bible Commentary edition (2012 paperback) ‘TOBC’
“there are many textual and exegetical problems relating to the details of this decree”; “there is a puzzling lack of ‘fit’ between James’ conclusion (and the decree that follows) and the introduction to the debate”
i read through your first 3 pages a couple of times.
Acts 15. James
19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.
are there many different translations of this passage ... or are they all much the same?
what is food polluted by idols? or your translation "what has been sacrificed to idols" ? - why anything at all to do with idols?!! - i'd have thought this was obvious if you converted.
If it were just idols then i could agree with your interpretation that this means the 1st commandment - love god ... i'd like that to be true, but i dont see the connection with "sacrifice" to idols.
Why sacrifice, strangled things AND blood? ... even in the conventional (leviticus) interpretation surely this is the same thing - as far as i know in jewish practice - as a sacrifice the animal was strangled on the altar, then cut and blood dropped on the floor. Does that mean the conventional interpretation says 3 times the same thing?
Could there be a connection between newly developed christian ideas on sacrifice (e.g. Isaac, a ram, to Jesus), and the sacrifical motives sometimes connected with circumcision?
i think all the tighter forms of phimotic ring could be described as strangling, - ...
but how certain are we of how this word is translated? could it be constricting?? because contricting would refer to all the conditions! ... i remember things like charitas : dearness of heart not charity, and peter : the stone of my church.
and i think i need to know how important : "circumcision, sacrifice to idols, sexual immorality, meat of strangled animals and blood" are in relation to each other, ... why are only 4 things listed, surely there are other Jewish covenant style Laws? are these 5 the only old style covenant laws?
----------
a few other ideas : less important
i saw another page (i think it must be the normal interpretation) this was citing passages from leviticus as an explanation, but (naturally) with no understanding of circ/phimosis.
biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/tag/things-strangled/i note a small passage on your jquad page about other theories but i think you may be in a similar position to what i found often when writing
male-initiation.net. For example with the origins of the practice of routine circ., i needed to understand all the other reasons which had been argued as origins e.g. sacrifice, initiation, castration complex, etc. and understand why they had been rejected, to complete the theory.
and i believe you need some explanation for the early christian knowledge of phimosis and fr. br. - is there anything in the OT? Among circumcised people eg. americans they admit they know little of the foreskin and its problems, on the other hand one thing i found in my sample group was circumcised men were always far more open to ideas and information than uncircd., purely because they had always been aware of the subject, always been "open" to it. i could well imagine in those days as now, jewish doctors being asked to treat their heathen neighbours ... (we need to continue the OT thread : what did the jews know of phimosis?).
those are my thoughts,
cheers robin