זֹאת בְּרִיתִי אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁמְרוּ בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ הִמּוֹל לָכֶם כָּל־זָכָר׃
וּנְמַלְתֶּם אֵת בְּשַׂר עָרְלַתְכֶם וְהָיָה לְאוֹת בְּרִית בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם׃
10 καὶ αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη, ἣν διατηρήσεις, ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ ὑμῶν καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σπέρματός σου μετὰ σὲ εἰς τὰς γενεὰς αὐτῶν, περιτμηθήσεται ὑμῶν πᾶν ἀρσενικόν, 11 καὶ περιτμηθήσεσθε τὴν σάρκα τῆς ἀκροβυστίας ὑμῶν, καὶ ἔσται ἐν σημείῳ διαθήκης ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ ὑμῶν.
The Septuagint uses the same word (Paul's word for "circumcision") to translate the two Hebrew words מול and מלל. In the Greek, and the Hebrew, the two words are directly related. So a Hebrew reader might claim that translating מול and מלל the same is legit. And Paul would know that's the argument his Jewish antagonist would use. So we have to dig a little deeper than just the relationship between these words to justify Paul calling the Septuagint and the Masoretic reading of the text a "mutilation" of the true intent of the Author.
Whereas the Septuagint uses the same Greek word to translate מול and מלל, i.e., the Greek word περιτομη (meaning "circumcision"), Paul separates the two Hebrew words into two distinct Greek words implying, in his Greek translation of the two Hebrew words, that one of the Hebrew words in Genesis 17:10-11, means "to cut, to oppose, to mutilate," i.e., "κατατομην" (as translation of מלל), while the other Hebrew word, מיל, means "circumcision," περιτομη. The Septuagint uses only περιτομη as though there's no distinction between Genesis 17:10, speaking of the covenant of circumcision, versus Genesis 17:11, speaking of
cutting the "sign" of the covenant of circumcision.
The "cutting off" of the foreskin could be describe by the term כרת, which is generally used to denote the concept of "cutting off." This term does indeed occur in the Scriptural text . . . Nevertheless, the specific term employed by Scripture for the circumcision of the foreskin is מול: This term must be particularly appropriate to the act of circumcision because it is hardly ever used in Scripture to denote any other "cutting" or "cutting off." The only other use of the root מול in scripture is as a particle, מול, in the connotation of "against," or "opposite.". . If, then, the term for "cutting" is derived from this basic concept of "opposition" or "counteracting," it can denote only a cutting for a specific purpose, and this purpose must be indicated by כרת .מול denotes any form of cutting, be it for the separation or removal of the object that is cut off, or cut down . . . מול, on the other hand, can denote only cutting by which opposition is offered to the object from which the cutting was done.
Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch, Collected Writings, vol. 3, p. 74.
מילה [milah] does not generally mean: to cut, to circumcise; only in connection with ברית מילה [brit milah] does it occur in this sense. מול [mul] means "opposite," as in . . . (Bemidbar 22:5) . . . (Tehillim 118:10): "In God's Name, I will oppose them." As a verb, then מול [mul] means: to oppose, to the limit. To be sure, מול [mul] in connection with ערלה [orlah] means "to cut off.". . . The cutting, however, is merely a means, whereas the end and intention is to oppose, to the limit, the ערלה [orlah], or more precisely: to oppose the הערלה בשר . . ..
The Hirsch Chumash, Genesis 17:10.
In the quotations, Rabbi Hirsch notes that if the covenant of circumcision was a plain and simple sort of "cutting off" then the word כרת would suffice. He further notes that מול isn't even generally associated with "cutting" (that word is מלל) but with "opposing" something to the limit. Even more important to the current examination of Paul's adding of duality to what the Masoretes and the Septuagint make one single concept, is this statement from Rabbi Hirsch:
It is striking that in our verse מילה [circumcision] itself is called "ברית," [covenant] implying that the very act of circumcision constitutes fulfillment of the covenant. In the next verse however, מילה [circumcision] is called "אות ברית," a sign of the covenant, implying that fulfillment of the covenant entails more than the act of circumcision.
Ibid.
Whereas Rabbi Hirsch's statement above concedes that there's a "covenant" ברית and a "sign" אות of the covenant, his statement conflates the two in the one word "circumcision" so that although he concedes there are two things, the covenant (which Paul equates with מול), versus the "sign" of the covenant (which Paul equates with מלל), he (Rabbi Hirsch) refuses to note that מול refers to the covenant of "opposition" (מול) to the flesh, while מלל refers to the "cutting, mutilation" of the flesh given as the sign of the covenant of opposition to the flesh.
And yet with that said, we see that Rabbi Hirsch still, contradicting himself, to some extent, speaks as though cutting, mutilating, the flesh, as the "sign" אות of the covenant, is in some manner the instantiation, or initiation, not of a mere sign of the covenant, but of the covenant itself. He must straddle this contradiction since his Judaism assumes that cutting the sign of the covenant into the flesh of one of Abraham's natural born sons enters that son into the covenant.
John
