Contesting Conversion: Genealogy, Circumcision, and Identity in Ancient Judaism and Christianity

by Matthew Thiessen

Matthew Thiessen offers a nuanced and wide-ranging study of the nature of Jewish thought on Jewishness, circumcision, and conversion. Examining texts from the Hebrew Bible, Second Temple Judaism, and early Christianity, he gives a compelling account of the various forms of Judaism from which the early Christian movement arose. Beginning with analysis of the Hebrew Bible, Thiessen argues that there is no evidence that circumcision was considered to be a rite of conversion to Israelite religion. In fact, circumcision, particularly the infant circumcision practiced within Israelite and early Jewish society, excluded from the covenant those not properly descended from Abraham. In the Second Temple period, many Jews began to subscribe to a definition of Jewishness that enabled Gentiles to become Jews. Other Jews, such as the author of Jubilees, found this definition problematic, reasserting a strictly genealogical conception of Jewish identity. As a result, some Gentiles who underwent conversion to Judaism in this period faced criticism because of their suspect genealogy. Thiessen's examination of the way in which Jews in the Second Temple period perceived circumcision and conversion allows a deeper understanding of early Christianity. Contesting Conversion shows that careful attention to a definition of Jewishness that was based on genealogical descent has crucial implications for understanding the variegated nature of early Christian mission to the Gentiles in the first century C.E.

256 pages, ebook

First published July 14, 2011

Reviews

[Christopher Hutson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rarely does a book cause you to reevaluate everything you thought you knew about a topic. But in clear and lucid prose, Thiessen walks us through the complexities of ancient Jewish and Christian texts, challenging common assumptions about the meaning of circumcision, Jewish identity, and the possibility of conversion in antiquity. After you read this book, you'll find yourself reconsidering what the New Testament writers were saying to gentiles so many centuries before the invention of Protestantism.

[Isaac Soon · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is essential reading for any student of the Judaism or early Christianity. The main point is simple: ancient Jews in their various environs and text did not see non-Jewish conversion in the same way. Some viewed it as possible, others not possible (at least not possible as far as ethnic metamorphosis). Gentiles could follow the God of Israel, but it didn't necessary make them Jews.

Thiessen has an easily readable style as he navigates text critical matters, a broad range of Jewish texts from the Hebrew Bible through to rabbinic sources. His close philological attention is matched by his eye on current secondary scholarship, although his favourites do tend to come up more frequently (Donaldson, Fredriksen, Hayes, Johnson Hodge). The only thing stifling his writing is the fact that OUP continues to publish these great monographs with typographical errors or repetitions (if you're paying £70 for a book you want it to be seamless).

One of the brilliant things that Thiessen does that I had not seen before, was rather than simply analysing texts of gentile conversion to Jewish ethnicity (I refrain from using Judaism because unlike Thiessen I think some Jews did think gentiles did convert to Judaism, i.e. Paul), Thiessen actually examines two case studies: Herod and Agrippa. Different Jewish sources treat these two figures and their Jewishness differently and it is a perfect example of how there was not a single way for gentiles into Judaism or Jewishness.

There were two things that stuck out to me as problematic. The first was Thiessen's examination of the Animal Apocalypse and the various breeds of animals given. I wonder if there needs to be more comparative work done as it seems at times that Thiessen might be reading too much ontological significance into the difference between animals. Sure, they show difference (for example between Jacob and Esau) but is there something more subtle at work here? This is less a detraction than a really interesting area for others to explore.

The second problematic aspect of the book comes in the final chapter with Thiessen's examination of conversion in early Christianity, particularly Luke-Acts. He makes a strong case that Luke presents the early Christian movement as trying to preserve circumcision for early Jewish Christians. So far so good. But, then when he comes to address the one exception that argues against the grain of his argument, the circumcision of Timothy in Acts 16:1-3, Thiessen leaves us in a major cliffhanger (Pages 119-20). I literally gasped. Rather than an exception, Thiessen argues that Luke is ambivalent about Timothy's circumcision. This is certainly an answer, but for this reason it was an unsatisfying one. It did give me an idea for a better answer however...

[Rob Vanhoff · Rating 2 out of 5]

Thiessen brings a good and important topic to the table and garners many pertinent ancient sources. It is well-written and footnoted. An interesting attempt to reconstruct missing parts of a DSS fragment of Genesis 18. Old presuppositions about the apostle Paul's view of circumcision are simply taken for granted rather than challenged. Additionally, he fails to differentiate the different manners the animal kingdom was employed in ancient Jewish ethnicity and ethics. Ultimately, a disappointment.