Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:45:18.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beware the Dogs! The Phallic Epithet in Phil 3.2

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2020

Ryan D. Collman Open the ORCID record for Ryan D. Collman [Opens in a new window]
Ryan D. Collman*
Affiliation:
New College, University of Edinburgh, Mound Place, EdinburghEH1 2LX, UK. Email: ryan.collman@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The scholarly trope that ancient Jews commonly referred to gentiles as ‘dogs’ has coloured exegesis of Phil 3.2 for centuries. This view gave rise to the interpretation that when Paul calls his opponents ‘dogs’, he is ironically inverting the epithet and using it to identify them as Jews. The present article provides a critical assessment of this interpretation and evaluates the data that has been used to justify this claim. I then provide a new interpretation of how Paul is employing the term ‘dog’ in Phil 3.2. On the basis of its broader usage in the Greek-speaking world and the context related to circumcision in Phil 3.2, I propose that Paul is using ‘dog’ as a vulgar, phallic epithet for his opponents.

Keywords

dogsκύωνPhilippians 3.2circumcisionphallic epithet
Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 67 , Issue 1 , January 2021 , pp. 105 - 120
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I am indebted to Matthew Novenson, Mark Nanos, Matthew Thiessen, Karin Neutel and Isaac Soon for their incisive comments on previous drafts of this article. I am also thankful for my PhD cohort in Edinburgh who provided critical engagement with this work at various stages. Any remaining deficiencies can only be attributed to me.

References

1 E.g. O. Michel, ‘Κύων, Κυνάριον’, TDNT iii.1103; Bonnard, P., L'Épitre de Saint Paul aux Philippiens (CNT 10; Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1950) 60Google Scholar; Horn, F. W., ‘Der Verzicht auf die Beschneidung im frühen Christentum’, NTS 42 (1996) 479–505, at 501CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Hawthorne, G. F., Philippians (rev. Ralph P. Martin; WBC 43; Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2004) 174Google Scholar.

3 John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistle of St Paul to the Philippians (NPNF¹ 13.230; emphasis added). See also John Chrysostom, Homilies against the Jews, 1.11.1–2.

4 John Reumann notes how scholars often state that Jews referred to gentiles as dogs but remarks that ‘there is less documentation than might be supposed’ (Philippians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33B; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008) 461). The main works that challenge this assumption are M. D. Nanos, ‘Paul's Reversal of Jews Calling Gentiles “Dogs” (Philippians 3.2): 1600 Years of an Ideological Tale Wagging an Exegetical Dog?’, BibInt 17 (2009) 448–82; M. Thiessen, ‘Gentiles as Impure Animals in the Writings of Early Christ Followers’, Perceiving the Other in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. M. B.-A. Siegal, W. Grünstäudl and M. Thiessen; WUNT 394; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017) 19–32.

5 For an overview of dogs in the ancient world, see Kitchell, K. F. Jr, Animals in the Ancient World from A to Z (London: Routledge, 2014) 47–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For specialist treatments, see Schwartz, J., ‘Dogs in Jewish Society in the Second Temple Period and in the Time of the Mishnah and Talmud’, JJS 55 (2004) 246–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Miller, G. D., ‘Attitudes Toward Dogs in Ancient Israel: a Reassessment’, JSOT 32 (2008) 487–500Google Scholar; Franco, C., Shameless: The Canine and the Feminine in Ancient Greece (trans. M. Fox; Oakland: University of California Press, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stone, K., Reading the Hebrew Bible with Animal Studies (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2018) 45–65Google Scholar; Tutrone, F., ‘Barking at the Threshold: Cicero, Lucretius, and the Ambiguous Status of Dogs in Roman Culture’, Impious Dogs, Haughty Foxes and Exquisite Fish: Evaluative Perception and Interpretation of Animals in Ancient and Medieval Mediterranean Thought (ed. Schmidt, T. and Pahlitzsch, J.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019) 73–102Google Scholar.

6 This article has since been republished in Nanos, M., Reading Corinthians and Philippians within Judaism: Collected Essays of Mark Nanos (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2017) iv.111–41Google Scholar.

7 A common translation of מחיר כלב/ἄλλαγμα κυνός in Deut 23.19 is ‘male prostitute’ (e.g. NRSV). This interpretation is unlikely and ‘dog's price’ is to be preferred (Miller, ‘Attitudes toward Dogs’, 497). While in the broader context of the passage the parallel between female and male prostitutes in 23.18 could carry over into 23.19, this is probably not the case. This usage of כלב is unattested elsewhere and does not have any other ancient parallels. It is likely that a ‘dog's price’ simply refers to the money associated with selling a dog, and – for unknown reasons – this money is not to be offered in the temple. This interpretation is also attested by Josephus, Ant. 4.206.

8 These references are not exhaustive, but merely illustrative of the range of meaning in pre-rabbinic Jewish sources.

9 Philo uses the term ‘dogs’ to describe treacherous and hypocritical enemies who have occupied Palestine and Syria (Good Person 89–91). In On the Special Laws 4.91, gluttonous banquet behaviour is described as being dog-like. Josephus and Philo both comment on Egyptians’ false worship of dogs (Embassy 139; Ag. Ap. 2.85). Many of the references to dogs in Josephus’ Antiquities mirror those found in the Hebrew Bible.

10 Fee, G. D., Paul's Letter to the Philippians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 295 n. 44Google Scholar; Hawthorne, Philippians, 174. Both authors also cite the relevant ‘dog’ texts found in Str-B 1.724–6.

11 Pace Collins, A. Yarbro, Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007) 367Google Scholar.

12 Garland, D. E., ‘The Composition and Unity of Philippians: Some Neglected Literary Factors’, NovT 27 (1985) 141–73, at 167 n. 92Google Scholar; Bockmuehl, M., The Epistle to the Philippians (BNTC; London: A & C Black, 1997) 186Google Scholar.

13 Nanos, ‘Paul's Reversal’, 464–9. Here, Nanos works through the rabbinic texts cited by H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck's Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (6 vols.; Munich: Beck, 1922–61) and Otto Michel's TDNT entry for κύων/κυνάριον, which have been referenced by scholars as supporting this trope. Nanos, however, does note one occurrence in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 29 that does link gentiles with dogs due to both being uncircumcised, but this is not a smoking gun. This text is problematic due to its late date (~8th century) and the fact that it is not present in all manuscripts. It should have no bearing on how one understands Paul's language in Phil 3. For a general overview of dogs in the Mishnah and Talmud, see Schwartz, ‘Dogs in Jewish Society.’

14 Miller, ‘Attitudes toward Dogs’.

15 Dogs also played a role in various ANE cultures. On this see, Miller, ‘Attitudes toward Dogs’, 489–94. See also Schwartz, ‘Dogs in Jewish Society’, 248–9, who argues that, while the attitude of Jews and other ANE peoples towards dogs was generally either negative or ambivalent, there were some cultures that venerated dogs (e.g. Egyptian and Canaanite).

16 It is worth mentioning that in the Hebrew Bible the status of an animal as unclean is related to their status as being fit for consumption or use as a sacrifice. This, however, does not mean that they are unfit for use by Jews. Notably, camels and donkeys are both unclean because they do not have split hooves, but both are utilised throughout the Hebrew Bible by Jews for their usefulness as pack animals. Furthermore, the logic undergirding the Levitical and Deuteronomic delineation between clean and unclean is not fully discernible. On this, see Rosenblum, J. B., The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017) 8–27Google Scholar. Cf. Houston, W., Purity and Monotheism: Clean and Unclean Animals in Biblical Law (JSOTSup 140; Sheffield: JSOT, 1993)Google Scholar.

17 E.g. Pope, M. H., Job: Introduction, Translation and Notes (AB 15; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965) 193Google Scholar; Gordis, R., The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies (Moreshet Series 11; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1978) 330Google Scholar. Clines, D. J. A. (Job 21–37 (WBC 18A; Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2006) 996–7)Google Scholar is an exception; while he briefly mentions the employment of dogs for herding, he quickly reverts to discussing the nature of the insult.

18 On working dogs in Jewish society, see Schwartz, ‘Dogs in Jewish Society’, 254–62.

19 The textual transmission of these verses is contested, as the inclusion of the dog varies in some Greek and Latin versions. For a thorough discussion of the textual issues related to the dog in Tobit, see Fitzmyer, J. A., Tobit (CEJL; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003) 203–4, 275CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Many interpreters have attempted to explain away the inclusion of the dog in the story as unoriginal or non-Jewish. For a summary of these views, see Moore, C. A., Tobit: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 40; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996) 197–8Google Scholar. For a comprehensive argument on why the inclusion of the dog is original and Jewish in origin, see Miller, ‘Attitudes toward Dogs’, 498–500.

20 Miller (‘Attitudes toward Dogs’, 498) translates Tob 6.2 by stating that the dog followed them ‘out of the house’, to demonstrate that the dog shared the same living quarters and may have possibly been a pet. This is incorrect. The text only says that the dog went out with him (ὁ κύων ἐξῆλθεν μετ ̓ αὐτοῦ) and makes no mention of where they went out from.

21 Nanos concludes his study by saying that ‘it is exegetically mistaken … to continue to approach Philippians 3.2 claiming that Paul is turning a well-known and common Jewish slur of Gentiles on its head so that it refers to Jews’ (‘Paul's Reversal’, 467).

22 E.g. Garland, ‘The Composition and Unity’, 167; R. P. Martin, Philippians (TNTC; Leister: Inter-Varsity, 1987) 141; M. Silva, Philippians (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 20052) 147; Hawthorne, Philippians, 174. These texts are also used by Markan and Matthean scholars to confirm this perspective: e.g. Hooker, M. D., A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark (BNTC; London: A&C Black, 1991) 183Google Scholar; Yarbro Collins, Mark, 367; Davies, W. D. and Allison, D. C., Matthew 8–18 (ICC; London: T&T Clark, 2004) 256Google Scholar.

23 Silva, Philippians, 147. The status of gentiles as ritually unclean or impure is contested. For an overview of gentile impurity in Judaism, see Klawans, J., ‘Notions of Gentile Impurity in Ancient Judaism’, AJSR 20 (1995) 285–312Google Scholar.

24 There is considerable debate about how the reader should interpret the diminutive form of κύων (κυνάριον) represented in the gospel accounts, or if it is even a diminutive form at all. While some older discussions interpreted it as a diminutive in order to soften the blow of Jesus’ words, many recent treatments of Mark 7.27 and Matt 15.26 have abandoned this view. For a range of views, see the discussions in Pokorný, P., ‘From a Puppy to the Child: Some Problems of Contemporary Biblical Exegesis Demonstrated from Mark 7.24–30/Matt 15.21–8’, NTS 41 (1995) 321–37, at 324CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Marcus, J., Mark 1–8: A New Translation, with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 463–4Google Scholar; Schreiber, S., ‘Cavete Canes! Zur wachsenden Ausgrenzungsvalenz einer neutestamentlichen Metapher’, BZ 45 (2001) 170–92, at 174–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nanos, ‘Paul's Reversal’, 472.

25 Yarbro Collins, Mark, 366.

26 Some interpreters have also focused on the potentially gendered use of ‘dog’ when directed at a woman. Franco (Shameless, 4; 128; 158; 168) highlights the tendency in Greek literature to align dogs with women due to their sharing of similar qualities from a Greek world-view. These qualities, however, are not all negative and can sometimes be used to highlight positive qualities of women. For example, Aeschylus (Ag. 606–8) notes that a faithful wife is like a dog who is devoted to her husband. Commenting on the negative attributes of dogs being applied to women, Cadwallader, A. H. (‘When a Woman is a Dog: Ancient and Modern Ethology Meet the Syrophoenician Women’, The Bible and Critical Theory 1 (2005) 35.1–17, at 35.11CrossRefGoogle Scholar) discusses the potential wordplay between gynē and kynē/kyōn, which he understands as having ethological implications for the woman in these accounts, but this seems unlikely in Mark and Matthew given that a different form of the word ‘dog’ is used. G. Theißen (Lokalkolorit und Zeitgeschichte in den Evangelien: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (NTOA 8; Freiburg, Switzerland: Universitätsverlag/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989) 84) notes that the woman plays off the positive aspect of being called a ‘dog’ by presenting herself as a faithful, persistent and devoted dog. Many scholars who take feminist interpretive concerns into account have highlighted the fact that the woman's identity as a woman is important to understanding the text. Not only is the woman marginalised for her status as a non-Jew, but her status as a woman further marginalises her. It is remarkable that she is presented as initiating the conversation with Jesus without being spoken to first and is able to persuade Jesus to change his mind. It is the woman's words (Mark 7.29) and her faith (Matt 15.28) that are portrayed as having power. For representative interpretations that take into account feminist interpretive concerns, see Downing, F. G., ‘The Woman from Syrophoenicia, and her Doggedness: Mark 7:24–31 (Matthew 15:21–28)’, Women in the Biblical Tradition (ed. G. J. Brooke; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1992) 129–49Google Scholar; Fiorenza, E. Schüssler, But She Said: Feminist Practices of Biblical Interpretation (Boston: Beacon, 1992) 96–105Google Scholar. While interpretations that are attuned to feminist concerns in these texts are rewarding, given the way Jesus employs the term, he does not seem to be taking into account any potential gendered aspect of the word that has any bearing on this study.

27 Nanos’ interpretation of these texts is wanting. He fails to deal with the Markan account and opts to focus on the account in Matthew. When examining the Matthean account, he finds an intra-Jewish dialogue, not a Jewish/non-Jewish one, which is provocative, but seems improbable (‘Paul's Reversal’, 470–3). Given the Markan parallel and Matthew's expansion of Mark's text in Matthew 15.24, it seems likely that that both authors have Jews and gentiles in mind, not an intra-Jewish dialogue between Israelites and Judahites. Nanos concedes that if his perspective is proven incorrect, this would be – to his knowledge – the earliest usage of ‘dog’ by a Jew to identify a gentile (474).

28 It is worth mentioning that Jesus’ response to the woman is shocking as it pertains to healing her daughter.

29 Ringe, S. R., ‘A Gentile Woman's Story’, Feminist Interpretation of the Bible (ed. Letty M. Russell; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985) 68Google Scholar. While the form of the word dog (κυναρίοις) is unlikely to be a diminutive form meaning something like ‘puppy’ (see note above), interpreting the word from a household context does possibly indicate that this is a family dog owned for working or as a pet. To be sure, regardless of whether the dog is a pet or not, it still occupies the lowest position in the household (cf. Matt 7.6 where dogs and pigs are in parallel).

30 Thiessen, ‘Gentiles as Impure Animals’, 25.

31 Thiessen, ‘Gentiles as Impure Animals’, 20–1. For a fuller examination of how animal imagery and metaphors can be used to establish ontological differences between different ethnic groups, see Thiessen's discussion of the Animal Apocalypse in Thiessen, M., Contesting Conversion: Genealogy, Circumcision, and Identity in Ancient Judaism and Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) 89–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 See e.g. J. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching (trans. H. Danby; Boston: Beacon, 1925) 294; T. A. Burkill, ‘The Historical Development of the Story of the Syrophoenician Woman (Mark vii: 24–31)’, NovT 9 (1967) 161–77, at 172–3; Smith, J. C. H., ‘The Construction of Identity in Mark 7:24–30: the Syrophoenician Woman and the Problem of Ethnicity’, BibInt 20 (2012) 458–81, at 472–6Google Scholar.

33 The account in Mark is more abrupt than the one in Matthew where Jesus explicitly commends the woman for her faith. On the cryptic nature of the ending of the pericope in Mark, see Smith, ‘The Construction of Identity’, 474–81.

34 Martin, Philippians, 141.

35 Thiessen, ‘Gentiles as Impure Animals’, 20.

36 ‘I suggest that we ought to place Paul's reference to dogs within the same context as that of Mark, Matthew, and Luke – a mission to gentiles. But, rather than interpreting this passage as Paul's ironic deployment of the term dog against Jews, I think Paul refers to a group of rival missionaries who are actually non-Jews themselves’ (Thiessen, ‘Gentiles as Impure Animals’, 26). What Thiessen means by ‘a mission to gentiles’ is imprecise; while he is referring to Paul's comments about the rival missionaries – who are gentiles – Paul is not employing the term in a mission to rival missionaries, but to gentiles in Philippi. Additionally, while Luke does use ethnic animal-language in Acts, he does not use the term ‘dog’ specifically.

37 Both Batement (Batement, H. W. IV, ‘Were the Opponents at Philippi Necessarily Jewish?’, BSac 155 (1998) 39–61Google Scholar) and Grayston (Grayston, K., ‘The Opponents in Philippians 3’, ExpTim 97 (1986) 170–2Google Scholar) conclude that Paul is reacting against gentile opponents, but only Grayston sees ‘dog’ as only being able to have a gentile referent. Grayston operates from the standpoint that ‘dog’ was a common Jewish slur for gentiles and that it is better to read this text in a straightforward manner rather than as an ironic inversion. ‘It is commonly said that ironically he turns against the Jews the very term of abuse that they used for “unclean Gentiles”, but the suggestion is incredible. Everyone would assume that he was a Jew abusing Gentiles, not a Jew abusing Jews’ (‘The Opponents in Philippians 3’, 171).

38 Thiessen offers a long-form discussion of these texts in Contesting Conversion, 89–96; 124–6; and in Thiessen, M., Paul and the Gentile Problem (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016) 24–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 Thiessen perceptively notes that while Nanos’ reading of ‘dogs’ in Jewish literature is correct, on his own reading of the Gospels and Paul, there is significant evidence to demonstrate that some Jews (Paul, Matthew, Mark and Luke) did use the term ‘dog’ to ethnically slur and identify gentiles (‘Gentiles as Impure Animals’, 26, 31).

40 Here, Thiessen and I depart from Nanos’ interpretation of the identity of the opponents in Philippians 3. In a recent article, Nanos proposes the hypothesis that the opponents may have been Cynics (Nanos, M. D., ‘Paul's Polemic in Philippians 3 as Jewish-Subgroup Vilification of Local Non-Jewish Cultic and Philosophical Alternatives’, JSPL 3 (2013) 47–91Google Scholar, which has also been republished in Reading Corinthians and Philippians within Judaism, 142–91). While Nanos’ article is erudite and challenges common assumptions about Paul's rivals, I find his conclusion that the opponents may have Cynics unconvincing in light of the data presented in Philippians. For additional support for the claim that Paul's opponents here are judaising gentiles, see Murray, M., ‘Romans 2 within the Broader Context of Gentile Judaizing in Early Christianity’, The So-Called Jew in Paul's Letter to the Romans (ed. Rodriguez, R. and Thiessen, M.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016) 163–82, at 173–5Google Scholar.

41 I.e., an essentialising stream of Judaism that sees an insurmountable genealogical gap between Jew and gentile. On this stream of Judaism, see Thiessen, Contesting Conversion, 87–110; Hayes, C., What's Divine about Divine Law? Early Perspectives (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015) 141–8Google Scholar.

42 Elsewhere in Philippians, Paul refers to the Philippians as his brothers (ἀδελφοί, 1.12; 3.1, 13, 17; 4.1, 8, 21) and as his beloved (ἀγαπητοί, 2.12; 4.1). This distinguishes them from the opponents and could have further prevented them from identifying with ethnic dog-language if any of them did have the capacity to perceive it.

43 This broadly fits with the usage in the Hebrew Bible and Greco-Roman literature. Koester (Koester, H., ‘The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Fragment’, NTS 8 (1962) 317–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar), Batement (‘Opponents at Philippi’, 55) and Nanos (‘Paul's Reversal’, 117–20) note that ‘dog’ was a common insult in the ancient world, not a particular one of Jewish origin against gentiles. See also the description of dogs in Philo, Moses 1.130–1; LSJ s.v. κύων ii.

44 Franco, Shameless, 7–16. Her research primarily highlights the way that ‘dog’ is used as an insult when an author is highlighting ethological concerns. See also Tutrone, ‘Barking at the Threshold’, who highlights the liminality of dogs in the ancient world. While dogs were often utilised for work or noted as being companions, they are generally not something you want to be called or compared to.

45 Fee, Philippians, 296 n. 49.

46 Nanos briefly mentions a possible interpretation related to male prostitution (cf. Deut 23.19, see n. 7) in which dog could imply ‘the penis that has been dogged, that is, suffered a flesh would from sexual activity’, but he does not expound upon this interpretation (‘Paul's Polemic’, 71). On the usage of κύων as a slang term for penis, see Skoda, F., Médecine ancienne et métaphore. Le vocabulaire de l'anatomie et de la pathologie en grec ancien (Paris: Peeters/Selaf, 1988) 307 n. 17Google Scholar; Henderson, J., The Maculate Muse (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991) 127Google Scholar; K. K. Kapparis, ‘The Terminology of Prostitution in the Ancient Greek World’, Greek Prostitutes in the Ancient Mediterranean 800 bce–200 ce (ed. A. Glazebrook and M. M. Henry; Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2011) 222–55, at 236–7.

47 Henderson (The Maculate Muse, 133), citing Aristophanes (Lys. 158), also comments that κύων could refer to female genitalia, but this is incorrect. From the broader context of the passage, ‘skinning a skinned dog’ refers to women getting their husbands’ attention by teasing and arousing them through manual stimulation.

48 This is cited by Eustathius in Com. Od. 2.147. The original quote from Suetonius is from one of his lost works, Concerning Profanity, but the fragmentary text containing this reference can be found in J. Taillardat, Suétone: ΠΕΡΙ ΒΛΑΣΦΗΜΙΩΝ. ΠΕΡΙ ΠΑΙΔΙΩΝ (Extraits byzantins) (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1967) 51. On κύνειρα, see Kapparis, ‘Terminology of Prostitution’, 236–7.

49 Pl. Com. 174.16.

50 Hsch. κ 4573; also, com. adesp. 1057.

51 1 Cor 9.24–6; cf. Gal 2.2; 5.7; Phil 2.16; 3.13–14.

52 For a brief overview of artwork that depicts the κυνοδέσμη, see Hodges, F. M., ‘The Ideal Prepuce in Ancient Greece and Rome: Male Genital Aesthetics and their Relation to Lipodermos, Circumcision, Foreskin Restoration, and the Kynodesme’, Bulletin of the History of Medicine 75 (2001) 275–405, at 381 n. 22, 382 n. 23CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. Recently, M. Haworth (‘The Wolfish Lover: The Dog as a Comic Metaphor in Homoerotic Symposium Pottery’, Archimède 5 (2018) 3–23) has noted that the use of dogs in homoerotic Attic black-figure vases also comedically links dogs with penises.

53 Hodges, ‘The Ideal Prepuce’, 381–3.

54 Pollux, Onomastikon 2.4.171; trans. Sweet, W. E., Sport and Recreation in Ancient Greece: A Sourcebook with Translations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987) 130Google Scholar.

55 Phrynichus, Sophistae praeparatio sophistica (ed. J. de Borries; Leipzig, 1911) 85, cited by Dingwall, E. J., Male Infibulation (London: John Bale, Sons & Danielsson, 1925) 70Google Scholar.

56 Hsch. κ 4762. Hesychius (κ 4594) gives δεσμός ἀκροποσθίας (‘tip of the foreskin cord’) as the gloss for κυνοδέσμη. Nanos also cites Hesychius on the meaning of κύων, instead focusing on the ‘shameless one’ to provide evidence for his reading that the opponents Paul is warning about may have been Cynics (‘Paul's Polemic’, 77).

57 Oribasius, Collectionum medicarum reliquiae 50.3.1; LSJ s.v. vii; See also Henderson, The Maculate Muse, 127.

58 Given that κύων can reference both the penis and – more specifically – the foreskin in some of these examples, Isaac Soon has pointed out to me the possibility that Paul not only uses it as a phallic reference, but also as a reference to the opponents’ true identity as naturally foreskinned gentiles (cf. Rom 2.27). Thus, κύων could also be functioning as a kind of circumlocution for ἀκροβυστία, which would enhance Paul's contrast with περιτομή in Phil 3.3 and is supported by Paul's contrast between ἀκροβυστία and περιτομή elsewhere in his epistles (Rom 2.25–7; 3.30; 4.9; 1 Cor 7.18–19; Gal 5.6; 6.15; cf. Eph 2.11; Col 3.11).

59 On the use of obscenity in the ancient world and early Christian texts, see Hultin, J. F., The Ethics of Obscene Speech in Early Christianity and its Environment (NovTSup 128; Leiden: Brill, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Jónsson, J., Humour and Irony in the New Testament (BZRGG 28; Leiden: Brill, 1985)Google Scholar.

60 Punch, J. D., ‘Σκύβαλα Happens: Edification from a Four-Letter Word in the Word of God?’, BT 65 (2014) 369–84Google Scholar. This reading is also affirmed in Hays, R. B., Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989) 122Google Scholar. Contra Hultin, The Ethics of Obscene Speech, 150–4.

61 Punch, ‘Σκύβαλα Happens’, 372; 380.

62 Watson, F., Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach (SNTSMS 56; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986) 76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mearns, C., ‘The Identity of Paul's Opponents at Philippi’, NTS 33 (1987) 194–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For other instances of κοιλία referring to genitals, see LXX 2 Kgdms 7.12; 16.11; 1 Chr 17.11; Ps 131.11. Similarly, ἀσχημοσύνη ('shame') is also used in the LXX to refer euphemistically to nudity and genitalia (LXX Ex 20.26; Lev 18.6–19; cf. 1 Cor 12.23; Rev 16.15).

63 It is possible that phallus-worship would have been known by the Philippians since there was a temple for Egyptian deities in Philippi, including Harpocrates, who is often depicted like Priapus with an oversized, erect phallus. Cf. Diodorus Siculus, Bib. hist. 4.6.1–4. For a list of inscriptions in Philippi that reference Harpocrates, see P. Pilhofer, Philippi, vol. ii: Katalog der Inschriften von Philippi (WUNT 119; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 20092) 242–3.

64 Craig Keener offers some brief commentary on Paul's use of euphemism here. He gives a crude, literal interpretation of what he believes Paul is trying convey in Gal 5.12: ‘I wish their knives would slip and they'd sever their own dicks’ (C. Keener, Galatians (NCBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018) 242). Keener (242–3) also notes Epictetus’ (Diatr. 3.1.31) use of a similar euphemism. See also Jónsson, Humour and Irony, 230, 267–68; Hultin, The Ethics of Obscene Speech, 148–50, 153–4.

65 On the misapplication of the law of circumcision, see Thiessen, Gentile Problem, 95–6.

66 Conversely, Paul refers to himself and Cephas as ‘Jews by/from nature’ (ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι) as opposed to being ‘sinners from gentiles’ (ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί). Unlike the metaphors used in Matthew 15 and Mark 7, Paul's φύσις references are straightforward descriptors of (Paul's) reality in which there are natural, ontological differences between Jews and gentiles. The nature of an individual is linked to their ethnic lineage and fatherland. I am indebted to Logan Williams for directing me to this fragment from Euripides that also attests this idea: ἡ φύσις ἑκάστῳ τοῦ γένους ἐστὶν πατρίς (‘The nature of the race belonging to each [man] is [his] fatherland᾽, Dramatic Fragments 1113; however, the authenticity of the fragment is debated).

67 The identity of the ‘we’ in Phil 3.3 is often understood as referring to the ‘Christian’ ekklēsia, but in light of this data, it should simply refer to Paul and Timothy, the Jewish authors of the letter (and possibly Epaphroditus; Phil 2.25; 4.18). The next use of the first-person plural pronoun in Phil 3.17 further supports this, as it more clearly refers to Paul and Timothy. Cf. Robinson, D. W. B., ‘We Are the Circumcision’, ABR 15 (1967) 28–35, at 35Google Scholar; Thiessen, ‘Gentiles as Impure Animals’, 28–9. Additionally, the importance placed on imitation in this letter and the stark contrast Paul creates between himself and his opponents further supports this reading. Cf. Dodd, B., Paul's Paradigmatic ‘I’: Personal Example as Literary Strategy (JSNTSup 177; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999) 180–95Google Scholar.