# Is Jewish (biblical) circumcision different than medical circ done today?



## RileysMom (Nov 30, 2001)

I am anti circ, but have 2 girls. I talk about it with my pg friends and try to give them the info that I do have. I am Christian and believe in the Bible. One of my friends raised a point about Old Testament circumcision. Was the way it was practiced then different than the way it is done now?

I seem to remember reading somewhere that then it was really just the tip of the foreskin that was cut, not the entire thing removed. But I can't find that reference.....

any help?


----------



## feebeeglee (Nov 30, 2002)

Yes, Abrahamic covenant circumcision consisted of only the removal (at most) of the acroposthion, or the tip of the foreskin extending beyond the glans. It would depend on the circumciser (as today) as to how much of that structure was amputated; certainly the Old Testament does not specify how much foreskin was to be removed. It would seem to fulfill the covenant to 'circumcise the flesh of the foreskin' to merely remove the smallest visible tissue sliver from the outer shaft skin, leaving a scar with no noticeable tissue loss after healing.

It was during/after the Hellenistic period sometime around 150CE that the radical circumcision we see today was introduced, so that Jewish males would have a fully bared glans and not be able to 'pass'.

Many other rules of Judaism have gotten stricter since their origin as well; fasts have been extended and dietary laws have expanded. Obviously the circumcision is changeable too.

One can hope that perhaps they will move toward a return to the original.

Here is more information:
http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/info.htm

And this thread may be moved to Spirituality - we are largely not permitted to speak against current ritual circumcision in this forum. I think I am within the accepted boundaries, however


----------



## calngavinsmom (Feb 19, 2003)

Her are a couple of good links:
http://www.udonet.com/circumcision/christian.html
http://www.noharmm.org/choices.htm

HTH,
Tara


----------



## ~Megan~ (Nov 7, 2002)

I believe it was done differently at one point. From reading "What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision" its been practiced many different ways by many different cultures: from cutting off just a bit of the foreskin, to cutting a slit, to the entire removal of the penis.
You may want to do your own research on what the *New* Testament says about circumsion as we cannot discuss it in this forum. Or do a search in Religious Studies forum


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

This is what I have read and understand:

Prior to about 800 AD, it was different. In infants, there is a considerable amount of foreskin that protrudes past the glans and that part is what was cut off. Those circumcision did not include stripping the foreskin from the glans. About 800 AD, The Olympics were being held in Greece and in that day, the atheletes performed in the nude. Just as I understand it is considered very improper for men to have an erection at a nudist resort today, it was considered very improper and vulgar for men to expose their glans at The Olympics. The Jewish men of that age had considerable loose shaft/foreskin and to be proper and allowed to participate in the events, pulled that loose skin forward over the glans and tied it there. Apparently, some Jewish leaders were in attendance and saw this as "trying to pass" and declared that a new form of circumcision would be instituted that removed the foreskin all of the way back to the base of the glans so that Jewish men could not "pass" ever again. When modern circumcision began, the Jewish boys and men were the only ones they knew that were circumcised and so they emulated the style they saw and now, the standard is the more radical circumcision where the foreskin is removed all of the way to the base of the glans.

Frank


----------



## Stardust27 (Feb 6, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *feebeeglee*
One can hope that perhaps they will move toward a return to the original.

I just wanted to point out (and I hope that I am still staying within boundaries) that returning to the old-style biblical circumcision is not the wondrous solution for the human rights issue of involuntary religious circumcision.

No matter how little tissue is removed, there is still cutting, there is still blood, there is still pain, there is still risk of infection and other complications. There is still a violation of the boy's body and his right to choose. Even with the most conservative circumcision, the precious and sensitive ridged band right at the tip of the foreskin will be lost or harmed. With cutting off the "overhang" in an infant, the grown man is likely to have a (mainly) exposed glans, with all loss of sensitivity, keratinization etc. that goes with it. It has also been pointed out that it is a very bad idea to put a scar in front of the glans (where it is not stretched out all the time), because it can lead to secondary phimosis, necessitating treatment and probably even a radical circumcision later on.

All in all, replacing the current "standard" circumcision with a "minor" operation should be no more an option than replacing infibulation with sunnah circumcision for girls. IMHO.

Forgive me if I overstepped - this needed to be said here.









Stardust


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

Ditto to the posters who have already outlined the difference between modern and historical Jewish circumcision.

Historical Jewish males looked intact after they'd been circumcised - think of Michelangelo's David. He looks like he's got a foreskin, right? But he was definitely circumcised. Michelangelo knew what most people don't, though, with regards to the change in the procedure.


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Caloli:

Actually, in the old style ritual circumcision, the remnant foreskin would have released and bared the glans just the same as today's loose circumcisions will eventually retract and bare the glans.

When Michaelangelo sculpted David, the more radical circumcision had been in effect for some time. Michaelangelo was sculpting David for his day's audience and place. At that time, Jews would have been the only ones in Italy that were circumcised and Michaelangelo was sculpting David for an Italian audience who would have found the bared glans offensive and unacceptable for public display. Yes, David probably was circumcised but Michaelangelo took some license and sculpted him intact. The statue shows a quite long foreskin.

Frank


----------



## Paddington (Aug 25, 2003)

I recently read something about this. It actually said that Michaelangelo sculpted David with the old method of circ, and therefore he appears intact to us now, though he was actually circed. That the reason Jews changed the way that the circ is done to the method that removes the entire foreskin is because before enough was left that they could pull it over the glans, giving the illusion that they were intact--in essence hide their Jewishness and avoid persecution. Of course, without Michaelangelo to confirm, I guess we will just go back and forth debating the issue....

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Frankly Speaking*
Caloli:

Actually, in the old style ritual circumcision, the remnant foreskin would have released and bared the glans just the same as today's loose circumcisions will eventually retract and bare the glans.

When Michaelangelo sculpted David, the more radical circumcision had been in effect for some time. Michaelangelo was sculpting David for his day's audience and place. At that time, Jews would have been the only ones in Italy that were circumcised and Michaelangelo was sculpting David for an Italian audience who would have found the bared glans offensive and unacceptable for public display. Yes, David probably was circumcised but Michaelangelo took some license and sculpted him intact. The statue shows a quite long foreskin.

Frank


----------



## Paddington (Aug 25, 2003)

i understand your point stardust, but i also see feebeeglee's. i truly think it may be an impossibility to completely eliminate a religious practice that is based on faith and in the search for a compromise, sacrificing a tip of the foreskin to adhere to their convenent with g-d is definitely a "healthier" alternative then what happens now. they would at least still have the majority of the nerves/be able to feel more sensation, and still have a protective covering. yes, it would still cause the same issues of a violation to the child and i still don't agree with circing period, but i also don't have to make such a decision, as i am not jewish. i made the decision to have my child baptized catholic--technically it wasn't his choice either--though thankfully it just caused him a slight scare when water was poured over his head and didn't permanently alter his body. parents make the decision to pierce babies' ears--i would have considered doing it myself if i hadn't become an intactivist and though better of forcing pain on my child if i didn't have to.

i, of course, will still continue to make the argument that inequality of women, slavery, and women going into seclusion during their menses is also mentioned in the bible, and is not generally accepted anymore and if one of my jewish friends said "fine, i'll just cut the tip off" i would still count it as a save....

sorry, not sure if that went too far. definitely a close topic....

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Stardust27*
I just wanted to point out (and I hope that I am still staying within boundaries) that returning to the old-style biblical circumcision is not the wondrous solution for the human rights issue of involuntary religious circumcision.

No matter how little tissue is removed, there is still cutting, there is still blood, there is still pain, there is still risk of infection and other complications. There is still a violation of the boy's body and his right to choose. Even with the most conservative circumcision, the precious and sensitive ridged band right at the tip of the foreskin will be lost or harmed. With cutting off the "overhang" in an infant, the grown man is likely to have a (mainly) exposed glans, with all loss of sensitivity, keratinization etc. that goes with it. It has also been pointed out that it is a very bad idea to put a scar in front of the glans (where it is not stretched out all the time), because it can lead to secondary phimosis, necessitating treatment and probably even a radical circumcision later on.

All in all, replacing the current "standard" circumcision with a "minor" operation should be no more an option than replacing infibulation with sunnah circumcision for girls. IMHO.

Forgive me if I overstepped - this needed to be said here.









Stardust


----------



## feebeeglee (Nov 30, 2002)

Quote:

It would seem to fulfill the covenant to 'circumcise the flesh of the foreskin' to merely remove the smallest visible tissue sliver from the outer shaft skin, leaving a scar with no noticeable tissue loss after healing.
I also want to clarify for Stardust and others.

When I said it would be nice to see a move towards the original, this is what I had in mind. Nowhere does it say in the Bible how much tissue has to be removed. It certainly doesn't imply that the entire tip would need to be cut off. Everything about the procedure itself is determined by changeable man-made rules - the only thing that's set in stone, so to speak, is 1. the Hebrew word in the original implies that tissue is removed and it is not just a bloodletting and 2. it must be done on the eighth day after birth. Everything else about the ritual has been decided by various rabbis over time and has changed over time.

My point is that 'the original' to which I refer could easily be carried out in such a way that it did not damage the ridged band or any inner mucosal foreskin while still fulfilling all of the requirements laid out for Abraham. The foreskin can be manipulated so that only outer shaft skin is cut, and I'm thinking of a piece of flesh removed that might measure a scant milimeter or less.

So I hope that clears things up.


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

Quote:

I recently read something about this. It actually said that Michaelangelo sculpted David with the old method of circ, and therefore he appears intact to us now, though he was actually circed. That the reason Jews changed the way that the circ is done to the method that removes the entire foreskin is because before enough was left that they could pull it over the glans, giving the illusion that they were intact--in essence hide their Jewishness and avoid persecution. Of course, without Michaelangelo to confirm, I guess we will just go back and forth debating the issue....
Yes, this is what art history teaches.


----------



## LadyMarmalade (May 22, 2005)

bump


----------



## jessjgh1 (Nov 4, 2004)

Adding this recent commentary to this bumped thread:

http://www.momentmag.com/opinion/Jun...6_opinion.html
Here are some snips from the article:

Quote:
Hershel Shanks
A Flip of the Foreskin
The ancient way to reverse circumcision

&#8230;.Epispasm is circumcision in reverse. During the Hellenistic period, beginning in about 125 B.C.E., it became a fairly common operation among Jewish men. In Greek gymnasia and Roman baths, men worked out in the nude. The same for public games and athletic contests. Gymnasia and baths were where you established your social standing and where business deals were often struck. To expose the head of the penis in these circumstances was considered vulgar-or humorous. Certainly indecent.

Some circumcised Jews tried to hide their circumcision&#8230;.

I don't think you have to be a doctor to realize that this won't work on a circumcised Jewish penis today. Certainly not on a mass basis and not without enormous pain. "No one today would even try it," an urologic surgeon recently told me.

This comment led me to explore whether circumcision was different in ancient times. It appears to have been&#8230; different

Rabbis, understandably, didn't like epispasm. It was they who established the intricate rules of modern circumcision. ..


----------



## crazy_eights (Nov 22, 2001)

From Shanks article:

Quote:

. Just to make sure, rabbis decreed that the mohel must also remove the membrane under the foreskin where it attaches to the shaft of the penis, a procedure called periah, which means laying bare or uncovered. Otherwise, the circumcision is not valid according to Mishnah Shabbath 9.6 and its Gemara, b. Shabbath 137b. This is why epispasm is barely known today according to Shaye Cohen, a leading Judaic scholar at Harvard, who says that epispasm is "impossible" after periah.
This is what was changed from 'old style' circ and 'new style' The rabbis added this extra step (long, long before Michalangelo's David - by about 2000 years) to prevent those who wanted to emulate the Greeks by 'restoring'. BTW- Shank's quote is from the Talmud, where the rabbinic enactment is recorded.


----------

