Circumcision

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

TheHebrew, like the Greek (peritome), and the Latin (circumcisio), signifies a cutting and, specifically, the removal of the prepuce, or foreskin, from the penis. The number and variety of tribes and nations who practised it are surprising; a conservative estimate places the number that practise it in our day at two hundred millions. Herodotus says that the Egyptians, Colchians, and Ethiopians, from very early times, were circumcised; and he mentions other races, thePhoenicians and Syrians of Palestine (theJews, asJosephus maintains), who say that they learned the use of circumcision from the Egyptians (Herod., II, 104; Jos., C. Ap., I, 22). Even someChristians circumcise their children, theCopts, for instance, and theAbyssinians, in Africa; and among the Filipinos, the same may be said of most of the Tagalos, who areCatholics. To these last, however, it is a mereceremony without religious import. TheMohammedan Moros may have introduced it into the islands, where it remains, notwithstanding centuries ofChristian influence against it (C. N. Barney, see bibliography). TheAbyssinians are entirely under Jewish influence, though they professChristianity: they observe the JewishSabbath, circumcise on the eighth day, and observe many other usages. (See Andree, cited below, p. 189.) Andree states also that the custom of circumcising is found in Sumatra (pp. 191, 192), the east coast ofNew Guinea (p. 197), and among the Samoans, who callEuropeans "the uncircumcised". Even in America, circumcision was in use among theAztec and Maya races (op. cit. 201, 202). The fact of its existence in Australia (Spencer and Gillen, Tribes of Central Australia, p. 218 sq.), and in a great part of the islands of Oceanica, not to speak of America, would seem to throw somedoubt on the assertion of Herodotus that it had its origin inEgypt.

It is not easy to assign satisfactory reasons for a usage so general. Those who think it was a tribal mark, like tattooing, or the knocking out of the front teeth, should consider that such marks are usually conspicuous. Was it connected with phallic worship, and thus regarded as an offering to the deity of fertility? or was it, as some think, a substitute for human sacrifice? From the fact that thepriests inEgypt were, beyond question, circumcised (G. Rawlinson — AncientEgypt, vol. I, p. 452), as also from the fact that the upper classes among theAztec and Celebes tribes made use of it, we may conclude that circumcision was not looked upon as a mark of slavery or subjection, but rather of nobility and superiority. Father Lagrange holds that it had a religious significance, and that, as it is not referred to in Chaldean monuments, it was not a protosemitic practice, but may have had its origin in Arabia (Etudes sur lesreligions sémitiques, 1903, pp. 239-243).

Merelyutilitarian motives have been assigned by many: evenPhilo (De Circumcisione, II, 211, ed. Mangey) gives cleanliness, freedom from disease, offspring, and purity of heart, this last the only mystical or sacramental one among the four, which Herodotus also mentions as the motive of the Egyptians,kathariotetos eineka (II, 37). Physicians prescribe circumcision in certain cases, for instance, to guard against phimosis, balanitis, and other such evils; further, Rosenzweig recommended its general adoption in thePrussian army (Zur Beschneidungsfrage, 1878). That theceremony had some relation to initiation into manhood, at the marriageable age, seems to receive support from the custom of certain tribes of being circumcised at the age of puberty; and also from the fact that the Arabic wordkhatan signifies to circumcise and to be allied by marriage.

It is strange that the universal practice of circumcision among those who professMohammedanism is neither based upon, nor sanctioned by, theKoran. Was this silence observed by theProphet of Islam because there was no need of prescribing what already had the force of law or, perhaps, because it did not seem to him to have any religious significance? However we explain his silence, tradition, by appealing to his authority, soon gave to the practice all the weight of his sanction. The age at which theArabs were circumcised was, according toJosephus (Ant., I, xii, 2), thirteen years, in imitation of Ismael (Gen. xvii, 25). At present the regular time for circumcisingMohammedan children is between the ages of seven and twelve years. The Bedouin tribes too, though not scrupulousIslamites, have adhered faithfully to this usage of their forefathers. A short description of theceremony of circumcision among the nomads of the Sinaitic peninsula may be read in the "Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement" (Jan., 1906, p. 28). The writer says that theceremony has "nothing religious" about it: yet, as he states, the beginning of theKoran is recited on the occasion.

The relation, if there be any, betweenGentile and Jewish circumcision is an interesting subject. The clear statement of theBible that circumcision was given to Abraham, as "a sign of the covenant" (Gen. xvii, 11), need not compel us to believe that hitherto it was unknown in the world. Like thelaw ofclean and unclean, in food and daily life, it may be regarded as a practice of venerable antiquity that was adopted and adapted to express what it had not expressed before. The rainbow existed from the first days of rain and sunshine, for it is the result of both, but the Lord gave its future significance toNoah. The same istrue ofincense, sacrifice, and lustral water, which, though found very early among nations not in touch with revelation, are yet prescribed by Divine ordinance and used in Divine worship. If, therefore, we question the assertion of Herodotus, that circumcision was ofEgyptian origin, and was adopted from the Egyptians by surrounding nations, and, among these, by the Syrians. (Jews) of Palestine, it is not because oftheological scruples, but rather because of lack of argument. Whatever may be said about Herodotus as awitness in matters that fell under his personal observation, when he argues, his authority is only in proportion to the weight of his arguments, and these are, in many instances, mere conjectures. Artapanus, quoted byEusebius (Præpar. Evan., IX, xxviii), goes so far as to say that the Egyptians adopted the practice of circumcision from Moses.

The illustration of theceremony of circumcision pictured on the ruins of Karnak, is probably later than the going down ofIsrael intoEgypt. It is given in Andree's work, pp. 187, 188 (see below); and also in Ebers, "Aegypten etc.", pp. 278-284 (see below), who, moreover, discusses the inferences to be drawn from the finding of a circumcised mummy. We may safely say, however, that up to our time the monuments of antiquity furnish no conclusiveproof that circumcision was practised anywhere prior to the Biblical date, at whichGod made it "a sign of the covenant" between Himself and Abraham (Genesis 17:11). To theJews it had a sacramental meaning, derived from its Divine institution and sanction. As Isaac, so their children were circumcised on the eighth day, according to thelaw: "An infant of eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations: he that is born in the house, as well as the bought servant shall be circumcised, and whosoever is not of your stock: And my covenant shall be in your flesh for a perpetual covenant. The male, whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised, thatsoul shall be destroyed out of his people: because he hath broken my covenant" (Genesis 17:12-14;21:4). For some reason, not given in the text, Moses while inMadian neglected to circumcise his son, Eliezer, on which accountGod "would have killed him", i.e. not Eliezer, as some think, but Moses, as the passage indicates. Sephora, having taken a sharp stone, circumcised her son with it, and said, "a bloody spouse art thou to me"; whereupon the Lord "let him go" (Exodus 4:24-26). The Greek reading, "the blood of my son's circumcision has ceased to flow", is obscure. Sephora very probably meant that by what she had done she had saved the life of her husband and confirmed their marriage by the shedding of blood.

During the sojourn of forty years in thedesert thelaw of circumcision was not observed, as the changes incident to nomadic life, in so large a community, made its observance almost impossible. When, however, the people came into the Land of Promise, the Lord said toJosue: "Make thee knives of stone, and circumcise the second time thechildren of Israel" (Joshua 5:2).The second time, i.e. renew the practice which had been omitted during the nomadic period. As Sephora used a stone knife, so on this occasion stone knives were used, which is aproof that the events narrated are of great antiquity. The words of the Lord to Josue, "This day have I taken away from you the reproach ofEgypt", seem to refer not to circumcision, as some think, but to the disgrace of being slaves to the Egyptians, contrasted with thehonour of entering into thetrue liberty of the children ofGod.Josephus interprets them in this sense: "Now the place where Joshua pitched his camp was called 'Gilgal', which denotes 'liberty', for since now they had passed over Jordan, they looked upon themselves as freed from the miseries which they had undergone from the Egyptians, and in the wilderness" (Ant., V, i, 11). Many modern scholars, however, translate Gilgal, "a rolling away", "circle" (Gesenius, s.v.), and think that the Heb. text of Josue (v, 9), "I have rolled away from you the reproach ofEgypt", refers to the removal of the disgrace of uncircumcision; for at that time, they suppose, most of the Egyptians, and not a fewJews while inEgypt, were uncircumcised. The law was clear and peremptory: "The uncircumcised shall be destroyed out of his people" (Genesis 17:14); and for bothJews and strangers circumcision was anecessary preparation for eating thepaschal lamb (Exodus 12:48).Arel, "uncircumcised", is frequently used as a term of reproach, i.e. profane, unclean (Judges 15:18;1 Kings 14:6,17:36,31:4;Isaiah 52:1;Ezekiel 28:10,32:25, 26, etc.). Theschool ofShammai, therefore, was conservative, insisting on the rigorous observance of thelaw, while that ofHillel, was more inclined to leniency, in dealing withproselytes and strangers.Josephus, in the advice of Eleazer and Ananias to Izates, King of Adiabene, gives the views of the rigorists and the laxists in reference to the necessity of circumcision (Ant., XX, ii, 4; cf. Graetz, Geschichte d. Juden, III, pp. 172 sqq.). The rigorousdoctrine was adopted by John Hyrcanus, who compelled the Idumeans to be circumcised. They received, moreover, the entireJewish Law; so thatJosephus says "they were hereafter no other thanJews" (Ant., XIII, ix, 1). Therefore, the fact thatHerod was an Idumean helped him to the throne. The Itureans also were forced "to live according to the Jewishlaws" (Jos., Ant., XIII, xi, 3).

Long before this, many of thePersians were circumcised and "becameJews, for the fear of theJews had fallen upon them" (Esther 8:17, Heb. text;Josephus, Ant., XI, 6:13). The Book of Jubilees insists upon he strict observance of thelaw, and protests against those that "make the members of their body appear like those of thegentiles" (xv, 26, 27). During the period of Greek rule in Palestine, when those that kept thelaws of Moses wereput to death by thegentile tyrants (1 Maccabees 1:63;2 Maccabees 6:10), someJews, under Greek influence, "made themselves prepuces" and turned away from the ways and traditions of their fathers (1 Maccabees 1:15, 16; Joshua Ant., XII, 5:1). To this epispastic operation performed on the athletes to conceal the marks of circumcisionSt. Paul alludes,me epispastho (1 Corinthians 7:18). Therefore Jewish circumcision, in later times, tears the membrane that remains after circumcision given in the ordinary way, among theArabs for instance, and thus defeats even the surgeon's skill.

In our day manyJews are not sozealous in keeping thelaw as their fathers were; nor do they think itnecessary to have the "sign of the covenant" in their flesh. Theceremony is considered cruel, nor has it any sacramental import in Jewish national life. The Reform movement atFrankfort-on-the-Main, 1843, considered it an unnecessary element ofJudaism. This laxdoctrine could find no stronger expression than in the case of Chief Rabbi Einhorn of Mecklenburg, who in 1847 defended his having named andconsecrated an uncircumcised child in thesynagogue, as a child, even though uncircumcised, born of Jewishparents, enjoys all the privileges and assumes all theobligations of aJew. (See Jewish Encyl., s. vv. Circumcision, Einhorn.)

Neither place nor minister is designated in thelaw of circumcision. The mother sometimes, oftener the father, circumcised the child. Later, one skilled in the operation, called aMohel, usually a surgeon, performed it. InJosephus, Ant., XX, ii, 4, we read that Izates, the King of Adiabene, wishing to live as aJew, "sent for a surgeon" and was circumcised, evidently at home, as in modern times also theceremony may take place either at home or usually in thesynagogue. The eighth day was prescribed, even should it be theSabbath (seeJohn 7:22-23). A name was given, as inLuke 1:59 and2:21, to commemorate the change of the patriarch's name from Abram to Abraham, whenGod made the covenant with him and made circumcision the sign of it (Genesis 17:5). In theceremony, the one that holds the child is calledSandek, from the Greeksynteknos, equivalent to our godfather inbaptism; and as Elias was azealous champion of thelaw, for which he suffered much, there is a vacant chair for him at every circumcision.

TheJews were proud of their descent from Abraham, but did not always "do the works of Abraham" (John 8:39). They attached so much importance to the external act, that while attending to the letter they neglected the spirit of thelaw. Jeremias (iv, 4; ix, 25, 26) calls their attention to the necessity of circumcision of the heart, as all important. Even inDeuteronomy 10:16 and30:6, this spiritual circumcision is set forth in no uncertain language. As uncircumcision means profane, unclean, imperfect, "I am of uncircumcised lips" (Exodus 6:12), "their ears are uncircumcised" (Jeremiah 6:10), and was applied to inanimate things also, as in Lev., xix, 23, "the fruit that cometh forth shall be unclean [Hebrew uncircumcised] to you", so to circumcise the heart (Romans 2:29) means to reform the inner man, by cutting off the vices and correcting the disorders that make him displeasing in the sight ofGod. To leave thesynagogue was to give up that which more than anything else characterized it (seeGalatians 2:7-8). YetSt. Paul, while showing his freedom from the legalities of theOld Dispensation by not circumcising Titus (Galatians 2:3), wished to bury thesynagogue withhonour by subjecting Timothy to thelaw of circumcision (Acts 16:3). Even thoughChrist Himself, as atrue son of Abraham, submitted to thelaw, His followers were to be children of Abraham byfaith, and were to "adore the Father in spirit and intruth" (John 4:23). The Council ofJerusalem decided against the necessity of the rite, andSt. Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatians, condemns the teachers that wished to make theChurch of Christ only a continuation of thesynagogue: "Behold, I Paul tell you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing" (v, 2). Here he refers to the supposed efficacy and necessity of circumcision, rather than to the mereceremony; for he did not consider it wrong to circumcise Timothy. It was wrong, however, for the Galatians, having beenbaptized, and having taken upon themselves theobligations of thelaw of Christ with all its privileges, to be circumcised as anecessary means ofsalvation, since, by going forsalvation from theChurch to theSynagogue, they virtually denied the sufficiency of the merits of Christ (cf.Piconio, "Trip. Exp. in Gal.", v, 2). The Apostle gives the essence ofChristianity when he says: "InChrist Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision: butfaith that worketh by charity" (Galatians 5:6). InRomans 4, he shows that Abraham was justified byfaith, before circumcision was given as a sign of the covenant; so that the uncircumcision of the New Law is the continuation of the first ages offaith upon the earth. Thegentile church of uncircumcision, according toSt. Gregory the Great, is composed of men from the time of Abel the Just to the end of ages (Hom. xix in Evan.).St. Justin also says that as Henoch and the just of old received the spiritual circumcision, so do we receive it in theSacrament of Baptism (Dialogue with Trypho 43).

St. Thomas holds that circumcision was a figure ofbaptism: this retrenches and restrains the animal man as that removed a part of his body — which physical act indicated the spiritual effect of the sacrament (De Sac., Summa, III, Q. lxx, a. 1). He gives three reasons why the organ of generation rather than any other was to be circumcised:

According to his teaching, asbaptism remitsoriginal sin and actualsins committed before its reception, so circumcision remitted both, butex opere operantis, i.e. by thefaith of the recipient, or, in the case of infants, by thefaith of theparents. Infants that died before being circumcised could be saved, as were those who lived prior to the institution of circumcision, and asfemales were even after its institution, by some sign — theparents'prayer, for instance — expressive offaith. Adults did not receive the remission of all the temporal punishment due tosin as inbaptism: — "Adulti, quando circumcidebantur, consequebantur remissionem, non solum originalis peccati, sed etiam actualium peccatorum; non tamen ita quod liberarentur ab omni reatu p næ, Sicut in baptismo, in quo confertur copiosior gratia" (III, Q. lxx, a. 4). The main points of the teaching of theAngelic Doctor were commonly held in theChurch, even before the days ofSt. Augustine, who with other Fathers maintained that circumcision was not a mereceremony, but a sacramental rite. (Cf.City of God XVI.27)

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT