Circumcision Then and Now: Differences?

[mommy2caroline]

I am curious about the differences between circumcision as practiced in Jewish culture during biblical times and circumcision as practiced today in hospitals... I heard that thousands of years ago, when circumcisions were performed outside of the hospital as a religious rite, that they were completely different than today's version of removing all the foreskin... that the Biblical circumcisions were just one small cut and did not remove the foreskin completely.

If this is so, does anyone have any links discussing this? Any illustrations as to the differences?

Also, in a Jewish bris nowadays, is it done like a typical hospital circ, or is it done more like it was long ago?

I ask because I have encountered more and more people who say they had their sons circ'd for religious reasons... these are Christians, not Jews. I am not looking to debate whether any religion is a "valid" reason or not to circ... but I am wondering if it makes sense to argue that one is having a son circ'd "because Jesus was circ'd" if the procedure wasn't even really the same back then... if that makes sense... So I am looking to see if this argument holds water historically rather than religiously.

[freestyler]

I think the whole practice is barbaric and sick. I would never, ever consider letting someone do that to my baby boy, and it doesn't matter WHO allegedly was/wasn't circ'd, etc. And goodness, there were a lot of other pretty barbaric and sick customs in ancient times, and thank goodness we don't try to repeat ALL of them. Ugh.

Edited to add: You are right, the practice was different then and now it is even worse. As far as I am concerned, it never makes sense to cut off any part of a baby's body, and religion is as poor a justification for it as anything else. I think it is not justifiable.

[true2Him]

This is what I found regarding Christians and circumcising basically regarding a blood covenant being one of the strongest covenants (similar to marriage where the husband is supposed to break the hymen of the wife sealing their eternal bond). Eighth day circumcision was given by God due to the amount of vitamin K in his body. It's the only day in a man's entire life when the level of vitamin K is this high.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2204

This is what someone else pulled up regarding the spiritual significance of the 8th day.
http://www.torahview.com/bris/html/8th_day.html

I doubt Jesus being circumcised is the primary reason. Christians are becoming more aware of how much the old Jewish practices in the Bible directly relate to and affect their walk (such as observing the feasts/appointed times in Leviticus which God said were to be observed forever). We understand the promises of Abraham are available to us as we have been grafted into the family through Jesus (Gal 3:29). So many have decided to follow instructions given to Abraham in Genesis 17 and pass on the Word of God to their children as they learn. Additionally, as there is more and more scientific, archaeological, historical evidence found to support the Bible, people are putting more effort into following the instructions found in the Bible.

I would believe they still perform them the same way as Jews traditionally have kept their history and customs pretty well in place. I'm not sure how much is cut because I've never asked anyone who had a bris.

eta: I don't know of any that believe they HAVE to have their children circumcised as Christians, especially since when Gentiles became saved, they weren't circumcised and weren't required to be.

[mommy2caroline]

I am really wondering about the historical part, though. My personal thoughts on it as a Christian are that Paul wrote in the New Testament that circumcision was no longer necessary under the New Covenant... which, imo, makes it harder to justify circing because of Christian beliefs.

While that argument alone could be used when trying to convince somebody who wants to circ for Christian reasons... I am looking for the historical differences. I do not understand circing as a Christian religious reason and then having it done in a secular way - in the hospital with one of those awful restraints, with no family present (often not even the parents!) and possibly with much more pain/more skin removed... so I am wondering mostly about how much skin was removed in Biblical times compared to the amount that is removed now. Was it just a cut without removing skin, or was some of the foreskin actually removed? Was the circumcision commanded by God in the OT very different from the secular circs of today?

[georgia]

Hi, I need to ask that we not bash anyone's religious practices. We will allow a civil, respectful discussion relating to religious circumcision as it relates to a particular faith. Spirituality forum is for like-minded members to discuss their faith and practices. Spirituality does not allow debate.

Any questions, please PM a forum moderator. Thanks!

[Ruthla]

I have a question for Christians who claim to circ for religious reasons. What is their attitude toward other Torah laws, such as keeping kosher, keeping the Sabbath, etc? I can understand "Torah Observant Christians" observing Bris Milah (covenant of the circumcision), but for those Christians who don't keep the Torah, choosing to circumcise (while still being willing to eat pork and shellfish, not observe Shabbos on Friday nights and Saturdays, etc) seems kind of random (unless they have another religious reason separate from the Jewish reasons.)

As for Jewish circumcision, my understanding is that it really hasn't changed much over time. It's still done outside of hospitals, the baby is held by his father or grandfather (not strapped down to a board0, and the procedure takes less than a minute (vs the 15 minutes or so for a hospital circ.) The mohel just uses a scalpel or sharp knife, no high-tech devices. Of course, there are individual Jews who may choose to go with a hospital circ instead of a Bris Milah and a mohel, and individual Jews who forego circumcision altogether, but Orthodox Jews (and a great many with no affiliation or a different affiliation) use a Mohel and the traditional technique.

I know there have been debates about "they used to cut less skin off but now they cut more" but I don't think that's ever been substantiated. My understanding is that, same as now, it comes out slightly different each time, since the mohel just uses a scalpel, not a plastic device to show exactly how much to cut. Sometimes it comes out very "loose" and the boy doesn't "look circumcised", but most of the time it "looks like a circumcised penis." I suspect that many of the discussions about "they used to cut less" stem from the fact that there have always been individuals who had less cut off.

The only time they "make a small cut but don't remove the whole foreskin" is when the foreskin is already removed. An example is when a non-Jewish boy is circ'ed in a hospital as an infant, and then wants to convert to Judaism as an adult. In that case, a drop of blood is taken from the area where the foreskin was, and that counts as the "Bris Milah". This would be the same procedure for a Jewish boy who had a "non Bris circ" and wants a "real Bris Milah" later in life.

[mommy2caroline]

Ruth, in the few cases where I have known Christian parents who said they circ'd for religious reasons, no, they did not observe any of the other OT laws such as abstinence from pork... it was just the circing that they followed, and the reason was something along the lines of "because it shows the covenant between them and God." I also do not understand why they would keep one piece of the OT laws (seen as the "old covenant" by Christians) while disregarding the rest, especially since all Christians believe that Jesus was the new covenant and that the old laws no longer needed to be observed because of his sacrifice. And even more so that they'd do it in the non-religious hospital setting while saying they are doing it for religious reasons... I don't understand.

Thanks for the other info on Jewish circumcisions.

[Kidzaplenty]

[graceomalley]

Originally Posted by mommy2caroline

I ask because I have encountered more and more people who say they had their sons circ'd for religious reasons... these are Christians, not Jews. I am not looking to debate whether any religion is a "valid" reason or not to circ... but I am wondering if it makes sense to argue that one is having a son circ'd "because Jesus was circ'd" if the procedure wasn't even really the same back then... if that makes sense... So I am looking to see if this argument holds water historically rather than religiously.

First, no Christian has any business circumcising - it discounts the sacrifice Jesus made and implies that the crucifixion and resurrection weren't good enough.

Second, you're right, the historical Jewish procedure was different, but I'm not sure when the change happened. I *think* it was after Jesus was born but someone more knowledgeable will have to chime in there.

[imnottelling]

Are you talking about "priah"? Which started when the Jews entered the land of Canaan/Israel?
That was in Joshua's time IIRC.

[smeisnotapirate]

Jewish circumcision (with a mohel) varies, like Ruthla said. My son's foreskin is very "loose." You can tell he was circumcised, but his glans is not completely bare. The ceremony has stayed the same - I also haven't heard historical, Jewish evidence that the bris is much different than it always has been. When Tzipporah circumcised her sons, she had enough foreskin to "throw at Moses' feet" (Exodus 4:24-26). Doesn't sound like that was a "small cut," which is what many people use to discount bris milah as too severe and not biblically mandated.

[Magelet]

the only evidence I've read is that originally, father's circumcised their own sons, or at least, that is what is called for. Today's average father couldn't circumcise his own son, not what circumcision is today. Of course, its just as possible that the circumcision was not easier to do, but because everyone had large families, the "then" average dad had seen enough circumcisions up close between brothers, cousins, nephews, and more that by the time his son came, he'd been told how and watched how enough times. Even a mohel has to do it a first time sometime.

[Smokering]

I've read (on anti-circ websites, not Jewish websites) that the original form of circ was less extreme and kept the glans covered. Apparently the glans-stripping version came in during the Roman period, when Jewish males would sometimes join in on the Roman games (which Jews considered immoral). As the participants of the games had to be naked, but baring the glans was considered obscene, permanently stripping the glans effectively prevented Jewish males from entering the games. Even though this reason is no longer applicable, the "new" method of circ is still considered to be binding.

But. I haven't heard this story substantiated by a reliable Jewish source... so take it with a grain of salt (or better yet, find me the substantiation!).

[true2Him]

According to this link http://www.udonet.com/circumcision/christian.html under paragraph 3, Jewish circumcision was barely a cut. It states the practice of removing the entire foreskin came about in Victorian times to discourage self-stimulation.

There may be more info there, but that's as far as I read yesterday. I'm still reading the other links.

[Oubliette8]

This site has an excerpt from the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion which states-
"Many Hellenistic Jews, particularly those who participated in athletics at the gymnasium, had an operation performed to conceal the fact of their circumcision (I Me. 1.15). Similar action was taken during the Hadrianic persecution, in which period a prohibition against circumcision was issued. It was probably in order to prevent the possibility of obliterating the traces of circumcision that the rabbis added to the requirement of cutting the foreskin that of peri'ah (laying bare the glans).

To this was added a third requirement, metsitsah (sucking of the blood). This was originally done by the mohel (circumciser) applying his lips to the penis and drawing off the blood by sucking. For hygienic reasons, a glass tube with a wad of cotton wool inserted in the middle is now generally employed, or the blood is simply drawn off by the use of some absorbent material."

http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/JewishEnc/

While CIRP is a pro-foreskin site, a large library should have the original source for verification.

[Mama Lo]

:

[BlessedMommy2006]

Edited, because I also found the page referencing the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion. I will try to find that source in a library so that I can read it directly.

[smeisnotapirate]

1) The mohel is quick and experienced. I can't tell you exactly what was done because I'm really not sure exactly how he did it, but from the time DS was taken from me to the time he was back nursing was about a minute (longest minute of my life, but a minute). He was held the whole time. All I can say is the mohel is in his late 60s and has done thousands of brissim - he does nothing else. So just like an experienced anything is usually more efficient, I'm sure that's why DS's bris was so short. Doctors do them much less frequently and use many more tools. DS's foreskin, like I said, looks about half-and-half. The glans isn't completely bare (you can't see the ridge on the far end of the glans without retracting some skin), but he is obviously circumcised.

2) I don't recall anywhere (in the Hebrew Bible) where it talks about restoring foreskin. Maybe for Christians in their bible, but not in ours.

3) There was very little blood during DS's circumcision - less than a bloody nose. His first gauze pad had no blood on it at all. All we did was put ointment on it (to keep it from being infected) and replace the gauze pad. Anyone in biblical times could have done the same with some salve and a cloth.

[BlessedMommy2006]

Thanks for your answers. It sounds like a Jewish bris is probably less radical than a medical circumcision.

Here's the verse that I was referring to on foreskin restoration:

1 Corinthians 7:18
Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

[smeisnotapirate]

Originally Posted by BlessedMommy2006

Thanks for your answers. It sounds like a Jewish bris is probably less radical than a medical circumcision.

Here's the verse that I was referring to on foreskin restoration:

1 Corinthians 7:18
Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

Ok, yeah, that's in the Christian bible, not the Torah - so it's not applicable to Jews. Thought so - and I'll let someone else tackle that one.