Among the many traces that the Jews were once savages I place the
distinguishing mark of their race, circumcision. Many explanations have
been given of this curious custom. The account, in Genesis xvii. that
God commanded it to Abraham, at the ripe age of 99, critics agree was
written after the exile--that is, thirteen hundred years after the death
of the patriarch. Now, there is evidence from the Egyptian monuments
that circumcision was known long before Abraham's time. This constrains
Dr. Kitto to say, "God might have selected a practice already in use
among other nations." If so, God must have had a curious taste and an
uninventive mind. Why, having made people as they are, he should order
his chosen race to be mutilated, must be a puzzle to the orthodox. Some
writers have absurdly argued that the Egyptians borrowed from the Jews,
whom they despised (see Genesis xliii. 32). Apart from the evidence of
Herodotus and of monuments and mummies to the contrary, this view is
never suggested in the Bible, but the testimony of the book of Joshua
(v. 9) implies the reverse.
The narrative of the Lord's attempted assassination of Moses (Exodus iv.
24-26), which we shall shortly examine, has the most archaic complexion
of any of the biblical references to circumcision, and from it Dr. T. K.
Cheyne argues that the rite is of Arabian origin.* If instituted in the
time of Abraham under the penalty of death, it is curious that Moses
never circumcised his own son, nor saw to its performance in the
wilderness for forty years, so that Joshua had personally to circumcise
over a million males at Gilgal.
Let us now look at the various theories of the origin and purpose of
circumcision. Rationalising Jews say it is of a sanatory character. This
view, though found in Philo, may be dismissed as an after theory to
meet a religious difficulty. Most Asiatic nations are uncircumcised. The
Philistines did not practice the rite, nor did the Syrians in the time
of Josephus. Even if in a few cases it might possibly be beneficial,
that would be no sufficient reason for imposing it on a whole nation
under penalty of death. The fact is, the rite is a religious one.
Indeed, upon its retention the early controversy between Jews and
Christians largely turned.
The view that it is an imposed mutilation of a subject race is suggested
in Dr. Remondino's _History of Circumcision_, and has the high authority
of Herbert Spencer. He instances the trophy of foreskins taken by David
as a dowry for Saul's daughter (1 Sam. xviii. 27), and that Hyrcanus
having subdued the Idumeans, made them submit to circumcision. This,
however, may have been a part of the policy of making them one with the
Jewish race in being tributary to Jahveh. It is not easy to see how a
mutilation imposed from without should ever become a part of the pride
of race and be enjoined when all other mutilations were forbidden.
* Encyclopaedia Britannica, article "Circumcision."
I incline to a view which, although in accord with early sociological
conditions, I have never yet seen stated. It was suggested to me by the
passage where Tacitus alludes to this custom among the Jews. It is that
circumcision is of the nature of savage totem and tattoo marks--a device
to distinguish the tribal division from other tribes, and to indicate
those with whom the tribe might marry.* If, as has been suggested, the
meaning of Genesis xxxiv. 14 is "one who is uncircumcised is as a woman
to us," this view is confirmed. The Jewish abhorrence to mixed marriages
and "the bed of the uncircumcised" is well known.
* What Tacitus says is, "They do not eat with strangers or
make marriages with them, and this nation, otherwise most
prone to debauchery, abstains from all strange women. They
have introduced circumcision in order to distinguish
themselves thereby."
The Hebrew distinguishing term for male--_zachar_, which also means
record or _memorial_--will agree with this view, as also with that
of Dr. Trumbull, which associates circumcision with that of
blood-covenanting. It seems evident from the narrative in Exodus iv.,
where Zipporah, after circumcising her son, says--not as generally
understood to Moses--"A bloody husband art thou to me," but to
Jahveh, "Thou art a _Kathan_ of blood"--i.e., one made akin by
circumcision--that this idea of a blood-covenant became interwoven with
the rite. It is to be noticed that in the covenant between God and the
Jews women had no share.
Dr. Kuenen holds that circumcision is of the nature of a substitute
for human sacrifice. No doubt the Jews had such sacrifices, and were
familiar with the idea of substitution; but with this I rather connect
the Passover observance. If a sacrifice, it was doubtless phallic--an
offering to the god on whom the fruit of the womb depended; possibly a
substitution for the barbarous rites by which the priests of Cybele
were instituted for office. Ptolemy's Tetrabibles, speaking of the
neighboring nations, says: "Many of them devote their genitals to their
divinities." According to Gerald Massey, "it was a dedication of the
first-fruits of the male at the shrine of the virgin mother and child,
which was one way of passing the seed through the fire to Moloch."
Westrop and Wake (_Phallicism in Ancient Religion_, p. 37) say
"Circumcision, in its inception, is a purely phallic rite, having for
its aim the marking of that which from its associations is viewed with
peculiar veneration, and it converts the two phases of this superstition
which have for their object respectively the _instrument_ of generation
and the _agent_."
General Forlong, who maintains the phallic view, also holds that "truth
compels us to attach an Aphrodisiacal character to the mutilations of
this highly sensual Jewish race." This view will not be hastily rejected
by those who know of the many strange devices resorted to by barbarous
peoples. Some have believed that circumcision enhances fecundity.
With the exception of the two first views, which I dismiss as not
explaining the religious and permanent character of the rite, all these
views imply a special regard being paid to the emblem of generation.
This is further confirmed by the manner of oath-taking customary among
the ancient Jews. When Abraham swore his servant, he said, "Put, I pray
thee, thy hand under my thigh" (Gen. xxiv. 2). The same euphemism
is used in the account of Jacob swearing Joseph (xlvii. 29), and the
custom, which has lasted among Arabs until modern days, is also alluded
to in the Hebrew of 1 Chronicles xxix. 24. The Latin testiculi seems
to point to a similar custom. In the law that no uncircumcised or
sexually-imperfect person might appear before the shrine of the Lord, we
may see yet further evidence that Jewish worship was akin to the phallic
rites of the nations around them.