Last night, I was rolling around in bed, sleepless, possibly from an afternoon coffee exciting my brain too much, possibly from the six hour drive I was subjected to, but either way, I couldn't sleep. My thoughts were roaming, when I came across a comparison, a topic I hadn't considered before, comparing "pre-Christian" circumcision to "post-Christian" circumcision. Here it goes:
It is notable to me that the Judaic justification of circumcision involves nothing except tribal identity. I don't know about Rabbinical documents and musings, don't ask me about it, but Genesis makes it abundantly clear that circumcision is an in-group signifier in relation to Yahweh/God/being an Israelite. There is no other reason; no citation of cleanliness, changing sexual behavior, etc, only that this is what will make it known that you are apart of the tribe who follows the one true God, are descended from Abraham, and are not like the other tribes. If you attempt to ponder God's wisdom, you might think it does make sense. From a strictly socio-biological perspective, the Israelite woman (who we presume could allow or disallow sexual access) would see that she was engaging in coitus with a fellow member of the tribe. Indeed, as the Israelites expanded in their conquest of the Levant, circumcision was the mark which followed them all. Either you cut or get vanquished. Sometimes both. Yet God doesn't give this (biological/evolutionary/social) reason, he says do it as a manifestation of our relationship.
Later on, in the Jews' relationships to other cultures, the in-group rationale becomes abundantly more clear. During the Hellenization of the Levant, through direct Greek and Roman influence, athleticism becomes commonplace. Interestingly, the foreskin was important to the Hellenic athletes. It basically allowed for you to have your "uniform" (by tying the foreskin to the side) and separated the athlete, who was displaying his toned body, from the vulgar "naked". Young Jews were desirous of assimilation and also of the prestige which flowed from this culture structure (It seems to me that being a Jew in the Roman Empire was seen somewhat of being a backwater simpleton, a people perceived as obsessed with strange spiritual matters and prone to partisan violence), but were effectively outcast due to the changes in their foreskin. This in fact began some sort of rudimentary foreskin restoration techniques. Rabbinical authorities ruled against this restorative practice and initiated the widespread of adoption of what is now considered modern circumcision. Before this cultural rupture, it was apparently seen as enough to remove only the "anteater" portion of the foreskin, which protrudes from the glans, or even arguably just to "prick" the skin. The in-group signifier, at risk of being watered down, was made more apparent, comprehensive, and permanent. Now the in-group could not leave the tribe and was forced to be alienated from organized and prestigious society.
Circumcision then becomes a known, lasting fixture of Jewishness within every society the Jews entered. That connotation is not changed until Victorian England, when ideas concerning cleanliness and scientific hygiene are became in vogue. Some English doctors note that circumcision appears to prevent the spread of syphilis and "self-harm"/masturbation, and decide to adopt and spread it throughout WASP culture. This move is very interesting to me. The justification is not "this will separate us from them", but "this will make us cleaner". As of late, it become trendy to know about this historical oddity and its spread through the United States, and some other justifications made throughout that time, such as circumcision's relationship to ending masturbation and so on. I am interested in what exactly it means for circumcision to have made the leap between justified by in-group (you are circumcised because you're a Jew) to justified by purity (you are circumcised because it's better for you), and for circumcision to leave its originating group and become adopted by another for completely different reasons.
Both seem connected. Judaism is interested in purity; there are a plethora of cleansing rituals in Leviticus, so it wouldn't be unusual to claim circumcision was following this same general trend. Indeed, I think being the group closest to God might be seen as the most "pure." Yet, there's no purity claims, just that you must do this because I, God, deem it to be the mark between me and you. Everything beyond that moment is post hoc reasoning, trying to understand the practice as put forth by God. Moving the justification of circumcision, from in-group to purity, breaks down the barriers which allow it to be an in-group marking and also attempt to situate it on firmer foundation. That is, one no longer is a Jew, but is pure and protected, no matter what. It's also interesting how those who spread circumcision as purifying practice were not priests, but doctors, the learned, secular class, who is supposed to protect the body from all physical dangers via wisdom over nature (as opposed to the priestly insight into God's wisdom).
Okay, this is a weird topic and conclusion, but I think that trying to untangle this moral move is something akin to the missing link between modernity and the "old world". Circumcision, regardless of your own personal views, is a strange tradition. If you attempt to talk to anyone about it, they become very strange too, basically irrational. Because it is a practice done almost unconsciously, routinely even, and in a place considered generally impure or "off-limits", it can short circuit the discussion. I don't think that's a bad thing, rather it's a good thing because it unveils something hidden in the way we consider it.
It is notable to me that the Judaic justification of circumcision involves nothing except tribal identity. I don't know about Rabbinical documents and musings, don't ask me about it, but Genesis makes it abundantly clear that circumcision is an in-group signifier in relation to Yahweh/God/being an Israelite. There is no other reason; no citation of cleanliness, changing sexual behavior, etc, only that this is what will make it known that you are apart of the tribe who follows the one true God, are descended from Abraham, and are not like the other tribes. If you attempt to ponder God's wisdom, you might think it does make sense. From a strictly socio-biological perspective, the Israelite woman (who we presume could allow or disallow sexual access) would see that she was engaging in coitus with a fellow member of the tribe. Indeed, as the Israelites expanded in their conquest of the Levant, circumcision was the mark which followed them all. Either you cut or get vanquished. Sometimes both. Yet God doesn't give this (biological/evolutionary/social) reason, he says do it as a manifestation of our relationship.
Later on, in the Jews' relationships to other cultures, the in-group rationale becomes abundantly more clear. During the Hellenization of the Levant, through direct Greek and Roman influence, athleticism becomes commonplace. Interestingly, the foreskin was important to the Hellenic athletes. It basically allowed for you to have your "uniform" (by tying the foreskin to the side) and separated the athlete, who was displaying his toned body, from the vulgar "naked". Young Jews were desirous of assimilation and also of the prestige which flowed from this culture structure (It seems to me that being a Jew in the Roman Empire was seen somewhat of being a backwater simpleton, a people perceived as obsessed with strange spiritual matters and prone to partisan violence), but were effectively outcast due to the changes in their foreskin. This in fact began some sort of rudimentary foreskin restoration techniques. Rabbinical authorities ruled against this restorative practice and initiated the widespread of adoption of what is now considered modern circumcision. Before this cultural rupture, it was apparently seen as enough to remove only the "anteater" portion of the foreskin, which protrudes from the glans, or even arguably just to "prick" the skin. The in-group signifier, at risk of being watered down, was made more apparent, comprehensive, and permanent. Now the in-group could not leave the tribe and was forced to be alienated from organized and prestigious society.
Circumcision then becomes a known, lasting fixture of Jewishness within every society the Jews entered. That connotation is not changed until Victorian England, when ideas concerning cleanliness and scientific hygiene are became in vogue. Some English doctors note that circumcision appears to prevent the spread of syphilis and "self-harm"/masturbation, and decide to adopt and spread it throughout WASP culture. This move is very interesting to me. The justification is not "this will separate us from them", but "this will make us cleaner". As of late, it become trendy to know about this historical oddity and its spread through the United States, and some other justifications made throughout that time, such as circumcision's relationship to ending masturbation and so on. I am interested in what exactly it means for circumcision to have made the leap between justified by in-group (you are circumcised because you're a Jew) to justified by purity (you are circumcised because it's better for you), and for circumcision to leave its originating group and become adopted by another for completely different reasons.
Both seem connected. Judaism is interested in purity; there are a plethora of cleansing rituals in Leviticus, so it wouldn't be unusual to claim circumcision was following this same general trend. Indeed, I think being the group closest to God might be seen as the most "pure." Yet, there's no purity claims, just that you must do this because I, God, deem it to be the mark between me and you. Everything beyond that moment is post hoc reasoning, trying to understand the practice as put forth by God. Moving the justification of circumcision, from in-group to purity, breaks down the barriers which allow it to be an in-group marking and also attempt to situate it on firmer foundation. That is, one no longer is a Jew, but is pure and protected, no matter what. It's also interesting how those who spread circumcision as purifying practice were not priests, but doctors, the learned, secular class, who is supposed to protect the body from all physical dangers via wisdom over nature (as opposed to the priestly insight into God's wisdom).
Okay, this is a weird topic and conclusion, but I think that trying to untangle this moral move is something akin to the missing link between modernity and the "old world". Circumcision, regardless of your own personal views, is a strange tradition. If you attempt to talk to anyone about it, they become very strange too, basically irrational. Because it is a practice done almost unconsciously, routinely even, and in a place considered generally impure or "off-limits", it can short circuit the discussion. I don't think that's a bad thing, rather it's a good thing because it unveils something hidden in the way we consider it.