For the sitemap, see here.
It is well known that the Greeks did not practice circumcision, and in the conflict over how far Jews should Hellenize, circumcision featured prominently because it was important to Jews but strange to Greeks. But the Greeks are not very relevant to the history of the Jews before about 333 BCE.
A Tricky Reading of Jeremiah
Moving further back, Jeremiah provides some evidence that circumcision was not a uniquely Jewish practice in his time (Jeremiah dates to about 587, the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians). Jeremiah complains that people are physically circumcised but not circumcised “in their heart.”
If you are reading along in a KJV, Jeremiah 9:25-26 indicates that Egypt, Edom, [and, taken literally, Judah!], the Ammonites, and Moab did not practice circumcision. This is based on a translation of kol mul be-orlah as “circumcised with the uncircumsed.” The implication then is that the surrounding nations are uncircumcised. But this is an odd translation of the preposition be. Most modern translation read differently, and see 25 and 26 as indicating that this list of peoples are all physically circumcised.
“Lo, days are coming—declares the Lord—when I will take note of everyone circumcised in the foreskin: of Egypt, Judah, Edom, the Ammonites, Moab, and all the desert dwellers who have the hair of their temples clipped. For all these nations are uncircumcised, but all the House of Israel are uncircumcised of heart.” (Jeremiah 9:24-25, New Jewish Publication Society version)
“The passage in Jeremiah dealing with circumcision (9:24-25) has puzzled students of the book for a long time” (Richard C. Steiner, 1999, “Incomplete Circumcision in Egypt and Edom: Jeremiah (9:24-25) in the Light of Josephus and Jonckheere.” JBL.) (The discrepancy in numbers is due to Hebrew Bibles numberings as 24 and 25 what many English Bibles numbers as 25 and 26).
“Does the passage say that the Egyptians, the Edomites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, and the Arabs were circumcised or uncircumcised? The first sentence of the translation gives one answer, while the second gives another” (Steiner, p. 498).
Steiner notes that there have been some questions about ancient sources. “Although Herodotus (2.36, 37, 104) states that the Egyptians practiced circumcision, other sources imply that the practice was not universal. And although Jerome asserts that all the peoples listed in Jer 9:25 were circumcised in his day, Josephus (Ant. 13.9.1 §§257-58) seems to imply that the Idumeans (=Edomites) were uncircumcised before being converted to Judaism by John Hycranus” (498).
Richard Steiner argues, on the basis of a study by Jonckheere of Egyptian circumcision, that the phrase mul b’orlah means “uncircumcised with foreskin,” i.e., with a form of circumcision that does not (for these other peoples) remove the entire foreskin (as the Israelites did). Jeremiah is saying that the Israelites are like the other peoples. While the other peoples have an incomplete physical circumcision, the Israelites themselves, who removed the entire foreskin, were still “incompletely circumcised” in that their hearts did not have the attitude appropriate to circumcision. Jeremiah thus undercuts the view that Jews are automatically superior to their neighbors on the basis of circumcision.
On the other hand, there is historical evidence suggesting that the Jewish practice of periah, where the entire foreskin rather than simply some flesh on the end is removed, did not originate until after the encounter with Hellenism (Matthew Thiessen). Thiessen criticizes Steiner’s view on the grounds that periah was likely not practiced this early, but does think that some kind of mechanical difference existed between Israelite/Judahite and neighboring forms of circumcision. Some other scholars read the passage as indicating no physical circumcision difference between Israel and the other peoples mentioned by Jeremiah.
Suffice it to say for now that the precise meaning of what Jeremiah says is contested, and that reconstructing the situation requires careful reading through various texts that are not always clear. There is a lack of direct physical evidence, of course, given how human flesh deteriorates.
Implications
Suppose we grant, for the sake of argument, that Jeremiah’s text reflects, without any exception or cloudiness, that the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Egyptians, and some unnamed peoples in the desert practiced regular Israelite-style circumcision (whatever that means) in the sixth century. With the exception of the Egyptians, we still may be dealing entirely with peoples who, according to Genesis were considered descendants or relatives of Abraham, the biblical founder of the circumcision practice: Edomites being descended from Abraham, and Moabites and Ammonites from his nephew Lot. Would these desert-dwellers be considered descendants of Keturah, and therefore, in Genesis’ view, required to circumcise? I can’t say.
What about the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Kenizzites, and so on — the various Canaanite peoples who according to Genesis were not related to the Abrahamic family. Did they practice circumcision? I don’t know that Jeremiah provides any information that would shed light on that. And what about earlier? If circumcision was practiced around 587 BCE, is there any reason to suppose that it was widely practiced in Canaan at a much earlier time, such as before the arrival of a distinctly Israelite monarchy in perhaps the ninth century?
Canaan
The Bible gives hints. The Philistines are repeatedly said to be uncircumcised, but they were non-Canaanite new arrivals to Canaan near the end of the Bronze Age (ca. 1200). Speaking of the mentions of the Philistines, John L. McKenzie (1965), says, “This, however, does not signify that the Philistines alone of the neighbors of the Hebrews were uncircumcised. There is little if any evidence that it was practiced by the Canaanites. An ivory carving from Megiddo (ANEP 332) represents two circumcised male prisoners, of uncertain origin but certainly Semitic in features, being led before an unidentified king. The practice is not mentioned in Mesopotamian literature, nor is there any trace of it in archaeological remains. Hence the hypothesis that the Hebrew adopted the rite from some desert tribes is not altogether without probability.”
Roland de Vaux writes, “It is difficult to determine the extent of the practice of circumcision in the ancient East, for the available evidence is uncertain and contradictory. In Egypt, bas-reliefs bear witness to the custom from the third millennium B.C., texts mention it, Herodotus speaks of it, and yet some of the mummies are not circumcised. It certainly seems to have been obligatory for the priests. Yet Jos 5:9 appears to describe uncircumcision as ‘the disgrace of Egypt.’ On the other hand, Jr 9:24-25 mentions the Egyptians, along with Judah, Edom, Ammon, Moab and the Arabs as being circumcised in the flesh but uncircumcised in heart. Ez 32:21-30 consigns Pharaoh and his army to Sheol with the uncircumcised, along with the Assyrians, the Elamites, the hordes of Meshek and Tubal, the Edomites, all the princes of the North and all the Sidonians. Flavius Josephus says that the Idumeans (Edomites) were compelled to adopt circumcision by John Hyrcanus. But, if we are to beleive Herodotus, all the Phoenicians and Syrians of Palestine were circumcised; Aristophanes asserts the same of the Phoenicians. . . .” (p. 46-47).
“Among the peoples with whom the Israelites had direct contact in Palestine, the Philistines were uncircumcised . . . This distinguishes them from the Canaanites, who are never so described, and must therefore have been circumcised. There is, of course, the episode of the Shechemites who were compelled to circumcise themselves in order to marry Israelite maidens (Gn 34:13-14), but, according to Gn 34:2, the Shechemites were ‘Hivvites’ (‘Horites’ in the Greek text); this implies that they constituted a non-Semitic enclave among the population” (47).
Conclusion
It’s complicated.
Bibliography
John L. McKenzie (1965). The Dictionary Of The Bible. Simon and Schuster. p. 137.
Richard C. Steiner, 1999, “Incomplete Circumcision in Egypt and Edom: Jeremiah (9:24-25) in the Light of Josephus and Jonckheere.” JBL.
Matthew Thiessen (11 August 2011). Contesting Conversion: Genealogy, Circumcision, and Identity in Ancient Judaism and Christianity. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 54.
Roland De Vaux (25 March 1997). Ancient Israel: Its Life and Instructions. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. pp. 46–47.
biblicalsausage 