History of circumcision from the earliest times to the present

by P. C. Remondino

[56] Bishop Newton points out the remarkable analogy that marks the Hebrew race as descendants of Isaac and the Arab race as the descendants of Ishmael, from whom sprung the Saracenic people. These are the only two races that have gone on in their purity from their beginning. They intermarry only among themselves and have, alike, the same customs and habits as their fathers. The sculptured faces of the Hebrew on the Babylonian monuments are the same faces that are met in the synagogues of Paris or New York. So with the descendants of Ishmael, in whom there flows partly the blood of the dominant element of ancient Egypt; neither custom, habit, nor physiognomy have changed. In these two races, as observed by Bishop Newton, we have an ocular demonstration of the Divine origin of our faith, if verification of Scripture history is any criterion.—“Clarke’s Commentary,” vol. i, page 111; also, Hosmer’s “Story of the Jews,” page 5.

[57] “Cause Morale de la Circoncision.” Vanier, du Havre. Pages 40-45.

[58] “De la Circoncision.” Par le Dr. S. Bernheim. Page 7. Paris, 1889.

[59] “Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature,” vol. ii, page 350.

[60] Among the Semitic race, however, it seems possible to bring forward better evidence than this of an early Stone Age. If we follow one way of translating we find, in two passages of the Old Testament, an account of the use of sharp stones or stone knives for circumcision,—Exodus, iv, 25: “And Zipporah took a stone”; and Joshua, v, 2: “At that time Jehovah said to Joshua, Make thee knives of stone.” ... The Septuagint altogether favors the opinion that the knives in question were of stone, by reading, in the first place, a stone or pebble, and, in the second, stone knives of sharp-cut stone. These are mentioned again in the remarkable passage which follows the account of the death and burial of Joshua (Joshua, xxiv, 29, 30),—“And it came to pass, after these things, that Joshua, the son of Nun, the servant of Jehovah, died, being a hundred and ten years old, and they buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnath Serah, which is in Mount Ephraim, on the north side of the hill of Gaash.” Here follows, in the LXX, a passage not in the Hebrew text, which has come down to us: “And there they laid with him in the tomb, wherein they buried him there, the stone knives wherewith he circumcised the children of Israel at the Gilgals, when he led them out of Egypt, as the Lord commanded. And they are there unto this day.” The rabbinical law, in connection with this subject, reads as follows: “We may circumcise with anything, even with a flint, with crystal (glass), or with anything that cuts, except with the sharp edge of a reed, because enchanters made use of that, or it may bring on a disease; and it is a precept of the wise men to circumcise with iron, whether in the form of a knife or scissors, but it is customary to use a knife.” This mention of the objectionable nature of the reed as a circumcising medium is attributed to the danger that may arise from splinters. The Fiji Islanders use both a rattan knife and a sharp splinter of bamboo in performing circumcision and in cutting the umbilical cord at child-birth. Herodotus mentions the use of stone knives by the Egyptian embalmers. Stone knives were supposed to produce less inflammation than those of bronze or iron, and it was for this reason that the Cybelian priests operated upon themselves with a sherd of Samian ware (Samia testa), as thus avoiding danger. There seems, on the whole, to be a fair case for believing that among the Israelites, as in Arabia, Ethiopia, and Egypt, a ceremonial use of stone instruments long survived the general adoption of metal, and that such observances are to be interpreted as relics of an earlier Stone Age.—“Researches into the Early History of Mankind.” By Edward B. Tylor. Pages 217-220. London, 1870.

[61] The cannibals of Australia do not eat white people, as the flesh of these produces a nausea, which the flesh of the vegetable-fed blacks does not do. The rice-fed Chinese are considered a treat, and these are slaughtered in great number, ten Chinamen having been served up at one dinner.—“Among Cannibals.” By Carl Lumholtz. Page 273.

[62] “Cause Moral de la Circoncision.” Par le Dr. Vanier. Page 266.

[63] Ibid., page 288.

[64] Cincinnati Clinic, vol. ii, page 165.

[65] “The Story of the Jews.” Hosmer. Page 263.