Why did Jews cut their willies?!! (page 3)

Spectrum

Gamaliel,

I like the following points you made. They seem very plausible.

"It also seems to me that it was not to make sex less sensitive, or make it "dirty". It may have been considered a way to make it MORE sensitive, and in the long run, may have actually been considered a fertility rite with practical fertility benefits, not just symbolic ones. Towards the symbolism angle, there is some evidence that nations who did not circumcise found the practice vulgar because it made every penis look as if it were in an aroused state even if it weren't. That might have made the idea of circumcision seem fitting as a fertility symbol. A Greek man or woman could look at an un-circumcised penis without embarrassment because it was "covered" or clothed by a foreskin. But the Jews in the gymnasium were "naked".

It's quite possible, that only Egyptian priests generally had it done. This might fit a new significance that Jews gave this fertility rite. Jews sometimes referred to themselves as a whole nation of priests (the males) in a kind of priesthood for the entire world of nations. Therefore, one way to symbolize that this priesthood belonged to the whole nation was to circumcise all of them."

jwfacts

filipinos still get circumsized at the age of 12. My step son was going to have the snip at 12, until he realised there were better less painful things to do with his foreskin.

Spectrum

I read in a book a few years back that Australian aboriginies would split their penises length ways so that when they got drunk during there dancing round the fire ritual they couldn't piss on the fire and put it out!!

Gamaliel

After receiving a PM on this I wondered if anyone here has done any study of this matter.

I know that there has always been a believing audience for any science or pseudo-science that supports the Bible. At the back of our Hall, they once posted up a magazine article that proved that astronomer/scientists had found the lost day of Joshua when he prayed for the sun to stand still. This has long been proven to be a hoax, but it still gets trotted out as proof by some believers from time to time.

But on the issue of circumcising on the 8th day, any "Marvin Harris"-type sociologist might understand that some ritual practices were based on pragmatic reasons, and perhaps, over the years circumcisers noticed that far less babies bled to death on day 8 than on day 6. (But there are other religious-based hints in the Mosaic law that made day 8 seem appropriate. Yet there is evidently a South American tribe unrelated to Jews that also practices 8th day circumcision.)

The claims about blood-clotting factors being high on day 8 are quite common, but most of the references are to "one study" and a few different people who have requoted that "one study". Are the study's findings easily reproduced? Do all these studies stop at day 8? Is it true that babies have no bacteria in their intestines until after they are born? (as sometimes claimed) Is that bacteria from mother's milk? And if bacteria development is not the reason, then what about babies born 1 day prematurely, or 1 week or 1 month prematurely? Should they wait for the extra day, week or month, etc.?

Also, I notice that the study seems not to compare health risks when the child is 12 or 13.

Personally, I have tended to think that Israelites once did this at puberty earlier in their history, but changed to the 8th day (or thereabouts) at a time when they decided it was for ALL males, and therefore should be done as early as possible so that no one would be missed, or put it off. Perhaps they wanted to do it as early as possible, when memory of the pain would not be possible. But it was obviously not a thing to do while the mother and child were still in the first hours or couple days post-partum. Letting the child live a week before attempting it seems to me just a way of proving that the child was "viable", that it would live. After all, this was back in times of high birth-related mortality. Also, I think there would be less outrage at a priest/rabbi who performed a circumcision that led to death of an infant than there would be if he caused the death of a 12 year old boy who was already proving useful in his field chores. The first could be blamed on consitutional weakness of the infant (or God's will), the latter would be obvious malpractice by the priest/rabbi.

I have found some info such as this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH135_1.html

but it seems relatively weak as far as argumentation goes:

Claim CH135.1:
The Bible, remarkably for its time, notes that the eighth day after birth is the safest time to perform circumcisions (Gen. 17:12; Lev. 12:2-3). When a baby is born, they have no bacteria in their intestines for the first few days. By the seventh day, the bacteria multiply and produce vitamin K. Without vitamin K and prothrombin protein (which is produced by the liver using vitamin K), the blood will not clot properly and the possibility of severe bleeding as well as infection would make circumcision dangerous in a primitive medical situation.
Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 205-206.
Response:

1. Although the danger of severe bleeding is worst in the first week, it can occur any time in the first month (Zipursky 1999). According to most medical experts, the best time for circumcision is never (Ritter and Denniston 1996). The procedure is medically unnecessary at best. The procedure is painful, and there is some evidence that pain in early infancy makes one more sensitive to pain throughout life (Ruda et al. 2000).

2. Attributing a requirement of some special knowledge for this insight assumes the ancient Hebrews were stupid. Classic hemorrhagic disease of the newborn is usually seen on days two through five (Zipursky 1999); it would not take a lot of observation and thought to conclude that it would be best to wait until the worst danger is over.

The Susus near Timbuctoo and the Guemos of South America are also said to perform the rite on the eighth day (Hirsch et al. n.d.).

3. Accuracy on one point does not show overall accuracy.

Does anyone know if there is a reliable source of information on the subject that goes even deeper into the issue of medical benefits, or lack thereof on day 8.

katiekitten

How could it set them apart from the nations unless everyone went about with their todger hanging out?

Maybe god wanted multiuse purses made from foreskins that turned into suitcases when you rubbed them.

katiekitten

Seems kinda sad to have a beautiful perfect baby boy, and then to have to start chopping bits off him straight away.

Surely all those Jewish mums must have been thinking 'if god didnt want that bit why did he design it on them to start with?'

luna2

I agree with you, kk. I was just too weak to refuse to have it done. Family pressure and social expectations are sometimes difficult to buck.

ballistic

I'm intact and fully operational last time I checked.

luna2

We're very glad to hear that, ballistic. lol Much nicer than those Aboriginal fellas who mangled their's.

Spectrum

Gamaliel,

"The Bible, remarkably for its time, notes that the eighth day after birth is the safest time to perform circumcisions (Gen. 17:12; Lev. 12:2-3)."

Even if this does turn out to be true, it means nothing because they had thousands of childen to practise on over many centuries. Isolating the eighth day as the one that gives the lowest child mortality isn't going to take that long.

Personally I think it's a stupid custom that is still practised to this day.

Why did Jews cut their willies?!!

Share this