Circumcision

CIRCUMCISION (From Lat. circumcisio, «cutting around»; Gr. περιτομή; Heb. Milāh). - Total or partial ablation, or even simple incision, of the foreskin in men, and cutting of the clitoris in women (in the classical sense, the circumcision of men is usually meant). A religious practice widely diffused among various peoples of antiquity, it is still in force among approximately the 7th part of humanity (already in 1880 the anthropologist R. Andrée gave the approximate calculation of over 200 million people: Archiv f. Anthropol., 12 [1880], p. 76).

I. AMONG THE HEBREW PEOPLE

1. History

Circumcision (milāh) among the Hebrew people was and is a national-religious rite of fundamental importance. Its institution is linked to the covenant of alliance between God and Abraham with all his descendants (Gen. 17:10-14). As a seal of the covenant, circumcision was prescribed by God, to be performed on the 8th day on all newborn males, including slaves born in the house or purchased, even if of another race: whoever was not circumcised would be expelled from the chosen people (17:14). The rite was performed for the first time by Abraham on himself at the age of 99, on his son Ishmael at 13 years of age and on all his servants (Gen. 17:25-31); when Isaac was born, he was circumcised on the 8th day (21:4). The practice became general among the people of Israel, which in this way, during its sojourn in Egypt, had the advantage of finding itself on the same moral level as the Egyptians, among whom circumcision was held in great honor. It seems, however, that during the stay in Egypt the practice had fallen somewhat into disuse or at least was not always observed. Even Moses was found at fault for not having circumcised his son, but, warned by God, he immediately had him circumcised by his wife Zipporah, who for this reason called him "bridegroom of blood" (Ex. 4:25). The precept of circumcision was implicitly recalled by Moses in the institution of the Passover on the eve of the departure from Egypt, as a necessary condition for eating the paschal lamb (Ex. 12:44, 48), and then expressly in the Sinaitic legislation (Lev. 12:3; cf. Jn. 7:22).

From Jos. 5:4-7 we learn that all the males who came out of Egypt and died in the desert were circumcised, but those who were born in the desert remained uncircumcised. It is difficult to give an adequate explanation of this fact. However, no reproach is ever made to the Israelites for this omission: which authorizes the belief that there was a suspension of the law by the will of God, perhaps because of the continual infidelities of the people and the severe punishment that followed, whereby, the covenant having been broken, circumcision, which was its sign, lost its meaning (cf. Jos. 5:6). The precept came back into force with Israel's entry into the promised land. After the crossing of the Jordan, at the locality of Gilgal, not far from Jericho, Joshua had the entire new generation that had been born in the desert circumcised, by God's command, with stone knives (which many identified with the knife-shaped flints found in good number in the excavations carried out in 1870 near that locality: DB, II, col. 775). The event, which has particular prominence, is presented as a "second circumcision" (5:4). Not that the children of Israel (as Origen thought) were circumcised a second time (which is expressly excluded; 5:6), but in the sense that after the temporary suspension the law definitively came back into force at the very moment when for Israel, with the entry into the promised land, a new era began: and just as the institution of the covenant had been celebrated with a solemn first circumcision (Gen. 17:9-14, 23-27), so its realization was sanctioned with a new general circumcision. On that occasion God said to Joshua: "today I have rolled away from you the reproach of Egypt" (Jos. 5:9): words of difficult interpretation (A. Fernandez, Comm. in Josue, Paris 1938, pp. 74-76), perhaps to be understood in the sense that with the definitive restoration of circumcision the Israelites would no longer be an object of contempt for the civilized people of Egypt (for whom it was a disgraceful thing to be uncircumcised) or, more probably, that the "reproach," that is, the "servitude" of Egypt, came completely to an end when the children of Israel, entering the promised land and submitting to circumcision, were readmitted to the graces of Yahweh.

Those rationalist critics (Hollenberg, H.-J. Holtzmann, A. Dillmann, etc.) who attributed Gen. 17 to the "Priestly Code" P (composed, according to the thesis of J. Wellhausen, around 500 B.C.), maintain that Israel did not practice circumcision before the definitive entry into Palestine, after having learned it from the Egyptians. But this hypothesis clashes with Jos. 5:4-7, in which an interpolation by the redactor is wrongly seen, and with other biblical texts (not least Jn. 7:22 and Acts 7:8) and the entire Jewish tradition, which concordantly trace circumcision back to a period earlier than Moses, that is, to Abraham. According to H. Gunkel (Genesis, 1910, p. 269), followed by others, the document J would derive circumcision from the Midianite Zipporah (Ex. 4:34), the document E from Joshua (Jos. 5:2 ff.), and P from Abraham (Gen. 17). But this supposition is founded solely on the Wellhausenian theory of the sources of the Pentateuch. The biblical narrative moreover excludes that Israel took circumcision from Egypt, as Herodotus, Celsus and Julian thought in antiquity and today various rationalists (J. Spencer, W. Nowak, E. Meyer, J. C. Matthes, R. Reitzenstein, etc.).

The rite was directly instituted and imposed by God as a sign of the covenant (Gen. 17). Abraham, who during his sojourn in Egypt (Gen. 12:10 ff.), must undoubtedly have known that custom, did not practice it until he received a formal order from God, at the age of 99. Nor does it create difficulty that God chose an ancient rite, already in use among other peoples, because he attributed to it an entirely new meaning and the essential value of a sacred sign. The circumcision of women, which was never widely diffused in antiquity and appears as an extension of that of men, is not known in Israel. From the time of Joshua circumcision was universally observed and became the sacred seal of the people of God: its absence was a cause of dishonor and ignominy (cf. Judg. 14:3; 15:18; I Sam. 14:6; 17:26, 36; Ezek. 28:10; 31:18; 32:19 ff.). It was also a sign of distinction from the other neighboring peoples, largely uncircumcised, especially from the Philistines, the "uncircumcised" ('ărēlim) par excellence. It is true that some texts (Jer. 9:26; Ezek. 3:18; 32:19-42) seem to suppose that circumcision was practiced by the Jews alone and by no pagan people: but circumcision must be understood "iuris divini," that is, as it was in force in Israel by divine prescription and with its well-determined meaning. The distinction consisted, more than in the material rite, in its meaning. Although a religious meaning must be admitted also among other peoples, especially in Egypt, the meaning of circumcision in Israel (sign of the covenant with God, aggregation to the chosen people, purification) finds no counterpart among other peoples. Through it the newborn entered to become part of the sacred community and participated in the divine blessings made to Abraham and his descendants. It is true that to be a perfect Jew the simple fact of carnal descent from Abraham sufficed (an ethnic element, irreplaceable), but circumcision was the first act of the religious and moral life of the community and radically included the acceptance of the entire Tōrāh. The symbolism of the rite (consecration, spiritual rebirth) stood out moreover from the circumstance that the child was circumcised on the 8th day from birth (unlike other peoples who used to circumcise mostly at the age of 3 or 4 or 7 years or even at the time of puberty). With circumcision the custom arose of giving the name to the newborn (cf. Lk. 1:59; 2:21), just as God had already imposed a new name on Abraham at the institution of the rite (Gen. 17:5).

During the Babylonian exile the Sabbath and circumcision were the two greatest symbols of Judaism; likewise in the Hellenistic-Roman era, when circumcision became a subject of mockery on the part of the pagans. If the Hellenistic influence produced renegades (some Jews, ashamed to appear circumcised in the eyes of the pagans in the public gymnasia, tried to conceal the marks of circumcision: 1 Macc. 1:15), nevertheless the majority of the Jews remained faithful to the ancestral prescriptions and offered heroic resistance to the persecutory laws of Antiochus Epiphanes, who had forbidden circumcision (1 Macc. 1:51); many women risked their lives to circumcise their sons (1 Macc. 1:65 ff.). Under the Hasmonean dynasty circumcision was imposed, as a sign of Judaization, also on the non-Israelite subjects within the borders of Palestine, that is, the Idumeans and Itureans; but care was taken not to extend it also to the Philistine cities. On the obligation of circumcision for proselytes (v.) divergences arose as early as the time of the tannaim: R. Joshua, with the liberal current, was of the opinion that any rite of purification (such as the ritual bath) sufficed to make a proselyte and that circumcision was not required; R. Eliezer, on the other hand, with the stricter current, maintained in all cases the necessity of circumcision.

The emperor Hadrian forbade circumcision, together with castration, with severe sanctions (Lex Cornelia, de sicariis: Dig. XLVIII, 8, 4, 2); under Antoninus Pius (ca. 138 A.D.)

the law was repealed for the Jews but remained for the Arabs and the Nabateans of the desert, as well as for the Samaritans and the Egyptians: only the Egyptian priests who proved their priestly origin could be circumcised.

In the first centuries of Christianity the rabbis (e.g., R. Jāmā'e'l, R. 'Aqībā') strenuously defended circumcision both against the pagans and against the Christians, increasingly emphasizing its necessity and its meaning, to the point of asserting that circumcision includes all 613 precepts and equals in value all the other commandments put together, and that he who is not circumcised is incapable of learning the Tōrāh.

For Jews by race circumcision is even today, in the different countries, the first and fundamental practice, faithfully observed even by unbelievers, as a distinctive sign of the race. On the other hand, circumcision is today excluded for proselytes; besides the official decision of the Reform rabbis of America at the New York conference, 1892, cf. A. Pallière, Le sanctuaire inconnu, Paris 1926.

2. Rite

In biblical times it was mostly the father (or the mother) who circumcised the newborn child. Later the office, which is rather delicate, was entrusted to a special operator (mōhēl, "circumciser"): an honorary office that is performed free of charge. Circumcision is performed on the 8th day, even if it falls on a Sabbath, according to the most ancient tradition (cf. Jn. 7:22). The rite is accompanied by a twofold blessing, pronounced one by the mōhēl, the other by the father of the newborn child; then follow the wishes of happiness and the imposition of the name, and finally a longer blessing that celebrates the divine covenant with Abraham and its sacred sign, circumcision. It is customary to hold a banquet, to which at least ten men are invited. Among the principal guests, who sit beside the father, besides the mōhēl there is the sandiqās, a kind of godfather, who holds the child on his knees during the rite (it is the most honorable office). The chair on which the sandiqās sits during the act of circumcision is usually called the chair of the prophet Elijah, who is believed to assist invisibly at every circumcision and is popularly called "the Angel of the covenant" (cf. Mal. 3:1; 4:5).

The symbolism of circumcision soon led to reflection on its metaphorical signification, that is, on spiritual circumcision, of the mind and of the heart (purification of the spirit, submission to God), a condition necessary, far more than carnal circumcision, for enjoying God's favor and the benefits of the promise. Already in Deut. 30:6 the necessity of this spiritual circumcision is emphasized (cf. Jer. 4:4: "circumcision of the heart"), and in Lev. 26:41 the wicked and rebellious are called "uncircumcised in mind" (cf. Jer. 6:10; 9:26; Acts 7:51: "uncircumcised in heart and ears"). St. Paul observes that circumcision was given to Abraham as a sign and seal of the righteousness obtained through faith (Rom. 4:11). Therefore the circumcision of the flesh presupposes and imposes that of the spirit, of which it is a symbol and a reminder. Jesus too submitted to the law of circumcision (Lk. 2:21). But with the institution of Christian Baptism the obligation of circumcision ceased. Against the Judaizers who wanted to subject all converts from the Gentiles to circumcision, the Apostles took a stand at the assembly of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1 ff.) and above all St. Paul, who repeatedly demonstrated the uselessness of the rite after the redemptive death of Christ (cf. Gal. 5:2 ff.; 6:12 ff.; Col. 2:11 ff.; etc.).

II. AMONG OTHER PEOPLES

In antiquity circumcision is attested first of all among the Egyptians in an era earlier than Abraham, at least under the IV dynasty (ca. 2400 B.C.). Besides the well-known testimony of Herodotus (II, 36, 37, 108) and of other writers (Diodorus Siculus, I, 28; Philo, De circ., 1; Flavius Josephus, Ant. Iud., VIII, 10, 3; Contra Ap., I, 22; Ps. Barnabas, 9; PG 2, 752; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, I, 15; PG 8, 768, etc.), there is the evidence of the mummies and of the monuments. In a good number of mummies the marks of circumcision are still evident; likewise in the statue of Būlāq, V dynasty, and in the tomb of Saqqara, VI dynasty; in a bas-relief of Karnak coming from the temple of Ḥons, XX dynasty, the circumcision of a boy between 6 and 12 years of age is represented. According to Herodotus (II, 36), it was practiced, at least in ancient times, by all classes of the population. But it is difficult to establish whether and when it was obligatory: the mummies of many Egyptians allow it to be recognized, many others lack it (J. C. Matthes, in Zeitschr. f. Altst. Wiss., 29 [1909], p. 70 ff.). Probably circumcision was a practice more or less widely observed according to the different epochs and regions. It was in particular an honor among the priestly class, which attached to it a sacred and religious meaning, so much so that, in time, "uncircumcised" (ama) became a synonym of "impure." Later it fell into disuse and in the Hellenistic-Roman era, when attacks by Greco-Roman writers multiplied, it was practiced almost exclusively by the priests, who preserved it tenaciously and made of it a necessary condition for the exercise of priestly functions (cf. Flavius Josephus, Contra Ap., II, 13; Origen, In Rom., II, 43; Ambrose, Ep., II, 72, 5): according to a papyrus of Tebtunis (II, no. 293) the uncircumcised priest cannot perform sacred functions. Circumcision did not come to the Egyptians from the Hebrews or from the other descendants of Abraham, as the author of the Rec. Clem. supposes (PG 1, 1227), because it is more ancient. It is one of those typical rites whose origin is lost in the obscurity of the ages.

The Colchians and Ethiopians also practiced circumcision, as Herodotus informs us (II, 104). The same historian is of the opinion that from Egypt the rite passed also to the Phoenicians and to the "Syrians who live in Palestine" (that is, the Hebrews, and perhaps other neighboring peoples, such as the Ammonites and Moabites). But it is disputed that the Phoenicians practiced circumcision. It seems that the Ammonites and Moabites practiced circumcision, at least for some time. Likewise the Idumeans and Midianites. It is known, however, that in the time of the Hasmoneans circumcision had to be imposed on the Idumeans by the Jews. Among the other Western Semites, the Arabs practiced circumcision, and they preserved it down to our own days. There are no traces of it, on the other hand, among the Eastern Semites (Assyrians-Babylonians) or among the Indo-European, Mongol, and Ugro-Finnic peoples.

Ethnological research has established the existence of circumcision in numerous tribes of primitives, who still practice it: in Australia, Polynesia, Central America (Mexico, Nicaragua, Yucatán) and South America (Amazon), and especially in Africa, where circumcision is so widespread that it is easier to give a list of those who do not circumcise than of those who do. It is performed for the most part with a stone knife, proof of its high antiquity. Circumcision has remained in use also among the Coptic Christians of Egypt and the Monophysites of Ethiopia (through Jewish or Islamic influence), who, however, do not attribute to it a religious meaning but a nationalistic-social one.

The greater diffusion of circumcision is due to the Islamic religion. It is commonly held that circumcision was already in use in ancient Arabia. Islam maintained the practice, and, although the Koran does not mention it, the documents of the ḥadīṣ ("tradition") speak of it repeatedly. In the traditional estimation of the people, abstinence from pork and circumcision are considered in many parts as the fundamental practices of Islam (Enzykl. d. Islām, II, 1028); and this is linked to the tradition according to which Muhammad would have come into the world already circumcised (in North Africa a child born with a shorter prepuce is considered a blessing from heaven). Only in the Shāfiʿite or orthodox rite is circumcision obligatory (for both sexes), but in practice it is generally observed in the various countries (Arabia, Persia, Asia Minor, the Balkans, North Africa, Ethiopia, India, Malaysia, etc.); more common is the circumcision of males (properly called ḥidn), frequent also that of women (ḥafd). The rite takes place everywhere with notable solemnity. In some parts the child, before the operation, is subjected to a sacred bath, amid prayers and songs.

The ritual and the method vary according to the different peoples. Even more varied is the age, which ranges from the 7th day after birth up to the 15th year: the southwestern Arabs circumcise children on the 7th, 14th, 21st, 28th day; at Mecca (where the rite is called ṣahārah) from 3 to 7 years (girls too, but there is no special rule); the Mazequas in East Africa between the 1st and 2nd month; in Egypt between 5 and 6 years; in the other countries of North Africa the age varies from the 7th day to 13 years; from 10 to 14-15 years in Java (girls from 2 to 8 years); in Persia in the 3rd or 4th year; the Coptic Christians between the 6th and 8th year. Almost all the others, including the primitives, circumcise at the age of puberty, which is, in general, the preferred age, as already in ancient Egypt. This circumstance seems to confer on circumcision a value of youthful initiation in the passage from the society of children to that of adults and warriors, as well as of initiation to marriage: this would be, according to many, the original and fundamental meaning of the rite, to which the religious meaning was soon added as well, which is not always easy to define precisely; it appears evident, for example, in the circumcision of priests in ancient Egypt and among Muslims.

Various other explanations have been attempted: a hygienic motive, especially in hot countries; a mark of distinction of the race; a sacrificial motive; purification of the generative power, etc. Worthy of note is the hygienic motive, already adduced by Herodotus for the Egyptians, and for the Hebrews by Philo (who, however, sees in circumcision essentially the sign of holiness and of the election of Israel: cf. Philo, De spec. leg., I, 1-12; De migr. Abr., 12; Quaest. in Gen., III, 47), later by Moses Maimonides, often repeated in modern times down to E. Baras, who suggests various considerations on the hygienic advantages of the cut. But these advantages are not clearly demonstrated and the hygienic motive retains for many a purely historical value (Jewish Enc., IV, 93).

Gaetano Stano

III. FEAST OF THE CIRCUMCISION

Among the early Christians the calends of January were merely a civil festival.

In many places it was celebrated with unbridled joy, almost like that of the pagans, so much so that the Fathers of the Church found themselves more than once compelled to call the people back to greater seriousness. At Ravenna, for example, St. Peter Chrysologus (Serm., 155) forbade participating in and attending wild dances and masquerades. Similar disorders occurred also in Gaul and in Spain in the 5th century (cf. Council of Tours [567], cann. 17 and 22, and of Toledo [633], can. 11). To suppress these abuses the bishops of Tours and of Auxerre had instituted penitential processions with the singing of litanies and other sacred expiatory functions on that day. Another reminder of similar abuses is offered by various liturgical books which, beginning with the so-called Leonine sacramentary, have for the date of January 1 a Mass ad prohibendum ab idolis, to counter the paganizing amusements of the calends of January or New Year (v.). Since, however, Christianity had harmonized its religious calendar with the salient events of Christ's life, and not with the civil one, New Year's Day coincides simply with the octave of Christmas.

The Kalendae of January as an ecclesiastical feast were in fact unknown in Rome in 600. Very soon, however, like Easter and Epiphany, the Nativity of Our Lord also had its octave, and consequently the eighth day was simply called Octava Domini, or in octava Domini; which shows that that day was not considered a feast of its own. In the calendar of the evangeliary of St. Genevieve, copied ca. 714-31, it is called Natale s. Mariae (ed. F. G. Fronteau, Paris 1652), almost as if to suggest a profound and delicate thought, namely the wish to dedicate to the Mother of Jesus, on the eighth day of her Son's birth, a special remembrance, since the day of Christmas is entirely for the Divine Infant. To this end a formulary of the office was composed which is one of admiration and praise of the Virgin Mother, and even in the prayers of the Mass a particular commemoration is made of Mary's virginal motherhood. Moreover, the Statio was dedicated to her in the basilica of St. Maria ad Martyres (Pantheon); but after Gregory IV had erected a crib at St. Maria in Trastevere, in imitation of the Liberian one, the Statio was transferred there as well. The Homiliary composed ca. 786-97 by Paul the Deacon names January 1 as the day in octavas Domini i. e. Calendae Ianuariae (ed. Wiegand, p. 27).

Outside Rome and in particular in Gaul, on the other hand, the commemoration of the Circumcisio prevailed, as is evident from the Lectionary of Victor of Capua (546), from can. 17 of the Second Council of Tours (567), from the Statuta of Sonnatius of Reims (614-31: PL 80, 446), from the Missale Gothicum (ed. Muratori, II, p. 552), from the Calendar prefixed to the evangeliary copied by the monk Godescalc (781-82: ed. F. Pieper, Berlin 1858), etc. This commemoration then passed into the title of today's liturgical observance of January 1, despite the texts that predominantly commemorate the divine motherhood of Mary Most Holy.

Filippo Oppenheim