Talk:Circumcision in cultures and religions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
| This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.
|
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
Circumcision in cultures and religions is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles. |
|
Project Judaism To-do:
|
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
|
|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
Many thanks to RK for all the interesting information that you have added.
Stop the propaganda
It is noted that the intention of monomaniac anti-circumcision types to try to score/make a point that the continuing practice of circumcision amoung Jews is through a misinterpretation of the Bible. This is merely an opinion. The opinion of a tiny (but shamelessly vocal) minority. Give it a break. No matter how desperately some would wish to misuse wikipedia for propaganda purposes it does not deseve a mention in the article. Time to move on. - Robert Brookes 15:35, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Why the Prophet Jeremiah should not be censored out of this article
All the abusive invective in the world doesn't alter the fact that when we consider the Jewish law, the following is relevant:
- 'How can you say, "We are wise and the law of the LORD is with us when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.'
- Jeremiah 8:8, New Revised Standard Version
-
- Huh? What in the world does this have to do with the topic of this article, circumcision? RK 14:42, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
It is relevant because:
- Jeremiah is a major Jewish prophet, so his opinion carries weight.
- Jeremiah lived over 2000 years closer to the time when the books of Moses were compiled.
The fact that another contributor is so determined to remove this evidence from the public record demonstrates that the point Jeremiah makes is sensitive. Nevertheless it is also highly relevant to any rational discussion about this aspect of the Jewish law, and for that reason should remain. If other contributors wish to argue that Jeremiah's comment about scribal ethics is not relevant to Biblical passages about circumcision, they are welcome to demonstrate this. However, censorship is not the way to make this point.
- Uh, you are confused. The above stuff you write has nothing to do with the subject of circumcision. RK 14:42, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Merely a POV. Merely a leading interpretation. Nothing to do with the subject at hand. - Robert Brookes 16:07, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I am astounded that someone can argue that the question of the reliability of the scribal tradition is irrelevant. I am astounded that someone can argue that the Prophet Jeremiah's opinion can be discounted as merely a point of view. If there is a legitimate question about the reliability of the scribal tradition, then the intellectually and religiously honest thing to do is to face it fairly and squarely, not by censorship and denigration.
Is it fair to imply that the Prophet Jeremiah is not a legitimate or reliable person to comment on the scribal tradition? I think this position would be hard to sustain. - Michael Glass
- Nice try Michael. The point of view is that what you continue to insist should be reinserted is in fact relevant to the article. I think not. - Robert Brookes 17:09, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
-
- The idea that this statement belongs in this article is totally untrue. If it is relevant ... then it is relevant to every single article about the Hebrew Old Testament in this Encyclopedia. I challenge you to go out and add it to all of those articles and see what people say.
- Right now the only reason you are getting away with this revert war is that relatively few people are aware of it (just discovered it, myself). Keep it up and eventually those who are empowered to stop it will become aware of it.
- Wikipedia will be NPOV. That is not an option.
- This particular thought about Jeremiah might be relevant, if contextualized (i.e., don't say the opinion, say "Party X has the following opinion: ...", but there is nothing about it that makes it belong in this article. Go put it in an article about the Old Testament, not here. This is an article about circumcision in the Bible. Pick one of the articles this article links to if you think this idea absolutely has to belong in Wikipedia (and present it NPOV instead of the way you did). Jdavidb 19:03, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If other contributors wish to argue that Jeremiah's comment about scribal ethics is not relevant to Biblical passages about circumcision, they are welcome to demonstrate this. However, censorship is not the way to make this point.
All right, we've discussed it on the talk page. So far you've not reached a consensus that agrees with you, and in fact, of the three interested parties, only you feel that this paragraph belongs here. Let me state unequivocally then that further reverts on your part are completely inappropriate. If you feel there is a problem with the exclusion of this text from the article, seek arbitration or mediation. Until then, if you continue to insert this text, it will be reverted because it is being added to this page counter to discussion on the talk page. Jdavidb 19:03, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The fact that another contributor is so determined to remove this evidence from the public record demonstrates that the point Jeremiah makes is sensitive. Nevertheless it is also highly relevant to any rational discussion about this aspect of the Jewish law, and for that reason should remain.
BTW, you are completely misinterpreting what the Prophet said. You are removing it from the larger context of the rest of the Bible to imply something about the Bible that Jeremiah did not mean. You are thus pushing your POV about what Jeremiah means here. Contextualize and NPOV, or get out. (And take it to another article anyway, where it is relevant. Or else put it in every other Biblically-related article.) Jdavidb 19:05, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
First of all, I am quoting what the prophet said. I am quoting chapter, verse of what the prophet said and I named the translation I used.
You have claimed the verse is quoted out of context.
Here is the entire chapter:
The Sin and Treachery of Judah
1 "At that time," declares the LORD, "they will (1) bring out the bones of the kings of Judah and the bones of its princes, and the bones of the priests and the bones of the prophets, and the bones of the inhabitants of Jerusalem from their graves. 2 "They will spread them out to the sun, the moon and to all the (2) host of heaven, which they have loved and which they have served, and which they have gone after and which they have sought, and which they have worshiped. They will not be gathered (3) or buried; (4) they will be as dung on the face of the ground. 3 "And (5) death will be chosen rather than life by all the remnant that remains of this evil family, that remains in all the (6) places to which I have driven them," declares the LORD of hosts. 4 "You shall say to them, 'Thus says the LORD,
"Do men (7) fall and not get up again?
Does one turn away and not repent?
5
"Why then has this people, Jerusalem,
(8) Turned away in continual apostasy?
They (9) hold fast to deceit,
They (10) refuse to return.
6
"I (11) have listened and heard,
They have spoken what is not right;
(12) No man repented of his wickedness,
Saying, 'What have I done?'
Everyone turned to his course,
Like a (13) horse charging into the battle.
7
"Even the stork in the sky
(14) Knows her seasons;
And the (15) turtledove and the swift and the thrush
Observe the time of their migration;
But (16) My people do not know
The ordinance of the LORD.
8
"(17) How can you say, 'We are wise,
And the law of the LORD is with us'?
But behold, the lying pen of the scribes
Has made it into a lie.
9
"The wise men are (18) put to shame,
They are dismayed and caught;
Behold, they have (19) rejected the word of the LORD,
And what kind of wisdom do they have?
10
"Therefore I will (20) give their wives to others,
Their fields to new owners;
Because from the least even to the greatest
Everyone is (21) greedy for gain;
From the prophet even to the priest
Everyone practices deceit.
11
"They (22) heal the brokenness of the daughter of My people superficially,
Saying, 'Peace, peace,'
But there is no peace.
12
"Were they (23) ashamed because of the abomination they had done?
They certainly were not ashamed,
And they did not know how to blush;
Therefore they shall (24) fall among those who fall;
At the (25) time of their punishment they shall be brought down,"
Says the LORD.
13
"I will (26) surely snatch them away," declares the LORD;
"There will be (27) no grapes on the vine
And (28) no figs on the fig tree,
And the leaf will wither;
And what I have given them will pass away."'"
14
Why are we sitting still?
(29) Assemble yourselves, and let us (30) go into the fortified cities
And let us perish there,
Because the LORD our God has doomed us
And given us (31) poisoned water to drink,
For (32) we have sinned against the LORD.
15
We (33) waited for peace, but no good came;
For a time of healing, but behold, terror!
16
From (34) Dan is heard the snorting of his horses;
At the sound of the neighing of his (35) stallions
The whole land quakes;
For they come and (36) devour the land and its fullness,
The city and its inhabitants.
17
"For behold, I am (37) sending serpents against you,
Adders, for which there is (38) no charm,
And they will bite you," declares the LORD.
18
My (39) sorrow is beyond healing,
My (40) heart is faint within me!
19
Behold, listen! The cry of the daughter of my people from a (41) distant land:
"Is the LORD not in Zion? Is her King not within her?"
"Why have they (42) provoked Me with their graven images, with foreign (43) idols?"
20
"Harvest is past, summer is ended,
And we are not saved."
21
For the (44) brokenness of the daughter of my people I am broken;
I (45) mourn, dismay has taken hold of me.
22
Is there no (46) balm in Gilead?
Is there no physician there?
(47) Why then has not the health of the daughter of my people been restored?
Show me me what is in the context of the statement I quoted that would limit it or modify its application.
Michael Glass
- Easy: show me where in the statement circumcision is mentioned. The quote is not relevant to this article, though as I said, this POV should certainly be contextualized and expressed in a relevant article about the Bible.
- If it needs to go in an article about circumcision and the Bible, then it should go in every article about the Bible, and I'd like to see you go add it and deal with trying to reach consensus with more editors, as is proper for Wikipedia. It clearly doesn't belong in every single article that mentions a subject from the Bible, and this is one where it doesn't belong.
- For that matter, the stuff about what books of the Bible are canonical doesn't belong here, either.
- You are trying to argue about what the verse means and have us decide on that. That is not how we do things here at Wikipedia. We don't decide what the facts are and what the right opinions are. We contextualize the various opinions by saying who said them: "Joe is stupid" doesn't belong here, but "Bob says Joe is stupid" does (or would if it were encyclopedic). In the same way, "Jeremiah might have said the Bible has been modified" doesn't belong here, but "Some folks (preferably identified in the statement) believe the following passage of Jeremiah implies the Bible has been modified" does belong in Wikipedia, though it does not belong in an article about circumcision.
- I appreciate the fact that you came here to discuss the issue rather than unilaterally editing the article again as many people do. When something is contentious at Wikipedia, we talk it out on the talk page, and if we cannot reach a consensus (not a consensus on what the facts are, but a consensus about what should be expressed in each article, and how), we appeal to higher authorities for mediation and/or arbitration.
- I encourage you to have this information inserted elsewhere in Wikipedia. It does not belong in this article. Jdavidb 14:16, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
-
- I totally agree with Jdavidb. RK 14:42, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Recent edits
I have made several changes to the paragraph on early Christian attitudes to circumcision. i removed some unnecessary wordiness. As Acts 16 says that Paul circumcised Timothy (or had him circumcised) 'because of the Jews' I included that comment in quotes. Paul does appear to praise circumcision in Romans 3:2 in most translations. However, there is a definite article before the word 'circumcision' in the Greek, so it is possible that the circumcision referred to The Jews . Michael Glass 13:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- It is indeed possible, but Wikipedia is not the place to make original research or interpretation. If a scholar has made such an interpretation, I have no problem with citing it. Jakew 19:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- The Greek of Acts 16 is active, not passive, meaning Paul directly circumcised Timothy. "3Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and had him circumcised because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek." And Romans 3:2 is certainly significant on the issue, whether or not "the circumcision" means the Jews which is rather unlikely. Paul clearly knows the difference and first century Iudaea had Jews who no longer circumcised and Greeks and others who did, it's detailed in other parts of the article. It's incorrect to assume circumcised/uncircumcised means Jews/Greeks or even Jews/Christians in the Bible. "Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2Much, in every way. For in the first place the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3What if some were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4By no means!" NRSV
Yes, if the Greek says that Paul circumcised Timothy, then had him circumcised is a sanitised version. It may well be that many of the most modern translators found the idea of Paul doing the circumcising himself too confronting. However, I have my doubts about the NRSV's translation of Romans 3:2 because a footnote reveals that the Greek reads as follows:
- "Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much, in every way. For in the first place they were entrusted with the oracles of God.
So the Jews was inserted into the text to smooth out the grammar. But there is a second piece of mending in this text. There is an article in the Greek before the word circumcised. Young's Literal Translation reads as follows:
- What, then, is the superiority of the Jew? or what the profit of the circumcision? much in every way; for first, indeed that they were intrusted with the oracles of God.
As the circumcision was used in another place to refer to the Jews (Galatians 2:7) it is entirely possible that the circumcision or the circumcised referred to the Jews in this place, too. Michael Glass 12:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- Paul clearly uses Jew/Greek to refer to Jews and Greeks. He also uses circumcised and uncircumcised, to refer to those circumcised and those not. As it turns out, in general, it was the Jews who circumcised and the Greeks who did not, however, that is only a generality, there were clearly many Jews who no longer circumcised (so called Hellenized-Jews) and there were clearly many Greeks who did circumcise (so called Judaizers) in first century Iudaea Province.
- On translation, I'd recommend Andy Gaus, Unvarnished New Testament, ISBN:0933999992
- Acts 16:3 "...so he took and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts:..."
- Romans 3 "Then is there any advantage in being Jewish, or any use for circumcision? Yes, quite a lot in every way."
- Better yet learn Koine Greek
Good idea, for those who have the time and the talent to do so. The rest, however, have to depend on translations. As for Gaus, his translation might claim to be unvarnished, but he's inclined to add his own gloss to texts. Take this one:
- Those who want to keep up appearances physically are only making you get circumcised so they themselves won't be persecuted about the cross of Christ. In fact the circumcised ones don't even keep the Law themselves. They just want you to be circumcised so they can boast of controlling your physical condition. (Galatians 6 - page 356 in my edition)
Read the same passage in the Revised Standard Version and you get this:
- It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that would compel you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. For even those who receive circumcision do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may glory in your flesh. (Galatians 6:12-13, Revised Standard Version)
And seeing that Paul had previous warned the Galatians against the works of the flesh (Galatians 5:16-21) his reference to glorying in the flesh has added bite. Michael Glass 08:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- How is this a gloss? "Showing in the flesh" is simply archaic English (probably from the 1611 KJV) for "physical appearance". The issue with circumcision in first century Iudaea was the physical appearance as traditional Greeks and Romans considered it lewd to expose the glans. Traditional Jews considered it a sign of the covenant (agreement) with their God. Many Greco-Roman male events were done in the nude, hence the appearance of circumcision was obvious.
The usage that you find archaic was taken from the Revised Standard Version Version of 1950, 1972. The Anglican Litany from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, which was used in the 1950s and 1960s said:
- From fornication, and all other deadly sin; and from all the deceits of the world, the flesh and the devil,
- Good Lord, deliver us
So for earlier generations, the flesh also had connnotations of the sinful lusts of the flesh. Since tthe 1970s, of course, there has been a sexual revolution, and so the old usages are now being lost. Michael Glass 12:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Even though the RSV was done in 1950, it is still only a revision of the 1611 ASV/KJV, itself based on earlier English translations, and thus, like most English translations, continues a large number of Elizabethan English usages that are now archaic in Modern English. As for the notion that flesh is sinful, that comes from Gnosticism.
Obviously I didn't get my point across. It wasn't that people thought the flesh was sinful per se. It was that the flesh was used as a metaphor for what the Anglican Catechism described as the sinful lusts of the flesh and what one of the baptism services described as the carnal desires of the flesh. This way of thinking was quite common in the 1950s and 1960s, but it largely died out during the sexual revolution. The RSV is indeed a revision of the King James Version, but the reason that the language remained unchanged was that the usage and the thinking had not changed. That change came later, during the sexual revolution.
I hope this clarifies the point I am making, that flesh could carry carnal overtones for previous generations. In fact, one early pornographic was named just that: Flesh. Michael Glass 08:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Flesh in English could mean a lot of things. But the NT wasn't written in English. The question to ask is what did Koine Greek euprosopesai en sarki mean when Paul wrote it.
Your argument reminds me of Lady Brute in "The Provoked Wife" who was reminded that we must return good for evil. She responded: 'That may be a mistake in the translation.' If you want to find out what the Greek says, learn Greek. Otherwise, read a good translation. If you want to read anything more about this matter, see my article, The New Testament and Circumcision Michael Glass 20:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- I have to concur with others...the solution here is not to further argue about what the Greek says in a word-by-word translation, but rather what the Greek means. Back to the "the Greek uses a definite article, thus the circumcision" thing, if you take the time to learn almost any IE language that makes use of definite and indefinite articles, you will quickly learn that English uses them much less frequently (and for a rather more demonstrative purpose) than the vast majority. I 18th the recommendation, before attempting to insert this faulty reading of the Greek, that anyone (not just MG), rely on the work of people who know what they're talking about first and learn the language, or at least its rudiments second. Tomer TALK 05:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Please note that my main point above was about the meaning of the flesh and not the circumcision. I accept that my idea of a possible interpretation of Romans 3:1-2 is too speculative for the article. End of story, as far as I am concerned. Michael Glass 12:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I have changed a few things in the Christianity section: it was misleading and full of false information (a perfect example of what makes wiki unusable when it comes to real reference). One of the biblical quotes was entirely wrong and much of the information supplied belongs elsewhere, if at all. Are there no decent Christian scholars or theologians who can take this up? I'm afraid the pov here is decidedly one sided and largely ignorant of an honestly Christian context. 62.105.170.206 04:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rename this page? Summary style proposal for Circumcision page
The Circumcision page is getting too long, and there is a proposal to shorten it. This proposal involves renaming this page to Circumcision and religion and moving some content from that page to this one. Please discuss at Talk:Circumcision#Article too long?. --Coppertwig 13:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Discuss the shortening of Circumcision according to WP:SUMMARY there, but please discuss moving this page in the section below, on this talk page. --Coppertwig 00:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed move to Circumcision and religion
It has been proposed to move this page to Circumcision and religion. Please discuss here. --Coppertwig 00:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - as "the Bible" isn't the only aspect of religion in which circumcision is relevant, and I think it would give a fairer idea of the article's contents. John Carter 13:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that my support for the proposal is already known, but it doesn't hurt to be explicit! Jakew 13:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I put a move tag and it was deleted. It's my understanding that if this is an uncontroversial move, no move tag or special procedure is needed -- we can just move it. See Wikipedia:Requested moves and Help:Moving a page. --Coppertwig 20:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yes - I suggest leaving it for another week, though, just in case anyone disagrees. Jakew 21:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wait -- maybe a different name might be better, as I want to copy info from "cultures and religion" section at Circumcision. Maybe "Circumcision in cultures and relgions". --Coppertwig 21:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm. Ok, but let's spell it properly. :-) Is everyone happy about a move? If so, let's do it tomorrow. Jakew 22:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's a mistake. Take a look at what links to Circumcision in the Bible, it's almost always discussion of the Bible, hence the obvious and well defined title. If you wish to create a new article called Circumcision in cultures and religions, you should do so, and that new article could reference Circumcision in the Bible. Circumcision in the Bible as an article is already big enough, no need to broaden its scope. 64.149.83.66 (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Circumcision in the Bible doesn't strike me as a very good name because there's more than one different Bible mentioned in it, so the singular "the Bible" in the title doesn't make sense. Also, it's focussed on a subset of religions, whereas a Wikipedia article, to be neutral, probably ought to either cover all religions or focus on one particular religion. If the page is too long, perhaps someone could spin off sub-articles per summary style. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's a mistake. Take a look at what links to Circumcision in the Bible, it's almost always discussion of the Bible, hence the obvious and well defined title. If you wish to create a new article called Circumcision in cultures and religions, you should do so, and that new article could reference Circumcision in the Bible. Circumcision in the Bible as an article is already big enough, no need to broaden its scope. 64.149.83.66 (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm. Ok, but let's spell it properly. :-) Is everyone happy about a move? If so, let's do it tomorrow. Jakew 22:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The Bible is a well understood term, as is the understanding that there are actually many different though related Bibles. One could specify Judeo-Christian but that's getting a bit carried away. There already is a general article on Circumcision and another on the History of male circumcision, and one on Brit milah, so neutrality is not an issue. There is no reason Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, should not have an article on Circumcision in the Bible. 75.15.199.222 (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Male, or both male and female, circumcision?
This article needs to clarify whether "circumcision" in its title refers to male circumcision, or to both male and female cirucmcision. I suggest that it means male circumcsion, and that the hatnote should specify that this article is about male circumcision, e.g. "This article is about male circumcision in cultures and religions. For ..." It does mention female circumcision; but an article about one thing is allowed to briefly mention other things. If, however, it's about both male and female circumcision, then any part of the article where "circumcision" means specifically male circumcision needs to specifically say "male" or "men" or etc. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
