Circumcision linked to increased risk of autism in young boys
#33
(01-14-2015, 09:53 PM)PrairieMom Wrote: What we now call 'circumcision' was not performed in the same manner in antiquity. At that time it was a 'cutting of the blessing' - a very small slit made at the end of the penis to allow a few drops of blood to fall (or, actually, be sucked out by the mouth of the boy's father or a Rabbi).

I would love to believe that this is all Jewish circumcision ever was.

Quote: You could not possibly amputate the prepuce organ in antiquity and expect the child to live. Even today we deal with a 1-in-3 rate of complications associated with prepuce amputation and approximately 200 deaths per year (in the U.S. alone) due to circumcision surgery. At this time in early Hebrew culture, babies would have hemorrhaged if this organ were removed, and if they lived through the blood loss, they would have died of disease.

I'm not entirely certain about this.  I know that it could not have been as drastic as ours is, but so much of the OT when talking about circumcision talks about the need to be separate from the surrounding peoples.  It doesn't seem like they'd really be able to tell if it was nothing more than a scar from a cut on the tip.  Clipping implies at least all the skin in front of the glans was cut off.  David is recorded as looking at himself and seeing that not enough skin was taken, so he had himself recircumcised to fulfill the covenant.  The Jews at the time of Christ were stretching what was left to cover the glans and to look like gentiles, which shows that they were obviously different in appearance from gentiles and that the glans was normally uncovered.  And the circumcision practiced by Muslims today does not have results that look all that different from modern American circumcision.  Granted, many of these boys are not circumcised in infancy, but they are circumcised without modern medical instruments.  So I'm not sure it is impossible that early Hebrew circumcision was significantly different from modern American circumcision.

Quote:There is an article on this subject in the works that covers the topic more in-depth (and why Baby Jesus was always depicted in art in what we would see as an intact fashion) that will be published on DrMomma.org. Jesus was, of course, born to Jewish parents and would have been subject to the 'namal' on his 8th day of life. Again, this means a tiny slit would have been made in the end of his prepuce to allow for the shedding drops of blood as a part of the covenant his parents had with YHVH [Yahweh]. But if we (with our modern Western eyes) pour over these paintings of a naked baby Jesus, we would think that he was intact. Why? Because the prepuce was not removed! It was not amputated. It was never 'cut off.' [For several images and more details see: Circumcision in Antiquity]

Michaelangelo's David is also uncircumcised.  I think this artistic trend has more to do with the complete unfamiliarity with circumcision in medieval Europe than pertaining to any lost Jewish circumcision method.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Circumcision linked to increased risk of autism in young boys - by Melkite - 01-15-2015, 01:37 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)