Old Testament Circumcision Story

[AlphaBD]

Hello, I recently read something relating to the Old Testament about a descendant of Jesus, a Joshua, I believe, about the story of his circumcision: that YHVH went to kill him just before his mother intervened, took a sharp to his foreskin, and tossed it over to the deity.

If anyone can direct me to the appropriate texts or drop some other form of light on the subject, I would greatly appreciate it! Thanks.

 

[David_2010]

I'm sure someone else will be more informed, but, did Jesus have any descendants?.

 

[linwood]

Exodus 4:24-31
You're speaking of zipporahs child with moses.
He was not circumcised and this angered god enough to threaten to kill Moses over it.
Zipporah in anger cut the Childs foreskin off with a sharp stone and cursed Moses.
Oddly enough this happened in a inn on the road to Egypt where Moses was to challenge the pharaoh under direct order of god.
One minute gods getting Moses to represent him and the next he's threatening ti kill him over the kids foreskin.
I think yawheh was a sociopath

 

[AlphaBD]

Thanks so much! linwood, I completely agree with you.

I found a really great article regarding the topic. I can't post the URL since I'm such a new member, but just drop the title of the page into Google: ZIPPORAH AND THE BRIT MILAH: A WOMAN CIRCUMCISOR.

There seems to be debate about whose life was being threatened by Yahweh. The paschal lamb's blood smeared at the doorsteps to protect from the Angel of Death seems to be implied in the same context as his son's bloody foreskin cast between Moses' feet by Zipporah for the same intention: to save the life of either the son, Moses, or both of them. Also, the uncircumcised son is generally accepted to be Gershom, the first-born son; same as the sacrificial threat of the first-born by the Angel of Death.

Yes, IMO, circumcision is an abomination. The Yahweh deity just seems demonic to me. I loathe the fact I've had a body part mutilated after I was born into this body. Nobody asked me how I would think about later in life. I wasn't given the choice; I'm just another American. Circumcision is a violation of basic human rights. The human body is perfect exactly the way it manifests unto God, perfectly and naturally as of what are born.

 

[David_2010]

Yes, IMO, circumcision is an abomination. The Yahweh deity just seems demonic to me. I loathe the fact I've had a body part mutilated after I was born into this body. Nobody asked me how I would think about later in life. I wasn't given the choice; I'm just another American. Circumcision is a violation of basic human rights. The human body is perfect exactly the way it manifests unto God, perfectly and naturally as of what are born.

I'm not technically Jewish, and am only a seeker, but, male circumcisionisn't an "abomination" or "mutilation", as you can still enjoy sex, and have a perfectly normal life, a female who is mutilated cannot at all, or not as easily. It's also not a violation of human rights (I did human rights at uni), the United Nations also don't view it as a violation either.

BTW, could I ask, but, were you born Jewish?, if not, then, I don't really get why non-Jewish (or non-Muslims) would be circumcised, so, maybe, some Americans could clear that up, but, male circumcision is not a "violation", "abomination", or "demonic", those words are only used by those with an agenda.

 

[Tarheeler]

BTW, could I ask, but, were you born Jewish?, if not, then, I don't really get why non-Jewish (or non-Muslims) would be circumcised, so, maybe, some Americans could clear that up, but, male circumcision is not a "violation", "abomination", or "demonic", those words are only used by those with an agenda.

In the US most boys are circumcised a few days after birth. Oddly enough, this does not include Jewish babies; they must be ritually circumcised 8 days after birth by a mohel.

As for the rest of us, a lot of reasons are given. Some, mainly Christians, claim religious ties to the Jewish circumcision rite. Others give health reasons (there's a lot of conflicting reports on the health benefits of circumcision vs. foreskin). Others do it because it was done to them, but not out of spite; kind of in a "like father like son" sort of way making all the boys in the house look the same.

 

[David_2010]

In the US most boys are circumcised a few days after birth. Oddly enough, this does not include Jewish babies; they must be ritually circumcised 8 days after birth by a mohel.

As for the rest of us, a lot of reasons are given. Some, mainly Christians, claim religious ties to the Jewish circumcision rite. Others give health reasons (there's a lot of conflicting reports on the health benefits of circumcision vs. foreskin). Others do it because it was done to them, but not out of spite; kind of in a "like father like son" sort of way making all the boys in the house look the same.

Thanks for informing me, it's just I was never sure why non-Jews or non-Muslims would be circumcised, as over here (UK), and, I think, most of Europe, male circumcision is something mainly associated with Judaism, and, Islam.

BTW, this might be OT, but, do Muslims circumcise boys in a similar manner to Jews (like on the 8th day, by an Islamic equivalent of a mohel)?.

 

[Riverwolf]

***Mod Post***

Thread has been moved to Biblical Debates
​

 

[Levite]

Exodus 4:24-31
You're speaking of zipporahs child with moses.
He was not circumcised and this angered god enough to threaten to kill Moses over it.
Zipporah in anger cut the Childs foreskin off with a sharp stone and cursed Moses.
Oddly enough this happened in a inn on the road to Egypt where Moses was to challenge the pharaoh under direct order of god.
One minute gods getting Moses to represent him and the next he's threatening ti kill him over the kids foreskin.
I think yawheh was a sociopath

The difficult and perplexing story you're referring to is almost certainly a remnant from a pre-monotheistic tradition of proto-Israelite religion. I have never been sure why the Redactor decided to include it in the final text, as it seems awfully hard to reconcile at the plain-text level of meaning.

However, to be clear, Zipporah does not curse Moses: she cures him. And anyhow, here are many interpretations for the story-- nearly all the Rabbis and commentators of the Jewish tradition indicate that the story is not meant to be read literally, but allegorically or mystically. The best interpretation I have found of the story comes from Rabbi Avraham ben David of Posquieres, France (12th Century), who said that the entire narrative is actually a mystical allegory for the soul of Moshe and the body of Moshe becoming harmonized in preparation for becoming a vessel of God's power.

In any case, however one wishes to read the story, it would be polite not to call the god other people worship nasty names.

 

[linwood]

The difficult and perplexing story you're referring to is almost certainly a remnant from a pre-monotheistic tradition of proto-Israelite religion. I have never been sure why the Redactor decided to include it in the final text, as it seems awfully hard to reconcile at the plain-text level of meaning.

I agree.
It seems to have been shoved into the text with little or no bearing on the surrounding context.
It`s out of place and I can`t see a reason for it.

However, to be clear, Zipporah does not curse Moses: she cures him. And anyhow, here are many interpretations for the story--

I suppose that would depend upon your definitions of "cursed" and "cured"...

24 At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met {Moses} and was about to kill him. 25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son's foreskin and touched {Moses'} feet with it. [c] "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me," she said. 26 So the LORD let him alone. (At that time she said "bridegroom of blood," referring to circumcision.)

Now, we can argue about interpretation and even translation but as the verse stands in the above translation (and all othesr I`ve seen) it certainly seems more a curse than a cure.

In any case, however one wishes to read the story, it would be polite not to call the god other people worship nasty names.

I have used no "nasty" names.
"Sociopathic" is a valid socially acceptable description for any being who acts in the manner described by the fable being discussed.

Perhaps you`re confusing "polite" with "respectful".
"Polite" you get from me, "respect" is earned.

 

[Levite]

I suppose that would depend upon your definitions of "cursed" and "cured"...

24 At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met {Moses} and was about to kill him. 25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son's foreskin and touched {Moses'} feet with it. [c] "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me," she said. 26 So the LORD let him alone. (At that time she said "bridegroom of blood," referring to circumcision.)

Now, we can argue about interpretation and even translation but as the verse stands in the above translation (and all othesr I`ve seen) it certainly seems more a curse than a cure.

24: vayehi vaderekh bamalon vayifgesheihu YHVH vayivakesh hamito
(24: It came to pass that upon the way, at a lodging, YHVH met up with him, and sought to make him die.)
25: vatikach Tziporah tzor vatichrot et orlat b'nah vatiga leraglav vatomer ki chatan damim atah li.
(25: And Zipporah took a flint knife, and she cut away the foreskin of her son, and she touched his legs, and she said "...for you are a chatan damim to me.")
26: vayiref mimenu az amrah chatan damim lamulot.
(26: Then he relaxed his hold on him. Therefore she said "chatan damim" on account of circumcisions.)

What is key in this passage is that first of all, it is entirely unclear what the phrase chatan damim (obscurely translated as "bridegroom of blood") actually means, as the phrase is a hapax legomenon. Second of all, there is almost no indication in these verses as to who is the masculine subject being indicated.

Now, in verse 24, when it says of God vayivakesh hamito ("He sought to make him die"), this is a relatively common Biblical euphemism meaning that he took sick. It was originally phrased that way because of the early Biblical theology that postulated that each and every individual action taking place in the world was the direct result of God's will; however it is almost certain that, even by the tail end of the Biblical era, this phrase would not have been read literally, but as a euphemism for illness.

The almost universal opinion of the Rabbis and commentators is that this story is designed to illustrate the importance of circumcision as commanded, and that Moses' illness is the result of his neglecting to properly circumcise his son on the eighth day, as all Jews must. Thus, his wife takes this duty upon herself, and does so.

It is entirely unclear from the text, when it says, vatiga leraglav ("she touched his legs") precisely whose legs are being referred to. Some say Moses', and because this is the opinion of Rashi, whose comments guide many modern translators (including, as often as not, some non-Jewish translators), it has become the better known opinion. However, many of the Rabbis of the Talmud, and a number of commentators after them, read it as being the legs of the baby, Eliezer Moses' son. Commentators differ on whether she merely touched the legs, or touched the cut foreskin to the legs, or perhaps even touched the baby to Moses' legs. But in any case, it seems clear that this symbolic act was designed to demonstrate the success of the circumcision, and to use that success as a totem against the sickness, whether literally or figuratively, if one interprets the illness as psychosomatic on the part of Moses, guilty at failing in his first and chief responsibility as a father.

Chatan damim is read in a number of ways. The most popular reading is that in saying this, Zipporah means "It is because of you, Moses, my bridegroom, that I am committed to producing the blood of circumcision, as I am now also liable for the commandment to circumcise my sons." There are others who say that Zipporah is saying, "Your family, Moses, causes me to shed the blood of circumcision;" in other words, she is again embracing the traditions of Jewish parents. And yet others say that she is saying, "Behold, with this blood and the act of circumcision, I am redeeming my husband's family," in that by the act of circumcision, she is restoring the family of her in-laws to the status of proper observance in Jewish society (this reading is based on the Aramaic rendering of Onkelos, who translates ki chatan damim atah li as b'dama d'mehulta hadein ityaheiv chatana lana, literally meaning "with the blood of this circumcision I get back our husband-relative," the word chatan or chatana being used for both "bridegroom/husband" and also "in-laws.")

In any case, it seems certain that the story is not designed to be read literally, but allegorically, as warning concerning the importance of circumcision on the eighth day. Very few of the Rabbis or commentators attempt a literal-meaning reading, and none of those readings have ever been adopted in mainstream Jewish thought.

I have used no "nasty" names.
"Sociopathic" is a valid socially acceptable description for any being who acts in the manner described by the fable being discussed.

Perhaps you`re confusing "polite" with "respectful".
"Polite" you get from me, "respect" is earned.

You might wish to consider, before using loaded words about the religion, and/or the religious texts, theologies, and divinities of others, not merely how those others might feel about such words, but also the idea that it might be the better part of wisdom to presume that, not having read the text in the original language, nor having the background and skills to interpret it in the way it was designed to be interpreted, nor the experience to base new interpretations on the extant literature, you might be less than ideally qualified to make sweeping statements of a vitriolic nature.