ellauri171.html on line 557: They ask that Shechem and all the able-bodied men of in his territory, all the men capable of going out to fight in an emergency, be circumcised.
ellauri171.html on line 560: Shechem agrees. He is the eldest son of his family, next in line to rule the city of Shechem, so all the men the city agree to be circumcised. He does not have to explain the reason for this uncomfortable operation: everyone knows what has happened.
ellauri171.html on line 562: Three days later, when all the recently circumcised men are still in pain, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, enter the unguarded city and attack the newly-circumcised men. No voi vittu mitä perseitä! Just tällästä voi GT-sählämeiltä odottaa!
ellauri180.html on line 167: Many historical accounts of circumcision have been written and most authors have used their survey to form an opinion as to whether the neonatal procedure is justified. The weak medical arguments are tempered by the importance of cultural and religious factors. Opponents of the ritual draw attention to the `rights' of the new-born to the skin on their little penises, which, they argue, must be upheld. Others contest that humans are social animals and cannot survive alone; they require their parents, community and culture to thrive, and, as such, `rights' belong to the group, not to the individual. If there is an inherent survival advantage to a group of humans who chose to maim their young, then this is presumably evidenced by their continued survival as a race. In short, to conclude any historical reflection with a reasoned `right' or `wrong', would be like claiming to have fathomed God's will. Consider this; mankind has developed this strange surgical signature that is so pervasive, that in the last five minutes alone, another 120 boys throughout the world have been circumcised. Mikä jättimäinen esinahkakukkula siitä tulisi! Israelista voisi tulla tulevien talvikisojen isäntämaa..
ellauri180.html on line 171: There has been little written from a statistical standpoint to confirm or deny the popular medical belief that the circumcised are less prone to contract venereal disease. This paper will present a statistical study of the incidence of circumcision in a group free from venereal disease as compared with that of groups with various forms of venereal disease, to determine the influence of circumcision on venereal disease.
ellauri180.html on line 174: OBJECTIVES: Globally approximately 25% of men are circumcised for religious, cultural, medical, or parental choice reasons. However, controversy surrounds the procedure, and its benefits and risks to health. We review current knowledge of the health benefits and risks associated with male circumcision. METHODS: We have used, where available, previously conducted reviews of the relation between male circumcision and specific outcomes as "benchmarks", and updated them by searching the Medline database for more recent information. RESULTS: There is substantial evidence that circumcision protects males from HIV infection, penile carcinoma, urinary tract infections, and ulcerative sexually transmitted diseases. We could find little scientific evidence of adverse effects on sexual, psychological, or emotional health. Surgical risks associated with circumcision, particularly bleeding, penile injury, and local infection, as well as the consequences of the pain experienced with neonatal circumcision, are valid concerns that require appropriate responses. CONCLUSION: Further analyses of the utility and cost effectiveness of male circumcision as a preventive health measure should, in the light of this information, be research and policy priorities. A decision as to whether to recommend male circumcision in a given society should be based upon an assessment of the risk for and occurrence of the diseases which are associated with the presence of the foreskin, versus the risk of the complications of the procedure. In order for individuals and their families to make an informed decision, they should be provided with the best available evidence regarding the known benefits and risks. And they should also know what God thinks of it.
ellauri180.html on line 179: Despite an estimated one-sixth of the world's men having been circumcised, it has long been forgotten where or why this most intriguing operation began. The procedure has been performed for religious, cultural and medical reasons, although the last has only become fashionable since the rise of modern surgery in the 19th century. Accordingly, the indications for surgery have surfaced, submerged and altered with the trends of the day. In this review we explore the origins of circumcision, and discuss the techniques and controversies that have evolved since the event has become medicalized.
ellauri180.html on line 181: Anthropologists do not agree on the origins of circumcision. The English egyptologist, Sir Graham Elliot Smith, suggested that it is one of the features of a heliolithic' culture which, over some 15 000 years ago, spread over much of the world. Others believe that it may have originated independently within several different cultures; certainly, many of the natives that Columbus found inhabiting the New World' were circumcised. However, it is known that circumcision had been practised in the Near East, patchily throughout tribal Africa, among the Moslem peoples of India and of south-east Asia, as well as by Australian Aborgines, for as long as we can tell. The earliest Egyptian mummies (1300 BCE) were circumcised and wall paintings in Egypt show that it was customary several thousand years earlier than that.
ellauri180.html on line 185: Psychologists have extended this theory to incorporate notions of pain imprinting'. By encoding violence on the brain, child-maternal bonding is interrupted and a sense of betrayal is instilled in the infant; these are considered requisite qualities that enhance the child's ability for survival later in life. Indeed, some components of these psychological theories have recently been tested in prospective clinical trials and there is now evidence that neonates who are circumcised without local anaesthetic do have increased pain responses when 4- and 6-monthly vaccinations are administered.
ellauri180.html on line 187: Others believe that circumcision arose as a mark of defilement or slavery (fig. 1). In ancient Egypt captured warriors were often mutilated before being condemned to the slavery. Amputation of digits and castration was common, but the morbidity was high and their resultant value as slaves was reduced. However, circumcision was just as degrading and evolved as a sufficiently humiliating compromise. Eventually, all male descendents of these slaves were circumcised. The Phoenicians, and later the Jews who were largely enslaved, adopted and ritualized circumcision. In time, circumcision was incorporated into Judaic religious practice and viewed as an outward sign of a covenant between God and man (Genesis XVI, Fig. 2).
ellauri180.html on line 191: Furthermore, was it always doctors who performed the procedure in ancient times? Probably not: in biblical times it was the mother who performed the ceremony on the newborn. Gradually mohels took over; men who had the requisite surgical skill and advanced religious knowledge. After prayer, the mohel circumcised the infant and then blessed the child, a practice little changed today (Fig. 4a-d). In ancient Egyptian society, the procedure was performed by a priest with his thumb-nail (often gold-impregnated) and throughout mediaeval times it appears to have been largely kept in the domain of religious men.
ellauri180.html on line 205: Relics of anti-Semitism are evident throughout history and even the statue of Michelangelo's David (a Jew), which was erected in Florence in 1504 was carved uncircumcised.
ellauri180.html on line 212: Gairdner made the astute observations that the slow period of preputial development corresponded with the age of incontinence. He felt that the prepuce had a protective role and noted that meatal ulceration only occurred in circumcised boys. Recently, a doctor writing anonymously in the BMJ provided an analogy suggesting that the prepuce is to the glans what the eyelid is to the eye.
ellauri180.html on line 224: Literary assaults such as these have served to fuel the debates and even a Medline® search today reveals that in the last year alone, 155 reviews or letters have been published arguing for or against routine circumcision. However, studying the evolution of the medical indications provides us with a pleasing demonstration of how controversy drives scientific enquiry. We have already described how the surgeons of 100 years ago advocated circumcision for a wide variety of conditions, such as impotence, nocturnal enuresis, sterility, excess masturbation, night terrors, epilepsy, etc. There can be no doubt that a large element of surgical self-interest drove these claims. However, most of the contemporary textbooks also included epithelioma (carcinoma) of the penis amidst the morass of complications of phimosis. Although rare, once this observation had been made, it presumably filtered down through the textbooks by rote, rather than scientific study. A few reports had appeared in the early 20th century indicating that carcinoma of the penis was rare in circumcised men, but not until the debate over neonatal circumcision erupted in the medical press in the 1930s that this surgical `mantra' was put to the test. In 1932, the editor of the Lancet challenged Abraham Wolbarst, a New York urologist, to prove his contention (in a previous Lancet editorial), that circumcision prevented penile carcinoma. Wolbarst responded by surveying every skin, cancer and Jewish hospital in the USA, along with 1250 of the largest general hospitals throughout the Union. With this survey, he was able to show that penile cancer virtually never occurred in circumcised men and that the risk related to the timing of the circumcision. Over the years this association has been reaffirmed by many research workers, although general hygiene, demographic and other factors such as human papilloma virus and smoking status are probably just as important. However, Wolbarst established that association through formal scientific enquiry and proponents of the procedure continue to use this as a compelling argument for circumcision at birth.
ellauri180.html on line 226: Almost as an extension to the lack of penile cancer in Jews, Handley reported on the infrequency of carcinoma of the cervix in Jewish women. He suggested that this related to the fact that Jewish men were circumcised. Not surprisingly, this spawned a mass of contradictory studies and over the next 50 years the champions of both camps have sought to establish the importance or irrelevance of circumcision in relation to penile cancer. The pendulum has swung both ways and the current evidence suggests that other factors are probably more important. A similar debate has raged for 50 years over concerns for the risks of urinary tract infections in young boys and currently, any decreased risk associated with circumcision remains tentative but not proven.
ellauri180.html on line 228: However, during the two World Wars, governments became increasingly interested in reducing the risk of venereal disease amongst their soldiers. Clearly, such pathology can have a profound effect on the efficiency of fighting armis. Indeed, in 1947 the Canadian Army found that whereas 52% of their soldiers had foreskins intact, 77% of those treated for venereal disease were uncircumcised. Persuasive arguments to circumcise all conscripts were proposed. Furthermore, it was an age-old observation, and indigenous African healers had promoted circumcision to prevent the transmission of sexually transmitted disease for centuries. As might be expected, the evidence did not withstand further scientific scrutiny and numerous contradictions were provided. However, there has recently been startling evidence that HIV infection is significantly associated with the uncircumcised status. Indeed, one author has recently suggested routine neonatal circumcision on a world-wide scale as a long-term strategy for the control of AIDS: a whole new chapter opens in this ancient debate!
ellauri180.html on line 235: Thus it is clear that medical trends are now being driven by financial constraints. Perhaps this is reflected by the dramatic decline in the number of non-religious circumcisions performed over the last half century; in the USA an estimated 80% of boys were circumcised in 1976 but by 1981 this had fallew to 61%, and recent estimates suggest that this decrease continues. In the UK the decline has been even more dramatic: originally more common in the upper classes, circumcision rates fell from 30% in 1939 to 20% in 1949 and 10% by 1963. By 1975 only 6% of British schoolboys were circumcised and this may well have declined further.
ellauri184.html on line 110: Eight days after Yeshua was born, his parents followed the Law and took Him to the Temple to be circumcised. Esinahka on kuulemma Italiassa reliikkinä.
ellauri184.html on line 520: The Jewish and Islamic traditions both see circumcision as a way to distinguish a group from its neighbours. The Bible records "uncircumcised" being used as a derogatory reference for opponents[1Sam 17:26] and Jewish victory in battle that culminated in mass post-mortem circumcision, to provide an account of the number of enemy casualties.[1Sam 18:27] Just count he prepuces, or measure the size of the foreskin hillock. Jews were also required to circumcise all household members, including slaves[Gen 17:12-14] – a practice that would later put them into collision with Roman and Christian law (see below).
ellauri184.html on line 526: According to rabbinical accounts, he desecrated the Second Temple of Jerusalem by placing a statue of Olympian Zeus on the altar of the Temple; this incident is also reported by the biblical Book of Daniel, where the author refers to the statue of the Greek god inside the Temple as "abomination of desolation". Antiochus´ decrees and vituperation of Judaism motivated the Maccabean Revolt; the Maccabees reacted violently against the forced Hellenization of Judea, destroyed pagan altars in the villages, circumcised boys, and forced Hellenized Jews into outlawry. The revolt ended in the re-establishment of an independent Jewish kingdom under the Hasmoneans, until it turned into a client state of the Roman Republic under the reign of Herod the Great (37–4 BCE).
ellauri184.html on line 534: The Apostle Paul referred to these practices in his letters, saying: "Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised."[1Cor 7:18] But he also explicitly denounced the forcing of circumcision upon non-Jews, rejecting and condemning those Judaizers who stipulated the ritual to Gentile Christians, labelling such advocates as "false brothers"[Gal 2:4] (see below). In the mid-2nd century Rabbinical Jewish leaders, due to increasing cases of foreskin restorations in Roman Empire, introduced a radical method of circumcision, the periah, that left the glans totally uncovered and sew the remaining skin. The new method became immediately the only valid circumcision procedure, to ensure that a born Jew will remain circumcised and avoiding risk of restoring the foreskin. Operations became mostly irreversible.
ellauri194.html on line 252: As one nomadic people followed another on the Eurasian steppes, so the identification of Gog and Magog shifted. In the 9th and 10th centuries these kingdoms were identified by some with the lands of the Khazars, a Turkic people whose leaders had converted to Judaism and whose empire dominated Central Asia–the 9th-century monk Christian of Stavelot referred to Gazari, said of the Khazars that they were "living in the lands of Gog and Magog" and noted that they were "circumcised and observing all [the laws of] Judaism". Arab traveler ibn Fadlan also reported of this belief, writing around 921 he recorded that "Some hold the opinion that Gog and Magog are the Khazars".
ellauri217.html on line 704: The Council of Jerusalem is generally dated to 48 AD, roughly 15 to 25 years after the crucifixion of Jesus (between 26 and 36 AD). Acts 15 and Galatians 2 both suggest that the meeting was called to debate whether or not male Gentiles who were converting to become followers of Jesus were required to become circumcised; the rite of circumcision was considered execrable and repulsive during the period of Hellenization of the Eastern Mediterranean, and was especially adversed in Classical civilization both from ancient Greeks and Romans, which instead valued the foreskin positively.
ellauri217.html on line 705: The meeting was called to decide whether circumcision for gentile converts was requisite for community membership since certain individuals were teaching that "[u]nless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved". No foreskins can penetrate heaven. Tero ensin, mutta Esa jää ulkopuolelle, kassit myös.
ellauri217.html on line 734: Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required (1Corinthians 9:20). Thus he shortly after circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1–3), and he was in fact in the very act of observing that Mosaic ritual with Tim when he was arrested at Jerusalem (Acts 21:26 sqq.) Or so he said.
ellauri249.html on line 114: ("To guide only the circumcised [i.e. Jews] to the fountain that they seek").
ellauri300.html on line 638: Titus’ background is not explained, other than the fact he was Gentile and apparently never circumcised (Paul had checked, Galatians 2:4). This is an interesting point, since Timothy was half-Greek, and not circumcised either! Still, Paul chose to circumcise Timothy to honor the Jews in an area that the two of them were ministering in (Acts 16:1-5). Paul repeatedly mentions in his letters that circumcision is not necessary under the new covenant (though great fun), and even tells Titus to silence Christians who try to promote it (Titus 1:10-14). So, Paul’s choice to circumcise Timothy would suggest that he had a pragmatic thorn in his side. He did not require his disciples to be circumcised, but if the situation called for working among Jews and it made things easier, he would gladly do it. Whether Titus ever ministered to Jewish believers is not stated, and both he and Titus worked at churches in Gentile areas (Timothy in Ephesus, Titus in Crete, and Corinth and Dalmatia).
ellauri300.html on line 655: Galatians 2 mentions that Titus accompanied Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, apparently the trip mentioned in Acts 15 where they went to the Council at Jerusalem to debate whether Titus ought to be circumcised. What happened to Titus after that is not known. It’s possible that Titus died on the operation table.
ellauri377.html on line 280: Do you not know that your members are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the circumcised member of Christ and unite it with a prostitute? Never! Except maybe Mary the Magdalene, a few times. Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute has a hard on within her body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit only.
xxx/ellauri148.html on line 97: circumcised_Penis.jpg" width="30%" />
xxx/ellauri186.html on line 470: I took by the throat the circumcised dog,
xxx/ellauri296.html on line 123: The Achaeans were a proto-Greek component of the Sea Peoples from Crete, and the Cretans were allied for centuries with the Pelishtim, to the point where “Creti and Pleti” was a common phrase for King David’s bodyguard. The Pelishtim (pelasgit?) are commonly referred to as “uncircumcised” in the Bible. At least one archaeologist has no problem with calling the Pelishtim “Greeks.”
32