Circumcision is one of the oldest elective surgical procedures. It may go back to prehistory, and certainly predates the emergence of Judaism, the religion with which it is most associated today. In fact it seems the Jews picked up the custom from their neighbors, the Egyptians.
The earliest documentation of the practice dates to a time not long after the invention of writing, and comes from the land of the Pharaohs, dating back to the Old Kingdom (2686-2181 B.C.E.).
Modern historians have suggested that for the ancient Egyptians, circumcision had a religious dimension and was practiced as a marker of social status. However, there is no clear evidence for that, and certainly many ancient authors rejected the idea. The father of history, Herodotus, claimed that for the ancient Egyptians, circumcision was an ethnic and cultural marker rather than a religious one.
But above all, circumcision was most likely born from a pragmatic mindset, Herodotus and others postulated. After all, who was taking daily showers back then? Removing the foreskin of the penis prevents smegma, malodorous secretions that can build up between the foreskin and the glans penis. So culture aside, “Their concern for cleanliness also explains why they practice circumcision, since they value cleanliness more than comeliness,” writes Herodotus.
It bears adding that a surgically altered penis was considered unattractive in the classic world and its merits remain debated.
The historian also notes that the practice spread from Egypt to neighboring peoples – most notably, but not only, to the Hebrews.
Diodorus Siculus, a first-century Greek historian and author of the “Universal History”, also attributes the origin of circumcision to the Egyptians, agreeing that that they “adopted the practice of circumcision as a law for the sake of bodily cleanliness”. The word traveled shortly to other peoples, “most notably to the Jews, whom they taught from the beginning.”
Thus, circumcision in ancient Egypt was more than tradition: it became institutionalized law, according to both Diodorus and the Greek geographer and historian Strabo.
“The priests shave their bodies for cleanliness; they bathe twice a day and twice at night; they circumcise, not for religion but for cleanliness,” Strabo writes in his work “Geographica“. According to him, circumcision was a crucial step within a larger scheme of ritualized hygiene, but fell short of a “sacred” rite.
Yet when it reached the Jews, who learned it from the Egyptians – it became a law that they believed had derived from their forefathers, Strabo wrote. Other differences would also develop.
In Judaism, the rite is performed when the male baby is a week old. The ancient Egyptians conducted the procedure on teenagers and young adults, not on newborns. That implies a conscious choice. In theory and perhaps in some cases, a youth could politely decline the offer.
If we extrapolate from the fact that the rite was performed on boys in their early teens, we may deduce that circumcision in ancient Egypt came to serve a dual role: hygiene and a puberty rite related to fertility, but in any case it would have been regarded as a good thing.
It was not so on the other side of the Mediterranean Sea.
Violating the Greek aesthetic
For the Greeks, the procedure was regarded as a barbaric and mindless mutilation. The foreskin was seen as an integral and beautiful part of the body: the male body was created to perfection, and therefore should remain in its natural form.
Grecian foreskin appreciation can be observed through artistic depictions. In the realm of Greek art, the phallus, when dormant, is always depicted with the prepuce covering the glans (and sometimes even when erect), reflecting the aesthetic and moral standards of the time.
Only the vilest type of individuals were depicted with circumcised penises: satyrs, lechers, and other unpleasant creatures. A circumcised penis became a symbol of foolishness, bad taste, and depravity.
A penis in its natural state was always a superior penis, no matter its shape or size, to the Greeks. In fact Greek medical writers, and following in their wake Roman writers too, started to praise the untouched form of the penis, some not without a point.
Aristotle makes an almost “Darwinian” observation: nature equips every earthly creature with coverings for delicate organs — eyelids for the eyes, and the prepuce for the glans. His wisdom was echoed by the second-century physician Galen of Pergamum: “Nature provided the prepuce (posthē) as a covering for the glans, to protect it as the eyelids protect the eyes,” he writes .
Galen, who served as physician to the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, regarded the human body as a rational design conceived by nature or divine reason. In his work “On the Usefulness of the Parts of the Human Body”, he further elaborates that the foreskin serves as a protective covering for the glans but also preserved sexual pleasure by moderating stimulation.
“The foreskin was provided by nature to cover the glans, protecting it from injury and from excessive friction. It also preserves the sensitivity of that part, so that the pleasure of union is not diminished by continual exposure,” the physician explains.
Galen’s anatomical reasoning aligns with a broader teleological principle: “Nothing in nature is made in vain”; everything has a purpose. The removal of the foreskin would be a disruptive alteration to nature’s intention, resulting in a decrease in the organ’s proper function.
By the way, that controversy over the value of circumcision continues to this very day. There is no consensus even among researchers. Some studies indicate that the foreskin is more sensitive than the uncircumcised glans mucosa, implying that after the procedure, genital sensitivity is diminished. Other studies found no loss of sensation and some men circumcised in adulthood even report enhanced feeling.
Not a man
The Romans adopted the Greek view, and then some. For them, circumcision was even more egregious – a “cut” penis became equivalent to castration. It was barbarian. A man was no longer a true man; his physical integrity was destroyed.
In his work “Satyricon”, the 1st-century CE Roman author Petronius Arbiter ridicules characters with exposed glans, using it as a sign of vulgarity and a corrupt mind.
The owner of a “cut” penis was not to be trusted. The Roman historian and political analyst, Tacitus, claimed that circumcision was a custom among the Jews instituted as a deliberate marker of separateness, writing, “They adopted circumcision to distinguish themselves from other peoples by this difference.”
This passage reflects a general Roman view that Jewish people established the practice as a deliberate way of maintaining ethnic and religious distinctions from the wider Roman world. Circumcision indeed became a widespread symbol of Jewish people: a divine assurance of national fertility, a testimonial of spiritual nobility, combined with a commitment to live by God’s law.
But for the Romans, it became a direct sign of resistance to assimilation and their response to that insolence grew crueler with time.
Because circumcision was viewed as a senseless mutilation, it gave the Romans grounds for its criminalization, since Rome was assigned the self-imposed task of educating others.
Indeed, a solution was found. Hadrian, the third of the “Five Good Emperors,” who ruled from the year 117 to 138, was preoccupied with Roman security rather than expansion and positioned himself as the peace-bringer and peacekeeper. The resolute emperor abandoned his predecessor Trajan’s conquests in the East and focused on a policy of containment.
Rome’s rule over Judea had begun well before him, in 63 B.C.E. Throughout, the Jews were unhappy with Rome’s imposition of religious reforms, such as forcing them to adore foreign gods, and they serially rebelled over the years. In 70 C.E. this resulted in the razing and looting of the Temple in Jerusalem, amid widespread destruction. That did not improve relations between the Jews and Rome.
In the year 132, persisting in the attempt to “Romanize” the province of Judea, despite his “peaceful” intentions, Emperor Hadrian enacted laws banning circumcision, under the penalty of death. The Roman historian Cassius Dio writes that the beloved emperor “forbade the mutilation of the genitals of any man, whether born in the Empire or foreign.”
The ban only fanned the fire of Jewish resentment and enabled the Bar Kokhba Revolt in Judea (which did not succeed).
Eventually, the law was amended. Around 140, the following Emperor, Antoninus Pius, amended the order, allowing Hebrews to practice circumcision again. However, “if anyone shall commit it on one who is not of the same religion, he shall suffer the punishment of a castrator,” the “Digest of Justinian” respectfully informed.
Pius’s order was later sweetened by the enactment of an additional legal prohibition: “Roman citizens, who suffer that they themselves or their slaves be circumcised in accordance with the Jewish custom, are exiled perpetually to an island and their property confiscated; the doctors suffer capital punishment. If Jews shall circumcise purchased slaves of another nation, they shall be banished or suffer capital punishment.”
Circumcision regret
Due to the escalating cultural clashes and the build-up of anti-Jewish sentiment, many Hellenized Jewish youths tried to undergo “reverse circumcision”.
Two procedures were developed to undo the “genital disfigurement”. The 1st-century medical author Celsus describes infibulation drawing the skin forward to cover the glans and securing it with a fibula or a string. Epispasm was more effective. The skin would be cut on the shaft of the member and pulled over it forward to cover the “exhibitionist”. Then the skin would be dressed gently so it would eventually attach itself to the glans, leaving a lovely foreskin.
Celsus claims that the procedure was “not so very painful” despite the lack of anesthesia. The prominent medical writer further writes that after the surgery is completed, the patient should “fast until nearly overcome by hunger lest satiety excite that part.” The recovery was slow and far from pleasant, but for those wishing to match the Roman standards, every inch restored was worth the pain.
Some rabbis fought back. The re-emergence of the “all-natural” penis compelled the stricter among them to cut even more from the foreskin in order to prevent potential rehabilitation.
Celsus writes that “those who are ashamed of having been circumcised” underwent the procedure; or those who wished to climb the social ladder. Economics was undeniably an important factor.
As the darling of martial arts, Bruce Lee stated rather banally, “You have to create your own luck. You have to be aware of the opportunities around you and take advantage of them.” One way to create opportunities was to participate in social gatherings, which served as hubs for business. The gymnasium and bath constituted a chief venue for social introductions and advancements, but both required stripping bare. Which meant, men with “over-exposed” intimate parts were denied access.
Today, there wouldn’t be much fuss about it. About 38% of the male global population is circumcised, half of which underwent the anatomical “correction” for non-religious reasons. Despite the anti-circumcision efforts over centuries, the practice is clearly thriving, and there is still no consensus about its value.
