I. Pagan drcumcition.—Faei of tXi, the Egypttam were a circumcised people. Yonck (Obterv. mitcelL c. i, p. 66), followed by Wesseling (ad Herod, ii, 87) and by numerous able writers, alleged that this was not true of the whole nation, but of the priests only ; that at least the priests were circumcised is beyond controversy. No one can for a moment imagine that they adopted the rite from the despised shepherds of (xoshen; and we are immediately forced to believe that Egyptian circumcision had an independent origin. A great preponderance of argument, however, ap- pears to us to prove that the rite was universal among the old Egyptians, as long as their native institu- tions flouridied, although there is no question that, under Persian and Greek rule, it gradually fell into disuse, and was retained chiefly by the priests, and by those who desired to cultivate ancient wisdom (see Origen, ad Jer. iv, 19 ; Esech, xxxi, 18 ; xxxii, 19 ; and ad. Bom. ii, 18; Jerome ad Gal. iv, p. 477 ; H<ffa- polL HierogL JEg. i, 14, p. 18, ed. Paun ; Clem. Alex. Strom, i, 180). Herodotus distinctly declares that the Egyptians practised circumcision ; and that he meant to state this of the whole nation is manifest, not only since he always omits to add any restriction, but be- cause, immediately following his first statement of the &ct, he annexes this remark : *'The/>rie«ts, moreover, shave their whole body every other day," etc (Herod, ii, 87). It is difficult to suppose that the historian could have been mistaken on this point, considering his personal acquaintance with Egypt. (Artapanus, however, makes a distinction between Jewish and Egyptian circumcision, ap. Euseb. Pr<Bp. Ev. iv, 27.) Further, he informs us that the Colchians were a colo- ny fh>m Egypt, consisting of soldiers fhmi the army of Sesostris. With these he had conversed (ii, 104), and he positively declares that they practised circum- cision. Tet if the rite had been confined to the priest- ly caste of Egypt, it could hardly have been found among the Colchians at all. The same remark will apply to the savage Troglodytes of Africa, every branch of whom except one (the Kolobi), as Diodorus informs us (iii, 81), was circumcised, having learned the practice from the Egyptians. The Troglodytes appear to have been widely diffused through Libya, which argues a corresponding diffusion of the rite; yet, from the silence of Diodorus concerning the other savagtf nations whom he recounts as African Ethiopi- ans, we may infer that it was not practised by them. The direct testimony of Diodorus (i, 28), Philo (Opp. ii, 810), and Strabo (xii, 824 ; comp. Agatharch. ed. Hudson, i, 46) is to the same efiect as that of Herodo- tus respec^ting Egypt; yet this can hardly be called confirmatory, aince in their day^ the rite was no longer universaL Josephus (conbra Ap. ii, 18) speaks of it as practised by the priests only; he, however, re- proaches Apion for neiglecting the institutions of his country in remiuning uncircnmdsed. Crigen, in the passage above referred to, confirms the statement of Josephus. In Kenrick's Herodotus (ii, 87), the French commissioners who examined some Egyptian mum- mies are quoted as establishing from them the fact of Egyptian circumcision. Herodotus, moreover, tells us (i^ 104) that the Ethiopians were also circumcised ; and he was hi doubt whether they had learned the rite firom the Egyptians, or the Egjrptians from them. By the Ethiopians we must understand him to mean the inhabitants of Merofi or Sennaar. In the present day the Coptic Church continues to practise it, accord- ing to C. Niebuhr (quoted by Michaelis) ; the Abys- sinian Christians do the same (Ludolf. Hist. Ethiop. i, 19, and Comment, p. 268 sq.) ; and that it was not in-
CIRCUMCISION
848
cmcuMciaioN
trodnoed aoMmg the Utter irith a Jiidaical Chriftbmity appears from their performing it upon both eezee. (It is scarcely worth while to invent a new name, redsion, or resection, for accuracy's sake.) Oldendorp de- scribes the rite as widely spread through Western Africa — 16^ on each side of the line — even among natives that are not Mohammedan. In later times it has been ascertained that it is practised by the Kafir nations in South Africa, more properly called Kosa or Amakosa, whom Pridiard supposes to form **a great part of the native population of Africa to the southward of the equator." He remarks upon this: ** It is scarcely within probability that they borrowed the custom from nations who profess Islim, or we should find among them other proofii of intercourse with people of that dass. It is more probable that this practice is a relic of ancient African customs, of which the Egyptians, as it is well known, parto(dc in the remote ages" (Prkhard, Ph^tical Hi&L if M<m^ 8d ed. ii, 287). Traces of the custom have even been ob- served among the natives of some of the South Sea Ishmds (Pickering, Itace$ ofMm^ p. 168, 199, 200, etc.). How ftr the rite was extended through the S3rro- Arabian races is uncertain (but see Strabo, xvi, 776 ; Epiphan. Hcer, iz, 80 ; Origen ad Gm, i, 10). In the 9th section of the Epistle of Barnabas (which, whether genuine or not, is very old), the writer comments as follows: ''But yon will say the Jews were circum- cised for a sign. And so are all the Syrians, and the Arabians, and tha idolatrous priests ; . . . and even the Egyptians themselves are circumcised." This language is vague and popular; yet it shows how no- torious was the wide diffusion of the custom (see Hug, in the Freib. Zeitschrift, iii, 218). The Philistines, in the days of Saul, were, however, uncircumdsed ; so also, says Herodotus (ii, 104), were all the Phoenicians who had intercourse with the Greeks. That the Ca- naanites, in the days of Jacob, were not all 'circum- cised, is plain frt>m the afi^lr of Dinah and Shechem. The stoiy of Zipporah (Exod. iv, 25), who did not cir- cumcise her son until fear came over her that Jehovah would slay her husband Moses, proves that the family of Jethro, the Midianite, had no fixed rule about it, al- though the Midianites are generally regarded as chil- dren of Abraham by Keturah. On the other hand, we have the distinct testimony of Josephus {AtU. i, 12, 2) that the Ishmaelite Arabs, inhabiting the district of Nabathfea, were circumcised after their 18th year : this must be connected with the tradition, which no doubt existed among them, of the age at which their forefather Ishmael underwent the rite (Qen. xvii, 25). St. Jerome also (quoted by Michaelis) informs us that, to his day, *^ usque hodie,^* the tribes dwelling round Judaea and Palestine were circumcised, " especially all the Saracens who dwell in the desert" Elsewhere he says that, ''except the Egyptians, Idumeans, Ammon- ites, Moabites, and Ishmaelites of the desert, of whom the greater part are circumcised, all other nations in the world are uncircumdsed." A negative argument is more or less dangerous ; yet there is something striking in the fiict that the books of Moses, of Joshua, and of Judges never bestow the epithet undrcumcited as a reproach on any of the seven nations of Canaan, any more than on the Moabites or Ammonites, the Amalekites, the Midianites, or other inland tribes with whom they came into conflict. On the contrary, as soon as the Philistines become prominent in the nar- rative, after the birth of Samson, this epithet is of rather common occurrence. The foct also of bringing back as a trophy the foreskins of slain enemies never occurs except against the Philistines (1 Sam. xviil). We may perhaps infer, at least until other proof or disproof is attained, that while the Philistines, like the Sidonians and the other maritime Syrian nations known to the Greeks, were wholly strangers to the practice, 3ret among the Canaanites, and all the more inland "^s, it was at least so £ur common that no general