Bible Studies Part 2

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 9.; Fig. 10.; Fig. 11.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 12.]

CIRc.u.mCISION.

Among the many traces that the Jews were once savages I place the distinguishing mark of their race, circ.u.mcision. Many explanations have been given of this curious custom. The account, in Genesis xvii. that G.o.d commanded it to Abraham, at the ripe age of 99, critics agree was written after the exile--that is, thirteen hundred years after the death of the patriarch. Now, there is evidence from the Egyptian monuments that circ.u.mcision was known long before Abraham's time. This constrains Dr. Kitto to say, "G.o.d might have selected a practice already in use among other nations." If so, G.o.d must have had a curious taste and an uninventive mind. Why, having made people as they are, he should order his chosen race to be mutilated, must be a puzzle to the orthodox. Some writers have absurdly argued that the Egyptians borrowed from the Jews, whom they despised (see Genesis xliii. 32). Apart from the evidence of Herodotus and of monuments and mummies to the contrary, this view is never suggested in the Bible, but the testimony of the book of Joshua (v. 9) implies the reverse.

The narrative of the Lord's attempted a.s.sa.s.sination of Moses (Exodus iv.

24-26), which we shall shortly examine, has the most archaic complexion of any of the biblical references to circ.u.mcision, and from it Dr. T. K.

Cheyne argues that the rite is of Arabian origin.* If inst.i.tuted in the time of Abraham under the penalty of death, it is curious that Moses never circ.u.mcised his own son, nor saw to its performance in the wilderness for forty years, so that Joshua had personally to circ.u.mcise over a million males at Gilgal.

Let us now look at the various theories of the origin and purpose of circ.u.mcision. Rationalising Jews say it is of a sanatory character. This view, though found in Philo, may be dismissed as an after theory to meet a religious difficulty. Most Asiatic nations are uncirc.u.mcised. The Philistines did not practice the rite, nor did the Syrians in the time of Josephus. Even if in a few cases it might possibly be beneficial, that would be no sufficient reason for imposing it on a whole nation under penalty of death. The fact is, the rite is a religious one.

Indeed, upon its retention the early controversy between Jews and Christians largely turned.

The view that it is an imposed mutilation of a subject race is suggested in Dr. Remondino's _History of Circ.u.mcision_, and has the high authority of Herbert Spencer. He instances the trophy of foreskins taken by David as a dowry for Saul's daughter (1 Sam. xviii. 27), and that Hyrca.n.u.s having subdued the Idumeans, made them submit to circ.u.mcision. This, however, may have been a part of the policy of making them one with the Jewish race in being tributary to Jahveh. It is not easy to see how a mutilation imposed from without should ever become a part of the pride of race and be enjoined when all other mutilations were forbidden.

* Encyclopaedia Britannica, article "Circ.u.mcision."

I incline to a view which, although in accord with early sociological conditions, I have never yet seen stated. It was suggested to me by the pa.s.sage where Tacitus alludes to this custom among the Jews. It is that circ.u.mcision is of the nature of savage totem and tattoo marks--a device to distinguish the tribal division from other tribes, and to indicate those with whom the tribe might marry.* If, as has been suggested, the meaning of Genesis x.x.xiv. 14 is "one who is uncirc.u.mcised is as a woman to us," this view is confirmed. The Jewish abhorrence to mixed marriages and "the bed of the uncirc.u.mcised" is well known.

* What Tacitus says is, "They do not eat with strangers or make marriages with them, and this nation, otherwise most p.r.o.ne to debauchery, abstains from all strange women. They have introduced circ.u.mcision in order to distinguish themselves thereby."

The Hebrew distinguishing term for male--_zachar_, which also means record or _memorial_--will agree with this view, as also with that of Dr. Trumbull, which a.s.sociates circ.u.mcision with that of blood-covenanting. It seems evident from the narrative in Exodus iv., where Zipporah, after circ.u.mcising her son, says--not as generally understood to Moses--"A b.l.o.o.d.y husband art thou to me," but to Jahveh, "Thou art a _Kathan_ of blood"--i.e., one made akin by circ.u.mcision--that this idea of a blood-covenant became interwoven with the rite. It is to be noticed that in the covenant between G.o.d and the Jews women had no share.

Dr. Kuenen holds that circ.u.mcision is of the nature of a subst.i.tute for human sacrifice. No doubt the Jews had such sacrifices, and were familiar with the idea of subst.i.tution; but with this I rather connect the Pa.s.sover observance. If a sacrifice, it was doubtless phallic--an offering to the G.o.d on whom the fruit of the womb depended; possibly a subst.i.tution for the barbarous rites by which the priests of Cybele were inst.i.tuted for office. Ptolemy's Tetrabibles, speaking of the neighboring nations, says: "Many of them devote their genitals to their divinities." According to Gerald Ma.s.sey, "it was a dedication of the first-fruits of the male at the shrine of the virgin mother and child, which was one way of pa.s.sing the seed through the fire to Moloch."

Westrop and Wake (_Phallicism in Ancient Religion_, p. 37) say "Circ.u.mcision, in its inception, is a purely phallic rite, having for its aim the marking of that which from its a.s.sociations is viewed with peculiar veneration, and it converts the two phases of this superst.i.tion which have for their object respectively the _instrument_ of generation and the _agent_."

General Forlong, who maintains the phallic view, also holds that "truth compels us to attach an Aphrodisiacal character to the mutilations of this highly sensual Jewish race." This view will not be hastily rejected by those who know of the many strange devices resorted to by barbarous peoples. Some have believed that circ.u.mcision enhances fecundity.

With the exception of the two first views, which I dismiss as not explaining the religious and permanent character of the rite, all these views imply a special regard being paid to the emblem of generation.

This is further confirmed by the manner of oath-taking customary among the ancient Jews. When Abraham swore his servant, he said, "Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh" (Gen. xxiv. 2). The same euphemism is used in the account of Jacob swearing Joseph (xlvii. 29), and the custom, which has lasted among Arabs until modern days, is also alluded to in the Hebrew of 1 Chronicles xxix. 24. The Latin testiculi seems to point to a similar custom. In the law that no uncirc.u.mcised or s.e.xually-imperfect person might appear before the shrine of the Lord, we may see yet further evidence that Jewish worship was akin to the phallic rites of the nations around them.

MOSES AT THE INN

And it came to pa.s.s by the way in the inn, that the lord met him, and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said,

Surely a b.l.o.o.d.y husband art thou to me.

So he let him go: then she said, A b.l.o.o.d.y husband thou art, because of the circ.u.mcision.

--Exodus iv. 24-26.

Anyone who wishes to note the various shifts to which orthodox people will resort in their attempts to pa.s.s off the barbarous records of the Jews as G.o.d's holy word, should demand an explanation of the attempted a.s.sa.s.sination of Moses by Jehovah, as recorded in the above verses. Some commentators say that by the Lord is meant "the angel of the Lord," as if Jehovah was incapable of personally conducting so nefarious a piece of business. Bishop Patrick says "The Schechinah, I suppose, appeared to him--appeared with a drawn sword, perhaps, as he did to Balaam and David." Some say it was Moses's firstborn the Lord sought to kill. Some say it was at the child's feet the foreskin was cast, others at those of Moses, but the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem more properly represent that it was at the feet of G.o.d, in order to pacify him.

The story certainly presents some difficulties. Moses had just had one of his numerous interviews with Jehovah, who had told him to go back to Egypt, for all those are dead who sought his life. He is to tell Pharaoh that Israel is the Lord's firstborn, and that if Pharaoh will not let the Israelites go he will slay Pharaoh's firstborn. Then immediately follows this pa.s.sage. Why this sudden change of conduct towards Moses, whose life Jehovah was apparently so anxious to save?

Adam Clarke says the meaning is that the son of Moses had not been circ.u.mcised, and therefore Jehovah was about to have slain the child because not in covenant with him by circ.u.mcision, and thus he intended [after his usual brutal fashion] to punish the disobedience of the father by the death of the son. Zip-porah getting acquainted with the nature of the case, and the danger to which her firstborn was exposed, took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son. By this act the displeasure of the Lord was turned aside, and Zipporah considered herself as now allied to G.o.d because of this circ.u.mcision. Old Adam tries to gloss over the attempted a.s.sa.s.sination of Moses by pretending it was only a child's life that was in danger. But we beg the reader to notice that no _child_ is mentioned, but only a son whose age is unspecified. Dr. Clarke can hardly have read the treatise of John Frischl, _De Circ.u.mcisione Zipporo_, or he would surely have admitted that the person menaced with death was Moses, and not his son.

Other commentators say that Zipporah did not like the snipping business (although she seems to have understood it at once), and therefore addressed her husband opprobriously. Circ.u.mcision, we may remark, was anciently performed with stone. The Septuagint version records how the flints with which Joshua circ.u.mcised the people at Gilgal were buried in his grave.

A nice specimen of the modern Christian method of semi-rationalising may be found in Dr. Smith's _Bible Dictionary_, to which the clergy usually turn for help in regard to any difficulties in connection with the sacred fetish they call the word of G.o.d. Smith says:

"The most probable explanation seems to be, that at the caravanserai either Moses or Gershom was struck with what seemed to be a mortal illness. In some way, not apparent to us, this illness was connected by Zipporah with the fact that her son had not been circ.u.mcised. She instantly performed the rite, and threw the sharp instrument, stained with the fresh blood, at the feet of her husband, exclaiming in the agony of a mother's anxiety for the life of her child, 'A b.l.o.o.d.y husband thou art, to cause the death of my son.' Then when the recovery from the illness took place (whether of Moses or Gershom), she exclaims again, 'A b.l.o.o.d.y husband still thou art, but not so as to cause the child's death, but only to bring about his circ.u.mcision.'"

We have no hesitation in saying that this most approved explanation is the worst. In seeking to make the story rational, it utterly ignores the primitive ideas and customs by which alone this ancient fragment can be interpreted. One little fact is sufficient to refute it. The Jews never use the word _Khathan_, improperly translated "husband," after marriage.

The word may be interpreted spouse, betrothed or bridegroom, but not husband. The Revised Version, which always follows as closely as possible the Authorised Version, translates "a bridegroom of blood." But this makes it evident that Moses was not addressed, for no woman having a son calls her husband "bridegroom." We may now see the true meaning of the incident--that by the blood covenant of circ.u.mcision, Zipporah entered into kinship with Jehovah and thereby claimed his friendship instead of enmity. In ancient times only the good-will of those who recognise the family bond or ties of blood could be relied on. Herbert Spencer, in his _Ceremonial Inst.i.tutions_, contends that b.l.o.o.d.y sacrifices arise "from the practice of establishing a sacred bond between living persons by partaking of each other's blood: the derived conception, being that those who give some of their blood to the ghost of a man just dead and lingering near, effect with it a union which on the one side implies submission, and on the other side friendliness."

Dr. T. K. Oheyne, in his article on Circ.u.mcision in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, takes the story of Moses at the inn as a proof that circ.u.mcision was of Arabic origin. He says; "Khathan meant originally not 'husband,' but 'a newly admitted member of the family.' So that 'a khathan of blood' meant one who has become a _khathan_, not by marriage, but by circ.u.mcision," a meaning confirmed by the derived sense of the Arabic _khatana_, "to circ.u.mcise"--circ.u.mcision being performed in Arabia at the age of p.u.b.erty.

The English of the Catholic Douay version is not so good as the Authorised Version, but it brings us nearer the real meaning of the story. It runs thus:

"And when he was in his journey, in the inn, the Lord met him and would have killed him. Immediately Sephora took a very sharp stone, and circ.u.mcised the foreskin of her son, and touched his feet, and said: A b.l.o.o.d.y spouse art thou to me. And he let him go after she had said: A b.l.o.o.d.y spouse art thou unto me, because of the circ.u.mcision."

Here it is evidently the feet of the Lord that are touched, as was the ancient practice in rendering tribute, and we see that the foreskin was a propitiatory offering.

Dr. Trumbull in his interesting book on the Blood Covenant, says: "The Hebrew word _Khathan_ has as its root idea, the binding through severing, the covenanting by blood; an idea that is in the marriage-rite, as the Orientals view it, and that is in the rite of circ.u.mcision also." Dr. Trumbull omits to say that the term is not used after marriage, and consequently that it must be taken as applied to the Lord. Zipporah, being already married, did not need to enter into the blood covenant with Moses, but with Jehovah, so that to her and hers the Lord might henceforth be friendly.

We do not make much of the inn. There were no public-houses between Midian and Egypt. Probably the reference is only to a resting-place or caravanserai. We would, therefore, render the pa.s.sage thus:

The Lord met him [Moses] at a halting place and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a flint, and cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it at [made it touch] his [the Lord's] feet, and she said: Surely a kinsman of blood [one newly bound through blood] art thou to me. So he [the Lord] let him [Moses] alone.

Kuenen considers the pa.s.sage, in connection with the place where it is inserted, indicated that circ.u.mcision was a subst.i.tute for child sacrifice. Any way, it may safely be said that the mark which every Jew bears on his own body is a sign that his ancestry worshipped a deity who sought to a.s.sa.s.sinate Moses, and was only to be appeased by an offering of blood.

THE BRAZEN SERPENT, AND SALVATION BY SIMILARS.

Hahnemann, the founder of h.o.m.oeopathy, is usually credited with the introduction of the medical maxim, _similta similibus ourantur_--like things are cured by like. Those who would dispute his originality need not refer to the ancient saying familiar to all topers, of "taking a hair of the dog that bit you"; they may find the origin of the h.o.m.oeopathic doctrine in the great source of all inspiration--the holy Bible.

The book of Numbers contains several recipes which would be invaluable if divine grace would enable us to re-discover and correctly employ them. There is, for instance, the holy water described in chap. v., the effects of which will enable any jealous husband to discover if his wife has been faithful to him or not, and in the case of her guilt enable him to dispense with the services of Sir James Hannen.

But perhaps the most curious prescription in the book is that recorded in the twenty-first chapter. The Israelites wandering about for forty years, without travelling forty miles, got tired of the heavenly manna with which the "universal provider" supplied them. They looked back on the fried fish, which they "did eat in Egypt freely," the cuc.u.mbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic, wherein the Jewish stomach delighteth, and they longed for a change of diet. Upon remonstrating with Moses, and stating their preference for Egyptian lentils rather than celestial mushrooms, the Lord of his tender mercy sent "fiery serpents" (the word is properly translated "seraphim"), and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died. Then the people prayed Moses to intercede for them, saying, "We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord and against thee;" and Jahveh, in direct opposition to his own commandment, directed Moses to "make a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole, and it shall come to pa.s.s that every one that is bitten when he looketh upon it shall live." Moses accordingly made a serpent of bra.s.s, we presume from some of that stolen from the Egyptians, which had the desired effect.

Instead of being but one monster more, the sight immediately cured the wounds, and these seraphim sent by the Lord, ashamed of being beaten by their brazen brother, skedaddled. Of course it may be contended that a seraph is neither in the likeness of anything in heaven above, in earth beneath, or in the water, or fire, under the earth, and that consequently Moses in no wise infringed the Decalogue.

Commentators have been puzzled to account for this evident relic of serpent worship in a religion so abhorrent of idolatry as that of the Jews. These gentry usually shut their eyes very close to the many evidences that the G.o.d-guided people were always falling into the idolatries of the surrounding nations. Now we know that the Babylonians, in common with all the great nations of antiquity, worshipped the serpent. It has been thought, indeed, that the name Baal is an abbreviation of Ob-el, "the serpent G.o.d." In the Apocryphal book of Bel and the Dragon, to be found in every Catholic Bible, it says (v. 23): "And in that same place there was a great dragon, which they of Babylon worshipped. And the king said unto Daniel, Wilt thou also say that this is of bra.s.s? Lo, he liveth, he eateth and drinketh, thou canst not say that he is no living G.o.d; therefore worship him." Serpent worship is indeed so widely spread, and of such great antiquity, that it has been conjectured to have sprung from the antipathy between our monkey ancestors and snakes. In this legend the brazen serpent is benevolent, but more usually that reptile represents the evil principle. Thus a story in the Zendavesta (which is clearly allied to, and may have suggested that in Genesis) says that Ahriman a.s.sumed a serpent's form in order to destroy the first of the human race, whom he accordingly poisoned. In the Saddu we read: "When you kill serpents you shall repeat the Zendavesta, whereby you will obtain great merit; for it is the same as if you had killed so many devils." It is curious that the serpent which is the evil genius of Genesis is the good genius in Numbers, and that Jesus himself is represented as comparing himself to it (John iii.

14). An early Christian sect, the Ophites, found serpent worshipping quite consistent with their Christianity.

It seems likely that this story of the brazen serpent having been made by Moses, was a priestly invention to account for its being an object of idolatry among the Jews, as we know from 2 Kings xviii. 4, it was worshipped down to the time of Hezekiah, that is 700 years after the time of Moses. Hezekiah, we are told, broke the brazen serpent in pieces, but it must have been miraculously joined again, for the identical article is still to be seen, for a consideration, in the Church of St. Ambrose at Milan. Some learned rabbis regard the brazen serpent as a talisman which Moses was enabled to prepare from his knowledge of astrology. Others say it was a form of amulet to be copied and worn as a charm against disease. Others again declare it was only set up _in terrorem_, as a man who has chastised his son hangs up the rod against the wall as a warning. Rationalising commentators have pretended that it was but an emblem of healing by the medical art, a sort of sign-post to a camp hospital, like the red cross flag over an ambulance. These altogether pervert the text, and miss the meaning of the pa.s.sage. The resemblance of the object set up was of the essence of the cure, as may be seen in 1 Sam. vi. 5. In truth, the doctrine of like curing like, instead of being a modern discovery is a very ancient superst.i.tion. The old medical books are full of prescriptions, or rather charms, founded on this notion.* It is, indeed, one of the recognised principles in savage magic and medicine that things like each other, however superficially, affect each other in a mystic way, and possess identical properties. Thus in Melanesia, according to Mr. Codrington,**

"a stone in the shape of a pig, of a bread fruit, of a yam, was a most valuable find," because it made pigs prolific, and fertilised bread, fruit trees, and yam plots.

* See Myths in Medicine and Old Time Doctors, by Alfred C.

Garratt, M.D.