Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I heard it claimed recently that Circumcision was an act that was already practiced before God came to Abraham. The claim mentions that God took it and made it a token of His covenant with his people, rather than invented it to be a token for the covenant.

What is the typical Jewish response to the claim?

share|improve this question
A similar idea is said about the rainbow which existed beforehand but was chosen as a sign covenant with Noach. Also along these same lines is the new moon which Hashem chose to be a religiously significant symbol existed beforehand. –  user6591 Sep 2 '14 at 19:19
"What is the typical Jewish response to the claim?" Jews don't have a typical response to what every random priest makes up. A lot of Christian beliefs don't have Jewish sources. –  user613 Sep 5 '14 at 7:26
@user3949142 This is an historical claim. Jews either agree with it or not. –  fredsbend Sep 5 '14 at 15:55
If I asked you: Do Christians believe that there were other people before Abraham who were hidden in a cave until they were 3 because I some random Jew thinks so, you'd probably laugh at the question. I don't see how this question is any different. –  user613 Sep 6 '14 at 14:11
You're stressing the word historical, so what's his historical evidence to back it up? If he doesn't it's just a claim that a random person made, and I don't get why we Jews would have an opinion. Abraham was commanded to have a circumcision, so the fact was he never had one before. So someone in 2014 makes a baseless claim that other random people did it before Abraham, so we Jews have to have an official opinion on what he says? –  user613 Sep 6 '14 at 20:46

2 Answers 2

The Medrash Tanchuma (on Noach 6:5) says that 7 were born circumcised, including prior to Abraham: Adam, Seth and Noah.

Complete text as brought there:

תמים זה אחד משבעה מהולים שנולדו בעולם: אדם הראשון נברא מהול. ושת בנו נולד מהול, דכתיב: (שם ה) ויולד בדמותו כצלמו. נח נולד מהול, דכתיב: תמים היה בדורותיו. יעקב נולד מהול, דכתיב: (שם כה) ויעקב איש תם. ויוסף נולד מהול, דכתיב: (שם לז) אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף, שהיה דומה לאביו. משה נולד מהול, שנאמר: (שמות ב) ותרא אותו כי טוב הוא. ואיוב נולד מהול, דכתיב: (איוב א) איש תם וישר

... He was perfect ... This is one of the seven that was circumcised when born into the word: The first man was created circumcised, and Seth his son was born circumcised, as it says "... and he begot in his likeness after his image ..." Noah was born circumcised as it says "... He was perfect in his generations ..." Jacob was born circumcised as it says "... Jacob was an innocent man ..." Josef was born circumcised as it says "... These are the generations of Jacob: Joseph ..." that he was similar to his father. Moses was born circumcised as it says "... she saw him that he was good ..." And Job was born circumcised, as it says "... sincere and upright ...".

(Note that "sincere" in Job is the same Hebrew word as "innocent" regarding Jacob, and is the same root as the "He was perfect" regarding Noah).

So according to that lacking a foreskin was already viewed as a sign of holiness, and thus there would be no reason to think that others hadn't picked up on that and sought to imitate it.

share|improve this answer
Do you have the second source in English? I guess you are saying that the thought comes from this collection of manuscripts in your first source. It says that those were printed in the 1800's. Is there evidence that Judaism believed this before those manuscripts were compiled and printed? –  fredsbend Sep 2 '14 at 19:31
@fredsbend, the Medrash Tanchuma is at least over 1000 years old, considering that Rashi quotes from it. The Wikipedia discussion is about versioning of different prints of it. Here is a reference in English I could find online (with a different content, but the point is the same). –  Yishai Sep 2 '14 at 19:37
in retrospect yes, but perhaps then no. –  ray Sep 2 '14 at 20:47
That doesn't mean anyone actually circumscrised. –  user613 Sep 5 '14 at 7:23

Wikipedia’s article on the History of Male Circumcision gives evidence of circumcision

Sixth Dynasty (2345–2181 BCE) tomb artwork in Egypt has been thought to be the oldest documentary evidence of circumcision, the most ancient depiction being a bas-relief from the necropolis at Saqqara (c. 2400 BCE) with the inscriptions reading: "The ointment is to make it acceptable." and "Hold him so that he does not fall".

The date of Avrohom’s circumcision is 1948 AM which is equivalent to 1812 BCE so it seems there is evidence for circumcision before Avrohom.

share|improve this answer
The question asked "What is the typical Jewish response to the claim?" I'm not sure that this source fits that bill. –  Isaac Moses Sep 2 '14 at 19:37
@IsaacMoses It would be a nice augment to an answer that discusses the Jewish aspect first. –  fredsbend Sep 2 '14 at 19:48
+1 "Jewish responses" should include the best of what science knows at the time, which is what is listed here. That is (broadly) the technique of the Rambam, integrating science and received Torah wisdom. –  Mike Sep 2 '14 at 21:54

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.