Talk:Circumcision in the Bible

Many thanks to RK for all the interesting information that you have added.

Stop the propaganda

It is noted that the intention of monomaniac anti-circumcision types to try to score/make a point that the continuing practice of circumcision amoung Jews is through a misinterpretation of the Bible. This is merely an opinion. The opinion of a tiny (but shamelessly vocal) minority. Give it a break. No matter how desperately some would wish to misuse wikipedia for propaganda purposes it does not deseve a mention in the article. Time to move on. - Robert Brookes 15:35, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why the Prophet Jeremiah should not be censored out of this article

All the abusive invective in the world doesn't alter the fact that when we consider the Jewish law, the following is relevant:

'How can you say, "We are wise and the law of the LORD is with us when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.'

Jeremiah 8:8, New Revised Standard Version

Huh? What in the world does this have to do with the topic of this article, circumcision? RK 14:42, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

It is relevant because:

• Jeremiah is a major Jewish prophet, so his opinion carries weight.
• Jeremiah lived over 2000 years closer to the time when the books of Moses were compiled.

The fact that another contributor is so determined to remove this evidence from the public record demonstrates that the point Jeremiah makes is sensitive. Nevertheless it is also highly relevant to any rational discussion about this aspect of the Jewish law, and for that reason should remain. If other contributors wish to argue that Jeremiah's comment about scribal ethics is not relevant to Biblical passages about circumcision, they are welcome to demonstrate this. However, censorship is not the way to make this point.

Uh, you are confused. The above stuff you write has nothing to do with the subject of circumcision. RK 14:42, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

• Merely a POV. Merely a leading interpretation. Nothing to do with the subject at hand. - Robert Brookes 16:07, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am astounded that someone can argue that the question of the reliability of the scribal tradition is irrelevant. I am astounded that someone can argue that the Prophet Jeremiah's opinion can be discounted as merely a point of view. If there is a legitimate question about the reliability of the scribal tradition, then the intellectually and religiously honest thing to do is to face it fairly and squarely, not by censorship and denigration.

Is it fair to imply that the Prophet Jeremiah is not a legitimate or reliable person to comment on the scribal tradition? I think this position would be hard to sustain. - Michael Glass

• Nice try Michael. The point of view is that what you continue to insist should be reinserted is in fact relevant to the article. I think not. - Robert Brookes 17:09, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The idea that this statement belongs in this article is totally untrue. If it is relevant ... then it is relevant to every single article about the Hebrew Old Testament in this Encyclopedia. I challenge you to go out and add it to all of those articles and see what people say.

Right now the only reason you are getting away with this revert war is that relatively few people are aware of it (just discovered it, myself). Keep it up and eventually those who are empowered to stop it will become aware of it.

Wikipedia will be NPOV. That is not an option.

This particular thought about Jeremiah might be relevant, if contextualized (i.e., don't say the opinion, say "Party X has the following opinion: ...", but there is nothing about it that makes it belong in this article. Go put it in an article about the Old Testament, not here. This is an article about circumcision in the Bible. Pick one of the articles this article links to if you think this idea absolutely has to belong in Wikipedia (and present it NPOV instead of the way you did). Jdavidb 19:03, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If other contributors wish to argue that Jeremiah's comment about scribal ethics is not relevant to Biblical passages about circumcision, they are welcome to demonstrate this. However, censorship is not the way to make this point.

All right, we've discussed it on the talk page. So far you've not reached a consensus that agrees with you, and in fact, of the three interested parties, only you feel that this paragraph belongs here. Let me state unequivocally then that further reverts on your part are completely inappropriate. If you feel there is a problem with the exclusion of this text from the article, seek arbitration or mediation. Until then, if you continue to insert this text, it will be reverted because it is being added to this page counter to discussion on the talk page. Jdavidb 19:03, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The fact that another contributor is so determined to remove this evidence from the public record demonstrates that the point Jeremiah makes is sensitive. Nevertheless it is also highly relevant to any rational discussion about this aspect of the Jewish law, and for that reason should remain.

BTW, you are completely misinterpreting what the Prophet said. You are removing it from the larger context of the rest of the Bible to imply something about the Bible that Jeremiah did not mean. You are thus pushing your POV about what Jeremiah means here. Contextualize and NPOV, or get out. (And take it to another article anyway, where it is relevant. Or else put it in every other Biblically-related article.) Jdavidb 19:05, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I am quoting what the prophet said. I am quoting chapter, verse of what the prophet said and I named the translation I used.

You have claimed the verse is quoted out of context.

Here is the entire chapter:

The Sin and Treachery of Judah

1 "At that time," declares the LORD, "they will (1) bring out the bones of the kings of Judah and the bones of its princes, and the bones of the priests and the bones of the prophets, and the bones of the inhabitants of Jerusalem from their graves. 2 "They will spread them out to the sun, the moon and to all the (2) host of heaven, which they have loved and which they have served, and which they have gone after and which they have sought, and which they have worshiped. They will not be gathered (3) or buried; (4) they will be as dung on the face of the ground. 3 "And (5) death will be chosen rather than life by all the remnant that remains of this evil family, that remains in all the (6) places to which I have driven them," declares the LORD of hosts. 4 "You shall say to them, 'Thus says the LORD,

         "Do men (7) fall and not get up again?
         Does one turn away and not repent? 

5

      "Why then has this people, Jerusalem,
         (8) Turned away in continual apostasy?
         They (9) hold fast to deceit,
         They (10) refuse to return. 

6

      "I (11) have listened and heard,
         They have spoken what is not right;
         (12) No man repented of his wickedness,
         Saying, 'What have I done?'
         Everyone turned to his course,
         Like a (13) horse charging into the battle. 

7

      "Even the stork in the sky
         (14) Knows her seasons;
         And the (15) turtledove and the swift and the thrush
         Observe the time of their migration;
         But (16) My people do not know
         The ordinance of the LORD. 

8

      "(17) How can you say, 'We are wise,
         And the law of the LORD is with us'?
         But behold, the lying pen of the scribes
         Has made it into a lie. 

9

      "The wise men are (18) put to shame,
         They are dismayed and caught;
         Behold, they have (19) rejected the word of the LORD,
         And what kind of wisdom do they have? 

10

      "Therefore I will (20) give their wives to others,
         Their fields to new owners;
         Because from the least even to the greatest
         Everyone is (21) greedy for gain;
         From the prophet even to the priest
         Everyone practices deceit. 

11

      "They (22) heal the brokenness of the daughter of My people superficially,
         Saying, 'Peace, peace,'
         But there is no peace. 

12

      "Were they (23) ashamed because of the abomination they had done?
         They certainly were not ashamed,
         And they did not know how to blush;
         Therefore they shall (24) fall among those who fall;
         At the (25) time of their punishment they shall be brought down,"
         Says the LORD. 

13

      "I will (26) surely snatch them away," declares the LORD;
         "There will be (27) no grapes on the vine
         And (28) no figs on the fig tree,
         And the leaf will wither;
         And what I have given them will pass away."'" 

14

      Why are we sitting still?
         (29) Assemble yourselves, and let us (30) go into the fortified cities
         And let us perish there,
         Because the LORD our God has doomed us
         And given us (31) poisoned water to drink,
         For (32) we have sinned against the LORD. 

15

      We (33) waited for peace, but no good came;
         For a time of healing, but behold, terror! 

16

      From (34) Dan is heard the snorting of his horses;
         At the sound of the neighing of his (35) stallions
         The whole land quakes;
         For they come and (36) devour the land and its fullness,
         The city and its inhabitants. 

17

      "For behold, I am (37) sending serpents against you,
         Adders, for which there is (38) no charm,
         And they will bite you," declares the LORD. 

18

      My (39) sorrow is beyond healing,
         My (40) heart is faint within me! 

19

      Behold, listen! The cry of the daughter of my people from a (41) distant land:
         "Is the LORD not in Zion? Is her King not within her?"
         "Why have they (42) provoked Me with their graven images, with foreign (43) idols?" 

20

      "Harvest is past, summer is ended,
         And we are not saved." 

21

      For the (44) brokenness of the daughter of my people I am broken;
         I (45) mourn, dismay has taken hold of me. 

22

      Is there no (46) balm in Gilead?
         Is there no physician there?
         (47) Why then has not the health of the daughter of my people been restored? 

Show me me what is in the context of the statement I quoted that would limit it or modify its application.

Michael Glass

Easy: show me where in the statement circumcision is mentioned. The quote is not relevant to this article, though as I said, this POV should certainly be contextualized and expressed in a relevant article about the Bible.

If it needs to go in an article about circumcision and the Bible, then it should go in every article about the Bible, and I'd like to see you go add it and deal with trying to reach consensus with more editors, as is proper for Wikipedia. It clearly doesn't belong in every single article that mentions a subject from the Bible, and this is one where it doesn't belong.

For that matter, the stuff about what books of the Bible are canonical doesn't belong here, either.

You are trying to argue about what the verse means and have us decide on that. That is not how we do things here at Wikipedia. We don't decide what the facts are and what the right opinions are. We contextualize the various opinions by saying who said them: "Joe is stupid" doesn't belong here, but "Bob says Joe is stupid" does (or would if it were encyclopedic). In the same way, "Jeremiah might have said the Bible has been modified" doesn't belong here, but "Some folks (preferably identified in the statement) believe the following passage of Jeremiah implies the Bible has been modified" does belong in Wikipedia, though it does not belong in an article about circumcision.

I appreciate the fact that you came here to discuss the issue rather than unilaterally editing the article again as many people do. When something is contentious at Wikipedia, we talk it out on the talk page, and if we cannot reach a consensus (not a consensus on what the facts are, but a consensus about what should be expressed in each article, and how), we appeal to higher authorities for mediation and/or arbitration.

I encourage you to have this information inserted elsewhere in Wikipedia. It does not belong in this article. Jdavidb 14:16, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I totally agree with Jdavidb. RK 14:42, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)