Jump to content

Talk:Circumcision of Jesus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Circumcision in Christian groups

[edit]

I've inserted a minor clarification, as the text left me with the impression that Paul and the early church decided to discard circumcision entirely. Paul only disagreed with forcing circumcision (and other Jewish regulations, apart from the Noachide laws) on non-Jewish converts. He elsewhere states that he indeed preached circumcision, and he was mohel for Timothy (who by having a Jewish mother could be regarded as Jewish). • Astynax talk 19:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the source in fact said he was against it generally, but you may be right. It was clearly dropped pretty quickly by Christians, but that isn't a big issue here. Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the other bit down & copy-edited. The caricatures are not depictions of the circumcision of Jesus I think. Penny mentions such images in "anti-Jewish polemics in the 15th century", but "this could have no relevance for depictions of Christ's circumcision". (p. 117). Actually looking at 4 examples in Schreckenburg, Heinz, The Jews in Christian Art, 1996, Continuum, New York, ISBN 0826409369, this seems a bit optimistic. They are all German of 1400-1520. I'll rejig again. Johnbod (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving down is OK. The source (Abramson and Hannon) almost exclusively concerns itself with depictions of the circumcision of Jesus. • Astynax talk 05:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No they go on to other depictions, still using Schreckenburg. In fact on the CofC they pretty much restrict themselves to recycling and analysing the examples in Schreckenburg, which I happen to have. They are surely wrong, btw, in thinking the mohel in their fig. 10 is female. Schreckenburg does not mention this, & I think they misunderstood his chaperon (headgear). Frankly I think they are just plain wrong to say (p.98): "At times, the act of circumcision is portrayed in a sympathetic fashion ... more often, however, circumcision is represented as a barbaric, evil act..." (my emphasis), & I stand on Penny on this point. Schreckenburg is writing up a large compilation of predominantly anti-Semitic images, which includes the most extreme examples known, and great care needs to be taken in saying what is typical based on his material. Abramson is a Talmudic scholar see the Introduction here and Hannon seems to have no other works that I could find. I also think they are wrong to begin "Circumcision held a particular fascination for the medieval mind...". Outside the CofC, which was of obvious interest, but still only illustrated from halfway through the period, and initially not showing the scene itself, and a fairly minor role in the anti-Semitic imagery Schreckenburg covers, I see no sign it was of great interest at all - was there any interest in Islamic circumcision for example? Not something one could ask Abramson & Hannon I think. Johnbod (talk) 05:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Circumcision of Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Circumcision of Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision_of_Jesus&oldid=1206700954"