Circumcision in Art

[S***@999aol.com]

I have seen the claim made in discussion groups that the reason that
renaissance painters and sculptors like Michelangelo depicted ancient
Jews like David and the infant Jesus as uncut is that in ancient
Israel, circumcision was simply removing the overhang of the foreskin
and these artists knew that. However when I tried to find out if this
was really true, I couldn't find any reference to an ancient source
that describes the details of ancient circumcision. In fact I saw
claims that the reason the artists did this is either:

1. Didn't have any circumcised models to pose for them.
2. Didn't want to admit their religious heroes were like the Jews and
Muslims they knew.

So can anybody supply a reference to an ancient source (Josephus
maybe?) that backs up the Internet claim that is what David, Jesus,
etc, really looked like? Thanks.

[j***@gmail.com]

First provide evidence that they existed.

[S***@999aol.com]

Post by j***@gmail.com
First provide evidence that they existed.

A totally irrelevant comment to the question asked. The question was
whether the depiction of ancient Hebrews males by renaissance artists
as uncircumcised was based on real knowledge of ancient circumcision
practices, not whether the subjects of the art works actually existed.
Yes I know that there were attempts at foreskin restoration, at the
time of the Macabees among some Greek Jews, but that doesn't apply to
the general question that was asked.

[o***@aol.com]

On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 06:38:57 -0700 (PDT), jackpi....ail.com

Post by j***@gmail.com
First provide evidence that they existed.

A totally irrelevant comment to the question asked. The question was
whether the depiction of ancient Hebrews males by renaissance artists
as uncircumcised was based on real knowledge of ancient circumcision
practices, not whether the subjects of the art works actually existed.
Yes I know that there were attempts at foreskin restoration, at the
time of the Macabees among some Greek Jews, but that doesn't apply to
the general question that was asked.

Slim, just ignore Jack, he is an active alcoholic and constantly blunders in here with irrelevant, argumentative garbage when he is tanked up.

You raise a very interesting question. Actually it puzzled me when I first saw a photo of the David statue years ago. I looked into it then and obviously the renaissance artists knew that Jews were circumcised. They read the bible after all, even though the exact details are not in the bible. They just didn't want to portray baby Jesus and other biblical characters as Jews, so they depicted all of them with full foreskins. It became the artistic convention which artists followed even when they knew it was incorrect. Just like they stuck improbable oak leaves in front of genitalia. I googled the subject just now and most opinion is that antisemitism was the reason. Or at least an unwillingness to honor the jewish origin of christianity. Another convention that looks a bit odd today is the usual depiction of the apostle John as a beardless blond youth, resting his head on Jesus breast. I wonder what was in their heads when they painted John like that?

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by o***@aol.com

On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 06:38:57 -0700 (PDT), jackpi....ail.com

Post by j***@gmail.com
First provide evidence that they existed.

A totally irrelevant comment to the question asked. The question was
whether the depiction of ancient Hebrews males by renaissance artists
as uncircumcised was based on real knowledge of ancient circumcision
practices, not whether the subjects of the art works actually existed.
Yes I know that there were attempts at foreskin restoration, at the
time of the Macabees among some Greek Jews, but that doesn't apply to
the general question that was asked.

Slim, just ignore Jack, he is an active alcoholic and constantly blunders in here with irrelevant, argumentative garbage when he is tanked up.

You have to admit that someone who didn't exist also didn't have a penis.

Post by o***@aol.com
You raise a very interesting question. Actually it puzzled me when I first saw a photo of the David statue years ago. I looked into it then and obviously the renaissance artists knew that Jews were circumcised. They read the bible after all, even though the exact details are not in the bible. They just didn't want to portray baby Jesus and other biblical characters as Jews, so they depicted all of them with full foreskins. It became the artistic convention which artists followed even when they knew it was incorrect. Just like they stuck improbable oak leaves in front of genitalia. I googled the subject just now and most opinion is that antisemitism was the reason. Or at least an unwillingness to honor the jewish origin of christianity. Another convention that looks a bit odd today is the usual depiction of the apostle John as a beardless blond youth, resting his head on Jesus breast. I wonder what was in their heads when they painted John like that?

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by S***@999aol.com

Post by j***@gmail.com
First provide evidence that they existed.

A totally irrelevant comment to the question asked. The question was
whether the depiction of ancient Hebrews males by renaissance artists
as uncircumcised was based on real knowledge of ancient circumcision
practices, not whether the subjects of the art works actually existed.
Yes I know that there were attempts at foreskin restoration, at the
time of the Macabees among some Greek Jews, but that doesn't apply to
the general question that was asked.

To know what Jesus's penis "really looked like" requires that he existed. It also requires that someone who saw Jesus's penis transmitted this information and that said transmission continued for, like, 1500 years.

I don't think you really want to know what "Jesus's penis looked like". You want to know what was on the artist's mind when he depicted a Jew with a whole penis. I have nothing to offer on that point.

And, yes, I am much more intelligent than you.

[o***@gmail.com]

Post by j***@gmail.com
To know what Jesus's penis "really looked like" requires that he existed. It also requires that someone who saw Jesus's penis transmitted this information and that said transmission continued for, like, 1500 years.
And, yes, I am much more intelligent than you.

LOL I don't think you are intelligent because you didn't understand the question!! Which is why did renaissance artists show Bible jews with foreskins? It doesnt matter if they existed or not, that's how the artists painted them. This is the same thing as how the artists painted all the early Christians not like middle east jews but like blond european types and how they never painted Jesus preaching in a temple or doing passover celebrations. The artists tried to make the New Testament jews look like Christian europeans including foreskins. There is a book about this, it is called -- ,Jesus,Jews, and Anti-Semitism in Art" It is by Bernard Starr.

[j***@earthlink.net]

There was an article in Scientific American quite a few years ago about an
artist (living at the time of the article) who created sculptures in the form
of puzzles. Those puzzles we used to see where if you fit all the parts
together just right it forms a recognizable shape. The article noted that
one of the artist's creations was an image of a man and was named David.
And that the piece representing the penis would fit into the puzzle in either
of two ways, one circumcised and the other not.