Testicles, Trust and Truth Telling Biblical Oaths, Greeting Rituals in Male Baboons, and Gender as a Cosmic Symbol

(Pt. II) Male and Female Circumcision, and Gender as a Cosmic Symbol Early Male and Female Circumcision and Their Connection to Trust If women are not honored, it is not surprising that they dont participate in rituals about swearing an oath on their genitals (or manhood). But they do share with men rituals having to do with their sexual maturity, and purity, especially female circumcision. I mentioned certain biblical references to male circumcision in Pt. I of this essay, and suggested that it ties in with the symbolic connection between genitals and oath taking. Let me develop this a bit further, and then consider female circumcision by comparison. First, what is the purpose of male circumcision in the biblical context? In the case of Abraham, it was commanded as a sign that he and his heirs were Gods chosen people. But why this particular sign? Anything could be a sign: an item of dress, a shaved head, a tattoo. And might this sign also relate to the idea of marking or referring to the genitals to guarantee an oath? Researching the custom of circumcision, Ive found that its history and origins are very obscure as obscure as the origins and purpose of swearing on the genitals - and that there are many views about possible reasons for its institution. However, I think there are a few claims that can be made safely, which are supported by archeological and anthropological research. First, it seems that male circumcision began in Egypt, in the Old Kingdom. It is clearly shown on grave carvings made about 2400 BCE, where young fair skinned men are shown standing together, while dark-skinned practitioners perform the procedure. It may be that either the circumcised, or the circumcisers were priests. In any case, this practice was not universal, as is partly confirmed by the examination of mummies.1 Herodotos, in 5th Century BCE Greece, speaks of male circumcision being among the Colchiars, who are a negroid group in southern Russia (the so-called Black Russians), as well as among the Syrians from Palestine (i.e. Jews), and the Phoenicians, who say they borrowed it from Egypt.2 Today, ordinary male circumcision is obligatory world-wide among Muslims and Jews, but it is not common in South America, or Europe. About 30% of men in the world are circumcised, of which two thirds are Muslims.3 More extreme forms of male circumcision e.g. penile subincision are practiced even today in certain indigenous tribes in Australia, the Amazon basin, Hawaii, Samoa and Kenya, usually on young adolescents 4I cant offer a guess when or how the practice got to these non-Egyptian cultures. Female circumcision is harder to trace. For one reason, it was probably done in private or home circumstances, as it still is. The earliest reference to it seems again to be in ancient Egypt.

2 In a set of coffin inscriptions dealing with spells, from the 12th Dynasty (2000-1800 BCE), mention is made of anointing the spell caster (presumably a priest) with body substances from an uncircumcised girl and the flakes of skin from an uncircumcised bald man. Male and female circumcision were probably analogous, similar in being only moderately invasive, and performed in adolescence.5 I recommend Mary Knights provocative article on this topic: Curing Cut or Ritual Mutilation? Some Remarks on the Practice of Female and Male Circumcision in GraecoRoman Egypt. She makes convincing arguments to show that early female circumcision was not the extreme kind, practiced in some parts of Africa today, spoken of as Infibulation or Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), to which Ill turn now, briefly. Female Genital Mutilation as a Perversion of Original Female Circumcision Female Genital Mutilation has become a world-wide topic for popular emotional reactions, political and social activism, and intercultural tensions. In Sudan, British officials made it illegal in 1945, but to no avail. In recent decades the UN has made several efforts to convince member nations to stop various forms of the practice. In 1997, WHO, UNICEF and UNFPA published a joint report against the practice, updated in 2008; and in 2010, WHO published a strategy to stop the practice among health care providers.6 FGM comes in degrees of severity, and is framed in a wide set of explanations, in terms of extent, origins, purposes and moral perspectives. For purposes of this essay, however, I can limit my treatment to a few facts, and some interpretation.7 First, it is well to emphasize that so-called mutilation comes in degrees; and there is controversy even over what to call it. Mary Knight defines three categories, and shows a map of their incidence; the concerned UN agencies (WHO, et al) add a fourth catch-all degree. In the first case, only the hood of the clitoris is removed. This is exactly parallel, I would say, to ordinary male circumcision. The second degree involves excising part or all of the clitoris, and typically removing the labia minor also. The third degree involves, in addition to the steps of the previous surgery, partially incising the labia major, and sewing them together, leaving only a small opening for discharge of urine and menstrual blood. At the time of marriage, this last step can be surgically undone, if necessary, to allow for intercourse and childbirth. The third degree of FGM is called infibulation (from the Latin for clasps) and sometimes Pharaonic circumcision, allegedly in references to the Pharaohs, but it is rarely practiced in Egypt. It is widespread in Mali, Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia, however. First or second degree circumcision is practiced in a wide swath of lands across Sub-Saharan Africa, from coast to coast, and in the southern Arabian peninsula. It is not practiced in Saudi Arabia, interesting to note. It should also be noted that these practices are found in Christian as well as Muslim communities, but in miniscule proportion. The more severe degrees of FGM bring the greatest international and governmental attention, of course, in terms of womens health issues, and womens rights, and they are understandably very politicized. But as I am looking for the meaning of female circumcision, in relation to attitudes about womens trustworthiness and truth-telling, I wont take the political or moral issues further. However, it seems to me, having looked at some historical evidence of its development, it is safe to do some interpreting. In my view, Mary Knights remarks about

3 motivations are probably correct. First of all, she points out that when present day practitioners are quizzed, their answers differ from group to group, and in any particular group, they change over time. This suggests that people really are ignorant of the original form(s) of female circumcision, and the true reasons for its existence. So she feels free to make sense of the archeological and anthropological facts as she can. As noted above, Knight points to the oldest known documentary evidence of female circumcision in a ritual context, regarding priests or priestesses, in Egypt, almost two thousand years BCE. It is probable that the earliest forms of male and female circumcision were analogous, and done for the same purpose a kind of ritual preparation for having offspring. It seems that these practices were not universal, but for people of special classes, of royal or religious importance. The procedure was uncomfortable, but not harmful, as is male circumcision today among Jews and Muslims. The captions on the tomb inscriptions mentioned above say, in the male case: The ointment is to make it acceptable, and Hold him so he does not fall. A letter of slightly later date (2300BCE), by an Egyptian man named Uha, describes a group circumcision, in which he and his one hundred twenty fellows took it bravely; none of them cried out or resisted.8 These quotes suggest part of the purpose was to be strong, and prove worthy of some important task. The Egyptian god Ra is thought to have circumcised himself, and from the drops of his blood were created the gods Hu (Authority) and Sia (Wisdom)9 I want to comment further on this below. So circumcision relates both to purity of character, and to preparation for the production or generation of some kind of offspring, be they physical or spiritual. Circumcision, then, whether in males or females, originally represented the removal of something which gets in the way of bearing fruit; of being fertile. Mary Knight thinks that the earliest form of female circumcision was a mirror image of the earliest male form not the mutilating kind, but probably simply the removal of the hood covering the clitoris. This parallel has often been proposed. But she adds a convincing argument that, in fact, male circumcision was instituted first, to mirror the natural course of female fertility. The hymen (i.e. the covering of the vagina) was certainly observed to be absent in women who were fertile. No woman who is pregnant has an intact hymen; thats clear. But of course the causal connection between a missing hymen and bearing offspring was inferred, not understood. In other words, if a covering i.e. the hymen - must be removed from a womans birth opening to generate offspring, so ought a covering be removed from the male penis the prepuce that gets in the way of his seed, literally and figuratively - to allow his part in generation to be unobstructed. In later generations, the natural veil over the birth channel (the hymen) that was removed by sexual intercourse, became a symbolic veil that was removed by circumcision of the hood on the clitoris (i.e. the organ analogous to the penis).

4 Biblical Perspective Revisited Knights wide-ranging and intriguing analysis allows me to return to the biblical texts from which this essay started, in Pt. I, and put them into a larger context. First, in Genesis, God tells Abraham to circumcise himself and all his progeny, his household and his heirs for an everlasting covenant. This occurs immediately after Abram has a first child (Ishmael), and God renews his promise, changes Abrams name to Abraham, changes Sarais name to Sarah, and promises that she too will bear Abraham a son. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. (Gen 17: 10-12) There are other biblical references to circumcision, even more metaphorical than in Abrahams case which symbolized Gods covenant. In Exodus, Moses is told to speak to the pharaoh, and ask him to free the Israelites. Moses objects that he wont be listened to, for his lips are uncircumcised. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Go in, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, that he let the children of Israel go out of the land. And Moses spake before the Lord, saying, Behold, the children of Israel have not hearkened unto me; how then shall Pharaoh hear me, who am of uncircumcised lips? (Ex 6:10-12, my emphasis) The word uncircumcised here is not simply the negation of the word circumcised. The root for circumcise relates to cut or curtail; the root of uncircumcised relates to projecting loose, or exposed. Some versions of the Bible translate Moses objection here with the thought that Moses must be referring to his speech impediment, which was mentioned in an earlier (his first) encounter with God. The implication is, if his own people wont accept what he says (when theyre sympathetic), how will Pharaoh, since Moses is not eloquent (as is said in the Brenton Greek Septuagint Bible), or skilled in speech (in the New American Standard Bible). I dont believe these translations work well, however, for the simple fact that Moses used different words, when he referred to his speech impediment. When God appeared to him in a burning bush, and told him to take Gods message to Pharaoh, Moses objected that he was not able. And Moses said unto the Lord, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant, but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue;10 And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made mans mouth? Or who maketh the dumb or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? Have not I the Lord? (Ex 4: 10-11)

5 The expressions slow of speech and slow tongue here use a different Hebrew word, with the root heavy or difficult, or stupid. It has nothing to do with the idea of circumcision in this case. Circumcision and its absence deal, physically and symbolically, with the removal of a covering or veil that makes it difficult to give or receive what needs to be or given or received. Since being uncircumcised is natural, the implication is that the better state requires changing nature. My own emphasis is that circumcision refers symbolically to eliminating what naturally gets in the way of the reception, expression, understanding or acceptance of the truth, or what is the same thing in a religious context, the Word. To illustrate this point more clearly, consider the following texts in Deuteronomy and Jeremiah. First, in Deuteronomy: And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him and to serve the Lord thy God, with all thy heart and with all thy soul, Circumcise, therefore, the foreskin of thy heart, and be no more stiffneckedThou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name. (Deut 10:12, 16 and 20, my emphasis) 11 And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou might live. (Deut 30:6) Note that in the first of these texts, Moses tells the Israelites to circumcise their own hearts, while in the second text, he says that God will perform the circumcision. To me, this indicates the idea that humans must collaborate with God, in the process of receiving, understanding and accepting the truth, so that it may become effective in the life of each man or woman. This idea of being open and receptive to the truth is most evident, I believe, in the following text from Jeremiah: Jeremiah asks, To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? Behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the word of the Lord is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it. (Jer 6:10) In all we have seen in this essay, I have tried to show the close connection between ideas of trust, truth-telling, and sexual parts. Women as well as men can take part symbolically in rituals regarding physical generation and material fertility, they can also join into symbolic rituals regarding regeneration, and spiritual fertility. In natural fertility - producing offspring there must be nothing that prevents or inhibits the passing of seed from male to female, and the passing along of life to the next generations. Spiritually there is a similar collaboration and coordination in the roles of masculine and feminine forces. I am reminded of Plato comparing physical and spiritual pregnancy, in the Symposium, saying all humans can be pregnant in spirit.12 I think we can say then that circumcision, in both men and women, symbolizes two things. First, it represents a love for generation, and a willingness to take part in reproducing life in a purified physical and mental state. Second, and more deeply, it symbolizes a respect for truth

6 and a willingness to avoid inhibiting the life-giving transmission of the Word from one to another. The male and female aspects of circumcision are symmetrical but different; they are complementary. By contrast with circumcision, touching ones genitals to guarantee the truth of what is said seems to be only a male ritual wherever it is found (which was not limited to the culture of Abraham and his heirs). Is there something comparable among women? I hope we have already shown that although patriarchal societies think women are incapable of trust and truth telling, it surely is not the case. Before answering that, let me take another look at oath taking. Oath taking revisited and Jesus prohibition At the start of this essay, we asked whether swearing by the male genitals existed before the time of Abraham, or in other parts of the world. The answer is yes. Joshua Katz shows this in his analysis of the linguistic history of testicle, and its alleged connection to the Latin term testis, which means both witness and testicle (a single one!) Katz points out first that the idea of witnessing as a ritual involving a third party, standing by goes back to Ugaritic (Syrian, Semitic language texts of the 13th Century BCE), as well as Sanskrit texts and Vedic Hymns that refer to God Varuna, who protects truth and punishes liars.13 None of these very ancient references mentioned specifically testicles or genitals. They did, however, speak of witnesses affirming three times, at the ritual swearing, that This did take place. Katz was able to bring this range of times and places together through similarity of language, procedures and even derivative root origins, and connect them to a less ancient wellknown Greek text, dealing with a murder trial, as reported by Demosthenes (352 BCE). In the latter swearing ritual, the same expression, This did take place, and the same triple repeating of the phrase occurs, and is specifically connected to ritual use of testicles; the witness is to stand on the testicles of three animals that have been sacrificed - a pig, a sheep and a calf. This was some serious business! But then, it was a murder trial. Katz finds a final link in this line of ritual swearing, not in Latin or anything from Rome, but just north of Rome, in Umbria, written on the Iguvine Tables. These are bronze tablets written in Italic in the 2nd Century BCE. They refer to rituals of the Atieolian Brothers who were priests in the temple of Jupiter. Although this inscription contains a key Italic word (urfeta), never found elsewhere, whose meaning has been disputed, Katz shows that the translation should be orb or ball, as a reading of the term in question. This inscription brings all the elements together: When you wish to sacrifice a votive bull calf, dedicate it to Jupiter on the same day. When you dedicate it, hold a ball (urfeta) in your hand. Use the following words: Jupiter Sancius, to thee I dedicate this votive bull calf. Three times declare it fit for presentation, three times pronounce it a votive offering. Sacrifice it to Jupiter for the gens Lucia among the Atieolian Brothers.14 In the previous section, I underscored the prophet Jeremiahs injunction to swear by his name - i.e. by the name of God. But curiously, Jesus tells his followers not to swear at all. (Matt

7 5:34) Why is this? Today, as in ancient times, swearing, or an oath, is a ritual way of guaranteeing the truth of ones word. To superstitious or religious persons, oaths represent that there is a higher power governing the interactions of men, which will hold them to their word, and especially punish anyone who lies.15 In Abrahams day, this power was Yahweh, who was his special God, and took care of providing for the children of Abraham - his chosen people and guaranteed that his progeny would continue forever on earth. The validity of ones word, in Abrahams case, was connected to worldly success, and the continuation of the chosen people. It seems to me that truth-telling was not thought to be obligatory in itself - a moral requirement - but only insofar as it worked for clear benefit. So ones word had to be underwritten by something. The text from Jeremiah is from a later, different time. Jeremiah is talking to a stiffnecked people, who more and more were following the ways of the nations around them, which means they had lost faith in God, and were becoming steadily more self-interested and corrupt. All the prophets preached a steady drumbeat of warning - but the motivation (one might say the spirit) of the prophets messages was not primarily that God was furious and about to punish and/or abandon them (although the language often suggests that). The point was that God loves them, and they were supposed to treat their neighbors well; and all the pomp and ceremonious religious sacrifices could not please him, or substitute for their obligation to love others, and act morally. This is shown most succinctly in Micah: He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God. (Micah 6:6) To swear by his name (instead of by the genitals) is to realize that God is the source and guarantor of truth, and truth is given to all humans, to help them find happiness and spiritual life, insofar as they are willing to listen to it, honor it and live by it. Those who are given truth should not puff themselves up because they have it (the pride of orthodoxy); they must share it, and do well by means of it. Jesus took this idea to the next level, by saying not to swear at all. The truth doesnt need any shoring up or guarantee; it stands by itself. It is both vitally necessary, and totally sufficient, to provide the guidance men and women need. Similarly there is nothing any person can add to her or his word that will prove that it is true. Either its true or it isnt. Just speak it, and let the word be enough; if the speaker values the truth, the outcome will show it. But I say unto you, Swear not at all; But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. (Matt 5:34, 37) Gender as a Cosmic Symbol; and Swedenborgs Perspective It can hardly be denied that the Abrahamic scriptures are sexist (Jewish, Christian and Muslim), in terms of their content as well as their language. Women are typically dominated, demeaned, or left out of consideration. This is not surprising, since the cultures in which they developed were patriarchal. But despite this fact, I believe it is possible for these works, as well as other sexist scriptures, to contain ideas that represent, largely in symbolic ways, that men and women are of equal worth, and are equally honorable. My way of supporting this is simply to

8 remind readers of the ways in which gender symbolizes the basic dual nature of the universe its male-and-femaleness. This is not, of course, a new idea, but it comes up most frequently in the context of South Asian religion and philosophy (pairs of consorts, and pairs of principles). Similar pairs of oppositions are fundamental to ancient Far Eastern thought too, in terms of yin and yang, as well as in Greek (and Roman) thought, which paired gods and goddesses, or used contrasting gods to represent opposing qualities, such as rationality and irrationality (Apollo and Dionysos); or combining opposing essences, such as animal-and-human (e.g. centaurs and Pan). So the cosmos is structured as a union of opposites.16 This union is present in ancient scriptures which show the divine world to be peopled by equally powerful males and females. More abstract philosophies represent basic reality as consisting of opposing but complementary principles - good/evil; light/dark; heaven/earth; spirit/matter, etc. In either case, we can say that there is masculinity and femininity in everything, or that man and woman are the chief cosmic symbols. These ideas of balance of genders, and universal forces, dont show much in biblical writings at least not on the surface. Typically masculinity and male virtues are associated with good, truth, power and success. Issues are presented as black or white, friend or enemy, good or evil, with few shades of grey or room for compromise, uncertainty or tolerance. With some exceptions, of course, which prove the rule, women are presented as weak, seductive, undependable. The one-sidedness of these religions is understandable, of course, and sensible, in the context of a patriarchal society that depicts God as an all-powerful, all-knowing man, whose law is eternal. The consequences of disobedience are certain to be painful, in this world and/or (for Christians and Muslims at least) in the after-life. What this view leaves out however is what the female side entails, namely love. As a quick generalization, I believe it is correct to say that in Jewish scripture, Gods love for humans is mentioned, but primarily for the chosen and the good; in Christian scripture Gods love is emphasized, and applies to all humankind; and in Muslim scripture, Gods love doesnt appear at all, although his mercy is mentioned as a mantra at the beginning of every chapter in the Quran. There are those who have tried to interpret Abrahamic scriptures in the spirit of universal one-ness together with cosmic duality. Early Christian history has examples of writers mostly those influenced by Greek and Eastern mysticism and philosophy - who tried to push the Church in that direction. Some of these even wrote different gospels, which vied for inclusion in the orthodox canon.17 In the 18th Century, Emanuel Swedenborg, who was very much a citizen of the Age of Enlightenment, nevertheless took a similar approach to interpreting Jewish and Christian scriptures (but not Muslim; there was little study of Islam in Europe in his time). He was a Christian, although a harsh critic of both Catholic and Protestant traditions. He published a large body of work in Latin, including a ten-volume analysis and interpretive reading of Genesis and Exodus, 18and many other studies of major biblical topics, including marriage love, freedom, the Word, evil, the after-life, providence, Revelation, and the essence of true Christianity. Throughout his work, Swedenborg discusses the nature of God, but the book most relevant to my

9 essay here is Divine Love and Wisdom.19 In it he presents a clear, philosophical picture of Gods essence, which combines love and wisdom - the dual principles in all things in the universe, about which we have been talking. He specifically relates these to masculinity and femininity. The Cosmic Female (called variously Gaia, The Goddess, Shakti, Yin, etc.) is a symbol for the Divine Love in all things in the created universe, inanimate and animate. For instance, the sun comes to earth by means of its heat and light (which Swedenborg says correspond to the love and wisdom of God. This universal principle is illustrated not just by the fact of male and female versions of all living creatures, but also by the constitution of each individual creature. Most importantly, every human, whether male or female - is constituted of masculine and feminine aspects, especially in the mind. Mentally and spiritually, as well as physically, then, we are male-and-female. The dual aspect of a human mind is marked at the biological level by the right and left hemispheres, which correspond to the mental powers of reasoning and choosing, in what have long been called intellect and will, respectively. These two faculties, to use old-fashioned terminology, correspond with, and respond to what is true and good, ideally. Of course they can be perverted and abused, and oriented instead to what is false and evil, in a kind of inversion of true humanity. Taking a male sexist view of biblical scriptures, then, or continuing and promulgating such a view up until the present, and even in current religious beliefs, is an unfortunate accident of history, and a function of the patriarchal societies in which these revelations were born, and the languages in which they were presented and passed on. It is vital to the health and growth of every society to recognize that female and male characteristics are perfectly complementary, and equal in value. Men and women can and should collaborate in every aspect of life: in home making, child rearing, education, religion, social development, business and economic activity, and government, and of course in sexual activity. Swedenborgs name is not widely known in popular literature, although his ideas have greatly influenced not a few famous thinkers and writers. Perhaps he made little impression during his day because his religious orientation and philosophy - even mysticism - were not consistent with Enlightenment trends. His thought was picked up by romantic writers and artists, however, like Baudelaire, Balzac (who misread him) and Blake (who reacted against him).20 Emerson and Transcendentalism were influenced by Swedenborg - especially his teachings about the unity of God and the correspondence of the natural and spiritual worlds. Emerson wrote about him as one of his seven Essays on Representative Men. However, Emerson seems later to have rejected what he saw as the strictness of Swedenborgs theology.21 Many of the 19th and early 20th Centurys efforts to combine science and spirituality, and their application in new approaches to healing (such as Theosophy, Homeopathy, and Christian Science) have roots in Swedenborgs teaching, but often with distortions. Mesmerism, the New Thought movement, and animal magnetism were sometimes associated with Swedenborgian ideas about spirituality. Eugene Taylor suggests this is because Swedenborgs thoughts and alleged experiences in the spiritual realm offered people an entrance into a totally new world.

10 Taylor mentions also the publication in 1844 of Mesmer and Swedenborg, by Rev. George Bush, a minister and professor of theology at New York University (and a follower of Swedenborg). 22 My own view is that many of these were emotional movements, or fads, in some way related to the hysteria of the Great Awakening, and as such, were opposed to the rationality and ordinariness of Swedenborgs emphasis on rational life, and charitable devotion to doing ones duty and treating ones neighbor with respect and charity. I rather prefer the response of Helen Keller, who was not much involved in congregational church life, but very engaged in the life of ordinary service in the world at large, inspired by religious principles, which she took directly from Swedenborg. She found her solace and inspiration in his teachings, which were the subject of her book, My Religion. Contemporary psychology and psychiatry have largely turned to the material and sociological causes and treatment of mental illness, and have little to do with religious or spiritualistic beliefs. But recall that Freuds earliest work took off from his studies of Mesmerism and hysteria. He did not, however, follow the trend to connect with spiritual bases of mental states. Freuds colleague Carl Jung and his followers did so, however. Strongly influenced by Swedenborgs ideas of the link between the worlds of body and spirit, Jung kept the basics of psychoanalysis, but wedded them to spirituality. I think the contemporary branches of so-called New Age religions (as contrasted with resurgent old-time religious fundamentalism) have left Swedenborgs thought out of consideration for the most part, and have turned more directly to ancient teachings of Buddhism and Hinduism. This is in keeping with the trend of new religious movements to reject the former faith-based traditions, while maintaining a sense of spirituality, and a desire to make religious thought accord with a scientific world view. Conclusion: swearing on the genitals revisited Several things seem clear now, regarding rituals centered on male and female genitals, which emphasize their deeper meaning, and alter them physically to various degrees from their natural state. These rituals are very old (possibly prehistoric); they are very wide-spread; their origins are vague and difficult to trace; and typically their purpose or meaning is not agreed upon, even by those who engage in the rituals. This leaves a lot of freedom to interpret, and although it is dangerous to generalize, I will do so, for two reasons. First, my life of philosophical study pushes me toward big pictures; and second, these generalities are borrowed in the main from Swedenborg, who starts with the assumption that biblical scriptures are symbolic forms that represent the one universal truth, or The Word. As said earlier, Female and Male are universal symbols, and have their basis in the duality of all things created, as well as in the source of all things, which is ultimately One, but manifests itself in Difference (which starts in duality). This metaphysics is part of all the deeper wisdom of every culture. Swedenborgs specific take on this topic is oriented to the belief in revelation - i.e. that the ultimate source of all things (or God) reveals itself to humans (the Other) as an expression of Love. Johns gospel speaks of this in the following famous text:

11 In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God; and the Word was god. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us. (John 1: 1, 3, 4 and 14) So there is a one-to-one correspondence between God, the created universe, the Word (or Truth) and the incarnation of God, in human form (Jesus). We find in biblical scripture, then (both Jewish and Christian), a corresponding duality which is symbolized in many ways, but especially in the texts about men and women, and their various kinds of interactions and unions, good, bad and pragmatic (mother/father, son/daughter, lover/loved, husband/wife, concubine/husband, seductress/hero, adulterer/devoted spouse, Lot and his daughters, etc.) In every case, the female symbolizes love/ good of one form or another, as well as their opposing perversions i.e. hatred/ evil. And the male symbolizes wisdom/ truth of one form or another, as well as their opposing perversions i.e. folly/ falsity. The idea of revelation is that God, who is Love, and intends human happiness and well-being, reveals the way of achieving them, which is couched in the Truth, or The Word, as well as in other forms to which humans can react and choose. Its not hard to see how unwillingly or negatively humans have responded through the ages to this gift of love. And yet, to develop their full humanness, and ultimately find the happiness that results, people dont have to love God in return or at least not in the beginning. They only need to realize it is to their benefit to do well (even if their motives start out selfish). This life of regeneration, in its difficult stages, is mirrored, Swedenborg says, in various stages of the story (or stories) of the Bible, including the days of creation, the Flood and the salvation of the remnant, the wanderings of the Jews in the wilderness, etc. Whatever of historical validity these stories may have, their primary value is their symbolic embodiment of the way to happiness or salvation. Not surprisingly, given the patriarchal structure of the Hebrew culture, and the Jewish religious life (today as well as in antiquity), male symbolism is dominant in the Bible. Men have the roles of power; men set the rules. God is depicted in terms of masculine qualities (and certainly the picture includes some horrible and unjust traits too). Men set the path, and lead the way. But symbolically, that is also the role of truth, vis a vis the path to salvation. One may not love truth, but one has to confirm it, accede to it, and follow it, like an obedient servant, or like a woman. But lets be clear about something: men may dominate in biblical scriptures, but in terms of symbolism, it is the female in every persons spirit i.e. what that person truly loves that will determine the nature and destiny of that person. The male part i.e. what that person understands of the truth only points the way. It was mentioned in the discussion of circumcision above, that the Egyptian god Re (Ra) circumcised himself, and from the blood of that sacrifice came two gods: Wisdom (Sia) and Authority (Hu). Re was worshipped as the sun, with cults in Heliopolis and elsewhere, and was the king or ruler of gods. His form is that of a falcon or hawk; on his head is a disc, surrounded by an asp. Sia is further associated with perception or knowledge, particularly in the written form; while Hu represents authority specifically the authority and creative power of the spoken

12 word. The asp around the sun has the dual meaning of life and death i.e. the power of knowledge that can be put to good or evil purpose. All of these symbols (sun, light, authority, creative power, the asp, knowledge, etc.) in the Egyptian mythology are, I think, masculine virtues, relating to intellect and the search for and power of truth. Swedenborg states that Egypt itself, in biblical texts, symbolizes the knowledge of nature, scientific thinking, and the worldly power that derives from them. These are good qualities, but without awareness and faith in a Good and loving Divinity, their benefit is limited to earthly matters. What is missing is any reference to the feminine virtue of love. Plato had a similar symbolism for the sun. In The Republic (Bk. VI) he develops an analogy between the sun of our visible world and the invisible sun of the spiritual world, which is The Good, or ultimate reality. Our earthly sun is an offspring of The Good, Plato says. And just as light and sight derive from the sun, but are not equivalent to the sun, so also do Truth and Knowledge derive from the Good, but are not equivalent to the Good; the Good is higher than either truth or knowledge, in reality and value. And notice at the same time, The Good is unknowable except perhaps in some mystic direct experience 23 Platos thinking here includes much more of the vital Female than the earlier Egyptian sun mythology. He gives ultimate reality the quality of Good, which he places above Truth. Swedenborg also uses the sun symbol of the high God, or ultimate reality. But as said previously, unified within that one Reality are the divine duality of Wisdom and Love, which enter creation as Truth and Good. What then, finally, can we say about biblical references to Abrahams genitals, in reference to truth and truth-telling? Truth, especially divine Truth, is symbolized by the seed. (Jesus says this directly when he interprets his parable of the sower). Testicles are the origin of human seed. Circumcision symbolizes getting rid of whatever hinders the promulgation of that seed its expression in ones life, and its passing along to others (not just to ones offspring). As such, circumcision also symbolizes the purification of the person, and the overcoming of the state of nature (foreskin) that makes spiritual life difficult. I agree with Mary Knights view that males were first to be circumcised historically, and that female circumcision was an effort to mirror the male rite. The origin of this was, perhaps, the result of some revelation, or perception on the part of ancient peoples, of the natural symbolic correspondence between sexuality and spirituality. Females receive, and nurture the seed. Their natural and social orientation is to provide the place where the seed can live, and be protected and loved. But again, their nature, spiritually speaking, has been turned more and more against spiritual growth, parallel to the wandering away from God which is so prevalent in the Bible. Remember, though, it isnt women as such, but the female in all humans about whom we can generalize. So female circumcision also symbolizes purification from whatever natural conditions hinder the reception and propagation of the Word (or Truth). We all need that, regardless of gender.

13 What then does this long, ancient history suggest? I think it means, symbolically, that every person, male or female, has need of mental circumcision. However, this doesnt necessarily require an alteration to our physical bodies, much less a harsh mutilation for purposes of male domination and abuse of women. But regardless of ones particular view of the value or disvalue of his or her ritual traditions, female and male circumcision must occur symbolically in every human mind, for the moral development of each person, and the spiritual evolution of human society.

See Wikipedia article, History of Male Circumcision, including image. Cf. Herodotus, Histories ii, 104; and Patrick English, Cushites, Colchians and Khazars in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol 18 #1 (1959) University of Chicago Press, 49-53. 3 According to WHO and Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS 2007. 4 Cf. Kirsten Bell, Genital Cutting and Western Discourses on Sexuality, in Medical Anthropology Quarterly, Vol 19 #2 (June 2005), 125 -148; Wikipedia, under Penile Subincision; and David Gollaher, Circumcision, in news.discovery.com. 5 See Mary Knight, Curing Cut or Ritual Mutilation? Some Remarks on the Practice of Female and Male Circumcision in Graeco-Roman Egypt, Isis, Vol 92 #2 (June 2001), University. of Chicago Press, 317- 388). 6 WHO Fact Sheet on Female Genital Mutilation, Feb 2012. 7 For a critique of the way FGM affects the thinking of Western medical professionals, I recommend Kirsten Bells Genital Cutting and Western Discourses on Sexuality, in Medical Anthropology Quarterly, Vol 19 #2 (June 2005) 125 -148. 8 David Gollaher, Circumcision: A History of the Worlds Most Controversial Surgery, N.Y. Basic Books, cited in Wikipedia, article on The History of Circumcision. 9 Knight, p. 336. 10 Marc Shell gives a fascinating analysis of the connection between stuttering (He is a stutterer) and the presence of God in ones life: Moses Tongue, in Common Knowledge, Vol 12 #1 (2006), Duke U Press,150-176. 11 Mary Knight quotes Philo Judaeus relating to the meaning of these texts, who says that circumcision makes the generative organ similar to the heart Circumcision effectively removes the seal on the physical generative organ, permitting reproduction to take place, just as an uncircumcised heart cannot produce good, moral thoughts. (Knight p. 336, and note 53, on Philos Special Laws). 12 In Platos Symposium, Dyotima speaks of pregnancy of spirit, and having eternal offspring, analogous to the limited earthly offspring. All men can be pregnant in spirit. See especially 206c 211d 13 Katz, p. 185. See also A. J. Carnoy, Moral Deities of Iran and India, who speaks of ancient Mesopotamian & Indo-European connections of the second millennium BCE, showing that Mithra (or Mitra), is allied with Varuna as the god of contracts, alliances and even derivatively, of friendship. See also the website CAISSOAS.com, and a citation of Touraj Daryaee, U. of Cal at Irvine,On Swearing to Mithra. 14 Katz, p. 198. 15 In Hebrew, berith (covenant) is connected to the idea of cutting. But Fr. Randy Soto, SThD, has an interesting further analysis of covenant as possibly stemming from the root brt, meaning curse. He argues that cutting a curse is a common expression in a number of cultures. See Covenant in the Bible at coriesu.org. 16 Cf. Hector Sabelli, Union of Opposities (Laurenceville, VA: Brunswick Publishing, 1989). 17 Cf. Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Random House, 1979). 18 Emanuel Swedenborg, Heavenly Secrets (originally in Latin: Arcana Coelestia, London, 1749-1756). 19 Emanuel Swedenborg, Divine Love and Wisdom (originally in Latin: Sapientia Angelica de Divino Amore et de Divina Sapientia, Amsterdam, 1763. 20 See Sylvia Shaw, Joyous Readings and Misreadings of Swedenborg in New Philosophy Online (Jan Jun 2008) , The Swenenborg Scientific Association, Bryn Athyn, PA. 21 According to Philip F. Gura, in American Transcendentalism: A History (New York: MacMillan, 2008). 22 Eugene Taylor, Swedenborgianism, in Timothy Miller (ed), Americas Alternative Religions, SUNY Press, 1995, 77-86. 23 Plato, The Republic Bk VI, 509-509.
2