All them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised; rather, all the circumcised in uncircumcision, or, as Ewald turns it, "all the uncircumcised-circumcised." But what does this enigmatical expression signify?
Hitzig, Graf, and apparently Dr. Payne Smith, think that it has a twofold meaning: that, as applied to the Jews, it means circumcised in the flesh, but not in heart, and, as applied to the heathen, simply uncircumcised (the one-half of the phrase neutralizing the other, like "a knife without the blade," "angels with horns and hoofs," etc.
). The latter meaning, however, is surely very improbable, and it would only become necessary if it were proved that circumcision was practiced by none of the nations mentioned but the Jews. This is not the case.
There is no doubt that the Egyptians were circumcised in very early times (see the drawing of a bas-relief in the Temple of Chunsu at Karnak, given by Dr. Ebers in his 'Egypten und die Bucher Meets').
The assertion that only the priests underwent the operation has no older evidence than that of Origen (edit. Lommatzsch, 4.138), "in whose time it is quite possible that the Egyptians, like the later Jews, sought to evade a peculiarity which exposed them to ridicule and contempt."
As to the Ammonites and Moabites, we have, unfortunately, no information. With regard to the Edomites, it is true that, according to Josephus ('Antiq.,' 13.9, 1), they were compelled to accept circumcision by John Hyrcanus.
But it is still quite possible that, at an earlier period, the rite was practiced, just as it was among the ancient Arabs, the evidence for which is beyond question (see the writer's article, "Circumcision," in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th edit.
). (On the statement that "all these [the] nations are uncircumcised," see below.