Sheshbazzar

The reference was to those who were born during the Wilderness sorjournings, whom Moses, after giving the of all of the The Law, did not permit to be circumcised.
These were the only ones other than Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the the son of Jephunneh that lived to cross over Jordan into the Promised Land.
The number of adult males that made that crossing is given as 601,730 (Num 26:51) plus women and children. Approximately 2 million persons, every one of which was born in the wilderness, and no with male being circumcised, with the explicit exception of only two men, Joshua and Caleb, the only two to survive that 40 year trek and enter into the Promised Land.

Your Bible says that these uncircumcised Israelites born on the way, entered the Promised Land under the leadership of Joshua.

If you wish to argue otherwise, show where your Bible states that these uncircumcised Israelites did not enter that Promised Land.

.

sotto voce

Who were all circumcised as soon as the Jordan was crossed. The young ones had no role to play in the desert, and Gershom had no role to play before he started out for Egypt. Quite neat, eh.

Sheshbazzar

Some of those 'young ones' were already 40 years old. It can be expected that for the last 20 years of the desert wanderings, as the previous generation died off, these 'young ones' played an increasingly important role.

sotto voce

Undoubtedly, within their own society. But when and where they were called upon to represent Yahweh to others, they had to be circumcised.

James Brown

Unfortunately, circumcision was common among Canaanites, so it was pointless for the Hebrews to adopt the practice as some way of separating themselves.

It was only once they were amongst the Babylonians, who did not practice circumcision, did the Hebrews find themselves unique. Thus, they invented the practice "a long time ago" to explain the odd custom.

sotto voce

Circumcision was not the same for Israelites as it was for others. It was reminder, or should have been reminder, of Abraham, the father of the nation, who was told to undergo circumcision after he had been justified as righteous by his faith. Circumcision was a reminder of the promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel), the nation's respected patriarchs, and a reminder of the necessity of believing Yahweh, absence of which was egregious in the wilderness.

'"The Lord set his affection on your forefathers and loved them, and he chose you, their descendants, above all the nations, as it is chosen today. Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer."' Dt 10:15-16

Bodily circumcision was soon allied to the concept of circumcising one's heart, which meant taking a realistically humble view of oneself. So a gentleman had constant reminder of his proper relationship to his god, though of course no-one else could normally see the evidence of this relationship. Of course, circumcision of the 'heart' was completely invisible, except by one's actions and attitudes. Circumcision among other nations tended to give entry to higher social classes, while, in the Israelite scheme of things, the Abrahamic version reminded of access to the highest class of all, a royal nation.

Tenorikuma

James Brown is correct. Circumcision is primarily a concern of the Priestly source, and key passages like the circumcision covenant Genesis 17 were probably written during the exile when the Jewish elite and priesthood were living among the non-circumcised Babylonians.

There is, of course, no reason to treat the patriarchal narratives as historically accurate. They were written far too late, for reasons rooted in the politics and religious reality of much later times.

sotto voce

Probably? Do we not know?

James Brown

Nope.

Pentateuch

Sheshbazzar

Theological retrojection. The explanatory rationales were invented long after the practice had taken hold, and via way of 'scripture' compositions were retrojected into imagined and mythical past, which in fact they had played no part in at all.