Anti-Semitic attitudes have often focused on the Jewish body as well as on Jews’ beliefs or behavior.
While scientific data show that the observable physical characteristics of Jews are not significantly different from the populations in which they have lived in recent centuries, observed data which don’t accord with expectations have often been ignored and a stereotypical Jewish profile has been assembled in regard to eye and hair color and nasal profile. For example, far more European Jews have blond hair or blue eyes than do Jews from Muslim lands.
Despite the claims of 19th and 20th century pseudo-science, the “Jewish nose” is not a genuine characteristic. Harry L. Shapiro has pointed out (in the Encyclopedia Judaica entry “Anthropology, Physical”) that while the “convex profile with a depressed nasal tip is not infrequent among Jews, this is not surprising since the same nasal character is common enough in the general region from which they originate, not to mention that it also occurs in non-Jewish European people.”
The outstanding physical characteristic that, to a large extent has distinguished the Jews–at least the males among them–is circumcision. The removal of the foreskin was a practice nearly as repugnant to the ancient Romans as castration. The Emperor Hadrian (117-138 C.E.) outlawed both as they were seen as unnatural offenses against the Greek idea of natural beauty of the human body. (E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian [Leiden: Brill, 1976], 429.)
Jewish responses to this negative attitude led some Jews to forego circumcision, and others to undergo the surgical procedure known as epispasm. Rabbinic literature calls one whose foreskin has been artificially restored a mashukh, “pulled” forward. (See, for example, Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot 72a.) The first century C.E. philosopher Philo of Alexandria defended the practice and cited its advantages. In the First Book of Maccabees we read of Jews who “left their sons uncircumcised” (1:48) or who “removed the marks of circumcision” (1:15). One can only wonder if the psychological impetus to undergo such surgery can be compared to the modern phenomenon of the rhinoplasty (the “nose job”).