^(I should probably preface this by saying that I haven't taken a history class since high school, and I'm biased against involuntary non-therapeutic genital surgery because my boyfriend incurred unusually severe complications from his infant circumcision. That said, I find the history of circumcision fascinating.)
First of all, it's generally been forgotten that Judaic circumcision was very different prior to the change made in the 2nd century AD. The Maccabean Revolt took place during the 2nd century BC, so it was around 300 years prior to that change (Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906). Here are a few references about the change in the Jewish ritual in the 2nd century with the addition of brit periah (separating and excising all the flesh from the glans):
The requirement was increased to glans-baring in order to make it much more difficult to conceal.
Prior to the advent of the glans-baring surgery, the surgery could excise as little as only the acroposthion, the tiny part of the foreskin that may extend beyond the glans (which most penises do not even have after infancy). At this time the surgery destroyed much less tissue than a modern circumcision, but it had a higher incidence of complications including especially phimosis caused by the surgery (or secondary phimosis), so one of the reasons that a man could want to "undo" his circumcision was because he did not want to have surgically-induced phimosis. This point about the differing nature of the surgery and the fact that tension-induced skin expansion was also used to correct phimosis appear to be lost on most authors on the subject.
Expanding penile skin to recreate something like the foreskin (epispasm) was not surgical. It involved using a piece of leather to hold tension on the skin of the penis (a kynodesme) to induce skin growth. This is essentially the same non-surgical penis modification that is now known as "foreskin restoration," though "penile skin expansion" would be more appropriate because it cannot restore any of the specialized features of the foreskin (like the ridged band, frenulum, or preputial neurosensors). (In the past 30 years, thousands of men have performed this uncomfortable and time-consuming tension regimen in order to undo circumcision as best as possible—or just to get a little slack.)
In addition to non-surgical penile skin expansion, there are also surgical methods to expand the skin of the penis (surgical epispasm). The Greek physician Celsus mentioned these surgeries, but I don't believe anyone has ever claimed they have ever been popular. The skin of the penis is much finer than other skin on the body, so circumfrentially degloving (non-phimotic) penile skin could easily make a scarred mess of the skin of the penis. It would also sever nerves of the penile skin, which should be very desensitizing. AFAIK non-surgical tissue expansion to recreate something like the foreskin is the only form of restoration that has ever been popular. The product of skin expansion is not exactly like the original foreskin. Even after expanding skin to look like foreskin, there is no way to revert the circumcision scar back into the ridged band and frenulum of the foreskin or recreate their many fine-touch neurosensors. Besides being the most sensitive parts of the penis and lending unique sensory elements to penile touch perception, the ridged band and frenulum lend the foreskin much of its structure as well as structure-related functional characteristics like its normally graceful motion.
Here are some references about non-surgical and surgical penile skin expansion: