About Potiphar: I've seen two different attempts to interpret that as a title. The first was 'Pa-di-ef-Ra', "he who is given to Ra". The other was 'Ptah-.f-hat' or "Ptah's first", "Ptah's officer".

Which of them, if either, is most probable depends on a lot of different things. Ra was certainly a more prominent god at the time when any biblical events could have taken place. But Ptah was not unimportant - and Memphis was the old center of the Ptah-cult.

In any case both interpretations indicate a high rankning religious officer or high-priest, and that seems consistent with him possibly being a eunuch.

JesusA (imported) wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:41 pm What is important, though, is that the author of Daniel attributed to him a governmental position that was reserved for eunuchs, as all contemporary readers of the text would have known.

As anyone who has read the book of Daniel with an open mind would know, the book makes many statements that, as a Christian, I personally consider to be facts.

1:2 to 1:4 clearly outline Daniels Royal Heritage.

1:4 describes Daniel and his three counterparts as "Sons in whom there was no blemish" ... well, in Biblical times, I think castration would have been a blemish.

Daniel achieved his status in the Babylonian empire because of his knowledge and his ability to interpret dreams, as described in 1:17. The King takes notice of these abilities in 1:20, and Daniel 2:48 as well 5:29 show clear examples of Daniel's receiving rewards as a direct result of his God given ability.

What IS NOT clear in the book of Daniel, is how any of the positions that he occupied was "reserved for eunuchs".

JesusA (imported) wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:41 pm While there are, of course, some theologians who deny that Daniel (if he really existed) had been castrated, most of those whom I have read agree that he would have been a eunuch. His three companions are generally agreed by all but Sunday school textbook writers (and the illustrators of children

’s books) to have been castrated.

First off, since you apparently question if Daniel even existed, I have to wonder how accurate any of the information you quote really is. Furthermore, I note you keep talking about all these theologians who feel Daniel was an eunuch ... yet you fail to mention the first source name or provide any way for a person to verify the accuracy of your allegations.

I have read several published commentaries, such as

Albert Barnes note on the Bible

Adam Clarke's commentary on the Bible

John Darby's sypnosis

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible

And in none of these do I find the first HINT that any of these authorities feel that Daniel was or even could have been an eunuch.

Additionally, I have taken a few college level courses on the book of Daniel and other relevant prophecies of the old testament and NOT ONE of them ever even suggested Daniel was an Eunuch. Fact is, the only place I have ever heard this possibility mentioned is on this board, and only by people who provide no facts to back up their statements - such as you.

JesusA (imported) wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:41 pm Eunuchs were common enough in Assyrian government administration that over half of all the seals (for signing documents) found from the Assyrian Empire can be clearly attributed to eunuch official owners.

I will certainly agree that Eunuchs were common in these days and certainly may have been common in the government of Babylon. However Adam Clarke cites this as the defination of the "Prince of Eunuchs"

Master of his eunuchs - This word eunuchs signifies officers about or in the palace whether literally eunuchs or not.

JesusA (imported) wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:41 pm That Daniel and his companions were eunuchs was generally accepted in the Middle Ages, though modern Sunday School teachers might deny it.

I wasn't around in the middle ages to know what was or was not "generally accepted" and frankly that observation, if true, has little effect on my opinions today.

So I will stand my ground. Based on the fact that Daniel certainly seemed to enjoy God's protection, and based on Daniel 1:4 and it's statement that Daniel was "without blemish" ... I do not believe that Daniel was an Eunuch. You are certainly entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to think your opinion is wrong.

My feeling is God doest care if one is a eunuch or not because it is whats in your heart that God cares about not whats in your balls.True story trust me

Burdizzo Bill (imported) wrote: Tue May 01, 2007 4:32 pm As anyone who has read the book of Daniel with an open mind would know, the book makes many statements that, as a Christian, I personally consider to be facts.

1:2 to 1:4 clearly outline Daniels Royal Heritage.

1:4 describes Daniel and his three counterparts as "Sons in whom there was no blemish" ... well, in Biblical times, I think castration would have been a blemish.

And that's exactly WHY cultures like the Babylonians wanted to "collect" such "perfect" boys. It was what they did to them afterwards.

Burdizzo Bill (imported) wrote: Tue May 01, 2007 4:32 pm Daniel achieved his status in the Babylonian empire because of his knowledge and his ability to interpret dreams, as described in 1:17. The King takes notice of these abilities in 1:20, and Daniel 2:48 as well 5:29 show clear examples of Daniel's receiving rewards as a direct result of his God given ability.

What IS NOT clear in the book of Daniel, is how any of the positions that he occupied was "reserved for eunuchs".

Not to be rude, but there is more to ancient historical research than what is printed in the Holy Bible. Much more. No, the Bible does not define what culture employed eunuchs for what position, but a whole raft of other historical research DOES.

Burdizzo Bill (imported) wrote: Tue May 01, 2007 4:32 pm First off, since you apparently question if Daniel even existed, I have to wonder how accurate any of the information you quote really is. Furthermore, I note you keep talking about all these theologians who feel Daniel was an eunuch ... yet you fail to mention the first source name or provide any way for a person to verify the accuracy of your allegations.

Don't take this wrong, Bill, but a LOT of people question if GOD even exists. Not everyone shares in your beliefs. Please respect that. I try to, and don't condemn you for having a religious faith.

Also, I take much offense at the next line you post - where you make the insinuation that those NOT of your faith know nothing, or do not have valid knowledge. Your next line is even more aggressive, I think. You didn't ASK for a bibliography, and anyone who's even bothered to study ancient history shouldn't have to. Getting back to that raft of information - there's a whole lot more out there than the Holy Bible and having your faith gives no one any grounds for comments like this in an attack on another poster.

Burdizzo Bill (imported) wrote: Tue May 01, 2007 4:32 pm I have read several published commentaries, such as

Albert Barnes note on the Bible

Adam Clarke's commentary on the Bible

John Darby's sypnosis

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible

And in none of these do I find the first HINT that any of these authorities feel that Daniel was or even could have been an eunuch.

Looks like selective reading. There's that raft floating by again. Perhaps you're one of these that don't WANT to believe in the existence of Biblical Era eunuchs - like my Aunt? You also have to keep in mind that eunuchs aren't exactly dinner table discussion, no matter what the expertise in subject being discussed.

Burdizzo Bill (imported) wrote: Tue May 01, 2007 4:32 pm Additionally, I have taken a few college level courses on the book of Daniel and other relevant prophecies of the old testament and NOT ONE of them ever even suggested Daniel was an Eunuch. Fact is, the only place I have ever heard this possibility mentioned is on this board, and only by people who provide no facts to back up their statements - such as you.

THAT was uncalled for.

I'll warn you straight up, don't get into a battle of Academia with THIS Jesus. He outguns you (and all of us) by about a million to one.

Burdizzo Bill (imported) wrote: Tue May 01, 2007 4:32 pm I will certainly agree that Eunuchs were common in these days and certainly may have been common in the government of Babylon. However Adam Clarke cites this as the definition of the "Prince of Eunuchs"

Master of his eunuchs - This word eunuchs signifies officers about or in the palace whether literally eunuchs or not.

I wasn't around in the middle ages to know what was or was not "generally accepted" and frankly that observation, if true, has little effect on my opinions today.

And you weren't around when Daniel was, either. IF he even existed, so please try and keep an openly academic mind about it, please?

So I will stand my ground.

You're standing on weak and shifting sand.

Burdizzo Bill (imported) wrote: Tue May 01, 2007 4:32 pm Based on the fact that Daniel certainly seemed to enjoy God's protection, and based on Daniel 1:4 and it's statement that Daniel was "without blemish" ... I do not believe that Daniel was an Eunuch. You are certainly entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to think your opinion is wrong.

Jesus H. Christ enjoyed God's protection too, and was believed to be God in the flesh - and looked what happened to Him!

I'd ask you this - based on what I have studied of ancient conquests:

Where was God when Daniel's home was taken?

Where was God when his parents were more than likely killed?

Where was God when he and his 3 buddies, and a lot of other kids, were hauled off to Babylon?

Where was God when he was enslaved and forced into the Babylonian educational system and TOLD what he was going to do with the rest of his life?

Sounds like crappy protection to me.

Now, if you'd like to continue to argue the point academically, then by all means do so.

And keep in mind, if my reply pisses you off, well, I worked very hard to make it sound just LIKE yours.

OH, and Jesus (A) - you have my full permission to fire away with any Academia at your disposal. If you run out of character space, DO contact me and I'll up it to the several billion character mark - it's right next to the little red button in the ADMIN control panel.

Burdizzo Bill (imported) wrote: Tue May 01, 2007 4:32 pm So I will stand my ground. Based on the fact that Daniel certainly seemed to enjoy God's protection, and based on Daniel 1:4 and it's statement that Daniel was "without blemish" ... I do not believe that Daniel was an Eunuch. You are certainly entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to think your opinion is wrong.

While I can understand some of the historical passages quoted, I take issue with the notion that "enjoying protection of God" and being "without blemish" need only apply to men with a working set of cock and balls (Btw, the "blemish" phrase sometimes is replaced by "healthy"/"stong" in other English versions of the bible, though I am not sure as to the literal translation of the original word http://bible.cc/daniel/1-4.htm).

I am aware of some of the degrading and bigoted passages related to eunuchs, children and women as expressed in Deuteronomy, but I seriously doubt that they are relevant here as it seems clear that these earlier passages were more of a commentary on social control to justify close-minded views of a bunch of oppressive "patriarchs", if anything else.

This is certainly in contrast to Matthew 19:12, where it is (in the literal sense at least) being clear that eunuchs are capable of achieving spiritual perfection on pair with anyone else (or more so, under certain circumstances).

Please forgive me for failing to realize that a thread which began as a discussion of what the Bible says about castration, had changed into an academic discussion on the non biblical history of castration.

I will have to say outright, that I'm an atheist. I have an interest in history, and that is my rationale for discussing this. But I have no faith to defend, so to speak - and I hope none is offended by my postings.

The things is, as I pointed yout before, that the counsil of Nicaea in 325 A.D. voted on the issue of eunucism - and it lost. That counsil is tremendously importent to define cristian faith - it's were the question of trinity was decided (and Arianism became a heresy instead of a rival theological point of view...)

Castration was not one of the major issues - but it was an issue. The debate and it's conclusion is a fascinating bit of history - the church at that time condemned eunichsm and especially voluntary castration.

Since the compilation of the bible comes from the same time historically, when the different books were chosen or rejected (the apocryphic books), it is not a far fetched notion that the debates that were current to the scribes doing the work, also influenced their translations.

When a biblical person was said to be a eunuch, it had to have generated a conflict. On the one hand, they wanted a correct translation. On the other hand, they wanted all the biblical characters to have a good standing. And since the church had recently voted that eunuchism was bad, that must have been an incentive to find a possible translation that resolved the (apparent) conflict.

And, as has been said, we have ample evidence from at least three contemporary cultures in the area (Egypt, Mesopotamia/Babylonia/Assyria and the Hettite empire) for a large part of the biblical epoch. Even if they don't deal with the jewish people directly, they deal extensively with their own societies - and each other. Through treaties between nations and letters between the rulers we sometimes have not only evidence in one language but in several, which makes great reference material to exklude errors of translation. (For example correspondence between the pharao Echnaton and his Hettite counterparts have been discovered in both countries. In Echnatons case it was almost complete since his capital was abandoned after his reign. In the Hettite capital it was almost the same - the floor of the storehouse had collapsed and buried the clay tabletts.)

Analysis of the bible is one thing. But when it comes into conflict with other historical sources, such as archaeological deposits that has been left untouched for thousands of years while the bible has been through several revisions and translations in that time, it seems to me - as an atheist mind you - as precarious to stake so much of your faith in it being accurate to the letter.

Burdizzo Bill (imported) wrote: Tue May 01, 2007 8:37 pm Please forgive me for failing to realize that a thread which began as a discussion of what the Bible says about castration, had changed into an academic discussion on the non biblical history of castration.

That's nothing to do with your reply, Bill, and the way it was worded.

The thread began discussing what the Bible has to say about eunuchs, and it's not deviating to bring in the topic of who was a eunuch or not.

Like it or not, the Bible has been studied and is used as Academia. There's a lot of good stuff in there, yes. Some of it has even proven by archaeological finds.

No one's finding fault with your faith, and it's not the intent of this thread to find fault with the Bible. There's also no reason for anyone to start going off on one another over the simple discussion of whether or not some little boys hauled off into captivity during the same time period were castrated or not. There's plenty of evidence out there to support the idea that it COULD have happened, probably DID happen.

Defending one's faith is one thing, and that's fine. But let's do it in a more civilized mode.

If you want references, they're coming.

Unfortunately, they're not all compiled into a neat word document on "Historical references to support or disprove who was a eunuch in the Bible."

They will be though, very shortly.

And by the way, I believe in "a" God.

I do NOT believe in this hateful bastard that so many "Christians" worship - that fellow who sits up there just waiting to toss someone into hell for not acting the way HE expects us to, while all the while, not coming forth to give direction and leaving it up to other MEN to do so. I don't have a problem with agnostics nor atheists.

I do have a problem with anyone who's overly militant about their said faith, though.

I’m just home after a very long day at the National Sexuality Resource Center (a great place, if you’re ever in San Francisco). In thinning out my library, I’ve given away most of my books touching on the Old Testament, so I’ll need to get over to the university library to handle most of the questions here. I can do a bit, mostly from memory, however.

First, the dating of Daniel has been approached from a number of different routes.

There are many listings of important religious writings by a number of Jewish scholars over the centuries. One of the longest and most complete (listing every early canonical and apocryphal book of which we now know, EXCEPT for Daniel) dating from about 190 BC. There is absolutely no mention of the existence of the book in any document clearly dating from before about 150 BC. The earliest surviving fragments which can be identified as coming from Daniel date from closer to 100 BC.

The earliest copies of the text are written in two languages, Hebrew and Aramaic. Internal evidence indicates that the entire text was most likely written by a single author who switched effortlessly between the two languages and neither linguistic part seems to be a translation from the other language. To most scholars, this indicates that the text was written after Aramaic became the common spoken language of the Jewish people in the Holy Land – again dating the text to the second century BC or later. That the Aramaic portion includes loan words from post-Empire Persian (and the words seem to be part of the original text) again points toward a time of compositon after the time of Alexander.

The theological content of Daniel was consistent with Maccobean theology of about that same time and does not square with any known school of Jewish religious thought of the sixth century BC.

The supposed contemporary history as listed in Daniel is contrary to all historical records from other sources. Daniel is supposed to have been first in the court of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, followed by that of his son Belshazzar, who was slain by King Darius of the Median Empire. Finally, Cyrus the Persian conquered the Medes. Unfortunately, we have very good historical records from a number of sources indicating that the Persians conquered the Medes about 20 years before they conquered the Babylonians. This kind of historical error could easily be made by someone writing centuries after the events, but would be unlikely from someone who experienced them. “Darius” the Mede is not attested by any independent source as actually having existed. There were also a number of Babylonian kings between the death of Nebuchadnezzar and the Persian conquest.

Even the first verse of Daniel starts us off with historical problems, “In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to to Jerusalem and laid siege to it.” In the third year of Jehoiakim (606 BC), Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king.

A very good starting point for research on any Biblical text is the Anchor Bible, which devotes one or more thick volumes to each of the books of the Old and New Testaments and to the Apocrypha. The author of each of the volumes is a respected scholar and all are Mainstream Christians and toward the very conservative end of the theological spectrum. Most liberal Christian theologians will admit to using the Anchor Bible for its excellent bibliographies of the theological literature and for the extensive footnotes to the text. [My own favorite volume of the Anchor Bible is Genesis where nearly every word of the translation is footnoted with a discussion of the the variety of interpretations that have been made by various theologians and linguists. It requires 78 pages of footnotes just to cover the act of creation. There are especially lengthy footnotes on two words in the Hebrew original which have no known definitive meaning. They exist in no other known text and have no cognates (related words) in any other known language. They both receive a wide variety of absolutely incompatible meanings in different translations.]

[To be continued….]

i had read this once allowed to my father. at the time i remember thinking just how outlandish it sounded.

look at me now.

z