On the key question of whether or not Daniel and his three companions were castrated to become court eunuchs, the evidence is only circumstantial. There is no independent mention of any of them in any other surviving document and the book of Daniel itself is not clear on the point. We can only examine the time and place and look at what happened to other boys in similar circumstances.

From at least the time of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (911-612 BC), and probably from at least the foundation of the first Assyrian Empire in 1120 BC, through the fall of the Persian (Achaemenid) Empire (330 BC), it was customary for conquering armies to to send “hostage” children to the capital. There was also during this entire period the custom of demanding tribute in the form of children from the conquered peoples, all to be dispatched to the capital on a regular basis.

All such children, both boys and girls, were to be beautiful, unblemished, and, in the case of boys, the most intelligent available. The girls were destined for the royal harem and for use as gifts and rewards to important people. The boys were destined either for the harem or for training as government officials.

For example, Herodotus reports (The Histories, Book 3, chapter 48), that when the Persians conquered Corcyra (modern Corfu), they took 300 boys from the noble families of the island and send them to Samos to be castrated before being sent to the capital. After the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus in 539 BC, an annual tribute of children was demanded. They were, of course, to be unblemished and intelligent. All of the boys were to be castrated before being sent and the number ranged as high as 500 boys per year. (Herodotus, Histories iii, 92)

Those boys from wherever in the empire destined for the harem, either as guardians or catamites, were, of course, immediately castrated if they had not been before being sent to the capital.

The general policy of all of these Near Eastern empires (and continuing in some cases as late as the middle of the 19th century for some kingdoms) was that the best administrators were those who had no family connections and whose only loyalty was to the regime and their fellow administrators.

These boys were thus taken from the edges of the empire, ripped from their families and familiar surroundings at the age of 10 to 15. Sent to the capital city where they were isolated in the palace. Castrated, if they had not already been, so that they were unable to produce families of their own. And, after their training and, after demonstration of their abilities, assigned to the administration of an area as remote as possible from their homeland. As eunuchs, they would be looked down upon by intact males and their sole support group would be the government run primarily by other eunuchs.

The system was very effective in producing competent and loyal administrators (who had no family or other distractions) and was widely used across much of the Eurasian landmass by most of the long-lasting empires up through the fall of the Ch’ing Dynasty in China in 1911.

Were Daniel and his companions castrated? There is nothing that says that they were. However, the cultural expectations of the time were that they definitely would have been. Had they NOT been, that would have been worthy of note. Given the time and place, we can say that they probably were. All boys in their circumstances that we know of were castrated. The burden of proof lies on those who would say that they were not. That the boys were, “of the blood royal and of the nobility, who were to be young men of good looks and bodily without fault, at home in all branches of knowledge, well informed, intelligent, and fit for service in the royal court” (RSV) places them exactly in the middle of the category that was chosen for centuries from subject peoples to be castrated for court use.

I still need to do some library research for additional references, but some excellent ones (in addition to the Herodotus) that are on my bookshelf are

Eunuchen als Sklaven und Freigelassene in der griechisch römischen Antike, by Peter Guyot. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta (1980). [Focus on Greece and Rome, but some very nice historical background.]

Rab-saris and Rab-shakeh in 2 Kings 18, by Hayim Tadmor. IN: The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns (1983), pp. 279–285.

Eunuchs in Power: Their Role in the Assyrian Bureaucracy, by A. Kirk Grayson. IN: Vom Alten Orient Zum Alten Testament: Festschrift für Wolfram Freiherrn von Sodern zum 85. Gebertstag am 19. Juni 1993. Edited by Manfried Dietrich und Oswald Loretz. Darmstadt: Neukirchener Verlag (1995), pp. 85–98.

The Assyrian Eunuchs and Their Predecessors, by Karlheinz Deller. IN: Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the Second Colloquium on the Ancient Near East – The City and Its Life. Edited by Kazuko Watanabe. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter (1999), pp. 303–311.

Seals of Neo-Assyrian Officials, by Kazuko Watanabe. IN the Watanabe book above, pp. 313–361.

On the earliest production and use of eunuchs in the Near East, there are several excellent articles by Kazuya Maekawa that have been published in the academic journal Zinbun (Kyoto, Japan}.

Burdizzo Bill (imported) wrote: Tue May 01, 2007 4:32 pm Fact is, the only place I have ever heard this possibility mentioned is on this board..

Concerning the discussion on Daniel, I have (after a brief search) found that there is at least two independent internet sources where the evidence in favour of Daniel being a eunuch is discussed. Clearly, the EA is by far the only place on the internet where the idea that Daniel was a eunuch is suggested.

For example:

http://www.themoorings.org/prophecy/Daniel1/less1.html (from "Bible studies at the Moorings"

"The captives were put under the authority of Ashpenaz, master of the eunuchs (verse 3). Ancient oriental kingdoms customarily surrounded the king with eunuchs, in the belief that such men were less inclined to conspire against him. Whether Daniel and his friends were made eunuchs has long been debated, however. Many scholars today take the position that saris, the singular form of the Hebrew word translated "eunuchs" in verse 3, may refer to a court official who was not a eunuch. They note that Potiphar is called a saris ("officer" in Genesis 37:36; 39:1) although he had a wife. As many other words have done, however, saris underwent a shift in meaning. Originally, the word referred to a court official, but because many court officials were eunuchs, the meaning narrowed until, by the first millennium BC, the word referred specifically to a eunuch (10). It is probable, therefore, that Daniel and the other captives were actually made eunuchs. There is no record that any of them married or had offspring."

And http://www.bible-exposition.org/Essays/ ... 0Paper.htm (a site that claims to "help encourage deeper understanding of scripture")

"Daniel was a eunuch [12]. There are a number of points in support of this that I shall tackle in sequence:-

a) saris usually means eunuch in the physical sense and does not usually simply refer to a ‘captain’. There are those that dispute this and they cite Potiphar as an example of a man referred to as ‘saris’ although he wasn’t a physical eunuch. But do we actually know that? It is true that we know he was married[13] but from the same verse we also know that his wife was sexually dissatisfied. It is also suggestive that Potiphar gave all things into Josepth’s hand[14]. If Potiphar had children would it not have been more normal for him to leave things to them? I suggest that far from being a counter-proof, Potiphar is at least an example of someone that could have been a physical eunuch and that the balance of evidence at least makes it probable.

b) It was customary in ancient times for King’s to surround themselves with eunuchs. They were considered to be more loyal, they were unlikely to have large families that would support them when organizing a plot and they were unable to create any mischief with the kings wives[15]. In fact it was precisely the commonality of physical eunuchs being courtiers and captains that caused the word saris to be used (sometimes) in the broader sense.

c) The threat to Hezekiah and the initial prophecy of the Babylonian deportation specifically predicts that his seed would be eunuchs [16]. This threat would have had little force had it meant they were to become ‘important people’ in the Babylonian dynasty. The threat to Hezekiah, which reminded him precisely of how is offspring came about, what that his offspring would not be able to produce offspring of their own.

d) The fact that the king spoke to the ‘master of the eunuchs’ and that the boys were entrusted to him would surely suggest that this part of the story is to do with ‘young eunuchs’.

e) One of the selection criteria was that these were to have been of the king’s seed. It is probable that Nebuchadnezzar himself had a vested interest in restricting the profligacy of enemy kings. However I think there is another deeper issue here. Since the fall the salvation of mankind has been promised through a seed. The messiah himself was to be of the seed of David. Revelation 12 makes it clear that Satan has consistently and persistently done all that he can to stop that seed from producing Christ. On multiple occasions massacres have happened almost entirely in an attempt to wipe out this seed. This was, I believe, yet one more attempt. If all of the king’s seed had been rendered infertile then surely messiah could not come.

f) The remaining selection criteria point to a physical eunuch. If we are to believe that ‘saris’ here was some kind of warrior or even administrator then why would there be physical criteria pertaining to looks? Down to the issue of having no blemish? Those are more issues you would look for in a young girl than in a future fighter. However they are exactly the features that have traditionally been looked for in men that were to be emasculated.

g) There is no record of Daniel or his companions getting married.

h) Daniel showed no interest in returning to Jerusalem . Some of the commentators have pondered why he didn’t attempt to return to Jerusalem. It could easily be that Daniel did not think there would be much there for him, or even that he didn’t think he was permitted to go. In Deu 23:1 it states that anyone wounded in the stones or ‘privy member’ may not enter the congregation of the Lord. I submit that Daniel would have known that and considered himself debarred from the congregation life of the Jewish people.

Assuming my assertion is correct, and I believe it to be so, then we have an incredible insight into what must have been going on in Daniel’s mind. A devout Jew who was clearly gifted in many areas he had probably been looking forward to a successful life in Judea. He would raise a family, study scripture, worship corporately, and teach his children to worship Jehovah and generally life a normal fulfilling life.

Suddenly everything changed. Physically wounded in a way that his faith taught him was a disgrace, ripped away from his family and deposited in a strange land he had every reason to be confused, bitter and even angry."

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.

SO is this discussion limited about the decisions made at Council of Nicea (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/ar ... /nicea.htm) in 323 A.D. by the bishops of the Catholic Church as to what the council found to be traditional, Biblical, and orthodox things of the Christian faith and therefore allowed to be put into the Bible while CENSORING out all other religious teachings about Jesus Christ and God as heretical?

If Daniel WERE a Eunuch would that make him a LESSER Prophet?

I would accept Paolo's assessment about what 'happened' PERFECT boys kidnapped and taken into Babylon.

Paolo knows more of the dark side of human nature than most would imagine and survived to tell the tale to those of us who might listen.

Human nature has not chaged significantly since Bible days, we only like to BELIEVE that it has...

"Most scholars " believe that the word "eunuch" in Matthew 19:12 does not mean eunuch because they can't accept that interpretation. It's almost amusing to see how clergymen claim that the Bible is literal truth ["Let God be true an every man a liar."] until it says something with which they disagree. Suddenly the "literal truth" doesn't mean what it says, but needs to be "interpreted."

Bagoas (imported) wrote: Fri May 04, 2007 9:59 am "Most scholars " believe that the word "eunuch" in Matthew 19:12 does not mean eunuch because they can't accept that interpretation. It's almost amusing to see how clergymen claim that the Bible is literal truth ["Let God be true an every man a liar."] until it says something with which they disagree. Suddenly the "literal truth" doesn't mean what it says, but needs to be "interpreted."

BRAVO!

I've said all along that if Jesus were to return to Earth today, he would be arrested and thrown into a lunatic asylum or prison, as no one would believe him.

My own gut feeling is that Jesus returned a long time ago, and left in disgust at how badly his religion has been distorted....

Kangan (imported) wrote: Sat May 05, 2007 6:59 am BRAVO!

I've said all along that if Jesus were to return to Earth today, he would be arrested and thrown into a lunatic asylum or prison, as no one would believe him.

My own gut feeling is that Jesus returned a long time ago, and left in disgust at how badly his religion has been distorted....

Yes, I say alike things, Jesus clearly states there that some become eunuchs for the kingdom sakes.

"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs

Roxanne (imported) wrote: Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:06 am who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the

kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."

Another interesting one is

Matthew 18:8If your hand or your foot

Roxanne (imported) wrote: Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:06 am causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.

It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

These bodyparts are not the only ones, they are just examples.

And last but not least:

Matthew 16:21-23 21From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

22Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”

23Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

Jesus did not avoid suffering and destruction of his body, as we are told to by todays clergy, who keep on opposing any change to it on grounds of arguments like, "its a temple of god"

Wow, lots of different reactions and some misunderstandings. Jesus certainly talked about eunuchs in Matt. 19, but again, he never advocated it or told his followers to follow through with castrations. He just pointed out a fact. And it's still true, some men are made eunuchs and some make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. What's hard to understand about that?

Secondly, A-1 suggests that a lot of teachings about Jesus were left out of the Bible. Even I know that some cults wanted to advance their own version of Christianity and made up things about Jesus that were just bizarre and weird. If you read some of Gnostic works that were written about Jesus, you can easily see why they were rejected and kept out of the Canon of scripture. Crazy stuff.

By the way, the "kanon" was a measuring rod, if a book of the Bible failed to measure up to being "inspired" by God, it was rejected. So their are NO lost books of the Bible, only rejected books. My perspective, take it or leave it, but please don't abuse me.

Canon 1 of the Council of Nicaea:

If anyone in sickness has undergone surgery at the hands of physicians or has been castrated by barbarians, let him remain among the clergy. But if anyone in good health has castrated himself, if he is enrolled among the clergy he should be suspended, and in future no such man should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this refers to those who are responsible for the condition and presume to castrate themselves, so too if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians or by their masters, but have been found worthy, the canon admits such men to the clergy.

Jesus Christ was largely a subject of mythical appropriation, a consummation of Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Greek philosophy and religion. His sayings, as well as the sayings of all who spoke for him(his followers), as well those that consider him a 'prophet'(Muslims) are all bullshit.

EmperorCoth (imported) wrote: Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:05 am Jesus Christ was largely a subject of mythical appropriation, a consummation of Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Greek philosophy and religion. His sayings, as well as the sayings of all who spoke for him(his followers), as well those that consider him a 'prophet'(Muslims) are all bullshit.

A rather provocative statement. Athiest are we? --FLO--