Have any of the "historical" writers already tried this?

[ quoted from some web-page ]

After their successful assault upon Jerusalem in 605, the Babylonians removed some of the vessels in the house of God (verse 2). They took also a group of young men meeting five requirements (verses 3-4).

1. The young men were related to the royal family.

2. They were "children," meaning that they were in their early teens or younger.

3. They had "no blemish" and were "well favoured." In other words, they were good looking. This requirement was not unusual. In every ancient Middle Eastern court, it was customary to let only good-looking people serve as the king's attendants.

4. The young men were "skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science." Not only were they well educated, but also they were intelligent enough to use and apply what they had learned.

5. They were able "to stand in the king's palace." That is, they were a gracious addition to the court. Having tact, self-confidence, and the other traits of a winning personality, they were highly presentable even to a king.

Disposal of the Spoils

Fate of the Captives

The young captives from Judah entered a new life with several abhorrent, or at least disagreeable, aspects.

* 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.

In Israel, the law excluded eunuchs from public worship (Deuteronomy 23:1). The intent, largely realized, was to discourage the people of Israel from degrading their sons by making them eunuchs. Here is one illustration of the vast superiority of the laws of Moses to the laws of other nations.

* The captives were taught the learning and language of the Chaldeans, their captors (verse 4). They would sit under instruction for three years (verse 5).

* During the period of training, they were given a special diet consisting of food and wine from the king's table, the purpose being to make them pink and plump in appearance (verse 5).

* They were given Babylonian names (verse 7).

re: Daniel

The Book of Daniel could be a great base text for one of the Archive authors. In fact, there are several sections of both the Old Testament and the New Testament that could become the basis for interesting tales. Eunuchs are mentioned more often per thousand words in the Hebrew canon than in any other long text from the ancient world! Eunuchs were common enough in the New Testament world that probably every individual had had some dealing with one or more of them.

The Book of Daniel itself was written long after the Babylonian exile (586 BCE) that it describes. It is usually dated to about 165 – 164 BCE, making it the last-written book to be included in the Hebrew canon.

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. 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.

While I haven’t found anything good about Babylonian eunuchs yet, the following bits about eunuchs during the Assyrian period may be of use to any future author.

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. The most common word for “eunuch” in Assyrian was “saresi” [singular, though with the diacrital marks removed]. The plural was “sutresi”. This is clearly related to the “sari” of the Hebrew canon.

The most common verb for “to castrate” was “marruru”, a word clearly related to “maraqu”, meaning “to crush” and “marasu”, meaning “to squash”. The assumption is that eunuchs were most commonly produced by crushing the testicals of prepubertal boys. The frequency of eunuchs can also be seen in the verb “murruru”, which means “to check someone to see if he has been properly castrated”. I know of no other language that has a simple verb for the action.

It has been noted that admission to the corps of eunuchs was quite attractive for both Assyrians and foreigners. For foreigners who came to Assyria as captives or hostages, it was a chance to improve their social status. For second and third sons of Assyrians, it could open a brilliant career. There does not seem to have been much, if any, stigma attached to the status of eunuch.

The words would be different in Babylonian, but I expect that the cultural parts would be very similar. I hope this gives incentive to someone to write about the period.