Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Did Nebuchadnezza make Daniel a eunic? | Daniel | homeuzer | 33254 | ||
An African Christian friend noted that Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were from the Isrealites royal family and were considered nobility despite under the rule of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. He added that because of the presence of the king's herem (-sp?), that all those in a king's service and a part of his court were made into eunics (-sp?) so that there would not be a problem. I have never heard of this nor can find any confirmation in Scripture. | ||||||
2 | Did Nebuchadnezza make Daniel a eunic? | Daniel | DOD | 33260 | ||
Eunuchs? Yes. Physically castrated? Probably not. In 2Kings 20:17-18 Isaiah tells king Hezekiah (who lived approximately 100 years before the Babylonian captivity) that “of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they (i.e., the Babylonians) take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.” This prophecy found its fulfillment in the year 605 BC when Nebuchadnezzar took as hostages the children of the royal family and of the nobility, carrying them back to Babylon. Among those carried away at that time were Daniel and his three friends (Dan. 1:3-6), and these Jewish captives were all put into the care of “…Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs…” (Dan. 1:3). From the above, I would say that the evidence is pretty strong that Daniel and his friends were eunuchs. However, it is important that we not give this word more meaning than it necessarily was intended to carry. Although some have suggested that Daniel and his friends were made eunuchs (that is, in a physical sense by mutilation) at this time, I don’t think there is any evidence for this. The Hebrew word that is translated “eunuch” in Dan. 1 is “caryic” which can refer either to one who is physically a eunuch by castration, or merely to one who is an official or court officer. For example, in Gen. 39:1 Potiphar is described as an “officer (caryic) of Pharaoh.” This is the same Potiphar who was married, and whose wife attempted to seduce Joseph. He was obviously not a “eunuch” in the sense that we commonly think of today. This, coupled with the fact that the law of Moses excluded those who were eunuchs (physically, by castration) from the congregation (Deut. 23:1), leads me to believe that these young Jewish boys were not made eunuchs in the physical sense. |
||||||
3 | Did Nebuchadnezza make Daniel a eunic? | Daniel | EdB | 33263 | ||
I disagree the Babylonians were some of the cruelest people groups second only to the Assyrians. Both scripture and secular history give accounts of these people leading captives by hooks literally pierced through the lower jaw. Also secular history shows that to be a palace servant (access to King and his harem other than a visitor) all attendants were made eunuchs. This was done for two reasons, first to remove any chance of anyone being romantically involved with any of the king’s ladies, and secondly many of this time had homosexual interests and castration was thought to enhance the dominated victim. The prohibition in Deut 23:1 was to stop the pagan practice of mutilation by castration for temple service and to prevent those dedicated to idol worship from intermingling with the children of Israel. I think Daniel and the three Hebrew children knew of this prohibition and to me serves to show even more of their faithfulness to serve the God of their youth. EdB |
||||||
4 | Did Nebuchadnezza make Daniel a eunic? | Daniel | DOD | 33267 | ||
I do not disagree with you regarding the cruelty of the Babylonians. Nor do I question the "possibility" that these Jewish captives "may" have been castrated. However, the fact remains that the term "eunuch" does not always or necessarily carry the meaning that we commonly attach to it. True, it can refer to one who has been physically mutilated, but it can also refer to one who is merely an officer of the king, as in the case of Potiphar. According to Easton's Bible Dictionary, "Literally bed-keeper or chamberlain, and not necessarily in all cases one who was mutilated, although the practice of employing such mutilated persons in Oriental courts was common (2Ki 9:32 Es 2:3)." I'm simply suggesting that the evidence is not persuasive enough in either direction to draw a definite conclusion. |
||||||
5 | Did Nebuchadnezza make Daniel a eunic? | Daniel | EdB | 33293 | ||
I will concede the point the Hebrew word “cariyc” or “saris” (spelling dependent on reference source) has been understood to mean eunuch and official, however I believe that cultural history almost certainly affirms they would have been castrated in order to appease any paranoia on the part of King Nebuchadnezzar. | ||||||