Subject: Did Nebuchadnezza make Daniel a eunic? |
Bible Note: 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. |