Was Daniel made a eunuch in Babylon?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Puritan Sailor

Puritan Board Doctor
Were Daniel and his three friends made eunuchs in Babylon? I don't know why I never noticed this before, but they were put into the charge of the chief of eunuchs, which seemed to imply that they were also eunuchs. We are never told that they married or had children. And it was common back then for high officials to be eunuchs. But the text doesn't say explicitly that Daniel et al were made eunuchs. Is there any evidence one way or the other to answer that question?

Daniel 1:6-11 6 Among these were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah of the tribe of Judah. 7 And the chief of the eunuchs gave them names: Daniel he called Belteshazzar, Hananiah he called Shadrach, Mishael he called Meshach, and Azariah he called Abednego. 8 But Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the king's food, or with the wine that he drank. Therefore he asked the chief of the eunuchs to allow him not to defile himself. 9 And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs, 10 and the chief of the eunuchs said to Daniel, "I fear my lord the king, who assigned your food and your drink; for why should he see that you were in worse condition than the youths who are of your own age? So you would endanger my head with the king." 11 Then Daniel said to the steward whom the chief of the eunuchs had assigned over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah...
 
Some propose that the term eunuch became (in Babylon or N.E. culture more generally) a technical term; and while some who bore the designation or title were castrated, it does not follow that all such were. So, it is thought, without more specifics about Daniel and his three friends we cannot say with certainty if they were made eunuchs.

I tend to the contrary view, that the term in Daniel should be taken in the ordinary, long-term biblical use, with (for example) the term's use in the Law of Moses, where exclusions on such persons from full inclusion in the religious life of the nation was commanded. I think we should have thought otherwise if there were facts in the text (like a marriage for Daniel and/or children) indicating otherwise.

The exile was traumatic. The costs in every department were beyond counting. But the grace of God was also greater than all the harms wrought.
 
In chapter 6, the men who plot against Daniel seem to have a similar rank and similar duties. At the end of the account, those men are thrown into the den of lions along with their children and wives. Might this suggest that men in Daniel's position at court perhaps were not necessarily eunuchs who'd been castrated?
 
2Ki.20:18 contains the prophecy (when Hezekiah showed his treasures to the emissaries of Babylon): "And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon." Until this hour, only the northern kings had eunuchs reported in their retinue, though Samuel prophesied them in the midst of his warning, 1Sam.8:15. Judah's history afterward records such, e.g. 2Ki.23:11. Chronicles (a later composition) refers to certain officers of David with the term, 1Chr.28:1, but the term had come into technical use by the time of this document, which also plays into the question in Daniel itself, as an exilic document.

Isaiah's use of the term, Is.56:3-4, clearly implies castration (or at least some drastic, enforced celibacy). Jeremiah, prophesying at the end of Judah's monarchy, uses the term for certain officials, consistent with the close of 2Kings. Otherwise, the term is used copiously in Esther, and to a lesser extent in Daniel (but only in ch.1). Potiphar the Egyptian (Gen37:36) is the earliest use of the term, and he had a (too-randy) wife. The evidence, therefore, is mixed and justifies both the ideas that the term was literal or technical, meaning in the latter case might be applied to men who were not sterile, sterilized or celibate.

I'm inclined toward the literal, because of the warnings (re. monarchy) and the prophetic curse (fulfilled in the exile), because the term is used by Isaiah in a very literal manner (though the context is for comfort), because the use of the word for officials within the covenant land is first found borrowed by the northern kingdom (begun in rebellion) and is adopted in Judah in a time of declension. It would increase the tragedy of the exile to have the flower of Israel's youth "cut off" in this manner (see Dt.23:1; cf. Lev.21:20; Gal.5:12). Exile was a symbolic death, a new expulsion from Eden; and likely included some actual infliction of castration as punishment.

I'm not unwilling to have my mind changed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top