the Third Week of Advent
Click here to join the effort!
Bible Encyclopedias
Eunuch
Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
or (εὐνοῦχος ) has, in its literal (Greek) sense, the harmless meaning of "bed- keeper," i.e., one who has the charge of beds and bed-chambers; but as only persons deprived of their virility have, from the most ancient times, been employed in Oriental harems, and as such persons are employed almost exclusively in this kind of service, the word "bed-keeper" became synonymous with "castratus." Castration, according to Josephus (Ant. 4:8, 40), was not practiced by the Jews upon either men or animals, (See BEAST); yet the custom is frequently referred to in the Bible by the Hebrew term סָרַיס(saris', Sept. εὐνοῦχος; Vulg. spado; A.V. "eunuch," "officer," and "chamberlain," apparently as though the word intended a class of attendants who were not always mutilated), which (from the Arabic root saras, to be impotent ad Venerem) clearly implies the incapacity which mutilation involves (Isaiah 56:3; Sirach 20:20 [21]), and perhaps includes all the classes mentioned in Matthew 19:12, not signifying, as the Greek εὐνοῦχος, an office merely. The law, Deuteronomy 23:1 (comp. Leviticus 22:24), is repugnant to thus treating any Israelite; and Samuel, when describing the arbitrary power of the future king (1 Samuel 8:15, marg.), mentions "his eunuchs," but does not say that he would make "their sons" such. This, if we compare 2 Kings 20:18; Isaiah 39:7, possibly implies that these persons would be foreigners. It was a barbarous custom of the East thus to treat captives (Herod. 3:49; 6:32), not only of tender age (when a non- development of beard, and feminine mold of limbs and modulation of voice ensues), but, it would seem, when past puberty, which there occurs at an early age.
Physiological considerations lead to the supposition that in the latter case a remnant of animal feeling is left, which may explain Sirach 20:4; Sirach 25:20 (comp. Juv. 6:366, and Mart. 6:67; Philostr. Apoll. Tyan. 1:37; Ter. Eun. 4:3, 24), where a sexual function, though fruitless, is implied. Busbecq (Ep. 3:122, Oxf. 1660) seems to ascribe the absence or presence of this to the total or partial character of the mutilation; but modern surgery would rather assign the earlier or later period of the operation as the real explanation. (Comp. Juv. 12:35; Philo, Opp. 2:264; Mishna, Yebaimh, 8:2; Deuteronomy 23:2; see Gesenius, Thes. page 338; Paul. AEgin. 6:68; Fischer, Proluss. page 497; Pierer, Medic. Realw. I, 2:63.) It is total among modern Turks (Tournefort, 2:8, 9, 10, ed. Par. 1717, taille fleur de ventre); a precaution arising from mixed ignorance and jealousy. The "officer" Potiphar (Genesis 37:36; Genesis 39:1, marg. "eunuch") was an Egyptian, was married, and was the "captain of the guard." The Jewish tradition is that Joseph was made a eunuch on his first introduction to Egypt; and yet the accusation of Potiphar's wife, his marriage and the birth of his children, are related subsequently without any explanation. (See Targum Pseudojon. on Genesis 39:1; Genesis 41:50; and the details given at 39:13.) On the Assyrian monuments a eunuch often appears, sometimes armed and in a warlike capacity, or as a scribe, noting the number of heads and amount of spoil, as receiving the prisoners, and even as officiating in religious ceremonies (Layard, Nineveh, 2:324-6, 334.) A bloated beardless face and double chin is there their conventional type. (See ATTIRE).
Chardin (Voyages en Perse, 2:283, ed. Amst. 1711) speaks of eunuchs having a harem of their own. If Potiphar had become such by operation for disease, by accident, or even by malice, such a marriage seems, therefore, according to. Eastern notions, supposable. (See Grotius on Deuteronomy 23:1; comp. Burckhardt, Tramv. in Arab. 1:290.) Nor is it wholly repugnant to that barbarous social standard to think that the prospect of rank, honor, and royal confidence might even induce parents to thus treat their children at a later age, if they showed an aptness for such preferment. The characteristics as regards beard, voice, etc., might then perhaps be modified, or might gradually follow. The Potipherah of Genesis 41:50, whose daughter Joseph married, was "'priest of On," and no doubt a different person. (See Delphini, Eunuchi conjugium, Hal. 1680.)
The origination of the practice is ascribed to Semiramis (Amm. Marcell. 14:6), and is no doubt as early, or nearly so, as Eastern despotism itself. Their incapacity, as in the case of mutes, is the ground of reliance upon them (Clarke's Travels, part 2, § 1, 13; Busbecq, Ep. 1:33). By reason of the mysterious distance at which the sovereign sought to keep his subjects (Herod. 1:99; comp. Esther 4:11), and of the malignant jealousy fostered by the debased relation of the sexes, such wretches, detached from social interests and hopes of issue (especially when, as commonly, and as amongst the Jews, foreigners), the natural slaves of either sex (Esther 4:5), and having no prospect in rebellion save the change of masters, were the fittest props of a government resting on a servile relation, the most complete organs of its despotism or its lust, the surest (but see Esther 2:21) guardians (Xenoph. Cyrop. 7:5, § 15; Herod. 8:105) of the monarch's person, and the sole confidential witnesses of his unguarded or undignified moments. Hence they have in all ages frequently risen to high offices of trust. Thus the "chief" of the cup-bearers (q.v.) and of the cooks of Pharach were eunuchs, as being near his person, though their inferior agents need not have been so (Genesis 40:1). (Wilkinson [Anc. Egypt, 2:61] denies the use of eunuchs in Egypt. Herodotus, indeed [2:92], confirms his statement as regards Egyptian monogamy; but if this as a rule applied to the kings, they seemed, at any rate, to have allowed themselves concubines [page 181].
From the general beardless character of Egyptian heads, it is not easy to pronounce whether any eunuchs appear in the sculptures or not.) The complete assimilation of the kingdom of Israel, and latterly of Judah, to the neighboring models of despotism, is traceable in the rank and prominence of eunuchs (2 Kings 8:6; 2 Kings 9:32; 2 Kings 23:11; 2 Kings 25:19; Isaiah 56:3-4; Jeremiah 29:2; Jeremiah 34:19; Jeremiah 38:7; Jeremiah 41:16; Jeremiah 52:25). — They mostly appear in one of two relations — either military, as "set over the men of war," greater trustworthiness possibly counterbalancing inferior courage and military vigor, or associated, as we mostly recognize them, with women and children. (2 Chronicles 28:1 is remarkable as ascribing eunuchs to the period of David, nor can it be doubted that Solomon's polygamy made them a necessary consequence; but in the state they do not seem to have played an important part at this period.)
We find the Assyrian Rab-Saris, or chief eunuch (2 Kings 18:17), employed, together with other high officials, as ambassador. Similarly, in the details of the travels of an embassy sent by the duke of Holstein (page 136), we find a eunuch mentioned as sent on occasion of a state-marriage to negotiate, and of another (page 273) who was the Meheter, or chamberlain of Shah Abbas, who was always near his person, and had his ear (comp. Chardin, 3:37), and of another, originally a Georgian prisoner, who officiated as supreme judge. Fryer (Travels in India and Persia, page 1698) and Chardin (2:283) describe them as being the base and ready tools of licentiousness, as tyrannical in humor, and pertinacious in the authority which they exercise; Clarke (Travels in Europe, etc., part 2, § 1, page 22), as eluded and ridiculed by those whom it is their office to guard. A great number of them accompany the shall and his ladies when hunting, and no one is allowed, on pain of death, to come within two leagues of the field, unless the king sends a eunuch for him. So eunuchs run before the closed arabahs of the sultanas when abroad, crying out to all to keep at a distance. This illustrates Esther 1:10; Esther 1:12; Esther 1:15-16; Esther 2:3; Esther 2:8; Esther 2:14. The moral tendency of this sad condition is well known to be the repression of courage, gentleness, shame, and remorse, the development of malice, and often of melancholy, and a disposition to suicide. The favorable description of them in Xenophon (1.c.) is overcharged, or, at least, is not confirmed by modern observation. They are not more liable to disease than others. unless of such as often follows the foul vices of which they are the tools. The operation itself, especially in infancy, is not more dangerous than an ordinary amputation. Chardin (2:285) says that only one in four survives; and Clot Bey, chief physician of the pasha, states that two thirds die. Burckhardt, therefore (fub. page 329), is mistaken when he says that the operation is only fatal in about two out of a hundred cases. (See HAREM).
It is probable that Daniel and his companions were thus treated, in fulfillment of 2 Kings 20:17-18; Isaiah 39:7; comp. Daniel 1:3; Daniel 1:7. The courf of Herod of course had its eunuchs (Josephus, Ant. 16:8, 1; 15:7, 4), as had also that of queen Candace (Acts 8:27). Michaelis (2:180) regards them as the proper consequence of the gross polygamy of the East, although his further remark that they tend to balance the sexual disparity which such monopoly of woman causes is is less just, since the countries despoiled of their women fur the one purpose are not commonly those which furnish male children for the other.
In the three classes mentioned in Matthew 19:12, the first is to be ranked with other examples of defective organization; the last, if taken literally, as it is said to have been personally exemplified in Origen (Euseh. Eccl. Hist. 6:8; see Zorn, De eunachisomo Origenis, Giess. 1708), is an instance of human ways and means of ascetic devotion being valued by the Jews above revealed precept (see Schdttgen, Hor. Hebrews 1:159). Our Savior in that passage doubtless refers to the voluntary and ascetic celibacy of the Essenes (q.v.). But a figurative sense of εὐνοῦχος (comp. 1 Corinthians 7:32; 1 Corinthians 7:34) is also possible. (See CELIBACY).
In the A.V. of Esther the word "chamberlain" (marg,. "eunuch") is the constant rendering of סָרַיס, saris, and as the word also occurs in Acts 12:20, and Romans 16:23, where the original expressions are very different, some caution is required. In Acts 12:20, τὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ κοιτῶνος τοῦ βασιλέως may mean a "chamberlain" merely. Such were persons of public influence, as we learn from a Greek inscription preserved in Walpole's Turkey (2:559), in honor of P. Aelius Alcibiades, "chamberlain of the emperor" (ἐπὶ κοιτῶνος Σεβ .), the epithets in which exactly suggest the kind of patronage expressed. In Romans 16:23, the word ἐπίτροπος is the one commonly rendered " steward" (e.g. Matthew 20:8; Luke 8:3), and means the one to whom the care of the city was committed. See generally Salden, Otia Theol. de Eunuchis, page 494 sq. (See CHAMBERLAIN).
In Deuteronomy 23:1 (פְּצוּעִאּדִּכָּה, one mutilated by crushing, i.e., the testicles, Sept. technically θλαδίας ), and also probably in Leviticus 21:20 (מְרוֹחִ אָשֶׁךְ, one crush ed as to his testicles, Sept. partially μονόρχις ), the allusion is to a peculiar kind of emasculation still practiced in the East, according to the Greek physicians (Paulus AEgineta, book 6), which consists in softening the testicles of very young boys in warm water, and then rubbing and pressing them till they disappear. As the heathen priests were often thus qualified for office, persons so mutilated were excluded from the Jewish Church. (See ASHTORETH).
These files are public domain.
McClintock, John. Strong, James. Entry for 'Eunuch'. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature. https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/tce/e/eunuch.html. Harper & Brothers. New York. 1870.
