Expert: Hoyt Roberson - 1/26/2009

Question
QUESTION: Firstly, I am a Christian according to the definition of the word, however, I am not a bible toting, damning to hell Christian.  I continuously try to adhere to the laws of Yeshua like all Christians do and some of the teachings of Paul who was once known as Saul.  I ponder with many things in various relgious doctrines I have studied, but the one word I'm pondering with now is eunuch.  Jesus tells us that some are born and some become one.  God gave man the ability to talk, however, man gave definition to words being spoken, so how do we know exactly what a eunuch is or was?  Do we know of any "born" eunuchs living today?  Do we know of any that have made themselves eunuchs? How do we know that an eunuch is only a man when a woman's clitoris is considered to be like a little penis? In some culturals there is casteration of both male and female. Lastly, I have found it best since man created religion and use it in a way to satisfy his or her pallet then it is best to think outside the box and not be afraid to ask questions.

ANSWER: Well Jeri, I'm not a "Bible-toting, damning to Hell" Christian either. Well, except that I've been known to carry a Bible, but I try not to thump it too loudly. ;)

Strictly and literally speaking, a eunuch is a man who has been emasculated. However, there are some who have made themselves eunuchs and this can be understood to refer to "having decided to forego sex."

Here's a link to a decent discussion of the term:

http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/E/EUNUCH/

And here is the Wiki article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch

The Wiki article includes a paragraph on non-castrated eunuchs.

The word does not refer to women (at least in a Biblical sense). There may be several reasons for this including the low social status of women (they didn't have any power against which one needed protection), and in any event, what man (at that time) would have wanted a female eunuch? Women's lack of power and status as essentially property obviate the necessity or desirability of making or referring to women as eunuchs. The designation isn't a religious one, but rather a cultural one.

There are cultures that circumcise women presumably to prevent them from fully enjoying intercourse - and thus keeping them "at home."

People born eunuchs may refer to either those otherwise deformed, and those who are impotent.

Check out the links and let me know if you have any more questions.

Have a great day!

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: If I am wrong, may God direct my path. However, man created words and the meaning of words, so how do we know most "definitely" the definition of what a Eunuch is or was? The language that Yeshua spoke was a mixture of Hebrew and Arabic...a language which probably isn't spoken or is spoken in a broken delect.  When interpretating or translation one has to be very careful, because some words in another language isn't in the Greek, Latin or English language.  In Hebrew one word can make a sentence.  So again how do we know the meaning of an eunuch or what one is or was?  Then how do we know for sure that the word is suppose to be there?  After all from what I'm told and was taught there were those that translated/trascribed as a job during the time of King James, but we know that they were human and humans do make errors.  They get tired/weary...they may leave some words out and add some words...they can leave out a whole paragraph and to have it typed???  In my studies I have found where I was reading about one thing and the next thing I knew it started talking about something...I broke this to one of my friends attention to make sure I was seeing and reading correctly.  Then there was another time where in my bible Emmanuel was spelled with an E, however, in my friends bible it was spelled with an I and were were reading the same passage. So many things...that's why God is a mistery and will remain a mistery to all.  Thanks for sharing with me your thoughts and thanks for providing with the websites.

Answer
Jeri,

The study of language, its translation, and our use of ancient texts is both a science and art. What a particular word meant at the time of its use is determined using a number of approaches and tools. One of the most useful tools is the use other texts make of the particular word. In this approach, texts other than Bible texts are used to provide either corroborating or correcting evidence for the way a word in used in Scripture (and vice versa).

In addition, the use of a word can be traced through history as well, assuming the language remains a "live" language. As a word morphs in meaning, it shows up in other contexts. In reverse, the word shows up in fewer and fewer contexts as we trace it farther into history.

The work of scribes has been shown to be considerably exact in the copying and preserving of Scripture texts. This is not simply a statement, but something that has been checked by scientists over the years. We can be almost certain that we have in English (I'll address other languages in a moment) the same texts that we have in early Greek and Hebrew texts. Translating texts into other languages is not done primarily from English but rather from the same manuscripts used to make the English translations. Translators in organizations such as the American Bible Society work with experts from around the world including native speakers to pick the right native words to use.

It is true that man determines the meaning of words - they are after all, our tools. However, languages rely on semi-regular grammatical rules and word meanings that don't change frequently. If they did, a particular language would be useless.

It is true that we do not have original manuscripts of any of Scripture. This issue is addressed by those practice form, and source criticism. Their pursuit is to ferret out the original words of the source material.

It is true that we may not understand all the nuances of a particular word, but we can be pretty certain that we understand the main thrust of them.

To determine if a word is supposed to be in a particular passage, translators compare various ancient texts and make decisions concerning the best readings. There remains some uncertainty in the final form however. For instance, Rom 3.22, normally translated as our belief or faith in Jesus, can be translated as the faith that was in Jesus, or Jesus' faithfulness. However, this speaks more to teasing out meanings rather than whether a particular word is in the text. That simple determination has been pretty much determined without much reservation using early manuscripts.

Even that though does not mean that we can determine 100% of the text - we cannot. Most study Bibles or critical commentaries will identify those passages that have alternative readings. There aren't however, that many of those.

We can therefore, be pretty sure that the word translated as eunuch is in the original texts. What that word meant at the time may be more problematic, but we can be pretty sure what it meant. Is it possible that there may be some nuances that we are not aware of? Sure, but without knowing what the nuance was, we can't do anything about it.

The spelling of Emmanuel with either an I or an E is pretty much irrelevant. For instance, in English we can spell judgment with or without an "e" between the "g" and "m." With or without the "e" makes no difference to the meaning of the word.

We have to do the best we can with what we have, and what we have has been scrutinized by hundreds if not thousands of highly trained folks. They have given us texts that mirror very closely what we can be sure was the original texts.

Thank you for your interest in this topic - keep studying.