Was Daniel a Eunuch?

It is suggested from time to time that Daniel and his friends may have served as eunuchs in the court of Nebuchadnezzar. This idea is illustrated, for example, in the 14th century illuminated manuscript shown above, which depicts the Hebrew captives being castrated. Where does this idea come from, and how reliable is it?

The best case to be made for supposing that Daniel was a eunuch hangs on an implication and the translation of a Hebrew word. If you read the KJV (or ESV), you will find 7 references in Daniel chapter 1 to the prince or master or chief “of the eunuchs.” From the context it is clear that this person had overall authority over some other officials and the Hebrew captives, which could imply that everyone underneath him was also a eunuch.

It is known that eunuchs served in the palaces of the Assyrians (who came before the time of Daniel) and in the royal court of the Persians (who came after the time of Daniel). Both Assyrians and Persians depicted eunuchs as beardless men. So it would not be a stretch to suppose that eunuchs served in the Babylonian court as well.

A beardless Assyrian eunuch from the palace of Sargon II, 8th century BC

There is more to this story, however. The Hebrew word that the KJV translates as “eunuch” is saris (סָרִס). When this word appears in the book of Esther, it is translated by nearly all English versions as “eunuch.” However, that is based on the context (the men are in charge of the king’s harem). The word saris has another, even more common, use. In numerous other places in the Old Testament, this word is translated as “official.” Here are two quick examples:

Genesis 37:36 And the Midianites sold him into Egypt unto Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh’s, and captain of the guard. (KJV)

2 Kings 24:12 And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign. (KJV)

In fact, nearly all occurrences of this word, outside of the book of Esther, appear from their context to refer to regular officials in the royal court, not to eunuchs. This is why most English versions (NAS, NET, NIV, NRS, etc.) translate the word as “official” or similar in Daniel.

A few points in summary:

  • The newer versions are probably correct when they translate saris as “official,” not “eunuch.” This is it’s most common meaning in the Bible.
  • Even if saris is translated as “eunuch,” the text nowhere states that Daniel was a eunuch; this idea would have to rest on an inference that everyone under this man must also have been a eunuch. Such an inference might not be correct.
  • There is nothing in Daniel’s job description that indicates that it would have been necessary for him to be castrated (e.g. working with the royal harem).

Is it possible that Daniel was a eunuch? Yes. Is it likely that he was a eunuch? No, at least not from any indication in the biblical text.

    Comments

    1. Avatar for Kris Udd Billie German : January 16, 2020 at 1:32 pm

      Isaiah 39:5-7, there is a prophesy concerning the heirs or Hezekiah be coming Eunuchs in the palace of the King of Babylon.
      It seems likely to me that because Daniel & his buds, working so closely w/ the King,would have become Eunuchs. Whether they became “true” eunuchs? Or not doesn’t diminish his walk of Faith.
      Thanx Billie

      • Great observation, Billie. That prophecy raises two questions: 1) was Daniel a direct descendant of Hezekiah? 2) did Isaiah intend saris to be “eunuchs” (KJV) or “officials” (NAS)? Regarding the first question, we know nothing of Daniel’s lineage from the Bible. Perhaps he was part of the royal household and a descendant of Hezekiah, or perhaps there were other descendants of Hezekiah to whom Isaiah’s prophecy refers. On the second question, the word seems capable of being used to refer to either, making it impossible to answer that question from this text alone. Either way, Daniel was an exceptional man of faith. His role in shepherding God’s people during the exile and as a prophet can hardly be overstated.

        • Avatar for Kris Udd Billie German : January 25, 2020 at 1:28 pm

          Thanx for replying. Wouldn’t Daniel be appalled if he knew what we were “wondering”about all these years later?? But he is really one of my favorite people that the Lord allows us to peek into a life that honors the Lord. God Bless & thanx again.

        • Avatar for Kris Udd Dudley Gordon : April 6, 2023 at 9:34 am

          When you started picking and choosing between translations, tells me you heap to your ears whatever you desire to believe and that you don’t know what God’s word is! Thanks!

          • “Picking and choosing between translations” is a necessary part of the study of God’s word. If you cannot read Hebrew and Greek, you are restricted to English versions, and because they are not letter for letter identical, you as the reader must choose. Restricting yourself to one, such as the KJV, does not change that. There is plenty of variation between different editions of the KJV too. Even if you retreat to the 1611 KJV alone, you cannot avoid the necessity of choosing a reading– does one choose the “he” printing or the “she” printing of Ruth 3:15 in the 1611 KJV? To take it a step further, the authors of the NT sometimes chose to quote the Greek Septuagint (e.g. Heb 2:7), and sometimes chose to quote the Hebrew text (e.g. Heb 10:30). Some might suggest that the author of Hebrews was heaping up to his ears whatever he desired to believe and that he didn’t know what God’s word was, but I would hesitate to be so critical. If the authors of the NT did not feel it necessary to use only the Hebrew text or only the Septuagint, perhaps we should be wary of drawing such lines among English translations as well. God bless your sincere study of His word, brother.

        • Avatar for Kris Udd Ingrid Homoet : April 17, 2023 at 11:04 am

          We know that the king Jehojakim was left to reproduce offspring in Babylon. This offspring was not castrated.so, the prophecy of Isaiah does not necessarily have to apply to princes of direct Royal blood. Daniel, on the other hand, was called one of the princes. And then one might suggest that he was indeed castrated. To me to suggest that Azpenaz, the head of the eunuchs, might not have only eunuchs under his command is likewise inference.
          Reading the text as it is, Daniel and his 3 friends were Judean princes and were castrated.

    2. If God protected three men that were thrown in a super hot furnace and one man who was throw into a den full of hungry lions because these men loved and honored Him with their lives, could/would He also choose to keep them whole and untouched for His purposes? These same men chose not to eat the kings food because they wanted to keep their body’s healthy for His service. Please explain to me why their loving God would allow this dishonor to be done on them. They were used as government officials not harem attendants.

      • In my view they were not eunuchs. Some of the older English versions translate the word saris that way, which is what prompts the question. The word can have that meaning, but that is not its more common meaning, and I would suggest that there is better reason to translate it here as “official” rather than “eunuch.” The theological point you make is a good one.

        • It could be that God put these young men under the protection of the chief eunuch so they might not be sexually abused?

        • Avatar for Kris Udd Geofrey Kibure : October 12, 2021 at 4:41 am

          I want also to know that in the neo Babylon empire eunuchs were there like in Assyria before Daniel and Persia after Daniel? And if the answer is yes can’t you see that Daniel was also eunuch?

      • God allowed the disciples to be murdered, crucified, sawn in half, stoned and he loved them. He protected them all other times except the end. So it’s possible he allowed it yet protected their life.

    3. Just wondered if v4 answers the question of whether Daniel and his friends were Eunuchs? In verse four it state, “in whole there was no blemish.” Surly, if they had been castrated, their would have been a blemish?

      • I completely agree with you on this. It’s interesting how this verse has so much to take away; the words “without blemish,” the fact that God protected them from many dangers, and so in.

    4. Avatar for Kris Udd Rev Victor Peter : January 10, 2023 at 7:27 pm

      Very interesting observation about SARIS. Most of the time its understood as eunchus. Thanks for enlightening me.

    Leave a Reply to Kris Udd Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *