--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Thanks, Curtis! That's way interesting. The Finnish "translation" is, > > to say the least, rather lame; something like "those, who have > > chosen not to marry". The Latin goes like "qui se ipsos > > castraverunt"... (those who castrate themselves), and the German > > "die sich selbst verschnitten haben um des Himmelreichs willen." > > Thanks for the follow up. The Latin is even scarier especially > considering Catholic's long reliance on that language. I like the > Finnish dodge which is the current way to make the problem go away. > That is does not make sense in the statement does not matter to > believers. There is only one path to making oneself a eunuch! > Anymore insights on the original words is appreciated. If it is all > clear in Aramaic that would be interesting.
>From the Wikipedia article on "eunuch": Non-castrated eunuchs There is much evidence indicating that ancient and medieval cultures used the term "eunuch" much differently than we do today. In the compendium of ancient Roman civil law created by Justinian I in the 6th century known as the Digest or Pandects, eunuchs are characterized as "not diseased or defective" and as physically capable of procreation (Digest 21.1.6.2) -- that is, unless they are "missing a necessary part" of their anatomy (D 21.1.7). This implies that some eunuchs are anatomically whole. The word eunuch is said to be a general designation that includes eunuchs "by nature" as well as those who have suffered some kind of physical injury (D 50.16.128). Eunuchs are also distinguished from "castrati" in the Roman laws: eunuchs, if not castrated, were eligible to marry women (D 23.3.39.1), institute posthumous heirs (D 28.2.6), and adopt children (Institutions of Justinian 1.11.9), while castrati were excluded from all of these rights. In her essay "Living in the Shadows: Eunuchs and Gender in Byzantium," Kathryn M. Ringrose demonstrates how eunuch societies included not only castrated men but also homosexuals, transgenders, ascetics, celibates and a wide range of men who were technically impotent or disinterested in women for a wide range of reasons. In India, for instance, a recent study (Citation Needed) of "eunuchs" revealed that only 8% were actually castrated and less than 1% were intersexed (hermaphroditic). The vast majority of the Indian eunuchs studied were either effeminate homosexual men or crossdressing transgenders, causing many historians to wonder if a similar reality existed in other "eunuch" cultures around the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch In other words, the Greek term translated "eunuch," while it literally meant "bed-keeper," referring to castrated men who guarded a ruler's bed chamber, was commonly used to mean simply a man who did not have sex with women. In that light, have another look at the Bible verse: Matthew 19:12 "For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it." The first appears to refer to men who are biologically and/or psychologically incapable of having sex with women (including, perhaps, gay men, as well as those who are impotent); the second to castrated (including self- castrated) men (perhaps also men who were not permitted to marry or even those who were sterile); and the third to men who were voluntarily celibate. It's interesting to note that in the Book of Daniel are these verses (1:3-4): "The king spoke to Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring in certain of the children of Israel, even of the seed royal and of the nobles; youths in whom was no blemish, but well-favored, and skillful in all wisdom, and endowed with knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability to stand in the king's palace; and that he should teach them the learning and the language of the Chaldeans." The master of the king's eunuchs was asked to choose from among his charges young Jewish men "in whom was no blemish." This obviously cannot refer to castrated men, yet they were called eunuchs. It's also important, as with virtually any Bible text, to look at the *context* (Matthew 19:1-11), in which Jesus is responding to a question concerning Moses, who sent his wife away so as not to be distracted in his mission of leading his people to the Promised Land. Jesus' disciples suggest that in such a situation-- nominally a divorce, which Jesus has just said is against God's law--it would be better not to marry at all. Jesus then goes on to deliver the teaching about eunuchs (Matthew 19:12), essentially asserting that not all men are *called* to be in a traditional marriage. In that context, "eunuch" clearly refers to those men who do not marry and have children, not just to those incapable of having sex with women, and certainly not just to those who are castrated. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
