Medieval History, Modern History, Syro Malabar Church, Thomas Christians

RE: Eunuchs We’re in luck, Kiraz’s Comparative Edition of …

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to consider the subscription options.

Follow us on Facebook, or Twitter, or Google +.

Comment posted Major Arch Bishop Alencheril Mar Giwargis II Bava-The Patriarch of Syro Malabar Church and The Gate of All India- A Discussion on The Historical Hierarchical Status of The Church of Saint Thomas Christians by John Mathew.

RE: Eunuchs

We’re in luck, Kiraz’s Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels can be found at:

http://books.google.com/books?id=fYwFh8GGnesC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false

Page 281 has the verse in question; M 19:12.

Three of the editions (Old Syriac Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshitta) employ the common Syriac word for faithful (mhymna). The fourth (the Harklean) employs the Greek term eunuch transliterated into Syriac.

Perhaps someone who knows could comment on the antiquity of these four editions. I would be willing to bet that the Harklean, the one with the Greek transliteration, is the latest. And if so, that might explain why Payne-Smith lists faithful, and *secondarily*, eunuch as equivalents of “mhymna”. Perhaps the “eunuch” came via retroactively aligning mhymna with the purported meaning of “eunuch” if one references the Greek.

As well, it would be interesting to understand the Semitic root for mhymna — hymn — and what it’s meaning was. I believe the Hebrew word for faithful is very similar, whereas the Hebrew word for eunuch is something completely different (srys — one of the three Syriac words for eunuch, not mhymna, is similar to it). So all of this points to a strong possibility that the use of mhymna in Syriac for eunuch was only done retroactively to align the Syriac Gospels with the Greek, in terms of meaning.

I’m very surprised by the unquestioning attitude of some regarding this matter. Read up about what eunuchs were, and how they were created and employed. This is something that is totally at odds with what the Old Testament teaches. Mutilation of the human body, removing from it the procreative ability — this is something that I can’t see any parallel for in the Bible. To suggest that God taught that one ought to be a eunuch is very strange.

Moreover, if one reads about the great heros of the Old Testament — the prophets and the patriarchs — who were they? They were family men — literal, fathers. Did their being fathers and family men contribute negatively to their knowledge of God? When the Hebrews turned from God, did the prophets talk about their lack of acetism or lack of virginity? Not at all! It was their lack of charity, their lack of protection of the poor against oppression, their lack of friendship with God and his creation. There is criticism in the Prophets of fake religion and ritualism, versus nothing on the topic of the inferiority of the family man/woman as compared to the ascetic. Who are the ascetics in the Old Testament anyways?

To those who cite Paul, let’s not forget one critical fact: Paul was a Hellenized Jew who persecuted Christians. He was not a disciple of Christ, and the culture he followed was separated by several centuries from the culture of the Hebrews in the Old Testament. And to those who cite the Church Fathers: ditto. They were all ex-pagans, using translations of scriptures (Greek, Latin and Syriac), some of which have variant meanings. Are these the people whose teachings we should adopt instead of what the true patriarchs — Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. — lived and did? This makes no sense.