Of Eunuchs and predators: Matthew 19:1-12 in a cultural context - Critical Essay

* Among the characteristics which made up masculinity, "what made a man to be a man," that is, the standard of male behavior, what is of interest to us here are these three:

In the first place, a real man--as is still said today: "un hombre como Dios manda" (literally, "a man just as God ordered")--should spend little time at home, just enough to eat and sleep. He should be in his own space, in public, with his peers, making and accepting challenges and ripostes with other men where he could be seen and assessed according to the usual criteria (Brandes: 218). Cohen (72-73) writes:

    In Athens, a wide variety of offenses brought some degree or
    another of loss of civic rights (atimia, literally, the state of
    being without honor). In Athens, then, as in many modern
    Mediterranean communities, to be shut out of the public
    space where men gather, whether by force of law or a public
    opinion, eliminates the possibility of maintaining one's
    standing in the eyes of the community, and marks one with
    the dishonor. In both of these social worlds men must continuously
    inhabit the appropriate public places to preserve
    or enhance their reputations.

If I may provide some personal experiences, my grandfather never carried a bag or a child in his arms when he could be seen by the neighbors because, he said, "these are women's things and it is shameful for a man." And I remember that when I was a child the habitual behavior of working class men after work was to spend most of the time outside the home, in the local bar, with peers.

So it is not very surprising to discover that several passages in Aristotle, Xenophon and others allude to this sort of behavior when they describe the government of the polis or oikia. Spending too much time at home in the company of women without participating in the tests of virility and challenges to honor were characteristics of dishonor, even of deviant behavior:

    I believe that the god arranged that the work and supervision
    indoors are a woman's task, and outdoors are the man's
    ... and it is more disgraceful for a man to remain inside than
    to take care of work outside. If anyone does something contrary
    to the nature god gave him, it is quite possible that his
    defiance is detected by the gods and that he will pay the
    penalty for ignoring his proper work or doing a woman's
    work [Xenophon, OECONOMICUS 7.22;30-31].

In the second place, men had to be brave and prove their bravery or "manliness." This was understood as the ability to face up to difficult situations, such as defending one's wife, children and relatives against attacks from other men, usually regarded as predators. If a man could not or did not know how to defend his own, especially his wife, against other men, his honor was inevitably stained or damaged. This is what happens in cases of adultery. The story of Lucretia, told by Titus Livy (HISTORY OF ROME, 1.57.6-58), is clearly illustrative of this point. The same can be said of Israelite tradition (see the laws in Deuteronomy 22 and the difference between the penalties for rape and adultery). In the case of adultery, the offence is against a male's honor; the action ridicules him, his property is attacked. This idea is quite ancient, traceable to as early as 1250 BCE in Middle Assyrian law (cf. Lerner: 134-35). Of course the sentiment has continued up to the present. It is important to take note of the fact that sexual exclusiveness is demanded only of the wife, never of the husband, who was free to sleep with other women. Therefore, adultery was always committed against the husband, never against the wife. Lerner (134) cites Middle Assyrian Law par. 40, which reads as follows: