Sending a boy to do a man’s job: Hegemonic masculinity and the ‘boy’ Jesus in the <i>Infancy Gospel of Thomas</i>

Abstract

SStudies of masculinity have shown that masculinity is a socially acknowledged gender status. Rather than automatically attaining such a status simply through physical maturation, boys must ‘earn’ such status by matching the social conventions associated with masculinity. Boys earn such status through ‘doing gender’, that is, acting in ways that are assessed by others as meeting gendered norms. Failure to meet these norms can result in suggestions that boys are unmanly. For elite Romans, masculinity was attained through the domination of others, including spouse, children and enemies. Though Jesus is presented as a child in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, his actions lend themselves to interpretation in terms of expectations for elite Roman males. In this text, Jesus is described as behaving in ways normally associated with hegemonic masculinity in the Roman world. He is able to defeat opponents in violent ways through the power of his word, he is able to teach his teachers, and he is able to provide for his family. Throughout the text, Jesus is described more in terms of an adult male than a child.

Syncrisis as literary motif in the story about the grown-up child Jesus in the temple (Luke 2:41–52 and the Thomas tradition)

“…Eric Stewart (2015) is of the opinion that precisely the absence of the mention of Jesus' crucifixion in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas has made it possible, that an 'adult-like child' with the help of the syncrisis elements (my interpretation and not that of Stewart) of contrasting negative and positive actions, could confirm his 'hegemonic masculinity' according to 1stcentury Mediterranean conventions:…”

You are not a man, none of you are men! Early Christian masculinity and Lucian’s the Passing of Peregrinus

“…This notion, first developed by Carrigan, Connell and Lee (1985:551-604), stresses that masculinities exist in relational terms (Connell 2005:67-86). Carrigan et al (1985) describe a variety of relational masculinities, including hegemonic, complicit, subordinate and marginalised masculinities, and others have put these concepts to use for understanding various early Christian texts (Asikainen 2018:1-18;Stewart 2015:1-9, 2016a:1-7). Hegemonic masculinity is the form of masculinity which is dominant in any given culture at any given time (Connell & Messerschmidt 2005:830-833;Levy 2007:832-33).…”

“…One of the main questions regarding early Christian masculinity is whether early Christian masculinities are hegemonic, complicit, marginalised or voluntarily subordinate (Conway 2017:17-27;Wilson 2017:28-48). Different groups of Christians positioned themselves differently regarding hegemonic masculinity (Stewart 2015 :1-9, 2016b:1-7). Cobb (2012:esp.…”