Who were eunuchs as a social class to the authors/original intended readers of the scriptures? Would early Christians have known any eunuchs? What about the authors/readers of the book of Esther? How ‘other’ were they in these times and places? It seems to me like the Ethiopian eunuch story portrays a wealthy and powerful foreigner who happens to also be a eunuch - is the detail that they’re a eunuch maybe supposed to indicate a sense of exotic difference, or what would it have signified? Any surrounding info about this would be fascinating!
So I’m no biblical scholar, but I can give you a little more than I’ve talked about before. For the probable thoughts and attitudes of the actual people starring in the bible, you definitely want to look at Talmudic understanding of gender. Here is a nice write up from /u/yodatsracist, with the 6 genders in Judaism, 4 of which are liminal. Eunuchs would have been saris, or, in certain cases, possibly tumtum. So there was a place for eunuchs, albeit not the highest possible place in society, but they were understood as having a role, and not unthinkably exotic or something educated Jewish men weren’t prepped to deal with.
The Ethiopian eunuch is interesting, and actually as I recall no one has ever asked about him, which is why I dug myself out an hour to come talk to you... So now let us pull our good book out from the pew pocket and turn to Acts 8:26-40… (I paste NRSV below but I link to the translation that has a billion little translation footnotes)
26 Then an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Get up and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” (This is a wilderness road.) 27 So he got up and went. Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury. He had come to Jerusalem to worship 28 and was returning home; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over to this chariot and join it.” 30 So Philip ran up to it and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 He replied, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him. 32 Now the passage of the scripture that he was reading was this:
“Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter,
and like a lamb silent before its shearer,
so he does not open his mouth.
33 In his humiliation justice was denied him.
Who can describe his generation?
For his life is taken away from the earth.”
34 The eunuch asked Philip, “About whom, may I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” 35 Then Philip began to speak, and starting with this scripture, he proclaimed to him the good news about Jesus. 36 As they were going along the road, they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?”38 He commanded the chariot to stop, and both of them, Philip and the eunuch, went down into the water, and Philip baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip found himself at Azotus, and as he was passing through the region, he proclaimed the good news to all the towns until he came to Caesarea.
Many biblical scholars, both academic and non, have pondered what he means, and I am probably the least qualified to throw my hat in, being just an atheist with a very particular interest. But he has three things that are challenging about him: 1. He is a eunuch, 2. He is probably the first Gentile converted (there is, as ever, debate), and 3. The one usually overlooked, he’s probably enslaved. The last, more than anything, is what would have determined his place in the world. It’s a little hard to say. He is not identified as a slave, but then again, neither is Daniel. Almost all eunuchs of that time period were enslaved.
So we have him presented as a literate, powerful man, but still without full agency, possibly enslaved to a woman, and an odd gender. However, he has enough agency (and wealth) to travel to explore a new religion, buy a manuscript and read it, and then demand to be let into this religion. And Philip is cool with this, which is more interesting, he baptizes this strange person into this new religion, and everyone’s thrilled about it. So what are we to make of him? Why is he, a true bit player, presented to us as unnamed yet an individual convert with lots of details? I can’t tell you hard facts here, it’s up to you to define your own meaning to him, but a popular interpretation is that he symbolizes that Christianity is open to everyone, even non-Jewish enslaved eunuchs, who can but profess their faith (included in later edits of the story, because people got really into that) and get a little wet. Also he indicates that God loves people who seek out conversion on their own - the Ethiopian eunuch converted himself, God woke Philip up and sent him out in the desert just to make it official, he is contrasted with other people in Acts who have to be defeated to accept Christianity. The Ethiopian eunuch is presented as a model member of the new Christianity, despite the many elements that would make him an outcast in other societies of the time. And that’s neat!
A little old, but check out:
You can read a decent amount on Google Books. She has a broader view of masculinity in the NT that is very interesting.
Also check out:
He has a discussion on the probable enslaved status of the Ethiopian eunuch.
I'm not sure if this along the lines of what you are looking for, but Eunuchs and homosexuality? by u/caffarelli discusses the context for Matthew 19:12. Another look at the same verse comes in this thread Self Castration in early Christianity. again by u/caffarelli