Religion

This Readers Guide introduces biblical interpreters to the use of spatial theory as it is applied to biblical texts. Modern geographers, anthropologists, and sociologists understand space to consist of the physical world in which people exist, the ideological underpinnings of understanding places as designated for certain activities while restricting other activities, and the lived practices of people within those places that sometimes challenge and sometimes reaffirm the expected uses of such places. Biblical scholars have only recently begun to consider how space fits into an analysis of the texts with which they are interested. These scholars use spatial theory to analyze the spaces of the Roman Empire and how Jesus and his early followers fit within those spaces, in some cases contesting dominant meanings and practices, while in other cases adopting the dominant spatial practices of their cultural contexts.

Studies 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.

Paul argues in Galatians 2:11–14 that Peter was guilty of hypocrisy because he had withdrawn from eating with Gentiles in Antioch. Paul’s argument is best understood through the social and rhetorical conventions related to the encomium. The problem for Paul is that his own behaviour is inconsistent, and the Galatians know of his changed behaviour (Gl 1:13). Paul, then, is at pains to explain how his own changed behaviour, as a result of a commissioning from God, is different from Peter’s changed behaviour, as a result of fear of those from the circumcision. Paul’s concern for explaining his own change in behaviour as positive and Peter’s as negative is related to his overall concern to prevent future changes in the Galatians’ behaviour given that they are, as Paul himself is, commissioned by God for a new freedom.

It is my great privilege to contribute to this special issue of Hervormde Teologiese Studies (HTS) celebrating the 75th anniversary of the journal issued by the Faculty of Theology at the University of Pretoria and to celebrate the contributions of Maake Masango to their mission. The research conducted at the Faculty of Theology, together with the hospitality they have shown in hosting international scholars, is a cause for celebration both in South Africa and throughout the world. May they continue to provide a model for an engaged scholarship for those in their homeland and for those around the world. Scholars have produced numerous works on masculinity in early Christianity in the last several decades (for descriptions of many of these works and the current state of the field in this area, Much recent work on the masculinities enacted by early Christians has focused upon Christian texts and claims about their heroes and practices among elite Christians. Lucian's Passing of Peregrinus offers another avenue for thinking about early Christian masculinity. Lucian denies Peregrinus' claim to masculinity on the basis of his over-concern for honour, especially from the masses, his inability to control his appetites regarding food and sex, his being a parricide, his enacting 'strange' ascetic practices and his lack of courage in the face of death. By tying Peregrinus to a Christian community in Judea, Lucian both demonstrates the lack of manliness in the Christian movement, which he suggests is populated mostly by gullible women and children, and further 'unmans' Peregrinus by linking him to a community of easily duped people whose praise is not worthy of a philosopher. By presenting this Christian community as a group that not only accepts Peregrinus as a member but also quickly establishes him as their leader, almost at par with Jesus himself, according to Lucian's account, these early Christians show their lack of self-control by being deceived by a charlatan. Early Christian writers who claimed that their heroes were manly, even more manly than the Greek or Roman heroes, were writing in part to rebut the types of claims made by writers like Lucian.

Paul argues in Galatians 2:11–14 that Peter was guilty of hypocrisy because he had withdrawn from eating with Gentiles in Antioch. Paul’s argument is best understood through the social and rhetorical conventions related to the encomium. The problem for Paul is that his own behaviour is inconsistent, and the Galatians know of his changed behaviour (Gl 1:13). Paul, then, is at pains to explain how his own changed behaviour, as a result of a commissioning from God, is different from Peter’s changed behaviour, as a result of fear of those from the circumcision. Paul’s concern for explaining his own change in behaviour as positive and Peter’s as negative is related to his overall concern to prevent future changes in the Galatians’ behaviour given that they are, as Paul himself is, commissioned by God for a new freedom.

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...

According to scholars of masculinity studies, manhood is won or lost through the performance of gender-based expectations. In any given culture, masculinities exist in hierarchal relationships. The author of the book of Acts shows Peter demonstrating elite masculine performances in the narrative of Acts. Through Peter’s self-control, and the lack of self-control on the part of those who oppose him, his persuasive, public speech and his ability to control others in the text, Peter exhibits a masculinity that contradicts early portraits of Peter found in 1 Corinthians and the gospels of Matthew, Mark and John. Peter is not overcome by other people in Acts, and he demonstrates a masculinity that is complicit with the types of masculinities prized by the Romans and often considered out of the reach of foreigners.

Building on the work of feminist queries regarding the social construction of gender, scholarship beginning in the 1980s began to interrogate masculinity as a culturally constructed category. Scholars focusing on the New Testament and early Christianity, building upon significant studies in both gender theory and the social construction of masculinity in ancient Greek and Roman contexts have produced a substantial amount of significant research in the last thirty years. Despite the proliferation of scholarship, significant questions remain as to how best to understand Jesus and his early followers in light of Greek and Roman understandings of masculinity. Some scholars see descriptions of Jesus, his disciples, and other key figures in the Jesus movement significantly resistant to key elements of Roman or Greek understandings of what it meant to be a man, while others argue that New Testament authors present these same figures substantially corresponding to hegemonic masculinity in t...

I argue, pace Thiessen, that the boundaries of restored Israel in Ezra 1–6 are porous: the texts that establish the community’s exclusivism do so only provisionally, in place of a working temple cult. This is shown especially in Ezra 2:61–63, where priests who cannot find written proof of their ancestry must wait for Urim and Thummim. Thus, during the Passover in Ezra 6:19–21, the cult (rather than written documents) ultimately establishes boundaries, permitting the inclusion of outsiders.