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.
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.
Paul argues in Galatians 2:11–14 that Peter was guilty of hypocrisy because he had withdrawn from eating with Gentiles in Antioch.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.<p><strong>How to cite this article:</strong> Stewart, E., 2011, ‘I’m okay, you’re not okay: Constancy of character and Paul’s understanding of change in his own and Peter’s behaviour’, <em>HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies</em> 67(3), Art. #1002, 8 pages. doi:10.4102/hts.v67i3.1002</p>
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.