Session 1: Gender and Sexuality in the Corinthian Correspondence
Kate Bowen-Evans, ‘Broadening Ableism Beyond Disability in the Body of Christ – 1 Corinthians 12.12-27’
Ableism is the under explored exclusionary assumption that bodies that do not fit an able norm are of less value. This paper broadens the definition of ableism, identifying its negative impact on bodies beyond those labelled disabled including those outside cis hetero norms. Lesbian, Gay, Transgender and Intersex (LGTI) bodies are also devalued by the reproductive economy, fixed binary boundaries of ableism and the assumed male hetero supremacy of Jesus as God’s perfect image. Ableism rejects the fluidity, unintelligibility and indecency of disabled bodies and LGTI bodies alike. This makes ableism a wide reaching unidentified oppressive hermeneutic. In biblical studies it has been primarily examined through the lens of disability hermeneutics, by John Swinton, Amos Yong, and Roji T. George amongst others. By applying this expanded understanding of ableism to 1 Corinthians 12:12–27, Paul’s metaphor of the body of Christ, this paper uncovers unidentified ableism in translation and commentary and challenges norms that exclude both disabled and LGTI people.
Junette Galagala-Nacion, University of Edinburgh, ‘Upholding the Gender Tension In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 1 Corinthians 14:33-35: a Reading from Filipino Patriarchal-Egalitarian Dynamics’
The role of women in Christian ministry has been embroiled in never-ending debate and the Pauline corpus is among the texts subjected to intense scrutiny. First Corinthians is an interesting case because it contains divergent perspectives within a single work that is commonly attributed to Paul. These seeming contradictions are located: (1) within 1 Cor 11:2-16; and (2) between 1 Cor 11:2-16 and 14:33-35.
I argue that Paul’s contrasting statements in 1 Corinthians are an attempt to deal with an existing patriarchal-egalitarian tension in Corinthian society that influenced the church. Using historical-grammatical exegesis, tensions were established (1) within 1 Cor 11:2-16 (vv. 2-10, 13-16 against vv. 11-12) and (2) between 1 Cor 14:33-35 and 1 Cor 11:5, 13. Using cultural exegesis to analyze tensions in the passage, I describe parallels between the patriarchal-egalitarian gender dynamics of the Filipino society-family and the Corinthian society-household. The similarities between Filipino and Corinthian gender dynamics are drawn from societal changes leading to women’s wider public participation and social structures that moderated male privilege and accommodated female influence.
Annalisa Phillips Wilson, University of Cambridge, ‘“All Things are from God”: An Examination of 1 Corinthians 11.2–16’
1 Cor. 11.2–16 has been thoroughly analysed, but its preoccupation with prepositions has been neglected. In this paper, I will propose that this feature suggests that the topos of causation provides important discursive context for Paul’s argument. I also suggest that this context may, in turn, explain other features such as the meaning of κεφαλή, the analogy of the pairs in 11.3, and the relationship of 11.10 to the entire rationale. In 11.3 Paul presents three causal relationships that bear upon gendered head covering practices. Since he is primarily concerned to justify covered female heads, he focuses on the man’s effects upon the woman that render her nature capable of honouring the man and sharing in his glory. Paul argues that by wearing head coverings, the women display both their own honour and the men’s in Christ, something Paul depicts as an act of dominion that participates in the cosmic triumph of Christ and recognises God as the cause of all.
Session 2: Gender and Sexuality in Paul’s Letters
Brian W. Bunnell, Clemson University, ‘Paul’s Manly Women in Romans 16’
A scholarly trope suggests that the descriptions of women in Romans 16 offers evidence for the egalitarian Paul: the portrayals of women as key participants in the church at Rome means that they were in no way inferior to men and indicates that they were given prominent leadership roles alongside their male counterparts. However, scholars have yet to examine Paul’s descriptions of his female associates in Romans 16 with due consideration to the impact ancient gender ideologies would exert on his language. In this paper I argue that Paul’s descriptions of women in this chapter do not offer a clean break with ancient gender norms but are a reinscription of them. Paul names nine women in Romans 16 and seven of these receive descriptions of praise (e.g., Phoebe [vv. 1–2]; Prisicilla [vv. 3–4]; Mary [v. 6]; Junia [v.7]; Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis [v. 12]) not because Paul is an egalitarian, but because Paul understands their actions as embodiments of masculine virtues worthy of commendation. He values them because they are manly women.
Mattie E. Motl, University of St Andrews, ‘Paul and the Passive Patriarch: Paul’s Ideal Masculinity Through the Construction of Abraham in Romans 4:1-25’
Raewyn Connell’s theory of hegemonic masculinity posits that societies perpetuate ideal masculinity through the construction of fantasy figures. In this paper, I analyze Paul’s construction of Abraham in Romans 4.1-25 as one example of a fantasy figure through whom Paul communicates a masculine ideal. I will identify and evaluate the masculinity of Paul’s Abraham in Rom 4.1-25 through the four criteria of 1) virtue, 2) role, 3) relationship, and 4) body. In utilizing these criteria, I will demonstrate that Paul’s Abraham is remarkably passive—especially when compared with contemporary depictions of Abraham’s masculinity (Wis, 10.5; Philo, On Abraham, XXII. 109b-110b, XIX. 90, XXXVII.208; Sirach 44.20; Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 7.1, 10.3). To conclude, I consider the ways that Paul’s Abraham influences his own self-presentation of ideal human masculinity in contrast to the ideal divine masculinity of God (Phil 4:13; 2 Cor 11:16-33).
David E. Bell, ‘The Lord as ἔκδικος in 1 Thess 4:6: Paul’s Response to Sexual Exploitation’
Paul gives little clue as to the situation prompting his instruction to avoid πορνεία in 1 Thess 4:3-8. However, his description of Jesus as ἔκδικος offers some insight into his perspective on this sexual transgression. This paper briefly surveys Greco-Roman uses of the term, looking beyond unnuanced translation as ‘avenger’ to argue that common use to signify a legal representative for minors and adult women resonates particular with this context. Further vocabulary in 4:3-8 conveys power dynamics of neglect and exploitation (ὑπερβαίνειν καὶ πλεονεκτεῖν, 4:6). Those most vulnerable to such sexual exploitation – lower status women and children – would also typically be those requiring an ἔκδικος in legal hearings.
Attention to Paul’s vocabulary, alongside recognizing sexual abuse of children as an assumed element in contemporary discourse on πορνεία, here brings those of lower power and status into view. This expands the range of possible sexual scenarios into which Paul might be seen to speak, and adds a new dimension to his portrayal of Jesus (and perhaps his own role): as speaking or acting on their behalf.
Session 3: Open Session
Kai Akagi, Rikkyo University, ‘Pentateuchal Terminology and Specific Correspondence to Deuteronomy 7 in the Eulogy of Ephesians 1:3–14’
This paper will argue that Pentateuchal terminology is used in the eulogy of Ephesians 1:3–14 for the purpose of expressing inclusion of gentiles with Jewish people in accordance with the epistle’s ecclesiology. In addition to using language associated with Abraham (thus implicitly appealing to Abraham for a soteriology inclusive of gentiles in a manner consistent with more explicit appeals in other Pauline literature), the eulogy displays specific correspondence to Deuteronomy 7 through a distinctive combination and order of terms. After noting the implications of differences from LXX Deuteronomy, this paper will use the theories of allusion of Carmela Perry and William Irwin to consider the interpretive significance of a text exclusive of gentiles (Deut 7) for a seemingly opposite purpose of expressing their inclusion in Ephesians.
Daniel Mikkelsen, University of Edinburgh, ‘“All Flesh” (πᾶσα σάρξ) in Paul in Light of Its Usage in the LXX: A Key to Understanding Paul’s Anthropology’
It is undeniable that the apostle Paul often uses the word σάρξ (“flesh”) negatively, but it is less clear why he does so. It is generally accepted that Paul’s usage is multifaceted, but recent scholarship often presumes that Paul uses σάρξ negatively because he understands it as a weak and mortal material which causes humans to sin and rebel against God. But is this correct? Interestingly, Paul uses the common LXX phrase πᾶσα σάρξ (“all flesh”) most frequently of all New Testament writers, and half of Paul’s usages are clear allusions to the LXX. The question, then, is: how are Paul’s usages informed by the LXX, and how does it shape his anthropology? This paper seeks, firstly, to investigate the LXX usage of πᾶσα σάρξ – arguing that there it denotes human materiality, not the reason for mortality or sin – and, secondly, to demonstrate that πᾶσα σάρξ in Paul follows this LXX usage, suggesting a potentially better frame for interpreting σάρξ in Paul.
Corinne Noonan-Samuelson, University of Edinburgh, ‘Greatness and Humility: Comparing Ethical Themes of Paul and Cicero’
This paper will explore Roman ethics in the late Republic and early Empire with an emphasis on social lowliness and greatness. Rather than reading Paul’s letters as an injection of morality into a world without any, it is important to remember that Graeco-Roman culture prided itself on moral sophistication. Paul was speaking into a world with extensively developed ethical frameworks, to which Cicero, the father of Roman philosophy, was a key contributor. This paper seeks to analyse Paul’s concept of humility (Rom, 2 Cor, Phil) alongside Cicero’s greatness of spirit (De officiis) to illuminate how joining the Christ-movement may have impacted, even jeopardised, individuals’ social position. By highlighting first-century Roman moral ideals and social values, this paper seeks to (1) better position Paul in his world, not as a unique arbiter of morality, but as one moral agent among many; and (2) distinguish between that which Paul inherited from the broader Roman worldviews and that which he actively rejected.