Genesis 9:20–27 raises difficult exegetical questions, such as why Noah curses Canaan rather than Ham in 9:25–27. Additionally, the text has an infamous history of providing a popular defense of slavery in Africa and the United States. Some African American interpreters have argued that Noah’s curse should not be understood as divinely sanctioned words because Noah is still under the influence of alcohol when he speaks. Linking Noah’s actions in Gen 9:20–24 with his words in 9:25–27, these interpreters attend to the literary context of Noah’s speech while also combatting one of the most noxious uses of the Bible in recent centuries. This article adds exegetical support to this approach, demonstrating how this interpretation avoids the pitfalls of other treatments while working exceptionally well on a literary level with the passage itself. All of Noah’s behaviors in 9:21–27 align with clinical descriptions of alcohol intoxication.

Exodus 2:1–10 has been thoroughly analyzed from a feminist perspective. This is appropriate because women play a significant role in the story. However, it is important to note that these female characters are not only defined by gender but also by ethnicity and social status. Combining analyses of ethnicity, gender, and class, this article demonstrates how the female figures in Exod 2:1–10 ignore, challenge, and subvert the polarizations established in Exod 1:8–22 by the Egyptian king. Exodus 2:1–10 can even be read as an example of cross-ethnic, cross-class, and cross-generational solidarity against a despotic regime that marginalizes and oppresses by using marks of differences. However, upon closer analysis it becomes evident that the female figures’ interactions are also determined by an unequal power dynamic. The article demonstrates how examining differences in gender, ethnicity, and class provides a nuanced understanding of power relations within biblical texts.

This article re-thinks the development of Paul’s thought between 1 and 2 Corinthians. Instead of the traditional developmental interpretation of Paul that emphasizes the differences between 1 Cor 15:35–57 and 2 Cor 5:1–5, I argue that a discernable development is to be found between 1 Cor 12:13 and 2 Cor 4:7–12. I demonstrate significant parallels between the two latter texts in terms of topic, argumentation, and the conceptual structure on which Paul’s argumentation is built. Based on the parallels, I argue that 1 Cor 12:13 conceptually allows for the innovative idea of “ongoing transformation,” which is formulated in 2 Cor 3:18, and provides the conceptual structure of “double body-containers” in 2 Cor 4:7–12 to expound this new idea. In the context of 2 Corinthians, responding to opponents’ challenge against the apostle’s physical weakness in sufferings, Paul goes on to develop the idea of ongoing transformation further by transforming mortality. Mortality becomes a form of human participation in God’s cosmic war and is considered constructive to the ongoing transformation of the inner person and the complete transformation in the future.

In a famous essay, Michel Foucault introduced the term “author-function” into scholarly discourse, and later scholars of authorship in antiquity have applied the term in different ways to different concepts. Some scholars center the notion of authorship around authority, while others look to the notion of authorizing a work as a finished literary work. This article seeks to retrieve a suggestion in Foucault’s essay that the author-function can fruitfully be understood under the notion of Foucault’s French term appropriation, that is, making something belong to a person, for purposes of punishment or praise. This article applies all three notions of the author-function in scholarly use to the complex testimonium on the authorship of the Gospel of Mark by Papias in Eusebius, Church History 3.39.15, and concludes that Foucault’s own construal of his term explains best the intricacies of this ancient statement of gospel authorship.

Scholars have long maintained that Irenaeus rejected the use of Hellenic resources in Christian theology. While recent decades have seen better recognition of Irenaeus’ philosophical and rhetorical knowledge, Irenaeus’ use of poetic literature, especially Homer, has received little attention. The present article rectifies this deficiency. First, it defines the role of Homeric material in Irenaeus’ broader theological project. Then, studying Irenaeus’ use of a unique Homeric word, proprocylindomene (Haer. 1.11.4), it demonstrates that Irenaeus appropriates Homer to his theological project with the facility that Quintilian associates with a practiced and skillful rhetorician. In light of this, the article concludes by contending that Irenaeus likely composed the Homeric cento in Haer. 1.9.4 himself. If this is the case, Haer. 1.9.4 constitutes perhaps Irenaeus’ most skillful appropriation of Homer to his theological project. It best illustrates how for Irenaeus the poet could be used in a Christian theological project.

The famous account in the Historia Augusta of Severus Alexander’s lararium, which contained an image of Christ alongside other figures including Apollonius of Tyana, Vergil, Orpheus, and Achilles, has long been accepted with insufficient discernment and dubious judgment. The present article challenges this ongoing scholarly trend, suggesting that the story should be rejected not only as history but even as a plausible fiction. In defense of this position, both literary and archeological evidence is presented and considered. Ultimately, in line with the basic orientation of modern HA scholarship, the whole tradition is suggested to be understood best as a fictive expression of “innovative traditionalism,” i.e. part of the late fourth-century polytheistic author’s fanciful yet culturally conservative reaction to the ascendant Christian culture of the post-Theodosian world.

Scholars have long noted the prevalence of exile as a theme in John Calvin’s theology, which responded to times unsettled by religious persecution and migration. However, research has only begun to describe with precision how Calvin portrayed exile. This article examines the theme in Calvin’s biblical exegesis, demonstrating how his commentaries and sermons problematize exile by establishing two requirements for faithfulness from the exilic experiences of Abraham and David: 1) open confrontation with idolatry; and 2) the pursuit of sacramental nurture. In both cases, the reformer’s exegesis is notable for reflexively invoking Nicodemism, persistently deploying Abraham and David as counterexamples against this contemporary problem. This intersection of crypto-religion and exile, considered spiritually and politically, displays how context drove Calvin’s exegesis toward readings distinctive in the history of interpretation. It also sharpens exile’s polemical potential as a differentiated category Calvin used to encourage the community of believers while disciplining its behavior.

In The Pilgrim’s Progress (1678) John Bunyan describes the Flatterer as a “man black of flesh.” This depiction sets the course for the reception and adaptation of his work as a spiritual classic to enact, perpetuate, and even deepen a racist vision. Alternatively, theological awareness of racism and racialization finds expression in critique and correction. The history of the illustration of the Flatterer raises particularly acute questions. Bunyan’s own scripturally informed concern for monuments allows illustrated adaptations, such as Little Pilgrim’s Progress, to be brought into conversation with Ryan Newson’s theological treatment of confederate monuments. Given that so many adaptations of The Pilgrim’s Progress come from within evangelicalism, both racist and racially aware representations of Bunyan’s work are weighed in light of Vincent Bacote’s race-centered, constructive critique of evangelical theology.

Emmanuel Levinas’s philosophy of absolute transcendence has been criticized for defeating any possibility of relationship to the divine as Other. Such critiques restage central theological trends that rely on analogy as opening just such an avenue to the divine. Aquinas proposes analogy in his own criticism of Maimonides’ negative theology of God as beyond any likeness, in ways similar to arguments leveled against Levinas. Levinas, however, proposes a language model, which also illuminates Maimonides’ own language discourses, as a way to allow relationship while sustaining distinction from transcendence. Through language, the divine is addressed while respecting absolute Otherness, in a move away from ontology to ethics.