Band 7, Heft 1

The book of Esther has been the subject of a wealth of scholarship which has, at times, presented Esther’s character as antifeminist. Through the framework of postcolonial and feminist theory, this article interprets Esther in light of her marginalised identity. Her position as a Jewish woman in diaspora who must hide her ethnicity and assimilate into Persian culture reveals parallels to contemporary Asian women in Western diaspora, due to perpetuated stereotypes of passiveness and submission, and the model minority myth associated with Asian immigration. Esther’s sexualisation reveals further parallels to the fetishisation and sexual exploitation of Asian women. If we read the text in light of her marginalisation, we can highlight the racial and gendered oppression within the existing power structures, as well as the levels of privilege at work within the character dynamics. Esther serves as an example of the potential that lies in recognising positions of privilege, the implications of identity, and understanding different forms of resistance in order to form a liberative theology. This article outlines the position of Asian women and their proximity to whiteness in relation to other BIPOC (black, indigenous, and people of colour) communities, revealing unexpected connections to Esther’s character. By situating Esther within intersectional and interdisciplinary theory, her status as a postcolonial feminist icon emerges. Through her story, Asian women in diaspora may find their experiences reflected in the journey to liberation.

There are two instances in the entire Hebrew Bible in which women feature as the to write. “One is Esther (Esther 9:29) and the other is:” כתב subject of the verb Jezebel (1 Kgs 21:8). This paper takes this fact as a starting point from which to illuminate the narrative and thematic junctures of writing, power and gender in Esther and its literary afterlife. It utilizes the hermeneutical framework of feminist literary theory, as well as drawing upon narratology and linguistic theory related to gender and power, and textual theory related to metatextuality and intertextuality, in order to explore the ways in which the narrator, the canonization process and the reception history of the text have functioned to constrain and restrain Esther’s authorial identity and status, and conversely the places and spaces where it has been developed and emphasised. Key areas of exploration include the writing culture of the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic periods, creative rewritings of Esther in the Targums and in Rabbinic Haggadah, and a consideration of the implications of the fact that Esther and Jezebel are the only explicitly identified female writers in the Hebrew Bible (Esther. (9:29, 1 Kings 21:8–9)).

While Judith was used with Esther and other books with female protagonists to promote the reign of Queen Shelamzion Alexandra and the activities of female Pharisees, as Tal Ilan has argued, the role of Judith in the historical examples of 1 Clement presents Judith as needing to seek the permission of the elders of her besieged city in order to go to the enemy camp and behead Holofernes. This article argues that such an interpretive move preserves the authority of Judith in Hasmonean and Pharisaic interpretations.

The story of Lot’s daughters’ incest with their father in Genesis 19:30–38 has been variously understood as a myth, a trickster tale, and an androcentric phantasy. In this paper, I will use insights gained from trauma theory, as well as from the characters of Emily and Moira in the Hulu adaptation of Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale , to evaluate the daughters’ actions. Studying the characters in the final form of the text, the women undergo traumatic experiences as their father offers their bodies to be raped (Gen. 19:7–8) and they witness the destruction of their home (Gen. 19:24–25). Consequently, they engage in what could be described as a traumatic re-enactment with their father, where the roles of the perpetrator and the victim are reversed, and the continuation of the patriarchal line is simultaneously guaranteed. Read in conjunction with the fates of Emily and Moira, the daughters’ experience could be summarized in Emily’s observation, “Look at what they’ve turned us into.” In the lives of all the women, the experience of cumulative and direct trauma influenced their decision making as well as the choices they had available. This leaves the audience in a moment of uncertainty, where evaluating the women’s actions becomes a complex, even an impossible prospect.

The Book of Ben Sira was popular in the early Christian church and influenced the Church Father Augustine (354–430). He adopts the person of Wisdom as a divine mother and adapts her within the context of the early Christian church. He links to Mother Wisdom a wisdom theology, in which Jesus is her envoy. Augustine describes Mother Wisdom as an eternal nourishing divine mother. She has a permanent revelatory status by continuously giving life-giving power, which she mediates through Jesus of Nazareth. He presents her grace which she has prepared for the competentes (the candidates for Baptism), who are working towards initiation into Christian Faith. Mother Wisdom serves as hostess in biblical Wisdom literature. For Augustine, Jesus Christ has taken this place. Mother Wisdom serves instead the angels and the spiritual persons as a representative of divine nourishment.

This article reads the veiling instructions in 1 Corinthians 11:1–16 through Paul’s appeal to creation. The letter positions both genders in God, and it follows contemporary Jewish literature in assigning angels to creation and gender interdependence. Ascetic, unmarried, and married persons found inclusion in this vision of the body of Christ.

This work offers a theoretically informed analysis of the characterization of maternity in religion using a spatial lens. The maternal body as a space is used as an analytical framework to discuss how Mary’s pregnancy is located and spatialized in Christianity. Through examining selected medieval Marian iconography, this work discusses what kind of space Mary’s body represents in the Christian doctrine. Analysis shows three central themes on the characterization of the maternal body as a space: (1) as a transitional space, (2) as a landmark, and (3) as a liminal space. The images of Marian pregnancy show that the maternal body is beyond its biological purpose in the Bible, but serves as a space that enables various interactions and spiritual events. The examination of Mary’s maternal body as a space offers an alternative perspective to discuss Mary’s character as a point of interface for Christian doctrines, biblical periods, and the Scriptures. In many ways, understanding Mary’s maternal body as a space speaks about the complexities and unveiled aspects of maternity’s role in religion. This work hopes to spark further discussions on how the maternal body intersects with spatiality in the context of religion.

The story of Jephthah and his daughter (Judg. 11:29–40) is a peculiar and problematic text. This article explores the question of the accountability for the sacrificial act with which the story culminates, and which provokes sharp disapproval in certain quarters, especially because of its gender bias. Applying the hermeneutical framework of René Girard and his distinction between sacrifice in Greek mythology (divinity in charge) and sacrifice in Judeo-Christian revelation (everyone responsible for his/her actions), I investigate the question: Is Jephthah’s daughter a mute puppet in a drama staged by her tyrannical father, or perhaps fate, or is she rather a woman who is responsible for her own actions and accountable only to herself? The answer is twofold: she is a woman fully responsible for herself; however, the responsibility for her premature and violent death is shared by her father, herself, and the biblical author–redactor. After identifying Jephthah’s daughter as a person responsible for her own actions, I aim to overcome the dialectic of “the text of terror” (post-structuralist interpretation) and the search for “herstory” (neoliberal interpretation). I suggest that in her powerlessness against patriarchal tyranny, Jephthah’s daughter nonetheless exerts power and authority in condemning the existing power structures. Without approving any form of sacrifice, reading the story through a lens of powerful powerlessness can help us discern different forms of power and, ultimately, reject the aggression and violence that has dominated our world to this very day.

Throughout generations, various prayers have been composed to express religious and cultural experiences of the Jewish community, such as holidays life-cycle and national tragedies. However, some social issues, such as sexual assault, have been excluded from this canon. This article uncovers Jewish prayers and liturgical texts dedicated to female victims of sexual assault. Drawing on a qualitative inquiry based on content analysis and interviews with the prayers’ authors, I demonstrate how these texts (re)position sexual assault victims in Jewish liturgy by including new phrasings and references to God; by removing masculine violence related to God; by mentioning biblical female characters who experienced sexual harassment; by denouncing of patriarchal abuse; or by sanctifying the woman’s painful body, which is incorporated as an important agent in the ritual’s structure. Therefore, I suggest considering these texts a political mean to voice women’s traumas and to incorporate them into the religious sphere, thereby rectifying a long-silenced discourse.

This article addresses the topic of parables in the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria. The broad thesis is that New Testament scholarship can help clarify early Christian interpretation of the New Testament. Clement of Alexandria has a very precise definition of the genre of parable. This definition is compared with various literary definitions found in the work of the grammarian Trypho of Alexandria and with one modern definition. Both of these comparisons bring out the precision, clarity, and usefulness of Clement’s definition for understanding the function of parables. The discussion then turns to the grounding of Clement’s definition in the saving mission of the Son. Since Clement closely links parables with prophecy and redemptive suffering, John Meier’s exposition of the Parable of the Wicked Tenants is introduced to show how parables can concretely express the redemptive suffering of the Son. Meier also demonstrates how the disciples were themselves involved in writing and completing this parable, so the article closes with an analysis of one of Clement’s interpretations of a parable, his own contribution to the tradition of parabolic speech.

The purpose of this article is to provide a survey of the interpretation of Revelation 19–21 in the early North African Christian communities (II–III century). These chapters refer to one of the most controversial passages of John’s Apocalypse (the eschatological war, the millennial kingdom, and the descent of the New Jerusalem). After a brief methodological reflection, the article will investigate how these chapters were interpreted not only in the early Latin authors but also how this material was employed in martyrdom accounts as well. The study, in fact, will begin with the first Latin document of Christian literature, the Acta Martyrum Scilitanorum , followed by the corpus of Tertullian, the Passio Sanctarum Perpetuae et Felicitatis , and the writings of Cyprian.

This article employs Galit Hasan-Rokem’s notions of vertical and horizontal axes of transmission for the study of biblical reception history, presenting the reception of the story of the mother and her seven sons in Origen’s writings as a case study. I suggest that Hasan-Rokem’s vertical axis of intergenerational transmission corresponds to reception history: it also involves us and thus demands our critical awareness. The horizontal axis of intergroup transmission, then, calls for our sensitivity toward the diverse interpersonal and intercultural exchanges that reception history presents less frequently as authoritative or even manifest. My analysis scrutinizes Origen’s pronouncedly bookish relation to the story of the mother and her seven sons, and I provide a reading of this relation as entailing both (inter)personal and intercultural encounters. I use both Eusebius’ biography of Origen and recent studies on late antique rabbinic discourse as means by which to broaden our perspective on Origen’s horizon of expectation. In conclusion, I suggest that Origen’s portrayal of the mother indicates some ambivalence toward this figure: her words of wisdom have undisputed authority over Origen, while her embodied wisdom makes him reserved. Thus, the reception of the story of the mother and her seven sons in Origen’s writings could strengthen the prospect that the story was a living reality for Origen as well as for others in third-century Palestine.

The paper discusses Jerome’s attack against the belief that human beings share the same substance as the heavenly powers and even as the Trinity, according to the dignity ( dignitas ) of the soul: in polemical texts such as Ep . 124.14, Jerome attributes this belief to Origen. Jerome’s intent clearly to demarcate the difference in nature between human and divine beings is also reflected in his exegetical writings, especially when dealing with Psalm 81, where human beings are addressed as “gods.” The paper investigates Jerome’s understanding of the dignitas of humanity as it emerges from his Homily on Psalm 81 : the comparison with Origen’s own passages on Psalm 81 reveals that Jerome closely follows Origen’s exegetical argument. However, through a careful definition of human dignitas Jerome intentionally distances himself from Origen when it comes to associating human beings with immortal beings, most notably Christ.

The present article asks after Gregory of Nyssa’s debts to Basil the Great, and this by re-examining two texts the former wrote shortly after the latter’s death: De hominis opificio and Apologia in Hexaemeron . It does so on the premise, mostly promissory for now, that Gregory’s efforts to sort through Basil’s legacy in his late brother’s wake was part and parcel of the Nyssen’s career-long project to reprise Origen of Alexandria under a “pro-Nicene” banner. Defending his elder sibling’s apparently incomplete Homiliae in Hexameron while also disputing their basic premise, that is, gave Gregory an opportunity to negotiate the dialectic of dependence and distinction that ultimately determined his reception of earlier authorities, including the great Alexandrian they both revered. With that much longer story in sight, this article focuses on Gregory’s deployment of horticultural metaphors, especially in the Apologia in Hexaemeron , to describe his stance toward both Basil and Origen. Closer scrutiny of these images alongside his more technical means of differentiating between himself and Basil suggests that Gregory considered his own work to be both a natural development of his predecessors and, precisely thereby, the immanent perfection of their thought.

Early Christian heresiology is, like polemics in general, a genre that has commonly been negatively perceived in scholarship. There is an idea of heresiological texts as not only historically unreliable, but also unproductive, in contrast to the creative thinking that can be found in theological treatises. Considering the understanding of heresiology as reactive and exclusive, it is not surprising that heresiological works have seldom been examined in reception studies. The present article wants to challenge the idea of heresiological work as merely rejecting heresies in the defence of a pre-existing orthodoxy, by applying a dialogical reading to the work Adversus Iovinianum by Jerome of Stridon, a treatise in which he defended the superiority of virginity over marriage against Jovinian’s idea of the equality of all the baptized. Building on the understanding of dialogue expressed by Mikhail Bakhtin, as well as his concept of hybridity, the article analyses how Jerome, instead of simply rejecting core elements of Jovinian’s ideas, such as the goodness of marriage and the natural condition of human beings, rather reappropriates them and integrates them into his making of orthodoxy. The result is a hybrid construction in which anti-ascetic arguments are integrated in a rhetoric of asceticism.

In this article, I examine the biblical commentary prefaces of Theodoret of Cyrus (d. 458), particularly the exegete’s presentation of his self-image in relation to his predecessors in the Greek exegetical tradition. I contend that in addition to its introductory function, the biblical commentary preface provided the context in which the exegete could rhetorically style himself vis-à-vis the prior tradition, articulating his own skills, credentials, and distinctive interpretive approach. Of Theodoret’s nine biblical commentaries, I focus particularly on the prefaces of his Commentary on the Song of Songs , Commentary on Daniel , Commentary on the Twelve Prophets , Questions on the Octateuch , and Commentary on the Psalms , given that in these five, we find Theodoret remarking explicitly on the prior interpretive tradition. I demonstrate that at times Theodoret engages with the prior tradition with a critical tone, and at others, he shows respectful deference to his predecessors. In every case, however, his comments serve the rhetorical end of presenting himself as both an authoritative exegetical inheritor and curator of the prior interpretive tradition. The overarching argument of this article then is that Theodoret fashions his own identity as an exegete by making his relative late appearance on the exegetical scene work to his advantage, claiming that an authoritative interpreter of scripture is one who inherits and curates the exegetical legacy and traditions of the prior tradition. In other words, Theodoret overcomes the (rhetorical) problem that others have previously produced commentaries on the biblical book by claiming that the true authoritative interpreter is in fact one who knows both scripture and the prior tradition intimately, and that the exegete’s role at this stage in the tradition is to faithfully transmit the most fitting comments of others.

In this article, I examine Hrabanus Maurus’ exegesis of the opening verses of 1 Maccabees, which preserves a concise account of Alexander the Great’s career. My main goal is to demonstrate how Hrabanus reinterpreted the representation of the Macedonian king from 1 Maccabees. To this end, I employ transformation theory, which enables me to analyze the ways in which Hrabanus updated the meaning of the biblical text. I argue that Hrabanus turned the negative Maccabean narrative of Alexander into a positive representation that was attractive to contemporary readers. I support this argument by focusing on Hrabanus’ recourse to Latin sources, primarily the late antique authors Jerome, Orosius, and Justin, an epitomist of Roman history. I find that Hrabanus challenged Jerome’s interpretations, neutralized much of Orosius’ negative appraisal of Alexander, and amplified the laudatory passages of Justin, which generated a new image of the ancient king. The present article thus contributes to three fields: medieval exegesis of biblical texts, Carolingian reinterpretation of the patristic heritage, and the reception of Alexander the Great.

This study compares how two prominent twelfth-century Latin authors and theological opponents, namely the monastic author William of Saint-Thierry (c. 1080–1148) and the school master Peter Abelard (1079–1142), variously understood the authority of the controversial yet influential Greek author Origen (c. 184–253) in their works. Modern scholars who study the reception of Origen in the twelfth-century Latin West have, to this point, spoken of an Origenian revival in this period, concluding that Origen was especially popular in the cloister, among Cistercian monks, such as Bernard of Clairvaux and his followers, like William of Saint-Thierry, based on the assumption that as monks they found his writings more relevant. This study seeks to challenge this scholarly narrative by focusing on two authors who are perceived as typifying two different strands of theology, one of a contemplative character developed in the cloister (William) and one making use of dialectics and developed in the emerging schools (Abelard). By demonstrating that the schoolmaster Abelard drew on Origen to a greater degree and in a more transparent manner than his monastic opponent, this study will show that Origen’s popularity in the cloisters was not, as such, a clear point of distinction between them and schools in the way that has usually been claimed by modern scholarship.

The article offers a methodological reflection on the history of the reception of the works of Pseudo-Macarius (second half of the fourth century AD) in the thought of John Wesley, the English theologian and founder of the Methodist movement. The survey of the state of the art is carried out looking for motives and trends in Wesleyan scholarship. Michel de Certeau’s reflections on “reception” guide the analysis of the presence of Pseudo-Macarius in Wesley.

This article begins with an analysis of Adolf von Harnack’s research on biblical and patristic sources in regard to the development of the authoritative church. I provide a close textual analysis of Harnack’s The Origin of the New Testament and the Most Important Consequences of the New Creation (1914). This analysis shows that Harnack regarded biblical and patristic sources as extremely meaningful, as they provide a trustworthy account of the origins of Christianity, but they were also open to critical analysis. I continue this investigation with a close textual reading of Harnack’s correspondence with Karl Barth from 1923, in which the two theologians discussed, among other topics, the possibility of talking about God. I argue that we should place Harnack’s analysis of the biblical and patristic sources within a broader epistemological reflection on the possibilities of human knowledge, to which Harnack dedicated a great deal of attention, even if he did not develop it systematically in his vast literary production.

When David ben Jesse’s triumphant return from battle in 1 Sam 18 causes King Saul to despise him, the wheels are set in motion to make David an asylum seeker, refugee, and return migrant. It is burdened with those traumatic experiences that he is announced king in 2 Sam 2. What follows is a narrative of familial conflict and fracture, involuntary migration for David again (2 Sam 15), and a final return (2 Sam 20). From this point, David lives a sedentary life. Although this is an atypical summary of the narrative in 1 Sam 18–2 Kings 2, it foregrounds the important role involuntary migration plays in its plot. This article will explore that story, looking especially at how David’s attitude toward mobility as king is implicitly rejected by the narrative.

All commentators agree that Isaiah 16:1–5 is about refugees, yet the passage’s implications for forced migration have not yet been investigated. This article argues that it contains a prophetic call by Isaiah, speaking with God’s authority, that Jerusalem should welcome the Moabite refugees who have fled there for safety. Isaiah tells Jerusalem that by welcoming these refugees they are participating in the coming of a Kingdom and a Davidic King who will rule with justice, righteousness, love, and faithfulness.

My article examines various artworks from Europe and Israel that portray and are inspired by the Book of Ruth. While in Jewish sources such as the Talmud (Yevamot 47b) Ruth is seen as an immigrant and a convert to Judaism, European artists since the seventeenth century highlighted different episodes and aspects of the biblical story that suited their social, political, and religious worldviews. Notably, the expansion of colonialism during the nineteenth century transformed the depictions of Ruth. While in the canvases of painters such as Pieter Lastman and Jan Victors Ruth is depicted as a model of religious identification, in the paintings of Joseph Anton Koch and Francesco Hayez she epitomises “oriental” otherness. Furthermore, while early European painters underscore the immigration of Ruth, Hayez represents Ruth as a dweller of the “East.” Zionist artists were influenced by European traditions of depicting the Book of Ruth but developed a unique fusion between strategies of identification and differentiation. Artists such as Ze’ev Raban (1890–1970) portrayed the story of Ruth as both ancient and contemporary, while imitating and appropriating Palestinian tropes in order to imagine the Zionist narrative of homecoming. The contemporary Israeli artist Leor Grady (b. 1966), on the other hand, addresses questions of immigration and homecoming while exploring the Book of Ruth in his solo exhibition Bethlehem (2019, Tel Aviv). While Raban’s illustrations ignore the Jewish experience of exile, Grady’s oeuvre epitomises what the Israeli historian Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin sees as “exile within sovereignty.” Instead of recounting a linear historical narrative that begins with exile and culminates with the return to the Promised Land, Grady underscores that every return is also a departure and every departure a return. In this manner, Grady foregrounds the voices silenced by Zionist historiography and challenges the exclusion of the Palestinian narrative.

Jayme Reaves uses Genesis 19:1–14; Joshua 2:1–22; Judges 19:14–27; and the cities of refuge texts in Deuteronomy 4:41–3 and 19:1–10 as biblical sources to conceptualize a so-called “protective hospitality.” This article utilizes the book of Proverbs to argue that it reflects the same protective motivations regarding hospitality, with a sapiential twist. Specifically, Proverbs 1–9 depicts two forms of hospitality: sapiential hospitality and pseudo hospitality. Sapiential hospitality protects the stranger from fraudulent hospitality. It is a form of absolute hospitality, meant to avert strangers from falling into the trap of false hospitality offered by organized crime syndicates. Although Lady Wisdom is vulnerable to attack from villainous strangers, she is also resilient enough to make strangers wise and thrive.

This article provides a theological reading of Acts 6–7, combining biblical and social-scientific insights to support constructive Christian engagement with the phenomena of twenty-first century migration. It responds broadly to US-American migratory phenomena, while drawing on insights from the Bible, migration studies, and the author’s own work with Colombian victims of forced migration. The article begins with an exegetical examination of the dispute between Hebrews and Hellenists in Acts 6 and Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, arguing that migratory issues underlie both the conflicts in these texts and the theological arguments Stephen adduces in his own defense. These biblical-theological reflections are then supplemented with an introduction to two social-scientific concepts that have been influential in migration studies, specifically, the notions of identity hybridity and migrant integration (as opposed to assimilation). The article demonstrates how the book of Acts reflects the benefits of healthy forms of identity hybridity and migrant integration and commends similar approaches for contemporary migrants and Christian communities in the Americas (both the United States and Colombia).

The speech of Stephen in Acts 7:2–53 contains a wealth of references to biblical migration narratives, but their significance for understanding the message of Luke–Acts has been understudied. This is partly due to a recurrent focus on either accusations against Stephen (Acts 6:8–15) or the polemical conclusion of the speech (Acts 7:47–50.51–53). It also partly relates to a teleological interest in early Christian mission narrative. This article reads Stephen’s speech as a counter-cultural discourse on migration and dislocation. It provides a close reading of its biblical story-telling in conjunction with its polemical upshot, and further compares Lucan narrative choices with early Jewish and Jewish Hellenistic literary cycles about patriarchal and Mosaic discourse. It applies a critical lens to the use of ancient narratives of migration and dislocation in discussions about identity, ethnicity, and “othering;” this is of further importance for contemporary identity politics around migration. Through comparing the speech with intra-Jewish dimensions and Graeco-Roman contexts, Stephen emerges as a counter-cultural speaker whose discourse appeals to human–divine intersectionality, specifically regarding the cause of justice for the ill-treated stranger; at the same time, it avoids cultural stereotyping through categories of Hebrews vs Hellenists, Jews vs Christians, Graeco-Roman elite standards vs supposedly “non-European” profiles.

This article explores John’s Exodus rhetoric as a decolonial strategy and maps its implications for contemporary migrants. Other scholars have convincingly argued that local authorities deported John to Patmos as a vagus , because his message opposed civic institutions, but they do not explain the nature and function of his preaching. Using migrant narratives and decolonial theory, I read John’s call to come out of Babylon and his deployment of Exodus topoi as migration rhetoric. He uses topoi of liberation, wilderness wanderings, and promised land to subvert the colonial situation of the assemblies under Rome. Rather than migrating to a place, believers embody the eschatological Exodus by rejecting food offered to idols and upholding the boundaries of Jewish identity as they wait for the full realization of God’s kingdom in the New Jerusalem. Regarding Latinx migrant communities, John’s Exodus rhetoric informs how migrants legitimate their migration and how they negotiate identity and resist imperialism in the US/Mexico borderlands.

That stories of migration are found in the Bible is not a debate, although the meaning to be taken from the presence of such stories is ambiguous. Notably, the writing of recent theologians on migration emphasizes response to migration, rather than the experience of migration. An analysis of six articles spanning two decades shows three overlapping themes in these writings: the identity of “stranger,” the responsibility of help, and hospitality. These themes are linked especially to a parable (Luke 10:25–37) and to a story of judgment (Matthew 25:31–46). In this article, scholarly interpretations of these themes are brought into conversation with interviews with adolescents who have migrated to Europe. The three themes are explored not in search of a normative biblical response to migrants, but considered in light of the lived religious experiences of adolescents who have migrated.

In 2020, two crises emerged into prominence in the United States and other parts of the world: (1) the flourishing of the COVID-19 virus, in which the polarization and relativization of knowledge have hobbled efforts to prevent pandemic spread, and (2) the killing of George Floyd which has stirred worldwide protests against centuries of racial oppression and unbared an underlying racist ideology about the seemingly lesser value of Black people. It might seem that both these crises are unrelated, but this article argues that both crises are rooted in a common phenomenon, the surge of the pursuit of everyday pragmatic mastery beyond its legitimate boundary. This pursuit of mastery has instrumentalized structures of discourse, thereby undermining Alfred Schutz’s paradigm of the well-informed citizen seeking to understand dispassionately imposed relevances and the non-pragmatic provinces of meaning that might have restrained the pursuit of such mastery, such as the provinces of theoretical science and religious experience. As regards racism, the pursuance of such mastery results in transgressing and eliminating through violence the ethical boundaries the Levinasian other prescribes. These twin crises are not disparate happenings occurring now to remedy the tedium of the pandemic, but are bound together at the hip.

The current pandemic that originated in a “wet” market in Wuhan has often been compared to the threat we face with climate change. The former originated in the trade in wild animals, which has driven many species to the point of extinction. In fact, we face an unprecedented rate of species loss due to pressures on habitats, pollution, and human predation. The threat of climate change originates with our uncontrolled use of fossil fuels, which, in making large parts of the globe uninhabitable, imperils our own species. The rationality (or lack thereof) that is exhibited here concerns our relation to the earth. We regard it simply as a means for our purposes. Separating ourselves from it, we follow the Biblical injunction to have “dominion” over it. In this, we express a conception of subjectivity that is exemplified by Descartes and Kant. To overcome this, I argue, we need a different sense of what it means to be a subject, one that takes it as a sustaining ground and points to the earth as the ultimate subject.

The philosopher Giorgio Agamben has reacted to the coronavirus crisis in a way that markedly contrasts with most other positions in contemporary political philosophy. His position has been described as irrational, politically incorrect, and unfair toward the victims of COVID-19. In this article, we delve into the foundations of this peculiar, pessimistic, and controversial reaction. From Agamben’s conceptual framework, we will explain how state responses to the COVID-19 crisis have turned science into a new religion from the dogmas of which various strategies have been developed in order for states to exercise biopolitical power under theological guises.

For Christians, coping with a crisis requires a proper expectation of the end of the world. This article will discuss the experience of Thessalonians’ persecuted community, who receive solace and orientation from Saint Paul’s eschatological teaching. I will focus on Aquinas’ and Heidegger’s reading of Saint Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians. Their interpretation reveals two opposite ways of waiting for the end of the world, which pertain to two different modes of human rationality: (1) the calculative reasoning of those who claim to know when the end will happen, and (2) the lucidity and sobriety of the true believers, who accept that nobody can know the day of the second coming of Christ and thus we have to continually prepare and be ready for it. Which way is the most suited to handle a crisis like the current pandemic? The calculative reason is necessary for fields like medicine, which are crucial in defeating the pandemic. However, when dealing with a crisis that brings us unexpected and unknown circumstances, we also need the virtuous, sober, and awakened attitude promoted by Saint Paul in his letters and highlighted by Aquinas and Heidegger.

In this article, I argue that Benedictine stability might provide a rational modulation for some people to not only cope with but also flourish during the pandemic vis-à-vis the stay-at-home (SHO) order. I will not argue that those who obey the SHO are more rational than those who don’t or vice versa . Instead, I will argue that those who end up following the SHO, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, can rationalize following the SHO by learning from the Benedictine vow of stability. First, stability in a physical space reimagined as a kind of retreat from society might be beneficial for rejuvenating oneself and pursuing what one values. Second, stability negatively discourages people from escaping a difficult reality and positively encourages them to overcome challenges in the institutions in which they belong. Third, stability can be seen as a necessary context for the betterment of character.

The global COVID-19 pandemic has spotlighted several instances of churches violating state issued and scientifically recommended guidelines designed to keep populations healthy and to prevent the further spread of the disease. While these instances are minority responses to these orders, they nonetheless raise questions about the rationality of ecclesial belonging in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In this article, I draw on the work of William James and W. E. B. Du Bois to articulate a conception of ecclesial belonging as a social epistemological process engaging a complex, fluid multiplicity of knowers of various scales. I argue that, in this view, ecclesial rationality involves the construction of a concatenation of internal and external practices individual believers and groups can traverse so long as they consistently satisfy a plurality of desiderata. I suggest that what is irrational about religious-based defiance of COVID-19 guidelines is the church-sanctioned severance of internal from external practices. I suggest that this behavior is supported by a failure to grasp the demands of ecclesial rationality rather than embrace them, and that this conception of rationality may have been eroded by the value-neutral skepticism of secular rationality.

The COVID-19 pandemic has upended our planet in ways that could not have been foreseen. Yet even as the world has shifted, the “worlds” of our conceptual habitations have not, and this is particularly the case with regards to religious beliefs. It is from within this context that the present study seeks clarity. Beginning at the beginning, the paper sets out from a re-examination of the foundational creation myth of Western societies, and argues that a more careful reading of the actual presentation of that account, along with some situational explanations, results in an understanding of divinity that stresses neither omnipotence nor omniscience. The article then transitions to the importance of the notional in grounding and generating social behaviors, employing phenomenological and psychological research and analytical methods. Intuitions are seen to be central in the personally based methodology undertaken, and the conceptual–perceptional brace of the notion/event is offered as a theoretical construct. Finally, an attempt at application is made through a return to the earlier explication of a reduced idea of divinity, and subtle gestures at possibly resulting ethical calls are given. Although the virus has taken charge of our lives, and although even God/“God” might not be in absolute control, the “world” is yet ours to (re)make.

This article explores the relationships between spirituality, spiritual theology, and practical theology. It proposes a synthesis of these disciplines – practical spiritual theology – as a method and methodology for retrieving the wisdom of historical Christian mystics for the purposes of sustaining and inspiring the spiritual life of contemporary Christians. The 14th century English mystic, Walter Hilton, is used to illustrate this synthesis in practice.

Recently, Yujin Nagasawa has argued that “systemic suffering” – suffering inherent in the evolutionary process – poses a problem for existentially optimistic theists and atheists who think that the world is overall good and therefore are happy and thankful to be alive in it. In short, he shows that it is difficult to consistently believe that the world is overall good when also recognising the existence of systemic suffering. In this article, I evaluate a sceptical response to the problem. The idea behind the response is a sort of scepticism according to which we do not know whether our knowledge about the realm of values is representative. I argue that the response fails, but that theism in conjunction with such scepticism succeeds. Atheism in conjunction with such scepticism, on the other hand, does not. I also argue that atheists can at least consistently hope that the world is overall good, despite systemic suffering. Finally, I answer objections and conclude.

Plantinga argues that Darwinism implies that we cannot help adopting our apparently reflective beliefs, and that this is a reason for rejecting Darwinism. I argue that similar arguments apparently apply to the beliefs crucial to deliberation, meaningful work, meaningful relationships, meaningful communication and creativity. But these arguments apply to deterministic versions of Darwinism only. Cogent non-deterministic versions have been propounded by Popper, Rose, Lewontin, Ward and Miller (those of Ward and Miller being theistic versions). These versions are presented, as is Midgley’s account of how evolution has endowed us with a mix of desires that prepare the way for choice. Plantinga-type arguments pose no problem for such non-deterministic Darwinisms.

In Paul’s communication to the Corinthian community, we find his reference to Jesus’ absolute prohibition of divorce as he seeks to rebuke some Corinthians’ desire to divorce for the sake of their ascetic pursuit. Following this enlistment of the authority of “the Lord” (1 Cor 7:10), Paul curiously offers his own instruction which contradicts Jesus’. Drawing on insights from the Roman and the Jewish contexts as well as the Foucauldian notion of power, this article argues that Paul is claiming to himself the power and the status of a paterfamilias . His divergence from Jesus’ prohibition of divorce stems from his possible concerns as the paterfamilias of the Corinthian community.

“The Origin,” one of Martin Heidegger’s most important notions after 1934, is tightly related to being-historical thinking, and to the peculiar kind of divinity that being-historical thinking indicates. However, the notion of the Origin appears already in Heidegger’s early Freiburg lectures (given between 1919 and 1923), thus placing it among the fundamentals of his early thought. This article argues that Heidegger’s project of fundamental ontology emerges from that early notion of the Origin, preparing the way for its flourishing in his later thinking. Attending to Heidegger’s early notion of the Origin, I suggest, reveals a unique feature of Heidegger’s thinking; namely, an element of genuine religiosity ungraspable in terms of both philosophy and theology. Thus, rather than interpreting fundamental ontology as a transcendental project encompassing a de-theologized version of early Christianity, it should be taken as an attempt to think the truth of the Origin, thus preparing the way for the genuine religiosity of Heidegger’s later thought. In this light, a unique sense of divinity underlies Heidegger’s lectures between 1919 and 1925; a sense which can only be comprehended through Heidegger’s triple sense schema (enactment–relation–content).

One of the most important questions in the Roman Catholic Church is the question of sexual and gender diversity. Therefore, the article presents the results of qualitative and quantitative content analysis of the Catholic sociocultural periodical Więź (Bond) from 2007 to 2020, which is the leading forum for liberal Catholic debates in Poland. The goal was to analyze the period’s narration toward current Church’s instructions on sexuality and gender diversity. Five dominant postulates were identified in Więź : (1) a discussion about people with the need to revise their or the Church’s narration on and experience of sex and gender; (2) a reevaluation of the significance and consequence of sexual revolution in Poland; (3) an organization of the understanding of body, sex, sexuality, and gender; (4) a promotion of the idea of encounter; and (5) a settlement of cases of sexual abuse in the Church. The article concludes that the presence of social dialogue on sexuality and gender diversity in the current pastoral approach of the Church in Poland requires a suspension of moral judgment and an openness from Church with a strong traditional, and rigid viewpoint to better understand the difficult spiritual and social situation of people who live contrary to the moral teachings of the Church or whose views go against these teachings.

The aim of the research was to analyze information about Covid-19 as it relates to religion in a fundamentalist Catholic periodical and to point out places in the articles that are not supported by scientific facts. We also examined whether the Covid-19 information found contained some coping strategies to deal with the pandemic situation. The object of the study was the Czech monthly Regina in the year 2020. Thematic analysis was used as a method. Two main themes were found – Trivialization and Combat between Good and Evil. At first, the disease was underestimated, from the September issue it was presented as a sign of the end times. The theme of Trivialization was divided into two subthemes: Exaggerated restrictions and Covid-19 is not the only problem of mankind. This theme was assigned to coping strategy Denial. The theme of Combat between Good and Evil was divided into three subthemes: Sign of the End Times, Evil’s quest to establish a new world order, and Vaccination breaks the relationship with God. This theme was assigned to a coping strategy Marking Religious Boundaries. The texts possessed much unfounded information stimulating fear and anxiety instead of active coping strategies to promote the reader’s hope of improving the epidemiological situation.