Masters Degrees (Old and New Testament)

Permanent URI for this collection

https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/1032

Browse

Browsing Masters Degrees (Old and New Testament) by Author "Danjuma, Peter Makoshi"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The characterisation of Herod and the infant Jesus as masculine authority figures in the gospel according to Matthew 1 and 2
    (Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2018-11) Danjuma, Peter Makoshi; Nel, Marius Johannes; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Theology. Dept. of Old and New Testament.
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT: In the first chapter, the research background and motivation for the study is explained as well as the focus on power and authority in Matthew 1-2 in regard to Jesus and Herod. Thereafter the research questions and the aim of the research is outlined. The research methodology as well as the two methods, narrative criticism and modern hegemonic masculinity studies, are also briefly explained before the study is outlined. In chapter 2 narrative criticism as methodology is defined before it is applied to Matthew 1-2. The methodology of narrative criticism is introduced and explained in terms of its focus on story and discourse, point of view, narration, symbols and irony and narrative patterns. Key elements of narrative criticism like events, settings, characters, and plot are also explained and applied to Matthew 1-2. The focus of chapter 3 is on the characterisation of Jesus. It analyses how the infant Jesus, as a passive character in Matthew 1-2, does not speak or act. He is instead primarily characterised by his extensive genealogy, the numerous titles used by Matthew to indicate that he is the Messiah sent by God to rule as his king, and the care Jesus received from God through the use of intermediaries. It is argued that the genealogy of Jesus provides an indication of his ascribed honour and that it indicates that he, and not Herod, was the legitimate Davidic king. It, furthermore, indicates through the inclusion of four gentile women, that Jesus would not only be the king of the Jews but also of all gentiles who worship the true God. The analysis of the numerous titles Matthew uses indicates that he is, according to Matthew, the Son of Abraham, the Son of David, the Son of Man, Emmanuel, the King of the Jews, and a Nazarene. Even as an infant Jesus possessed unique ascribed honour. While Jesus as an infant is passive in Matthew 1-2, his honour is enhanced in how he was cared for by God through his father and angels as messengers. Chapter 4 investigates the characterisation of King Herod as a masculine character in the narrative of Matthew 1-2 by noting how Matthew described his response to the birth of Jesus, used titles for Herod and described the actions and death of Herod. Chapter 5 focuses on the second research question and uses a different reader-response approach than the previous three chapters. The shift in focus is explained first, where after hegemonic masculinity is defined, after which Matthew 1-2 is read from this perspective. The reading undertaken is a radical reader-response analysis of the family of Jesus and of Herod as masculine characters. Thereafter Matthew’s depictions of Herod and Jesus as male characters are compared to each other in terms of hegemonic masculinity. It is argued that the manner in which Herod abused his power as king in Matthew 1-2 to the detriment of women and children in order to safeguard his oppressive power, stands in contrast to the manner in which Jesus is described in Matthew 1-2. It is a text-book example of what contemporary gender studies have characterised as hegemonic masculinity. In chapter 5 it is argued that before reading Matthew 1-2 from a hegemonic masculinity. In chapter 5 it is argued that before reading Matthew 1-2 from a hegemonic masculinity perspective in Nigeria (a radical reader-response reading that elicits an “unexpected” meaning from the text), it is important to first read it from a conservative reader-response perspective that produces a more expected reading from the text. The reason for this two-step approach, which is reflected in the two research questions of the study, is that in order for Biblical studies to meaningfully engage with the Nigerian context, it needs to ensure that it cannot simply be dismissed as imposing a feminist Western perspective on the text and its contemporary readers. The manner in which this can be done in practice is outlined in chapter 6.