In Jesus and Other Men, Susanna Asikainen explores the masculinities of Jesus and other male characters as well as the ideal femininities in the Synoptic Gospels. She studies the masculinity of Jesus vis-à-vis his opponents, disciples, and women. She also considers the impact of Jesus’ emotions and suffering on his masculinity. Arguing that there were several competing ideals of masculinity, she sets out to trace what strategies the early Christian masculinities used in relation to the hegemonic masculinities of the ancient Greco-Roman world. She shows that the Gospel of Luke is close to the ancient Greco-Roman ideal of self-controlled masculinity while the Gospels of Mark and Matthew portray Jesus and the disciples as examples of voluntarily marginalized masculinity.

The purpose of this thesis is to problematize the complexity and the variety of voices that dialogued by the end of the third century a.D. in Rome in order to contribute to shape the phenomenon we have come to know as Christianity. The research question is:as opposed to using just a source associated with the Church, what additional perspectives are provided by the juxtaposition of more voices in order to conceptualise alterity within Christianity in this foundational moment? In order to answer it, I use three sources (Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica, Lactantius’ De Mortibus Persecutorum and the Memoria Apostolorum graffiti in Via Appia, Rome), which provide a variety of voices associated with a range social actors. The objective is to give a broader account of Christian alterity in late antiquity by means of applying a dialogic approach. Originally proposed by Mikhail Bakhtin, this hermeneutic paradigm seeks to juxtapose the voices of all the social actors implied in order to show the conflict between. Given that it would not be possible to juxtapose all the possible sources, I base my analysis in a historical framework grounded on secondary literature that also acts as a metadiscursive context to interpret the sources. I make use of mixed methods based on content analysis, using MaxQDA to code segments in all three sources and then analyse their frequencies in order to delineate which variables are more relevant to analyse. I thereafter present comments; first analysing only Eusebius’ text, then analysing all three together and showing the conflict between them. Finally, I contrast both conceptualisations. My main conclusion is that an open ended account of history represents alterity in a more complex way that allows researchers to make folk discourses visible, as was the case for these three sources, despite having the risk of being more chaotic.