It is June 2001, in a small church in deepest Arkansas. ‘Brother John’ is speaking at a youth service. The text he has chosen: Judges 19. ‘This is the story of a woman who left her husband. She disrespected authority and leaders. She got what she deserved. This is what will happen to you if you disobey your leaders.’ This is by far the worst sermon I have ever heard, and it started my journey with Judges 19-21. It is the only time I have ever heard this text referred to in public worship. There was nothing in my Christian journey until then that could have given me the skills to deal with that text, or that sermon. At the same time, it is a text that burrowed its way into my consciousness, because I have consistently worked with women (and men) who have experienced sexual abuse over the years. How can they read this text? Why is it there? In what sense can it be Scripture? While the text has been used oppressively, can it be read differently, and redeemed from oppressive interpretations? Has it got anything to offer, beyond a reading in memoriam?

It has long been noted that the book of Lamentations shares, at least in part, a theological outlook with the prophetic literature that the destruction of Jerusalem was the result of Yahweh’s decisive action against the sins of the nation. Too often, however, this relationship has simply been presupposed, or assumed to be a relationship of shared perspective. To date there has been no systematic exploration of how it is that Lamentations accepts and/or modifies the theological outlook of the prophetic literature. In addition, when the theology of the prophets has been discussed in relation to Lamentations, there has been a tendency to group all the prophetic books together as if they existed as a homogeneous whole, and shared amongst themselves a singular outlook. This tendency to simplify the theological complexity of the prophetic literature coincides with a similar tendency to reduce the theology of Lamentations to simple, monolithic assertions. Drawing on the literary insights of Mikhail Bakhtin, this study aims to explore in detail the nature of the relationship between Lamentations and the pre-exilic/exilic prophetic literature. Drawing on notions of dialogism, Polyphony and double voicing, the study argues that Lamentations enters i8nto a dialogic relationship with the prophetic literature, a relationship that both affirms and subverts that literature. Central to the acknowledgement of the dialogic interaction between Lamentations and the prophetic literature is the recognition of Lamentations as a multivalent, polyphonic text in which unmerged viewpoints exist in a tension filled relationship.

Thesis (M.A.)--Lancaster Bible College, 2004. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 118-130) and index.

Thesis (M.A.)--Lancaster Bible College, 2004. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 118-130) and index.

Thesis (M.A.)--Lancaster Bible College, 2004. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 118-130) and index.

Thesis (Th.M.)--Dallas Theological Seminary, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 42-47).

Studies of the language of father in the Old Testament have sought to show either the centrality of this locus or its peripheral status. Both tend to work on the basis of a Religionsgeschichte approach, striving to situate texts that use father language in a wider Ancient Near Eastern setting. While there is doubtless a relationship between Israel's use of such language and that of antiquity, appeal to the latter serves largely to bring divergent views into bold relief. Language of father is relatively rare in the Old Testament. We indicate where it does appear, and why. The diachronic method is insufficient and word studies are inadequate for the questions, providing only a metaphorical universe of Near Eastern gods and God, which generate such divergent views. Presented here is an accounting of the canon's locus of "God as Father," sensitive to history-of-religion, yet allowing canonical presentation to have its own integrity within the theological universe of the Old Testament. In order to place matters in context, the first section examines the history-of-religion approach and its logical outgrowth in modern feminism. This section also surveys recent Trinitarian defences of father-language for God, viewed essentially as constructive reaction to feminism, but manifesting in itself failure to accord with Old Testament language and to account for Christological issues. The second section examines Hebrew texts that use father-language. The argument follows closely Scripture's order and character. If a history-of-religions approach focuses on evolutionary and non-canonical treatments, what is the alternative? Only when the issue is handled essentially from within can the relative scarcity of the locus, "God as Father," be acknowledged and light be shed on the reasons for the appearance of such language at all and just what it means. The final section offers a prudential statement of how father-language functions in the Old Testament and is meant to function in theological speech. Divine paternity is seen in terms of Israel's election by and covenant relationship with her God rather than primarily in general creation. Due to the existence and centrality of the Hebrew nomen sacrum direct reference to God in father-language was likely held in symbiotic reserve, until in post- exilic time in father became increasingly a metonym for God. It is in this context that Jesus' understanding and use of father-language is explicable.

No description available.

No description available.

This work will examine the Genesis creation narratives through an ecofeminist critical lens to illuminate the ambivalence regarding both the ecological and feminist concerns pertinent to ecofeminist criticism. While ecology and feminism are major issues in today’s social and political climates, ecofeminism and its presence in biblical scholarship is not as prevalent as one might think. When it is discussed, authors come to varying conclusions on the Bible’s stance about either nature or gender, and discussions that consciously espouse ecofeminist methodology are so far insufficient. This work utilizes the documentary hypothesis in order to examine the parallel narratives of creation in Genesis 1-3 from an ecofeminist perspective. This way, the text is treated as two independent works in order to juxtapose ambivalent ecofemininist themes within the text. Ultimately, this analysis proves the ambivalence of these narrative themes within the scope of Genesis 1-3 and confirms that no clear biblical stance can be established using these scriptures alone.