This thesis explores the concept of restitution through the questions, 'How adequate are the current understandings of restitution in relation to the reconciliation journey?', and 'What would a theology of restitution based on a broader understanding look like?' The nature and role of restitution, or rather its lack, began to seem key to the process of reconciliation. Restitution in the South African context seemed to be little regarded or acted upon. The hope is that this thesis will make a new contribution to the current understanding of the theology of restitution and as such, provide a bridge from theory to praxis, in order to further the work of reconciliation and healing in situations of conflict, wherever they may arise. The argument that reconciliation without restitution is at best, only partial, and needs to be based in praxis, led to engaging with a community reconciliation process in Worcester, Western Cape, to seek to understand with them what restitution means, and how it is enacted. The thesis is based in practical theology in conversation with qualitative research. Twelve interviews and in-depth fieldwork were conducted. Thematic comparative analysis of the data allowed themes to be identified from the interview and observational records, and included cycles of theological reflection. Exploration of emerging key themes led to the conception of restitution as broader than currently understood: as relational, radical, embodied and embracing. Themes of 'eucharistic space', gift, and embodiment relate restitution to the Eucharist and the body of Christ, as something sacramental, tangible, and communal. The thesis argues that a Eucharistic understanding of restitution and a restitutionary understanding of Eucharist, arrived at through the empirical work, enables a broader understanding of the theology of restitution, which thus enables transformative praxis in the journey towards reconciliation with God and with each other.

The introductory chapters of the Book of Acts record the beginnings of the Church in Jerusalem. Taken as a distinct literary unit and labeled as a history of beginnings, Lukan inceptive theology of Acts 1-5 shows the Church to be metaphysically rooted in the Creation, and it is the communal life of the Jerusalem congregation that will become the universal Christian paradigm for the Church’s life as a renewed Paradise. In other words, even though Acts 1-5 may not have been a defining text in the early Patristic understanding of the Church, from the third century onwards, Luke’s ecclesiology becomes the prototype and is used as an apostolic proof-text for later ecclesiological developments, specifically in describing the ideal Christian life as replicating the Garden. My study attempts to contribute to a deepened awareness of, and insight into, Lukan ecclesiology and its place within the succeeding Patristic theology and doctrinal developments. The somewhat poor reception of Acts 1-5 in the first centuries can lead to the assumption that the book may have been seen in the early Church as a mere history of the apostolic times, but its importance for the Church of the later theology can be securely affirmed: the elements of communal life as skilfully presented by Luke become the model and ideal for the entire world, the Garden restored through the foundation of the Christian ekklēsia invites the entire Creation to redemption. And what Luke does in a narrative form is developed in a systematic manner by the Church Fathers.

This present study seeks to answer three interconnected questions as pertains to Genesis 13 and the role and function of Lot: (1) Does the text necessitate a reading of Lot as being the first potential heir and/or as the unrighteous counterpart to righteous Abram? (2) If not inherently from the text, then where do these readings of Lot as the potential heir and as the unrighteous counterpart to righteous Abram originate and how can a study of the early reception of Genesis 13 aid in answering that question? (3) If these common assumptions are not derived inherently from the text, then how are Genesis 13 in general, and Lot and his purpose and function, in particular, to be understood? First, I examine the biblical text of Genesis 13 providing a close narrative reading which demonstrates that these common interpretations among modern readers are not inherently rooted in the text itself. On the contrary, the text appears to point to a different understanding of Genesis 13 in general and Lot in particular. Second, after demonstrating that these are not necessary conclusions, I propose that these readings originally developed out of concerns of ancient Jewish and Christian interpreters to safeguard Abram. Last, I provide, based both on my exegesis and reception analysis, a new reading of the place and function of Genesis 13 in general and Lot in particular both in the wider Abraham narrative and Genesis as a whole. I will demonstrate that Lot's relationship with Abram is set up, not within the context of sonship but rather in the context of brotherhood. Abram and Lot's separation not only solves the problematic issue of Lot's accompaniment but also foreshadows the subsequent tension in the patriarchal narratives about brothers being co-dwellers in the land. This tension requires separation, even if the relationship is amicable, and the necessity of the brothers to dwell in different places with only one occupying the land.

The current scholarly consensus places Ecclesiastes’ composition in the postexilic era, sometime between the late Persian and early Hellenistic periods, leaning towards the late fourth or early third centuries BCE. Premised on this consensus, this thesis proposes that the book of Ecclesiastes is making a case for posthumous divine judgement in order to rectify pre-mortem injustices. Specifically, this thesis contends that issues relating to death and injustice raised by Qohelet in the book of Ecclesiastes point to the necessity of post-mortem divine judgement. Judging from its implied social and historical context, the book of Ecclesiastes also may have served as perhaps a provocative voice for, or as a catalyst to, the emergence of apocalyptic eschatology and later sectarian conflicts within Judaism during the mid-Second Temple period. Some people in postexilic Israelite society began to raise questions about traditional views of death, Sheol, and divine judgement at a time when retributive justice appears not to be assured or to be absent. One may well ask: what is the book of Ecclesiastes doing, if it appeared on the cusp of the Persian-Hellenistic transition period when the traditional idea of theodicy was perhaps becoming a serious issue in Israelite society, before full-blown apocalyptic eschatology surfaced? The answer seems to be inseparable from questions of how best Ecclesiastes as a book is to be read. Contemporary approaches to reading the book as a unified whole are examined, and a “frame-narrative” reading is argued to be the best approach. The key to unravelling the book’s puzzle lies in realizing that the author probably intended the frame-narrator to have the last say. The role of this “third person” is pivotal for explaining the paradoxes within Qohelet’s monologue and its relationship to the epilogue and uncovering the book’s overall purpose.

Among Second Temple and Early Christian texts, 1QHodayota, Luke-Acts, and the Epistle of Barnabas reference an ear-circumcision metaphor, recalling to mind the sobering statement of Jer 6:10: “To whom shall I speak and give warning, that they may hear? Behold, their ears are uncircumcised, and they cannot listen. Behold, the word of the LORD has become a reproach to them; they have no delight in it.” In each of these three works, the author has juxtaposed an ear-circumcision and heart metaphor—uncircumcised ears and heart of stone (1QHodayota), uncircumcised in hearts and ears (Luke-Acts), and circumcised hearing and hearts (Epistle of Barnabas). From critical treatments in monographs to cross-references in footnotes, scholars’ treatments have tended to fall short: (1) they generalize the ear-circumcision metaphor’s meaning appealing to its meaning in Jer 6:10; (2) they offer inadequate analyses of the metaphor in favor of the more frequent, juxtaposed heart metaphor. My thesis seeks to shed additional light on the ear-circumcision metaphor by offering detailed analyses to show its multifaceted meaning, which is contingent in each case upon its context. Further, the thesis reveals the significant ear motif woven throughout each ancient source and the function of the metaphor in shaping the structure of the literary piece. In order to accomplish this, the thesis examines the ear-circumcision metaphor from a study of the LXX and Targumim interpretations of the Hebrew text (Ch. 2) and reviews other related metaphors from the Second Temple and Early Christian era (Ch. 3). Next, the study turns to analyze separately the metaphor’s meaning and its role in the literary structure of 1QHodayota (Ch. 4), Luke-Acts (Ch. 5), and the Epistle of Barnabas (Ch. 6). Chapter 7 compares the analyses of these metaphors. Finally, I make some concluding comments and propose future research (Ch. 8).

This thesis develops and advocates a feminist philosophy of myth in order to reformulate influential understandings of the roles and functions of myths in recent mythological scholarship. The initial hypothesis which the thesis establishes in Chapter 1 is that the designation of myth qua myth is neither innocent nor organic; highly consequential interests are at stake when myths are narrated, and, moreover, the categorisation of some types of narrative as ‘myth’ and others as ‘science’, or ‘philosophy’, for example, indicates powerful assertions about their relative level of validity and authority. I argue that these assertions are implicated in discursive strategies of containment and exclusion and allied to forms of identity construction characterised by an assertion of singularity. They further rely on the location of a non-transcendable point of origin as a means of securing the stability and legitimacy of these constructions. I develop this argument, in Chapters 2–7, through an extended case study of the German search for origins from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries, and demonstrate its relationship to the German romantic attempt to construct a noble German identity. I critique these forms of identity and origin construction, arguing that the German case is but one example of the western metaphysical theories of ontology which are indebted to inflected patrilinearity, the main feature of which is a preoccupation with monogenetic singularity. I consequently develop an alternative feminist model of origins and identity in Chapters 8–10 based on poststructural and psychoanalytical feminist theories of maternality as a site of splitting, doubling, and process. I acknowledge that while the identification of origins is an ontological convention, the assertion of patrilineal provenance creates forms of subjectivity that are exclusionary, dialectical, and monolithic, and are, therefore, inadequate frameworks for constructing ethically oriented models of identity in a post-feminist context. In contrast, I suggest that metaphors of maternal origin offer a considerably more promising, if transitional, discursive frame for articulating identities that stress multiplicity, connectedness, immanence, and dialogue.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.