This thesis contends that the Chronicler includes many episodes of war in his retelling of Israel’s monarchic history to demonstrate the benefits and consequences of temple faithfulness. Several scholars have long pointed out the Chronicler’s reworking of texts in Samuel-Kings to show that Yahweh rewards the good and punishes the wicked (i.e. retribution theology). Some recent scholars, however, have put forward several exceptions to this rule. The analysis of passages in this thesis demonstrates that the Chronicler maintains this cause-effect relationship with the dual themes of war and temple. To do this, it divides the various kings into different categories. First, David belongs in a category all by himself since he (according to the Chronicler) pioneered the two most foundational elements of the temple cult (i.e. gathering all Israel and providing the building materials). For this reason, he also won many battles to secure Israel’s place in the land. The next two groups of kings either show complete faithfulness to (re)establishing the temple cult and its practices (e.g. Solomon, Hezekiah), or neglect it (e.g. Ahaz, Jehoram). Based on their attitude toward the temple, the Chronicler illustrates how they either prosper in the land through military victory, or suffer attack. The Chronicler presents mixed cases with the last two categories. On the one hand, he reports how many faithful kings (in varying degrees) support orthodox temple practices and so prosper on the battlefield. However, none of these kings persevere in their faithfulness so that either their success immediately stops or they suffer attack. On the other hand, the Chronicler also tells how two thoroughly wicked kings committed some of the worse sins in Israel’s history, yet repented after suffering swift punishment. Through all these cases, the Chronicler demonstrates that temple faithfulness always brought Israel peace and security.

Cette thèse examine la particularité de la démarche qui consiste à traduire le Nouveau Testament en hébreu et qui implique de transférer le texte fondateur du christianisme dans un contexte juif. Elle se concentre sur la façon dont le traducteur utilise la Bible hébraïque et la littérature rabbinique ancienne pour accomplir ce transfère. Il est montré que grâce aux liens historiques, théologiques et conceptuels étroits entre le Nouveau Testament et ces deux corpus juifs, l’emploi d’éléments repris d’eux pour rendre des éléments du Nouveau Testament est particulièrement efficace pour augmenter la compréhensibilité du Nouveau Testament en hébreu et son acceptabilité dans un contexte juif. Cependant, l’usage de tels éléments dans la traduction du Nouveau Testament en hébreu risque souvent de gommer les spécificités du Nouveau Testament par rapport au judaïsme. Le travail du traducteur du Nouveau Testament en hébreu implique donc une constante hésitation quant à la pertinence des formes d’expressions hébraïques et des concepts juifs pour refléter les formes d’expression et les concepts du Nouveau Testament, et, plus généralement, quant aux affinités et aux contrastes entre le christianisme et le judaïsme. / This dissertation examines the specificity of translating the New Testament into Hebrew, an activity which involves transferring the founding text of Christianity into a Jewish context. The dissertation focuses on the use of the Hebrew Bible and of ancient rabbinic literature in bringing about this transfer. It is shown that because of the close historical, theological and conceptual links between the New Testament and these two Jewish corpora, the use of elements borrowed from them in rendering elements found in the New Testament is particularly effective for enabling the New Testament to be easily understood in Hebrew and to be accepted in a Jewish context. However, the use of such elements in a Hebrew translation of the New Testament may often result in blurring features of the New Testament that are distinguished from Judaism. For this reason, the translator of the New Testament into Hebrew constantly hesitates whether Hebrew forms of expression and Jewish concepts are suitable for reflecting the New Testament’s forms of expression and concepts, and asks himself, more generally, what exactly unites and distinguishes Christianity and Judaism.

This study considers the origin and purpose of Ruth and concludes that it is best to read the narrative as a call for an inclusive attitude toward any person, Jew or Gentile, who desired to join the Judean community in the Restoration period. In chapter one, I review the difficulties that scholars face in ascertaining Ruth's place in Israel's history, and I outline approaches that they have used to try to establish its purpose and origin. I discuss major interpretive positions, which date the book either to the monarchic period, to the exilic period, or to the Restoration period, and I articulate the format of my own study. In chapter two, I consider how the author of Ruth uses characterization to highlight Ruth, a Gentile outsider, and to criticize the Bethlehemite community. Only Boaz accepts Ruth, which leads to his participation in the line of David. In chapter three, I discuss how the author also magnifies Ruth's character by comparing her with Israel's ancestors. In these ways, Ruth demonstrates that an outsider can embody the ideals of the Restoration community and that they can also be a benefit to the nation. In chapters four and five, I examine arguments for dating Ruth to particular periods in Israel's history. In chapter four, I consider efforts to date the language of Ruth as well as the legal practices that the story describes. I also discuss the narrative's supposed congruence with the concerns of various social settings in Israel's history. In chapter five, I draw on current research on refugee communities to see how the experiences of such people can help us understand the concerns of the Restoration community. In chapter six, I review my arguments for regarding Ruth as a call for inclusion in the Restoration period, and I consider how this conclusion should affect the field of Ruth studies as well as the wider field of Second Temple studies.

English speakers use the concept of "darkness" in a number of metaphors to portray a wide variety of experiences from evil to fear to ignorance. These metaphorical connections or entailments are so natural that we can see an image of a dark-clad person in a film or book and usually be correct in assuming that they are at best questionably moral and at worst a villain. The Old Testament (OT) also employs dark images and dark imagery to various effects. From Job's description of the underworld in Job 3 to Isaiah 's description of the coming light that will dispel the darkness in Isa 8- 9, to the dark paths the wicked trod in Eccl 2:14, the OT uses a number of metaphors of darkness. For most of these examples, it would be easy to assume that the ancient Hebrew writers of the OT were working with the same concepts of darkness that we do today and thus interpret these passages along the same lines as our own modem English metaphors. But such assumptions can and have led to a number of misunderstandings and conflicting interpretations of passages that employ dark images. These miscommunications are most apparent in passages where God's presence is indicated by darkness like at the Sinai and Temple theophanies (Exod 20:19-20 and 1 Kgs 8:12, respectively) as well as later poetry about God (Ps 97:2). By combining the theoretical framework of Cognitive Metaphor Theory (CMT), and the methodology of Conceptual Blending (CB), this study will work toward a clearer understanding of how the writers of the OT understood darkness and how that shaped their use of it in their images and imagery of death, captivity, the unknowable, and God. It will be shown that the ancient Hebrew conception and use of darkness centres around three key recurring metaphors - Death is Darkness, Captivity is Darkness, and the Unknown is Darkness - while the metaphor Evil is Darkness is foreign to the OT. These findings serve to provide greater clarity in interpreting those OT passages that portray God as having a penchant for darkness.