This thesis provides a critique of the penology of capital punishment from the perspectives of Christianity and Islam. In order to ascertain the basic theological approaches of both religions towards capital punishment, Chapters 2 and 3 examine the core Scriptural texts, laws and traditions of both Christianity and Islam respectively. These chapters reveal how different methods of Scriptural interpretation and differences in religious practice, within each faith, have led to divergent opinions regarding the legitimacy and acceptability of capital punishment. Chapters 4 and 5 examine two of the primary penological justifications for the death penalty; retributivism and deterrence. It is demonstrated how they can be used, within secular and religious frameworks, to both condemn and condone the use of the punishment. Chapter 6 considers a variety of contemporary methods used to execute offenders and asks whether the methods used have any effect on the religious acceptance or rejection of the penalty. Finally, Chapter 7 presents one of the most controversial aspects of the contemporary death penalty debate, namely the unequal application of the penalty as it pertains particularly to black offenders, indigent offenders and mentally ill offenders. This serious criticism of the death penalty is considered first in general secular terms and then in light of the teachings of both religions and it is asked how the religious arguments in favour of the death penalty stand in light of such serious violations of human rights and justice. The thesis concludes with the assertion that, while a strong case can be made from within both religions for the use of capital punishment in principle, in practice given current practices of criminal justice systems worldwide there is a strong case to be made, if not for abolition, then at least for a drastic curtailment of the practice and a long-term moratorium on capital punishment on religious grounds.

Thesis advisor: Dayton Haskin / Using methods drawn from literary analysis, theology, and political history, <italic>Loving Liberty</italic> explores the relationship between Milton's thinking about liberty and his practice of scriptural interpretation. It argues that Milton advances a model of a free society ultimately modeled on the charitable relations between the Father and the Son, who in his view differ essentially from one another. This model of liberated unity in difference derives from, and responds to, Milton's encounter with the Reformation ideal of each believer reading the Bible for him or herself, along with the social chaos that accompanied the resulting proliferation of interpretations. Using a complex concept of charity, Milton's writings imagine a society in which all are free to use scripture in highly individualized ways that nevertheless conduce to unity rather than chaos. In the end, the very interpretative practice through which Milton thinks his way toward this model also stands as its shining example, culminating in a rich body of writing that creatively re-imagines scripture and that invites its readers to use these new creations or not, as charity demands and in keeping with their own freely exercised gifts. In contrast to what he calls &ldquo;obstinate literality&rdquo; and &ldquo;alphabetical servility&rdquo in <italic>The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce</italic>, Milton's liberated interpretative method requires the interpreter to generate his or her own Bible, whether by radically reassembling the text (as Milton does in <italic>De Doctrina Christiana</italic>), by prophetically speaking the scripture written on one's heart (as Michael teaches Adam to do in <italic>Paradise Lost</italic>). / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2011. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: English.

Modern interpreters of Paul, confronted with the ubiquitous and enigmatic phrase “in Christ,” have generally ignored “messiah” as a determinative category for explaining the idiom. This is due in part to a scholarly tradition which holds that Paul did not use χριστός with its conventional sense of “messiah.” However, recent scholarship on early messianology, emphasizing the creative interpretation of scripture in the production of messiah texts, has found that Paul’s usage follows the conventions of ancient Jewish messiah language. Drawing upon this revisionist model, I argue that Paul’s use of the phrase ἐν χριστῷ and its variants is explicable in terms of his messianic re-appropriation of authoritative literary traditions. Put differently, Paul’s “in Christ” language is an innovation that nevertheless follows the customs of ancient Jewish messiah speculation. Chapter one, recounting modern treatments of “participationism” and associated language in Paul, illustrates a virtually uniform neglect of messiahship in describing his “in Christ” language. Chapter two reviews the rise of revisionist accounts of ancient Jewish messiah language which eschew the totalizing concept of “the messianic idea” and emphasize instead linguistic conventions common to messiah texts: the creative re-appropriation of scripture, the reuse of messiah syntagms in new literary contexts, and the frequent recourse to a relatively small pool of literary sources to generate conceptions of messiahship. Chapter three, a study of Paul’s messianic interpretation of the promises concerning Abraham’s seed, concludes that the phraseology “in Christ” derives from the Jewish scriptural words “in your seed,” and that the use of the idiom to denote Christ’s instrumentality in God’s actions and the identification of people as believers arises from this tradition. Chapter four, a study of Paul’s messianic interpretation of the victory of the Danielic heavenly man, concludes that Paul’s concept of solidarity with the messiah is based on that between Daniel’s “one like a son of man” and the people of God and is often expressed with the phrase “in Christ.” Finally, chapter five is a two-part catalog of “in Christ” language in Paul’s letters, part one consisting of a syntactical analysis of every instance and part two a conceptual analysis of every instance in light of the findings of chapters three and four. In sum, Paul’s “in Christ” language, like ancient Jewish messiah language generally, is the product of its author’s creative interpretative enterprise to understand and explain his messiah.

This synoptic analysis of verses from Job chapters 37-39 in 11Q10, the Peshitta version (PJob) and the rabbinic targum (RJob) aims to identify the translators’ methods for handling the Hebrew text (HT) and to assess the apparent skills and knowledge brought by them to their task. Additionally, the study engages with recent discussion which challenges the nature of 11Q10 as targum. To this end, PJob and RJob provide accepted models of ‘translation’ and ‘targum’ alongside which to assess 11Q10. The following translation methods are identified, described, compared and contrasted in the three versions: selection,extension, alternative translation, expansion, substitution, adjustment of the consonantal HT, adjustment of the Hebrew word order or division, omission, and conjecture. PJob is confirmed as an attempt to transpose the difficult Hebrew of Job into Syriac. RJob is confirmed as a conservative translation with clear underpinnings in allusion to scripture and to rabbinic traditions attested elsewhere. Significant observations are made regarding an interpretative quality in 11Q10, and new light is cast on its richness and subtlety as an allusive translation. It is proposed that the translation displays deep knowledge of scripture and skill in applying this knowledge. It is further proposed that careful comparison with methods which have been identified in Onqelos is warranted. 11Q10 is identified as an important early witness to scripturally-based motifs which are also found in other intertestamental and rabbinic sources. It is argued that 11Q10’s nature suggests that its purpose was not simply to translate but to understand and subtly explicate the HT, and that it was intended for use alongside it, not as a replacement. The study refutes the categorization of 11Q10 as ‘translation’ rather than ‘targum’, and agrees with its orginal editors that its value lies in its unique witness to the early nature of targum.

The text of the book of Revelation preserves examples of scriptural reuse that cohere with similar patterns of borrowing in other ancient Jewish works. This thesis describes the processes of reuse employed by Revelation's notional author (John), and places them into conversation with modes of reuse employed in other ancient Jewish texts, using Zechariah 1-8 as a test case. The design of the study has been crafted to explore these examples in a manner consistent with ancient textual composition. In the first chapter, I examine a dominant aspect of Jewish and early Christian textual culture: pluriformity. I argue that a pluriform scriptural tradition (in both Hebrew and Greek) was a controlling force that shaped the processes of scriptural reuse and, in turn, composition in this period. This analysis also delimits the possible forms of Zechariah available to ancient readers. With textual pluriformity in mind, the next chapter examines the text of Zech 1-8 preserved in John's scriptural references (Rev 5.6; 6.1-8, 9-11; 7.1; 11.4; 19.11-16). While this analysis is complicated by the author's presentation of reused material in Revelation, the evidence strongly suggests that John was familiar with a Hebrew form of Zechariah. Once John's preferred form of Zechariah is identified, the third chapter describes his techniques of reuse. This portion of the thesis consists of a catalogue and discussion of the differences in graphic representation between segments of Zech 1-8 and their instantiation in Revelation. This examination builds a set of textual data that accesses John's processes and strategies of reading. The fourth section of the thesis explores John's habits of reading as witnessed in his techniques of reuse. This section identifies features of Zech 1-8 that motivated John to engage with and alter the wording of antecedent material. Not every textual difference can be accounted for in this way, but it is evident that John is cognisant of the features of a particular form of Zech 1-8. Many of the differences between source and reuse can be explained as John's attempt to comprehend ambiguities in Zechariah. The final section of the thesis is a comparative analysis. The results of the preceding examinations of Revelation are compared to instances of the reuse of Zechariah in early Jewish literature, including works in the Hebrew Bible, the ancient versions of Zechariah, Dead Sea Scrolls, and works commonly classified as “deutero-canonical.” This analysis grounds previous observations about John's reuse in their native textual culture and acts as an historical control. The evidence suggests that John's modes of reading, reformulation, and reuse are similar to those found in other early Jewish works. The thesis concludes that scriptural reuse in the book of Revelation cannot be understood apart from the realities of textual pluriformity and the practices of scriptural reuse in Jewish antiquity. This approach suggests that John is a “scribal” expert—a careful reader of his scriptural tradition—and that his modes of reuse are conditioned by the textual culture of this period.