As the title of the present work ("Christological re-reading of the Shema [Deut 6.4]in Mark's Gospel")indicates, the present thesis explores the question of how the Shema is used and undersstood in Mark's Gospel. The main point to be argued is that the Shema language of Deut 6.4 is not simply reiterated in a traditional sense but is re-read in a programmatic way that links Jesus directly with Israel's God and presents Jesus in equivalence to that unique God. While such an innovative re-reading needs to be views within the context of Mark's complex portrait of Jesus' relationship to God, which integrated Jesus' fundamental correspondence to God and his distinction from God, the one-God language in Mark appears to be used in the context of portraying Jesus as fundamentally corresponding to Israel's God, rather than being differentiated from him. Following chapter 1, which discusses the history of research, the combined methodology of composition and narrative criticisms and the life setting of Mark's Gospel, chapter 2 addresses the issue of Second Temple Judaism. The second chapter aims to argue that Judaism in the Second Temple period should be seen as "monotheistic" despite its diversity and the widespread recognition of the exalted mediating figures in the era, and that the concern for God's uniqueness was central among the Jews of this time. In chapters 3-4, specific Markan texts are explored in an attempt to present a fresh reading of the Shema (12.29; cf. v.32; 2.7; 10.18). The third chapter argues for the collectivity of 12.28-34 and 12.35-37, which ultimately unites the confession of the Shema (12.29) and the view of the exalted Messiah alongside God (v.36). Chapter 4 deals with the two Markan Shema-allusions (2.7 and 10.18). It is argued that the Markan use of the είς ό θεός phrase in 2.7 has a strong Christological thrust, namely to attribute to Jesus as God-like authority to forgive sins and, by doing so, to link Jesus inseparably with the one-God of Israel and to present Jesus in equivalence to God. While examining different interpretations of Mark 10.18, the second part of the chapter argues that the εί μη είς θεός phrase in 10.18 needs to be read in light of the identical phraseology of 2.7 and that, if so, Jesus' objection to the epithet "good teacher" in 10.18 serves to invite a more adequate understanding of Jesus' status and significance. Jesus' additional commands with the Decalogue in v.21 and Mark's description of Jesus' unique qualities throughout his narrative tend to support the suggested reading. Lastly, chapter 4 integrates the discussions of the previous chapters in light of the macro-text, i.e., Mark's narrative as a whole. It is argued here that Mark's Christology is not monolithic, but a nuanced one, which facilitates the concurrence of Jesus' fundamental correspondence to God and Jesus' distinction from God. It is also argued that the aspects of Jesus' inseparable linkage to God and his distinction from God, alike, appear repeatedly across the narrative and that both aspects are integrally bound up with each other in the Gospel. Mark's innovative re-reading of the Shema, therefore, needs to be viewed within the context of this complexity in Jesus' relation to God. The present thesis can benefit Markan scholarship in several ways. It contributes not only to the study of Mark's theo-logy, but also Christology since Mark's Gospel is a narrative about Jesus - whose orientation is consistently theo-centric. As a result, the relationship between the two will also be illuminated. Moreover, in view of the inclusion of Second Temple literature (chap. 2) as a primary background for the discussion of Mark's one-God language (chaps. 3-5), the thesis can offer valuable insights for the twenty-first-century readers of Mark's first-century Gospel, whose idea of God's "one-ness" has been formed largely under the influence of the seventeenth-century definition of the term.

<p>In John's Gospel, Jesus does not cite the Shema as the greatest commandment in the Law as he does in the Synoptic Gospels ("Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might" [Deut 6:4-5]; only Deut 6:5 appears in Matthew and Luke). This dissertation, however, argues that, rather than quoting the Shema, John incorporates it into his Christological portrait of Jesus' unity with the Father and of the disciples' unity with the Father, the Son, and one another. </p><p>This study employs historical-critical methodology and literary analysis to provide an exegetical interpretation of the key passages relevant to the Shema in John (John 5:1-47; 8:31-59; 10:1-42; 13:34; 14, 15, 17). After examining the Shema in its Deuteronomic context and throughout the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Jewish literature, the study considers how John's understanding of the divine unity has been shaped by some of these writings. Just as some of the OT prophets and authors such as Philo and Josephus interpret the Shema within their historical settings, John, in turn, interprets the divine unity within the socio-historical realities of his community. </p><p>According to John, Jesus does not violate the unity of God as it is proclaimed in the Shema. Rather, Jesus resides within that unity (10:30); he is therefore uniquely able to speak the words of God and perform the works of God. John depicts the unity of the Father, Jesus, and the disciples as the fulfillment of OT prophecies of restoration. Zechariah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel envision Israel as one people regathered in the Land, worshiping the one God of Israel (11:52; 17:11, 21-23). John filters this eschatological understanding of the Shema through a Christological lens: disciples of Jesus are the one flock gathered to the one Shepherd and testifying to Jesus' unity with the Father (10:16). The Farewell Discourse material confirms this thesis; Jesus models obedience to the Shema and also commands that he receive the love normally reserved for YHWH (14:15, 21, 23, 24). He issues his own commandment of love (13:34; 15:12), which has far-ranging implications for John's view of the Mosaic Law.</p><p>This reading of the Shema coheres with the Martyn-Brown hypothesis that some Jewish leaders during the late first century excluded believers in Jesus from the synagogue. The author of the Fourth Gospel reverses the situation, composing a narrative of empowerment for his embattled community. His rendering of the Shema provides legitimation for the Christological claims of the Johannine community, while at the same time excluding unbelieving Jews from God's eschatological people. John's high Christology, intertwined with his expulsion of unbelieving Jews from Israel's covenantal life and eschatological hopes, constitutes a form of theological anti-Judaism which defies mitigation. The Johannine crucifixion and Prologue bear this out: "the Jews" reject Jesus' unity with the Father and thereby cut themselves off from the people of God (19:15; 1:11). </p><p>John's language has all-too-often been used in a pernicious manner against Jewish people in the post-biblical era. One of the aims of this study is to properly situate John's reinterpretation of the Shema in its social and historical setting and thereby to apprehend fully its anti-Jewish potential. In so doing, it sheds fresh light on the parting of the ways between Judaism and Christianity and creates new opportunities for dialogue and reconciliation.</p> / Dissertation

Specification for process oriented applications tends to use languages that suffer from infinite, intractable or unpredictably irregular state spaces that thwart exhaustive searches by verification heuristics. However, conceptual schemas based on FOL, offer techniques for both integrating and verifying specifications in finite spaces. It is therefore of interest to transform process based specifications into conceptual schemata. Process oriented languages have an additional drawback in that reliable inputs to the integration of diverse specifications can result in unreliable outputs. This problem can more easily be addressed in a logic representation in which static and dynamic properties can be examined separately. The first part of the text describes a translation method from the process based language SDL, to first order logic. The usefulness of the method for industrial application has been demonstrated in an implementation. The method devised is sufficiently general for application to other languages with similar characteristics. Main contributions consist of: formalising the mapping of state transitions to event driven rules in dynamic entity-relationship schemas; analysing the complexity of various approaches to decomposing transitions; a conceptual representation of the source language that distinguishes meta- and object models of the source language and domain respectively. The second part of the text formally describes a framework for the integration of schemata that allows the exploration of their properties in relation to each other and to a set of integration assertions. The main contributions are the formal framework; an extension to conflicts between agents in a temporal action logic; complexity estimates for various integration properties. / QC 20101004

No description available.

Scholars and storytellers alike have deemed George MacDonald a great mythopoeic writer, an exemplar of the art. Examination of this accolade by those who first applied it to him proves it profoundly theological: for them a mythopoeic tale was a relational medium through which transformation might occur, transcending boundaries of time and space. The implications challenge much contemporary critical study of MacDonald, for they demand that his literary life and his theological life cannot be divorced if either is to be adequately assessed. Yet they prove consistent with the critical methodology MacDonald himself models and promotes. Utilizing MacDonald’s relational methodology evinces his intentional facilitating of Mythopoesis. It also reveals how oversights have impeded critical readings both of MacDonald’s writing and of his character. It evokes a redressing of MacDonald’s relationship with his Scottish cultural, theological, and familial environment – of how his writing is a response that rises out of these, rather than, as has so often been asserted, a mere reaction against them. Consequently it becomes evident that key relationships, both literary and personal, have been neglected in MacDonald scholarship – relationships that confirm MacDonald’s convictions and inform his writing, and the examination of which restores his identity as a literature scholar. Of particular relational import in this reassessment is A.J. Scott, a Scottish visionary intentionally chosen by MacDonald to mentor him in a holistic Weltanschauung. Little has been written on Scott, yet not only was he MacDonald’s prime influence in adulthood, but he forged the literary vocation that became MacDonald’s own. Previously unexamined personal and textual engagement with John Ruskin enables entirely new readings of standard MacDonald texts, as does the textual engagement with Matthew Arnold and F.D. Maurice. These close readings, informed by the established context, demonstrate MacDonald’s emergence, practice, and intent as a mythopoeic writer.