No description available.

M.A. (Biblical Studies) / Please refer to full text to view abstract

M.A. (Semitic Languages) / Please refer to full text to view abstract

A. Purpose of this Thesis:1. To present the variants between the Authorized Version of Genesis and the Inspired Revision of Genesis as published by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and2. To indicated the implications of the most significant variants.B. Significance of This Thesis:1. This thesis helps to clarify the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in regard to the problem of the Pentateuch. This is one of the most important, if not the most important, of the literary problems of the Bible; and the Latter-day Saint position concerning it needs further analysis and clarification, because many Latter-day Saints consider that the critical view is sound, apparently because they have not been made aware of the basic conflicts between it and the modern Scriptures of the Latter-day Saints. This Thesis reveals the relationship of the Inspired Revision of Genesis and The Book of Moses to the problem of the Pentateuch.2. This thesis also presents the portions of the textual material of The Book of Moses and The Book of Abraham, which correspond to the Inspired Revision of Genesis, aligned vertically with the textual material of the Inspired Revision so the reader can readily see the similarities and the differences.C. Method of Presenting the Data:1. In order that the reader might obtain a clearer picture of the data and their implications, the presentation of the data is preceded by "A Survey of the Origin and History of the Authorized Version of the Bible," and "A Survey of the History and Origin of the Inspired Revision of the Bible by Joseph Smith, Jr.".2. The variants between the texts compared are made to stand out conspicuously by means of a special interlinear system devised by the writer.a. The Text of the Authorized Version is assigned the top position, and the full text of it only is written out. Only the variants of the other texts compared are written out.b. The text of the Inspired Revision is assigned the position beneath that of the Authorized Version; and wherever the wording of the two are identical, the space assigned to the Inspired Revision is left blank. Ditto marks are not used.

The first objective of this thesis was to examine the Old Testament chronology carefully to see how it is computed. The second objective was to examine the modern scriptures to see what contributions they make in establishing a more accurate, reliable chronology. The third objective was to examine certain hypotheses in archaeology, carbon dating processes, and geology that seem to conflict with the Old Testament chronology with the purpose in mind of learning how accurate their findings are and what possibilities exist for a closer harmony between these sciences and the Old Testament scriptural chronology.

No description available.

It is widely agreed among scholars that the third part of the Hebrew canon, the Writings, is a miscellaneous collection of materials, as its name would seem to suggest. My thesis re-examines this assumption. The introduction sets out the critical issues, outlines the thesis and charts the larger picture from which the thesis makes a limited contribution. Chapter one explains my approach. In critical conversation with Brevard Childs and his adherents, I examine the need for contours within the canonical context that respect the discrete voice of each book, while understanding it in relationship to the larger collection in which it is located. The canon is not like a street map, rather, it is more like a topographical map providing contour and depth to the canonical terrain. Taking Childs’ approach one step further; I examine the formation of the Twelve Minor prophets and the Psalter in order to develop a redaction critical grammar for the compilation of texts into collections that serves as a methodological check for the project. This grammar includes the use of catchwords or phrases to bind adjacent books near their seams, the juxtaposition of similar or contrasting themes, framing devices, and superscriptions to provide an overall structure. Chapter two analyzes the formation of the Writings in antiquity. There were a number of different conceptions of sacred literature within Judaism, but probably within temple circles the canon of the Jews was closed prior to the end of the first century C.E. The Prologue to Ben Sira testifies to a tripartite arrangement of the Jewish canon, and 4 Ezra, which provides solid evidence that the canon was closed sometime prior to the end of the first century C.E., confirms the antiquity of a tripartite arrangement. Chapter three explores the various orders for the Writings. Within the conceptual world of Judaism, the concern with the order of the books is not the result of the invention of the codex or long scroll, but rather arises from the holiness attributed to these books in association with their strong connection to the temple and its sacred space. Despite the consensus that there are a vast number of orders for the collection, in fact there is only evidence that the Masoretic (Leningrad Codex) and the Talmudic (Baba Batra 14b) orders existed prior to the twelfth century C.E. The grouping of the Megilloth in the Masoretic tradition is probably not the result of liturgical practices within Judaism, as is commonly thought, which leaves room to re-examine the antiquity of this order. Both arrangements reveal a similar logic of association among the books of the Writings with the possible exception of Ruth. Chapter four explores the location of Ruth in the Former Prophets between Judges and Samuel and in the Writings after Proverbs and before the Psalter. Ruth has been purposefully figured into the Former Prophets and then later was integrated into the Writings after Proverbs as a wisdom book. In this case, different orders bear witness to the search for meaningful associations within the canon. Chapter five probes Esther’s position as part of the sub-collection of Lamentations, Esther, Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah, in which it always follows Lamentations and is juxtaposed to Daniel. Within this canonical frame I explore Esther’s links to Daniel 1-6 and Lamentations 5 and the way this sets in relief Esther’s theology. Chapter six briefly observes some compilational phenomena in Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes and Lamentations. I also examine the structure of the Megilloth as a whole and the forces at work in this sub-collection. The thesis concludes, due to historical and exegetical reasons, that the codification of the Megilloth into a collection is an integral part of the canonical process rather than a formal feature that is the result of some supposed effort to close the canon.

Thesis (PhD)--Stellenbosch University, 1975. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: no abstract available / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: geen opsomming

The phenomenon of inner-biblical interpretation and inter-textual replication of scriptural material within the Old Testament is receiving significant attention in current scholarship. Two narratives which are repeated three times in the Hebrew Bible provide a particularly fruitful case study for this type of research: the Hezekiah narrative (2 Kgs 18-20; Isa 36-39; 2 Chr 29-32) and the account of the fall of Judah (2 Kgs 24-25; Jer 52; 2 Chr 36). This study extends the contributions of redaction-critical, literary-critical, and text-critical studies examining the narratives of 2 Kings 18-20//Isaiah 36-39 and 2 Kings 24:18-25:30//Jeremiah 52 and emphasizes their subsequent reception in Chronicles. In addition, this investigation advances the discussion of the Chronicler's reliance upon and method of incorporating material from the Latter Prophets. It is the conclusion of this thesis that the Chronicler was familiar with the versions of the Hezekiah narrative and the account of the fall of Judah in both 2 Kings and the Latter Prophets. His method of handling these alternative accounts reflects both direct quotation (particularly in the case of 2 Kings) and indirect allusion to themes and idioms (with regard to the Latter Prophets). The result is a re-telling of Judah's history which is infused with hope for restoration as articulated by the Latter Prophets. By portraying an idealized account of Israel's past history which corresponds to prophetic descriptions of the nation's restoration, Chronicles illustrates the accessible, utopic potential held out to every generation of faithful Israel.

This thesis explores the relationship between the books of Kings and Chronicles and considers the value of having two different versions of the same monarchic history within the Tanak. It furthermore explores how these books are read in relation to one another. To be more specific, its concern is how the book of Chronicles is read in relation to the book of Kings as Chronicles is so often considered to be a later rewritten text drawing upon an earlier version of the Masoretic Text of Kings. The predominant scholarly approach to reading the book of Chronicles is to read it in light of how the text was emended (additions, deletions, etc.). This approach has great value and has furthered our understanding of the theology and purpose of Chronicles. While this thesis fully affirms this diachronic approach to reading Chronicles, it also finds it to be lacking. This said, I suggest that this predominant way of reading Chronicles through the lens of its source (Kings) sometimes misses the theological and rhetorical features of the Chronicler's text. In light of this suggestion, this thesis will answer the following question: “why were two narratives retained in the Tanak and what possible answers to this question might emerge by looking at the similarities and differences in the two narratives' contents, arguments, and theology?” The method by which this question will be addressed is to read the Solomon narratives in the books of Kings and Chronicles in two ways: first, to read each narrative as a whole and independently of one another, and second, to examine each narrative together in an effort to understand their uniqueness. The result of this analysis will show that these narratives can in fact read as whole narratives independent of one another, and furthermore, that Solomon is in fact less idealized (contra popular scholarly opinion) in the book of Chronicles.