No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, San Diego, 1999. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 171-179).

The aim of this thesis is to examine the two portrayals of Manasseh which appear in the books of Kings and Chronicles, considering manifold critical issues including diachronic questions, structure, narrative, literary features, and theological problems. Part One consists of a detailed examination of the Manasseh text in Kings in which I investigate the diachronic issue surrounding the text. In a literary investigation the structure of the Manasseh account is re-examined.  Structurally, the focus of discourse is located in the announcement of Manasseh’s rejection of the call to repentance by Yahweh.  This thesis contends that, distinct from many scholars who see diachronic seams in the Manasseh text in Kings, we cannot find any convincing diachronic levels in the Manasseh account.  Rather, in spite of this terseness in dealing with source materials, Dtr used his own distinctive coherent literary scheme in the whole work on Samuel-Kings. To understand the character of Manasseh, I question Sweeney’s view which sees him a foil to Josiah.  At the micro level of the literary features I examine how the small semantic units of the text are integrated with each other and accomplish their textual purposes. Part two accesses the other face of Manasseh in Chronicles, where he is portrayed as a typical model of a repentant monarchy.  For an examination of the diachronic issues, I question Auld’s view that a common source existed which was used by the Chronicler and the author of Kings.  Within a literary discussion, the structure of the Manasseh narrative is discussed.  With regard to the character, I apply Kalimi’s ‘character creation’ examples to Chronicles, investigating whether his principles can be verified in the Manasseh account. Part Three focuses on the reasons why Kings and Chronicles should be read together, comparing how different meanings are delivered in each different context.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Aberdeen University, 2008. / Title from web page (viewed on June 3, 2009). Includes bibliographical references.

No description available.

In this thesis I examine some of the major contributions to current historical Jesus research, now commonly known as the third quest of the historical Jesus. As most of the participants in the third quest define their work primarily as historiography, in Chapter 11 situate these reconstructions in the landscape of present-day historiography, with special attention to the reaction of the authors in question to the challenge of postmodernism. In view of the methodological diversity of the third quest as well as the lack of consensus about the criteria to be used in the reconstructions or in their evaluation, after a brief survey in Chapter 2 of the history of "criteriology" in life-of-Jesus research, I found It necessary to devise my own list of evaluative criteria in Chapter 3. The general criteria are to do with the overall shape and style of the reconstructions, while the criteria of historical reasoning evaluate them in terms of their presentation as historiography. Finally, a modified version of the "traditional" criteria of the historical-critical method is designed to evaluate the text-related arguments within the reconstructions. In chapter 4 I analyse some selected contributions from the standpoint of the most hotly debated issue within the third quest, eschatology.

No description available.

O estudo a seguir investiga as origens e o contexto histórico de um conceito historiográfico, a saber, a chamada tese do conflito entre a ciência e a religião. Segundo esta tese, a prática científica possuiria uma indisposição natural e recíproca para com as práticas religiosas, levando-as a um conflito inevitável e historicamente verificável. Os próceres dessa interpretação foram John William Draper (1811-1882), James Young Simpson (1811-1870) e Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918), sobre o qual este trabalho se debruça. White foi, dentre os três, o único que ocupou cadeiras universitárias de ensino de História, sendo considerado um dos primeiros historiadores profissionais dos Estados Unidos da América. Ao longo de décadas elaborou uma série de artigos que, compilados, lhe renderam sua Magnum opus em dois volumes, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. A pesquisa se concentra em três eixos fundamentais: a) o contexto biográfico religioso de Andrew White, sua maturação filosófica e sua atuação como professor universitário, bem como o contexto histórico mundial e local no qual a obra foi produzida, rebuscando especialmente sua relação com a Universidade de Cornell; b) uma verticalização analítica dos conceitos históricos e epistemológicos empregados por White, procurando esquadrinhar as especificidades dos termos religião, ciência e teologia, bem como a retórica discursiva do autor; e finalmente c) uma apreciação histórica do desenvolvimento da Crítica Bíblica na Europa e nos Estados Unidos da América e de sua influência na obra de A. D. White. O trabalho revela de que forma o contexto político e mental do século XIX propiciou o surgimento de metáforas bélicas em diversos âmbitos, oferece razões históricas e sociais que explicam a origem do suposto conflito entre a ciência e a religião, apresenta um mapeamento conceitual da obra de White e a relevância da ascensão da Crítica Bíblica como um caminho para assegurar a secularização da prática científica. / The following study investigates the origins and the historical context of a historiographical concept, namely, the so called conflict thesis between science and religion. According to this thesis, scientific practice is endowed with a natural and mutual indisposition regarding religious practices, bringing them to an inevitable and historically verifiable conflict. The champions of this interpretation were John William Draper (1811-1882), James Young Simpson (1811-1870) and Andrew Dickson White (1838-1918), this work dwelling upon the latter. White was, among the three, the only one to occupy university chairs of History teaching, and is considered one of the first professional historians of the United States of America. Throughout decades he elaborated a series of articles that, after compilation, rendered his Magnum opus in two volumes, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. This research focuses in three fundamental axis: a) the religious biographical context of Andrew White, his philosophical maturation and his procedure as university professor, as well as the world and local historical context under which the work was yield, rummaging specially its relation to Cornell University; b) an analytical and vertical exposition of the historical and epistemological concepts employed by White, so as to scan the specificities of the terms religion, science and theology, as well as the discursive rhetoric of the author; and finally c) a historical appreciation of the development of Biblical Criticism in Europe and United States of America and its influence upon the work of A. D. White. The work reveals in which way the political and mental context of the 19th century propitiated the emergence of martial metaphors in diverse spheres, offers historical and social reasons that explain the origin of the supposed conflict between science and religion, presents a conceptual mapping of Whites work and the relevance of Biblical Criticism as a way to secure the secularization of the scientific practice.

O estudo a seguir investiga as origens e o contexto histórico de um conceito historiográfico, a saber, a chamada tese do conflito entre a ciência e a religião. Segundo esta tese, a prática científica possuiria uma indisposição natural e recíproca para com as práticas religiosas, levando-as a um conflito inevitável e historicamente verificável. Os próceres dessa interpretação foram John William Draper (1811-1882), James Young Simpson (1811-1870) e Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918), sobre o qual este trabalho se debruça. White foi, dentre os três, o único que ocupou cadeiras universitárias de ensino de História, sendo considerado um dos primeiros historiadores profissionais dos Estados Unidos da América. Ao longo de décadas elaborou uma série de artigos que, compilados, lhe renderam sua Magnum opus em dois volumes, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. A pesquisa se concentra em três eixos fundamentais: a) o contexto biográfico religioso de Andrew White, sua maturação filosófica e sua atuação como professor universitário, bem como o contexto histórico mundial e local no qual a obra foi produzida, rebuscando especialmente sua relação com a Universidade de Cornell; b) uma verticalização analítica dos conceitos históricos e epistemológicos empregados por White, procurando esquadrinhar as especificidades dos termos religião, ciência e teologia, bem como a retórica discursiva do autor; e finalmente c) uma apreciação histórica do desenvolvimento da Crítica Bíblica na Europa e nos Estados Unidos da América e de sua influência na obra de A. D. White. O trabalho revela de que forma o contexto político e mental do século XIX propiciou o surgimento de metáforas bélicas em diversos âmbitos, oferece razões históricas e sociais que explicam a origem do suposto conflito entre a ciência e a religião, apresenta um mapeamento conceitual da obra de White e a relevância da ascensão da Crítica Bíblica como um caminho para assegurar a secularização da prática científica. / The following study investigates the origins and the historical context of a historiographical concept, namely, the so called conflict thesis between science and religion. According to this thesis, scientific practice is endowed with a natural and mutual indisposition regarding religious practices, bringing them to an inevitable and historically verifiable conflict. The champions of this interpretation were John William Draper (1811-1882), James Young Simpson (1811-1870) and Andrew Dickson White (1838-1918), this work dwelling upon the latter. White was, among the three, the only one to occupy university chairs of History teaching, and is considered one of the first professional historians of the United States of America. Throughout decades he elaborated a series of articles that, after compilation, rendered his Magnum opus in two volumes, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. This research focuses in three fundamental axis: a) the religious biographical context of Andrew White, his philosophical maturation and his procedure as university professor, as well as the world and local historical context under which the work was yield, rummaging specially its relation to Cornell University; b) an analytical and vertical exposition of the historical and epistemological concepts employed by White, so as to scan the specificities of the terms religion, science and theology, as well as the discursive rhetoric of the author; and finally c) a historical appreciation of the development of Biblical Criticism in Europe and United States of America and its influence upon the work of A. D. White. The work reveals in which way the political and mental context of the 19th century propitiated the emergence of martial metaphors in diverse spheres, offers historical and social reasons that explain the origin of the supposed conflict between science and religion, presents a conceptual mapping of Whites work and the relevance of Biblical Criticism as a way to secure the secularization of the scientific practice.

Thesis (Mth(O.T.)--Universiteit van Pretoria, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 41-42)