Thesis (M.A.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1967. / eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, Berkeley, 1964. / eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [309]-319).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Northern Illinois University, 1983. / Includes bibliographical references (p. [363]-377).

Summaries in English and Afrikaans / Text in Afrikaans / Die boek Job verwerp vergelding as enigste verklaringsbeginsel van goed en kwaad, maar sluit vergelding en beloning nie heeltemal uit nie: Onmiddellike straf op sonde is onversoenbaar met God se genade, maar indien daar volhard word in kwaad, sal God dit uiteindelik straf net soos Hy uiteindelik die goeie beloon. Die klem op 'n histories-kritiese uitleg van die boek Job, het in die verlede daartoe gelei dat die moontlike literere eenheid van die boek dikwels uit die oog verloor is. Hoewel die boek sander enige twyfel saamgestel is uit verskillende bronne, impliseer dit nie noodwendig dat die auteur nie sy bronne tot 'n sinvolle geheel gei'ntegreer het nie. Die boek Job toon tekens dat dit hoofsaaklik die werk van een auteur was wat sy. bron(ne) net as 'n vertrekpunt gebruik het, maar nogtans 'n heeltemal nuwe werk gekomponeer het met 'n basiese eenheid in struktuur en inhoud. Histories-kritiese eksegete beskou gewoonlik die redevoerings met die drie vriende en die Godsrede as 'n eenheid, maar beskou die raamvertelling en die Elihu-rede as afsonderlike bronne met 'n eie siening van die teodisee-probleem. Die boek Job moet egter as 'n literere-eenheid verstaan word, met 'n enkele geintegreerde standpunt oor die teodisee-probleem. Die raamvertelling kan in sy huidige vorm slegs in samehang met die poetiese deel verstaan word en hied nie 'n afsonderlike siening oor die teodisee-probleem nie. Die Elihu-karakter vervul 'n antler funksie in die boek as Job se drie vriende. Die Elihu-rede vorm 'n hegte eenheid met die res van die boek en hied 'n inleiding tot die Godsrede. Die Godsrede kan gebruik word as 'n samevatting van die Job-auteur se standpunt oor die teodisee-probleem. / The book Job rejects retribution and reward as the only principle for explaining good and evil, but acknowledges it's existence: Immediate punishment for sinning can not be reconciled with the love of God, but repeated wrongdoing will ultimately be punished by God, just as the good will be rewarded. In the past the emphasis on a historical critical explanation of the book Job, possibly caused that the literary entity of the book was overlooked. Even though the book is definitely compounded from different sources, it doesn't necessarily mean that the author did not integrate these sources to a meaningful entity. There are certain aspects in the book that indicate that the book was written by one author who used his source(s) as a basis, from which he created a new narrative. In this new creation, the contents and structure of all parts form a basic entity. Historical critical exegetes usually see the speeches of Job's three friends and the Lords' Speeches as an entity. The framework and the Elihu speeches though, are seen as coming from different sources with it's own view on the problem of theodicy. The book Job must, however, be seen as a litermy entity with one integral viewpoint on the problem of theodicy. Although Elihu plays a different role from that of the three friends of Job, his speeches are tightly interwoven with the rest of this book and he can be seen as the forerunner of the Speeches of the Lord. The Speeches of the Lord can be used as a summary of the author's viewpoint on the problem of theodicy. / Th.D.(Old Testament)

Summaries in English and Afrikaans / Text in Afrikaans / Die boek Job verwerp vergelding as enigste verklaringsbeginsel van goed en kwaad, maar sluit vergelding en beloning nie heeltemal uit nie: Onmiddellike straf op sonde is onversoenbaar met God se genade, maar indien daar volhard word in kwaad, sal God dit uiteindelik straf net soos Hy uiteindelik die goeie beloon. Die klem op 'n histories-kritiese uitleg van die boek Job, het in die verlede daartoe gelei dat die moontlike literere eenheid van die boek dikwels uit die oog verloor is. Hoewel die boek sander enige twyfel saamgestel is uit verskillende bronne, impliseer dit nie noodwendig dat die auteur nie sy bronne tot 'n sinvolle geheel gei'ntegreer het nie. Die boek Job toon tekens dat dit hoofsaaklik die werk van een auteur was wat sy. bron(ne) net as 'n vertrekpunt gebruik het, maar nogtans 'n heeltemal nuwe werk gekomponeer het met 'n basiese eenheid in struktuur en inhoud. Histories-kritiese eksegete beskou gewoonlik die redevoerings met die drie vriende en die Godsrede as 'n eenheid, maar beskou die raamvertelling en die Elihu-rede as afsonderlike bronne met 'n eie siening van die teodisee-probleem. Die boek Job moet egter as 'n literere-eenheid verstaan word, met 'n enkele geintegreerde standpunt oor die teodisee-probleem. Die raamvertelling kan in sy huidige vorm slegs in samehang met die poetiese deel verstaan word en hied nie 'n afsonderlike siening oor die teodisee-probleem nie. Die Elihu-karakter vervul 'n antler funksie in die boek as Job se drie vriende. Die Elihu-rede vorm 'n hegte eenheid met die res van die boek en hied 'n inleiding tot die Godsrede. Die Godsrede kan gebruik word as 'n samevatting van die Job-auteur se standpunt oor die teodisee-probleem. / The book Job rejects retribution and reward as the only principle for explaining good and evil, but acknowledges it's existence: Immediate punishment for sinning can not be reconciled with the love of God, but repeated wrongdoing will ultimately be punished by God, just as the good will be rewarded. In the past the emphasis on a historical critical explanation of the book Job, possibly caused that the literary entity of the book was overlooked. Even though the book is definitely compounded from different sources, it doesn't necessarily mean that the author did not integrate these sources to a meaningful entity. There are certain aspects in the book that indicate that the book was written by one author who used his source(s) as a basis, from which he created a new narrative. In this new creation, the contents and structure of all parts form a basic entity. Historical critical exegetes usually see the speeches of Job's three friends and the Lords' Speeches as an entity. The framework and the Elihu speeches though, are seen as coming from different sources with it's own view on the problem of theodicy. The book Job must, however, be seen as a litermy entity with one integral viewpoint on the problem of theodicy. Although Elihu plays a different role from that of the three friends of Job, his speeches are tightly interwoven with the rest of this book and he can be seen as the forerunner of the Speeches of the Lord. The Speeches of the Lord can be used as a summary of the author's viewpoint on the problem of theodicy. / Th.D.(Old Testament)

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

<p>In the years 1866-1916, the U.S. Army changed from a frontier constabulary to an industrial age force capable of expeditionary operations. This conversion was made possible by organizational reforms including the creation of a system of professional education, a coordinating central staff, and doctrine integrating tactics, equipment, and organization. Yet formal structures acted in parallel with the informal culture of the officer corps, which proved far more resistant to change. This dissertation will follow the formulation of these reforms by Emory Upton following the Civil War, through their implementation by Elihu Root in the early twentieth century. It concludes in 1916, when new conditions produced an entirely different agenda for reform.</p><p>This period has generally been interpreted in one of two ways. Previous scholarship examining the internal workings of the Army has seen it as a transition from obsolete to modern organization. Despite disagreements as to the origins, impetus, and length of reform, the theme of progress has been consistent. In contrast, the historiography of the Army's external relationship with society has interpreted reform as a failed attempt to introduce militarism by mimicking foreign military institutions alien to American traditions. Although some of the foreign organizational forms were adopted, society ultimately rejected the militarist aims. This dissertation modifies both interpretations by arguing that these reforms were not as great a break with previous practices as generally asserted. The internal changes were actually a reordering of existing practices made possible by the sudden elevation of the reforming faction to organizational power. Individuals sought to emphasize only those limited aspects of the old professional culture that they valued. These individual aims often diverged, leading to a series of disjointed reforms that, while successful in altering the army, did so in unanticipated ways. These internal efforts were meant to improve the army's effectiveness; there was little effort to alter the Army's role in society. Yet the next generation of reformers sought such a change under the dubious guise of a return to tradition. In doing so, they falsely portrayed their predecessors as foreign-inspired militarists, a mischaracterization that has been largely accepted by historians.</p> / Dissertation