Introduction The redaction of the reigns of the kings Uzziah, Ahaz, and Manasseh are examples of conflicting historical documentations. The book of 2 Kings (written by a Deuteronomistic historian) is presupposed throughout this examination of texts to have been the source of the writings that the Chronicler (or the writer of Chronicles) would have referenced. This comparison will analyze, yet not exhaust, the additions, omissions, and modifications made by the Chronicler to the original texts and will also attempt to explain why he would have changed the information to fit his specific paradigm. The Reign of Uzziah When comparing the reign of Uzziah in 2 Kings 15:1-7 to the text of 2 Chronicles 26, the first difference one would notice is that there are several minor literary differences in the composure of the text that really have little significance to the subject; however, the Chronicler does vary his account of the happenings to conform his personal doctrine to that of blessing and judgment. One major change within this specific text is the name used. The Hebrew version uses the name Azariah, while the Chronicler uses Uzziah. The reasoning may possibly be that Azariah was the king’s birth name or his given name at the time of his kingship; or it may be a name set aside for distinguishing the king from the priest Azariah, who is also mentioned within this and surrounding texts. Within the selected texts, the Chronicler adds a lot of information to Kings. While Kings only gives a small record of Uzziah’s life, the Chronicler adds details of when and how Uzziah received his blessings and also added the king’s wicked ways that consequently led to his skin disorder. These additions were necessary to mold Uzziah’s years of kingshi... ... middle of paper ... ...repentance and also fall in line with the continuing theme of blessing and judgment. In 2 Chronicles 33:12 it is clearly noted that Manasseh humbled prayers in 2 Chronicles 33:13 and Yahweh answered. Conclusion In conclusion, 2 Kings a king who only allowed for sacrifice at the Jerusalem temple was favored and not condemned – no matter his other shortcomings (Hayes, 232). The Deuteronomistic historian knew that this did not pan out exactly the way he believed it should, so he added, omitted, and changed the account of Kings to fit into his theology of good equals good and bad equals bad. If a king was good, he was allowed a long reign and was victorious in battle; if a king was bad, then he had a short reign and could not be victorious. These changes made a running theme throughout the chosen texts that solidified the Chronicler’s doctrine of blessing and judgment.
the Accuracy of the Chronicle of Al-Jabarti." Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. No. 2 (1970): 283-294. http://www.jstor.org/stable/613005 (accessed November 30, 2013).
...oyal couple changed their names to Tutankhamen, demonstrating their renewed allegiance to Amen-Re. The king restored the old temples of the many gods, and reinstated the priesthoods" (David 158). The reforms, which Akhenaten brought to return the power once held by the Pharaoh in the Old Kingdom, were unable to be understood. The people who Akhenaten had to ensure comprehension of his reasoning did not, for they no longer were connected to the old order which he was trying to reestablish.
Much of Revelation is the source of debate. Many passages are symbolic in nature, and the exact meaning of the symbols can be difficult to determine. Some passages can be interpreted in various ways. The identity of the Four Horsemen, the 144,000, and Babylon the Great in particular are points of contention. Nevertheless, proper hermeneutics and careful study can illuminate these difficult passages.
An Assyrian Emperor’s Resume: Ferocious Conquests a Specialty, written by an unknown author, offers evidence about the Assyrian Society around the time of 875 BCE, under the rule of Emperor Ashur-Nasir-Pal II, including insight in to the Assyrian society as well as what they valued and thought was important, however we cannot believe that this source is one hundred percent accurate.
The King of Thebes, arrogance lead tragic endings for his loved ones such as his wife and son. Creon believed that since he was the king, he had the right to make decisions without bothering to discuss it with others, and that he could rule alone, because he was greater than everyone else. King Creon had made a law to not bury Polyneices, if anyone were to br...
Hindson, E. E., & Yates, G. E. (2012). The Essence of the Old Testament: A survey. Nashville, Tenn: B & H Academic.
People believed that from that encounter that he took over the kingdom and then became a ruler of a different kingdom.
According to the Sumerian King’s List , Ur dominated Southern Mesopotamia three times, which owes to the name ‘The Third Dynasty of Ur’. The Third dynasty stretched from c.2112 - c.2004. Shar-kali-sharri was the last ruler before the decline of the Akkadian period brought by the Gutian invaders. After about 40 years after the demise of the Akkadian Empire, Ur-Namma established this empire centered in Ur. This period was one of restoration as a reaction against the previous rule of the Akkadians. It is also sometimes known as the ‘Sumerian renaissance’ as the writing was still Sumerian and there were notable advances in culture. “This period stabilized the region of Mesopotamia and allowed for development of art, literature, science, agricultural
noble birth and he had a lot of responsibility in his kingdom. He is looked up to by most for leadership and guidance.
... of Israel, 2d ed.: A Theological Survey of the Old Testament. Garden City: Baker Academic, 2002.
Gilgamesh, King of Uruk, is the protagonist of The Epic of Gilgamesh, where the audience is brought through the story of a tyrannical king 's transformation to become a mature king. He would learn that his responsibilities as king come before any of his wishes for fame and acknowledgment. As a being who was two-thirds god and one-third human, he desperately tried to gain the attention and later on the immortality that only deities would have. In the Epic of Gilgamesh translated by Andrew George, Gilgamesh believed that in order to be a great king, he would have to complete heroic tasks such as killing Humbaba, the guardian of the Cedar Forest and going to the netherworlds to find the source of immortality.
Through examining these texts, it is evident that the advantages historians have when drawing on evidence such as this is that they can easily reveal certain social and cultural values of the society from which the authors came from, just as easily as it shows social and cultural values of the society of which it was written about. The limitations for historians when collecting written evidence is that some key features of the complex civilizations written about were often left out or could be easily misinterpreted or
Some of the contents of the scrolls, as mentioned above, had never been seen before in the archeological or religious communities. Being so, much skepticism concerning the scrolls, their meaning, their true origin and their authors has arisen. Of course, not all of these topics can be tackled at once and surely not all of the questions can be answered, especially because there is no proof of their true origin or their true authors, but certainly one can attempt to enlighten others with the hardships that are faced, even now, by the scribes who wrote them. In viewing the living conditions during the time that the scrolls were written and then comparing the conditions to those of today, one will have a much deeper understanding of what “hardship” means in the scribal world. Based on this comparison and a near-complete list of typical errors that plague current and ancient authors, one will not only see the types of difficulties involved with replication, but will also realize through doubt and reason that using these scrolls as a source of biblical facts is a hazardous idea.
In the beginning of the story, the titular character, Gilgamesh, is highly regarded as the great king who built the city of Uruk: “And who, like Gilgamesh, can proclaim, ‘I am king!’ Gilgamesh was singled out from the day of his birth, two-thirds of him was divine, one-third of him was human! The Lady of Birth drew his body’s image, the God of Wisdom brought his stature to perfection” (100-01). Immediately at the start of the story, Gilgamesh is polarized as an extraordinary being,
Hirshman, M. G. (2006). A rivalry of genius: Jewish and Christian biblical interpretation in late antiquity. Albany: State University of New York Press.