Answering to the question which has contained different
perspectives onto a historical fact is not easy as we might
imagine. It represents that unidimensional historic approaches
cannot help exposing the shortages of diachronic awareness
about specific historical facts.
But, in order to understand t...
Answering to the question which has contained different
perspectives onto a historical fact is not easy as we might
imagine. It represents that unidimensional historic approaches
cannot help exposing the shortages of diachronic awareness
about specific historical facts.
But, in order to understand the profound intentions of
historical depictions, we should touch the historical backdrop
'that present' basically. Likewise, understandings of historical
periods are an important part of research in biblical history
depictions, too. Moreover, if we comprehend the theological
themes which the historians of the Bible have, we would step
forth toward real intentions of historical descriptions. Further, these kinds of historical retrogradations help us to comprehend
the specific situation.
Comparing and contrasting in this study are a very
important method to draw comparison each of different angles
onto the same historical fact or figure based on each specific
situation. Especially, in this study, the Deuteronomy and
Chronicles show that they tended to drive the history of th
Bible into two different directions. Actually, we can find out
these different views point easily from King David a historical
figure in Israel history. To be more concrete, the Deuteronomist
tried to describe king's whole personal history including his
negative attitudes so that he never hesitate to narrate King
David's faults in his history books. However, chronicler regards
King David as a ideal model as removing his negative historical
description intentionally. These depictive characteristics of
historical books toward King David stubbornly insist that both
historical books can be divided into two directions according to
their historical view.
Demarcation of historical view between the Deuteronomy
and Chronicles derive from comprehension of historical backdrop
and theological theme helps us solve our historical doubts, "why
historians keep different view point about equal history fact,"
more clearly. Because, from historical period research, we can
find the truth that the deuteronomist and chronicler were located in different time period. As we can see in chapterⅡ, concrete
explanation about each of historical period make us possible to
approach the outbreak of theological themes which both history
books have. That is, on the Deuteronomist grounds, they were
experiencing the indignity from Babylon so they have to find out
the ultimate cause why they were destroyed by Babylon. In
here, the Deuteronomist pointed out their 'sin' in front of God.
In the same time, they wanted to look for a solution from their
past historical model including King David. In contrast, the
Chronicler was released from pressure of Babylon however it
meant that they laid down on the new prospects. So they have
to draw future-oriented road map to drive their nation. After all,
they decided to pick the ideal model up, King David, from their
past historical memory according to their theological position as
if the Deuteronomist have chosen the past historical figure as a
reflectional model.
Especially, chapterⅢ show us how both biblical historians
adapted and narrated their past historical model into their
descriptions with their own theological intentions. Frankly
speaking, however, it doesn't mean that the demarcation of
historical view covers all ranges of historical books. Because,
sometimes, both historians have their own particular
perspectives based on situational background. But it also will
help us read the historical book with two coherent historical
perspectives in diachronic view.
Answering to the question which has contained different
perspectives onto a historical fact is not easy as we might
imagine. It represents that unidimensional historic approaches
cannot help exposing the shortages of diachronic awareness
about specific historical facts.
But, in order to understand the profound intentions of
historical depictions, we should touch the historical backdrop
'that present' basically. Likewise, understandings of historical
periods are an important part of research in biblical history
depictions, too. Moreover, if we comprehend the theological
themes which the historians of the Bible have, we would step
forth toward real intentions of historical descriptions. Further, these kinds of historical retrogradations help us to comprehend
the specific situation.
Comparing and contrasting in this study are a very
important method to draw comparison each of different angles
onto the same historical fact or figure based on each specific
situation. Especially, in this study, the Deuteronomy and
Chronicles show that they tended to drive the history of th
Bible into two different directions. Actually, we can find out
these different views point easily from King David a historical
figure in Israel history. To be more concrete, the Deuteronomist
tried to describe king's whole personal history including his
negative attitudes so that he never hesitate to narrate King
David's faults in his history books. However, chronicler regards
King David as a ideal model as removing his negative historical
description intentionally. These depictive characteristics of
historical books toward King David stubbornly insist that both
historical books can be divided into two directions according to
their historical view.
Demarcation of historical view between the Deuteronomy
and Chronicles derive from comprehension of historical backdrop
and theological theme helps us solve our historical doubts, "why
historians keep different view point about equal history fact,"
more clearly. Because, from historical period research, we can
find the truth that the deuteronomist and chronicler were located in different time period. As we can see in chapterⅡ, concrete
explanation about each of historical period make us possible to
approach the outbreak of theological themes which both history
books have. That is, on the Deuteronomist grounds, they were
experiencing the indignity from Babylon so they have to find out
the ultimate cause why they were destroyed by Babylon. In
here, the Deuteronomist pointed out their 'sin' in front of God.
In the same time, they wanted to look for a solution from their
past historical model including King David. In contrast, the
Chronicler was released from pressure of Babylon however it
meant that they laid down on the new prospects. So they have
to draw future-oriented road map to drive their nation. After all,
they decided to pick the ideal model up, King David, from their
past historical memory according to their theological position as
if the Deuteronomist have chosen the past historical figure as a
reflectional model.
Especially, chapterⅢ show us how both biblical historians
adapted and narrated their past historical model into their
descriptions with their own theological intentions. Frankly
speaking, however, it doesn't mean that the demarcation of
historical view covers all ranges of historical books. Because,
sometimes, both historians have their own particular
perspectives based on situational background. But it also will
help us read the historical book with two coherent historical
perspectives in diachronic view.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.