Paper Example on Hebrew History

History schoolbooks encourage a particular understanding of history. Some textbooks rely on facts, some are biased, and some got politically instigated. The book used in this unit does the same but somewhat pretends to do this linguistically. The author takes the subject as social science, and assurance to technical information gets replicated in a belief that the most significant thing is actually to get the correct information backed up the right facts. From the textbook, one learns that the metaphysical origins of faith in methodological knowledge lie in logical positivism. The author used an approach that tries to examine the Hebrew societies and their social relations in a scientific system where ordinary science get used to investigate physical phenomena (2-2). The author argues that there were no extrabiblical evidence for the Exodus or even for the presence of Jews in Egypt, some scholars dismiss the Exodus as fiction; although numerous Egyptian hieroglyphics detail events at the time, none of them refers specifically to Israelites in Egypt (2-5). Certainly, say these scholars, the flight of thousands of foreigners would have attracted notice. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that escape by a large group of slaves could have succeeded when the Egyptians possessed so much power. The biblical account says that Israelites wandered in the Sinai desert for forty years, but archaeologists, who have excavated some sites in the Sinai mentioned in the book of Exodus, have uncovered no traces of Israelite campsites. These scholars, known as biblical minimalists, deny the Exodus from Egypt ever occurred. The impact of this method is observable in the textbooks, and it concentrates on the gathering and organization of facts and recorded evidence.

The author uses cautious choices of the proofs to use. In most cases, textbooks get shaped by the radical, moral, or even political views of their writers. It is entirely conceivable that authors build arguments that might be solely biased. However, they can be emphasized and get passed as nothing but facts. These views back up the status quo, or conformist considerations about what is admirable or blamable in our past. Concisely, some statements in the chapters, are precisely right because they are passing along very choosy ideals and moral verdicts. This statement is evident when the author talks about Canaan colonization (2-1). The type of bias used in subtle than say bias which may ensue from wrong facts. Nevertheless, it still proves to be quite powerful. Even though teachers prefer the values of a dynamic democracy and scientific approach to retelling history, the conclusions are that textbook that describes the history of Hebrews in a way that encourages a worldview of which learners are hardly aware but forms their perspective of the Hebrews. The implicit worldview explains our autonomous principles regarding perceptive reasoning, functioning, and moral progress.

In some parts of chapter two, one finds a broad range of flawless facts to mischaracterizations that bordered on propaganda. The presence of false facts and imprecise generalizations have taken on the weight of veracity without grounding in a speculative inquiry (2-2). One, however, has no reason to believe that the writer deliberately inserted their preconceptions into the writing, nor choose one version of history over another because of personal bigotry. One learns that certain themes emerge in the textbook that jointly comprises a bias. The author mentions that, nature inspired people to sing the praises of the Lord; it invoked worship of God, not scientific curiosity (2-2). One attributes this outcome mainly to scientific and subjective learning instead of ill intent. Some information has however been generalized. The statement about Hebrews doctrine, their social organization, and the chronicle of Israel includes an offensive picture of Jews and Israel when viewed by a Christian. It seeks to strengthen the exaggerated differentiation amid Christians and Hebrews in the book.

There is a dimensional comparison in the book suggesting a character stereotype that Jews are intolerant. The past and spiritual beliefs of the Israelites got documented in the Hebrew Bible, portions of which get identified to Christians as the Old Testament. The book gives extra information, but it is misleading (2-7). The Hebrew Bible was written earlier before the Christian scriptures. The Old Testament language is not suitable until the textbook debates about the Christian origins in subsequent chapters. The book replicates out-of-date terminology that fails to reflect contemporary scholarship or current constructive interreligious relations between Christians and Jews. Looking at the last centuries, both Hebrews and Christians have had their reasons for division. Christians claimed that Jesus was a Jew (2-7). This history manifested into antagonism between the two. However, this generation has cleared the gaps. The healing is so significant in the history of religion that it should get noted. It is unfortunate that the book failed to cover the recent academic, theological and social progress, rather repeated the recount of history and accounts of religious belief as done in previous centuries. One learns the assertion that the Hebrews were accountable Jesus crucifixion. The textbook handling of the issue displays some inaccuracy in language use, and this might affect the attitude of Christians and their faith. The impressions of supersessionism discussed might cause Christians to blame the Jews for Jesus' crucifixion.