The Monotheism of the Deuteronomistic History

The Hebrew Bible is often characterized as a monotheistic book, but a closer inspection reveals that monotheistic passages represent only a thin and late layer: There are only six passages in the Deuteronomistic history that contain monotheistic vocabulary. They are late additions that belong to the latest editorial phases of the composition. They were probably added to the composition in the 5th century BCE or later. This means that the final shift to monotheistic conceptions, as far as the Deuteronomistic History is concerned, occurred in the Persian period. The monotheism of the Deuteronomistic History is “nationalistic.” Although other gods are assumed to be non-existent, the other nations are not invited to join the Israelites in their worship of Yahweh. This also reveals the preliminary stage of the monotheism. It is improbable that there is a planned religious system behind the monotheistic passages of the Deuteronomistic History. The authors are convinced that there is no other deity but Yahweh, but all the consequences of this view have not yet been drawn. The authors assume that Yahweh has already created humankind as well as the whole world. This idea is not found in the older texts. It is probable that the monotheistic authors are dependent on a later form of the Pentateuch, which already includes a creation story. The idea that Yahweh lived in heaven, whence he spoke to the Israelites, is also late. It is the end of the development caused by the destruction of Yahweh's physical representation in the temple where he lived: Yahweh moved to heaven. Differences between the monotheism of the Deuteronomistic History and Deutero-Isaiah are evident. Deutero-Isaiah is more open to the possibility that other nations worship Yahweh. Deutero-Isaiah also makes a connection between idol criticism and monotheism, whereas in the Deuteronomistic History these themes are found in different texts. Idol criticism seems to be older than monotheism. The differences between the monotheism of the Deuteronomistic History and Deutero-Isaiah suggest that none of them is dependent on the other. Although some mutual interaction and influence should not be excluded, they seem to be two distinct developments that took place in different contexts. While external influence is also possible, it seems that many roots of the monotheism of the Deuteronomistic History can be found in the older conceptions of Israel's religion and especially in the Deuteronomistic theology, which is a product of the events in 587 BCE. It is probable that without the destruction of the temple Israel's religion would not have developed monotheistic conceptions. In view of the literary development in the Deuteronomistic History, any pre-587 BCE dating of monotheistic conceptions or phraseology is improbable.     

无望的对抗格局--三论世界历史上的大清帝国

当近代西方殖民列强东来的时候,它们面临的是一个走向衰亡的明王朝和一个崛起的清王朝。上升时期的大清帝国,特别是其康雍乾盛世,国家生命力旺盛。无论是葡萄牙、西班牙还是荷兰、英国,都无法阻止其繁荣昌盛。然而伴随着西方资本主义的发展,西方列强轮番兴起,由于各种内部因素,如中国封建王朝自然经济的发展规律,中国封建社会晚期皇权压制下海商集团的命运,大清帝国反而逐渐耗尽了国家生命力,终于沦为列强的半殖民地并走向衰亡。     

20世纪中国近代史学科体系问题的探索

中国近代史作为20世纪中国历史学的一个重要分支学科,是中国近代社会转型和学术转型的产物。在几代学探索、争鸣的基础上。确立了以半殖民地半封建社会大约110年的中国历史作为中国近代史学科的研究对象。这种认识,是在马克思主义基本原理指导下得出的。是以对近代中国的社会经济形态与近代中国的社会性质的考察为出发点的,是符合近代中国历史进程的科学的学科体系。运用现代化理论研究近代中国的历史。具有一定的积极意义,但简单地以“现代化范式”替代“革命史范式”,未必是正确的思考方向。近代中国的时代基调是革命,中国近代史上的政治、经济、军事、化思想、社会变迁,以及中外关系的处理,区域发展,少数民族问题,阶级斗争的状况,无不或多或少与革命的进程相联系。中国近代史学科体系只能在“革命史范式”主导下,兼采“现代化范式”的视角,更多关注社会经济的发展与变迁及其对于革命进程的作用,使“革命史范式”臻于完善。这是我们今天需要努力的。     

20世纪的世界史学史

本文对 2 0世纪出现的具有全球视野的各种世界史研究范式进行了综合评述。真正的具有全球意义的世界史研究在 2 0世纪出现 ,它们可以分为历史哲学、社会科学和专业历史研究三种。 2 0世纪早期的历史哲学超越了民族国家的分析框架 ,提出了不同文化传统之间交流的有意义的问题。五六十年代流行于美国学术界的现代化分析理论关注于经济发展、城市化、工业化等理解现代社会的重要问题。坚持依附论和世界体系分析的学者认为 ,帝国主义和殖民主义的世界体系是理解现代世界的关键。工业历史学者注重具体历史过程的分析。 80年代后 ,全球史观的世界历史研究根据不同的生态史。这些研究各有突破和不足 ,但都对全球视野的世界历史研究做出贡献。     

糖粒上的历史

在我们的日常生活中,糖的重要性不言而喻。人们每天用它,对它司空见惯了,便没有意识到它可能是一个有学术价值的题目。而不起眼的糖,却让大名鼎鼎的季羡林先生年过八十还花了十多年时间来专门研究,并终于从季老的学术生命中获得了自己的“身份”,成为一部长达八十多万言之作的“主人公”。     

The Environmental History of the Holocaust

ABSTRACT

The introduction conceptualizes environmental history of the Holocaust as a subdiscipline of Holocaust studies. The authors approach this emerging field of research through the context of environmental humanities with its current interest in the Anthropocene, soil science, forensics, multispecies collectives, and explorations of relations between ecocides and genocides. Proposed approach considers post-Holocaust spaces and landscapes as specific ecosystems and examines relations between its actors (human and non-human) in order to show the Holocaust’s spatial markers and long-terms effects. The article outlines existing literature on the subject, identifies the central research problems and questions, and discusses sources and methods. The authors demonstrate that the environmental history of the Holocaust applies a hybrid methodology that uses methods from various disciplines with the aim of creating new theories and interpretive categories and thus should be considered complementary to existing approaches in Holocaust studies. The authors follow the methodological principles of grounded theory in generating new concepts and seeking multidisciplinary methods for explaining nature’s role in the Holocaust and how Holocaust has changed nature. The authors claim that environmental history of the Holocaust broadens Holocaust studies as a field of research and opens up new questions concerning relations between nature and extermination in order to provide a more holistic perspective for exploring the relationship between culture and nature, genocide and ecocide. The approach proposed here shows Holocaust and post-Holocaust landscapes in terms of ecological/natural heritage, which might influence the way these spaces are commemorated, conserved and preserved, as well as used for tourist purposes.     

史学理论结构的非平衡发展--西方和古代中国的比较

20世纪以前,中国古代与西方各有自己独立发展的史学理论。但由于历史环境的差异,双方史学理论结构的发展呈现明显的非平衡性。即在共时性结构上,西方史学理论独立自主地形成了完整的内容体系,中国古代史学理论侧重本体论与方法论而忽视认识论。在历时性结构上,随着近现代科学的发展,西方史学理论的研究重心经历了从本体论向认识论、方法论的转移,并极大地推动了历史研究的发展;而由于近代科学的缺位,中国没有经历上述变化,从而在很大程度上制约了历史学近代化(职业化和科学化)的进程。现当代西方史学研究的实践证明,中观史学理论是历史学发展的重要推动力。     

被建构的历史:当代贵州地方志中的南明史叙述

在历史的建构中,人的思维与意志占据着重要位置。通过对历史进行建构,今人将自己的意识写进历史之中。当代贵州地方志中对南明史的叙述,恰恰正是历史与建构之间的一种复杂反映。编撰者在编写南明史时其实就是对贵州安龙的南明史进行重构,从某种程度上说,被建构了的历史已经不完全是原来意义上的历史,字里行间,历史建构者的褒贬之意、好恶之感贯穿历史的始终,溢于言表,袒露无遗。     

世界历史进程中的马克思世界历史理论

经济全球化的日益发展对历史学提出了新的理论挑战,这就是究竟如何避免各种片面和局限,构建科学和系统的世界历史阐释体系。这一时代要求进一步凸显了马克思世界历史理论的科学性和重要性。马克思世界历史理论是世界历史发展进程中的产物,同时也深刻揭示了世界历史形成和演变的内在规律,为我们认识、理解和把握世界历史的整体发展指明了基本方向。它通过深入揭示生产力因素在人类社会发展过程中所发挥的决定性作用,为我们深入理解人类历史和改造世界提供了科学的理论与方法论支持,并且为当代的世界史或全球史的研究和编纂提供了具有方法论意义的科学指南。     

中国的通史传统与世界史编纂

中国的通史传统是指在长期、丰富的通史编纂实践中,中国历史学家逐渐形成的以通古今之变为核心的历史认识理论和通史编纂思想。通史传统是中国历史编纂学重要的理论资产之一。在世界史研究和编纂过程中,应当通过对通史传统的深入挖掘和不断发扬,赋予当代中国世界史研究理论体系鲜明的民族特色,并进一步推进马克思主义理论、中国史学优秀传统和当代中国世界史研究的融会贯通。     

The Shared International History of the Americas

Book reviewed:
Lester D. Langley. The Americas in the Modern Age . New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press, 2003. 336 pp. Illustrations. $37.50 (cloth), $20.00 (paper).