A Brief Critical Examination of
the Divine Principle Theory of History
A Pilot Study
by
Jane E. M. Williams and Allen Tate Wood
Copyright © 1982 by Jane Williams and Allen
Wood
All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced
or utilized in any form or by any means without permission in
writing from the authors. Inquiries should be addressed to Allen
Wood; email: allenwood@sbcglobal.net
Registered with the U.S. Library of Congress: Txu 104 –
194, 23rd August 1982
CONTENTS:
Registered with the U.S. Library of Congress: Txu 104 –
194, 23rd August 1982
CONTENTS:
Text Page
3 - 17
Introduction 3
Methodology 4
Results and Discussion 5
Chart "Y" – table of research results which contradict
the Divine Principle "time image
Identity"charts 7 Conclusion 12
Appendix - i – x
Chart "X" – chart of the age of Providential time-identity
ii.
Glossary ii-iii
References iv-ix
Bibliography x-xi
Page 2
INTRODUCTION
In the introduction to the "Divine Principle" (1.)
it is stated that "Knowledge comes from cognition, and man
cannot today cognize anything which lacks logic and scientific
proof. To understand something, there must first be cognition.
Thus internal truth (religion) also requires logical proof."
(p 9) For the purposes of our inquiry into the credibility of
the Divine Principle as a serious hypothetical exposition of the
laws of history, we have taken the authors of the D.P. (Divine
Principle) at their word. We have made a preliminary study of
the applicability of the D.P. theory of history, the "Providence
of restoration". Our method has been to test the D.P. hypothesis,
which claims that a discrete, discernible series of repeating
cycles characterizes the history of the Jews from the time of
Adam until the birth of Christ; and that this same pattern of
cycles is recapitulated in a point for point correspondence in
the history of Christianity from the death of Christ to the birth
of Moon. If we can not find serious grounds upon which to discount
the D.P. hypothesis, we shall be forced to concede that Sun Myung
Moon might be the Messiah. However, should we uncover in our research
substantial grounds for rejecting the D.P. hypothesis, we shall
be forced to dismiss the conclusion that Sun Myung Moon is the
Messiah. In testing this hypothesis, we have concerned ourselves
with its criteria for establishing the dates of a particular cycle.
We have paid attention to the rigor, or lack thereof, with which
the definitional terminology and concepts are employed.
Ref. 19, page 9
PAGE 3
Ken Sudo (1.) Suggests a criterion against which "time
periods" may be tested: "according to statistical understanding
+ or – 2.5% can come from meaningless random factors"
(2.).
Our research (hypothesis testing and examining source material)
has revolved around the "Chart of the Age of Providential
Time-Identity"*, specifically the age Of image time identity*
and the age of substantial time- identity*, from the D.P. (3.)
And Miss Kim?s correlations of historical periods. (4.)
METHODOLOGY:
1st assumption – The D.P. History Charts are comprised
of a series of consecutive time periods. In reading the charts,
it is clear that there are no hard and fast dates established
for the beginnings and endings of the periods, although the duration
of the respective periods is rigidly established by means of mathematically
derived periods of "vertical indemnity" (5.). In order
to investigate the validity of the D.P. View of history it is
necessary to fix precise dates, not only for the duration of the
period but also for the beginning and ending. The division between
two historical periods is sometimes indicated by the presence
of a "central figure"*. Generally it is unclear whether
the central figure?s birth, death, active life, or work marks
the division. The D.P. does, however, make explicit the dividing
point between the period of the "Christian Churches under
the Patriarchal System" and the period of the "Christian
Kingdom". The significant event is the enthronement of the
Emperor Charlemagne in 800 AD. We use this date and the stated
durations of the periods on the D.P. Chart to establish precise
demarcation between periods. Chart "X" is appended (see
page ii.).
1. chief lecturer for the Barrytown "120-Day training session".
chosen by Moon to educate Moonie leaders
2. Ref. 25, page 293a
3. Ref. 19, page 403
4. Ref. 18
5. Ref. 19, page 381 see Glossary for the D.P. definitions.
2nd assumption – Our research has been largely confined
to the D.P.?s picture of history from the time of Abraham to the
birth of Moon. The first line of the D.P. Chart. "X",
gives us the "history of restoration" from Adam through
Abraham to the departure for Egypt. By their own admission the
authors of the D.P. state that this period is one of indeterminate
length. They state that the duration of the periods is symbolic.
We find ourselves unequipped within the parameters of our research
to test the D.P. against symbolic time periods and will therefore
confine our investigation of this period to a brief comparison
with the Book of Genesis.
3rd assumption - In critically examining the D.P. time periods,
we have entertained each period as discreet from the preceding
period, regardless of whether or not the previous period conforms
to the criteria established for it with respect to historical
content and duration.
Within the framework of these assumptions we compared and contrasted
the D.P. hypothesis about history with the findings of recognized
scholars in the field of biblical research, the history of Jews,
and the history of Christendom. A detailed list of references
used is included in the Bibliography section.
Page 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:
In this section we present the results of our investigation
into the accuracy and validity of the D.P. "Theory of History".
This is in effect, our attempt to cognise logically and scientifically
their claims.
The results of our research, comparing the D.P. picture of history
with historical records, are summarized by Chart "Y"
on the following pullout page. Chart "Y" can be studied
alongside Chart "X" (appendix, page ii.) to expose discrepancies
between the D.P. picture and the actual historical record. The
points listed under each section on Chart "Y" (a), b),
c) and so on) are essential for determining whether or not "periods"
as such exist, and whether or not they have discreet beginnings
and endings.
These points also indicate some of the actual, as opposed to
ideologically determined, content of the "periods".
Each point is supported by several references as listed in the
appendix. We have been able to identify six main types of errors
in the D.P. view of history: The authors of the D.P. rewrite the
calendar of Genesis to fit their a priori notions. Their treatment
of history from Adam to the departure for Egypt bears little resemblance
to scientific methodology or logic.
The authors of the D.P. admit that this period is one of indeterminate
length. Why then in the next breath do they state that between
Adam and Noah there elapsed ten generations and 1600 years? A
simple tabulation of "begats" from Genesis gives us
1056 years between Adam and Noah, not 1600 years. There are three
other such notable instances of arbitrary alteration of time in
the D.P. picture of history from Genesis.
Page 6
The D.P. states that between Noah and Abraham 400 years elapsed.
Again a simple tabulation of "begats", from Genesis
5:32 to 11:26, shows that the time from Noah to Abraham was 770
years and not 400. Also the D.P. states that Noah built the Ark
for 120 years. A careful reading of Genesis (5:32 and 7:7) reveals
that he built the Ark in less than 100 years. Not 120. Lastly
the authors of the D.P. state that Jacob spent 21 years in Haran.
In Genesis 31:38 and 41 we read that he spent twenty years in
Haran. In elaborating their hypothesis, the authors of the D.P.
fail to establish consistent ground rules for determining the
beginning and ending of the time periods. This type of error isn
in accordance with our first assumption as discussed in the Methodology
section page
(2).
Often the names of important historical figures are placed on
the D.P. charts to indicate the beginning and ending of periods.
The authors of the D.P. never clearly state what it is in a man?s
life that fixes the dates of the periods. Is it his birth, his
death, his active life, his writings, or another event? For example:
Moses is used to mark the division between "Slavery in
Egypt" and the "Period of the Judges". Presumably
the time of the Exodus is the turning point.
The crowning of King Saul is used to mark the beginning of the
"United Kingdom".
The death of Solomon is used to mark the beginning of the "Divided
Kingdom".
The proclamation of the emperor Theodosius is used to mark the
end of the period of "Persecution under the Roman Empire".
Augustine is used to indicate the beginning of the period of
the "Christian churches under the Patriarchal System".
We are not told what it is about his life that contributes to
the ending of one period or the beginning of another. The persecution
of the Christians in the Roman Empire stopped long before Augustine
was born. Church patriarchs existed about 200 years before Augustine.
Page 8
Jesus? birth and death appear to be used to divide "Preparation
for the Coming of the Messiah" and the "Persecution
of the Christians under the Roman Empire".
Charlemagne?s coronation in 800 AD by Pope Leo is used to inaugurate
the period of the "Christian Kingdom".
Luther?s posting of the 95 Theses on the door of the church
in Wittenburg is used to delineate the end of the period of "Papal
captivity and return" and the beginning of the Preparation
for the second coming of the Messiah".
3. The D.P. fails to demonstrate a cause and effect relationship
in its exposition of historical progression. Let us consider the
transition from the period of the "Divided Kingdoms of East
and West" to the period of the "Papal Captivity and
Return" as one example of this type of error. According to
the D.P. History Chart, the period of "Divided Kingdoms"
should end around 1320 AD, although the D.P. proposes that it
ends in 1309 when the Vatican moved to Avignon (1). The two kingdoms,
Germany and France, had been politically distinct since the Treaty
of Verdun in 843 AD. They remain divided, today. There is no evidence
that the period of division came to an end in 1309 AD. There is
no logic, here. There is only the declaration by the authors of
the D.P. that it is so. The D.P. presents nothing concrete in
the history of France and Germany to show how these nations failed
?to establish the foundation to receive the Messiah of the Second
Advent? (2) nor is it made clear how failure of these two nations
can be recouped by the Pope?s sojourn in Avignon. The D.P. states,
?God in order to work anew his providence of restoring the foundation,
allowed the Pope to be taken captive and suffer slavery?. (2)
1. Ref. 19, page 400 2. Ref. 19, page 419
Even were we to discover a hidden causal link between the "Divided
Kingdoms" and the Pope, the D.P. scenario in which God allowed
the Pope to be taken captive and suffer
Page 9
slavery is an invention, which cannot be entertained in the
face of historical records. In discussing the papacy during the
period of the Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy, Paul Johnson
in his book ?A History of Christianity? states:
"It worked far more efficiently than the old Roman curia.
It was far more centralized. Avignon generated more missionary
activity than Rome, and a great deal more diplomacy. It was a
brilliant court, with up to thirty cardinals in residence, each
with his palace?"
"During the Avignon regime the central machinery of the
church turned itself primarily into a fundraising organization?"
"Two years later, the Papacy moved from the disorders of
Rome to the tranquillity and comfort of Avignon under the umbrella
of French power."
The authors of the D.P. lump together historical figures and
circumstances in a muddled attempt to give substance to the "Providence
of Restoration"*. This substance can be countenanced only
by keeping one?s eyes closed.
When the divergence between the Divine Principle paradigm and
the historical record becomes severe the authors, in an attempt
to extend the applicability of their hypothesis, introduce new
definitions and terminology which contradict their original proposition.
For example:The proposition advanced on page 409 contradicts the
thesis stated on page 405 of the D.P.:
"In the period after the coming of Jesus, Jesus and the
Holy Spirit have been leading Christians directly, so God has
not set up any one person as the central figure of the whole providence,
substituting for God, as He did in the previous period of providence."
(2) This is not a logical corollary to the hypothesis which states
that: "The purpose of the Providence of Restoration is to
establish the foundation to receive the messiah."?
"in order to establish the foundation to receive the messiah,
first, the central figure in the providence of restoration must
set up the foundation of faith by
Page 10
offering symbolic sacrifices, acceptable to God, by using certain
conditional objects, during certain periods of time; second, he
must establish the foundation of substance by offering substantial
sacrifices acceptable to God, after laying the condition of indemnity
*to remove the fallen nature*." (3)
Ref. 17, page 221
1.Ref. 19, page 409
2.Ref. 19, page 405
* see Glossary for D.P. definitions
b) The magical use of words like ?accordingly? to set up syllogisms
would be excised in an elementary course in logic:
"Therefore, as the vertical* conditions of indemnity increase
with the prolongation of the providence of restoration, the conditions
of indemnity to be set up horizontally become heavier and heavier.
Accordingly, the age of the providential time-identity will also
become different in its content and extent. This is the reason
the forms of the respective ages of providential time-identity
are not exactly the same." (1)
The relationship between ?heavier and heavier? and a difference
in ?it?s content and extent? is nowhere made plain. The corollary
being developed here is a transparent attempt to sidestep the
painful fact that the historical record does not conform to the
D.P. fantasy image of it.
c.)the period from Abraham to the departure for Egypt on the
time line of the "Age of Symbolic Time-Identity". This
same period is included on the next line of the chart, the "Age
of Image Time-Identity". It is clear from the charts that
this has been done in order to set up in the mind of the naive
observer of the charts the D.P. proposition that the age of image
time-identity precisely parallels the age of symbolic time-identity
and that each period is recapitulated in later Jewish history,
and again in the history of the Christian era. There is no provision
for this period to occur in both time lines. To include the period
in both lines in this manner constitutes a violation of the hypothesis.
Page 11
Divergence between the duration of D.P. "periods"
and periods which can be Identified in historical records. Divergences
between the historical record and the D.P. picture of history
are evident in every one of the so-called periods.
1.) Ref. 19, page 374
* See glossary for D.P. definitions. These discrepancies are
summarized in the table at the bottom of this page. The smallest
variation in the duration of a "period" is 12.5% in
the period labeled "preparation for the Coming of the Messiah".
If Malachi existed (and there is significant evidence to suggest
that "Malachi" was actually a literary tradition rather
than a person) then this "period" was 450 years and
not 400. The largest variation is 64%, relating to the "period
of the Christian Kingdom". The kingdom under Charlemagne
was divided in 843 AD only 43 years after Charlemagne was crowned
( not 120 years after he was crowned).
Summary of divergence, calculated as percentages:
"Slavery in Egypt" -46.3% to +28.8%
215 ¹ 400
515 ¹ 400
"Period of the Judges"
50%
200¹ 400
"United Kingdom"
18.3%
98¹ 120
"Divided Kingdoms of North and South"
47% to 50.3%
16% to 19%
N.119 to 212 ¹ 400
S.324 to 336 ¹ 400
"Jewish Captivity and Return"
12.9%
28.6%
Cap. 61¹ 70
Ret. 100¹ 140
"Preparation for the Coming of the Messiah"
12.5%
450¹ 400
"Persecution under Roman Empire"
34.8%
261¹ 400
"Christian Churches under Patriarchs" No identifiable
period No identifiable period "Christian Kingdom"
64.2%
43¹ 120
"Divided Kingdom of East and West" No identifiable
period No identifiable period "Papal Captivity and Return"
33.3%
140¹ 210
"Preparation for the Second Coming" No identifiable
period No identifiable period
1. PAGE 12
2.
3.
4.
All these errors converge in the glaringly apparent lack of
identity or Parallelism between the periods correlated on the
Chart of the Age of Providential Time-Identity.
From our research we are not able to discover any correlation
between the Hypothetical periods enumerated by the authors of
the D.P. The more deeply one delves into the existing literature
pertaining to the peoples, times, regions and events, organized
by the authors of the D.P. into a coherent pattern, the more seriously
one finds oneself doubting their claim that the D.P. can be logically
proven and scientifically tested. If, for example, we take more
than a casual glance at a representative sample of the historical
time period correlations on chart "X" and compare them
with our research findings tabulated on chart "Y", the
D.P. picture dissolves in a mist of imprecision, ambiguity and
inconsistent definitions.
By way of illustration, the D.P. chart, X, gives us a correlation
between the period of the Jews? "Slavery in Egypt" with
the period of the Christians? "Persecution Under the Roman
Empire". Both periods, according to the D.P. chart, endure
for 400 years.
Page 13
It appears unlikely that the Jews were enslaved in Egypt for
400 years. Chart "Y" indicated that the Patriarchs probably
arrived in Egypt between 1900 and 1885 BC; and slavery did not
begin until 75 years after Joseph?s death, around 1730. The Exodus
is dated either in 1446 BC or between 1250 and 1215 BC. If the
earlier date is accepted then slavery lasted for 284 years, if
the later date is accepted then slavery lasted between 480 and
515 years. Neither of these is 400 years. If we accept the mid-thirteenth
century date for exodus, it throws the subsequent D.P. "Period
of the Judges" off by at least 200 years. These deformations
in the time-line are unaccounted for by the "providence of
restoration". On chart "X" the "Four Hundred
year period of Slavery" is framed on one side by Abraham
and on the other by Moses. In terms of "time-identity"
Jesus and Augustine are placed respectively in the positions of
Abraham and Moses. There is no manifest correspondence between
Augustine and Moses, nor between Jesus and Abraham. Their positions
on the D.P. time line do not constitute proof. Augustine, in fact,
had nothing to do with ending the persecution of Christians by
Roman authorities. Persecution of the Christians actually ceased
before Augustine was born. Persecution of the Christians by the
Roman authorities began in 64 AD, when Nero blamed the Christians
for the burning of Rome. Our findings on chart "Y" indicate
that the persecution of Christians by Roman authorities came substantially
to an end between 313 and 325 AD. In 320 AD Roman coins were manufactured
bearing Christ?s monogram. The council of Nicaea, which established
the Nicene Creed, was convened by the Christian Emperor Constantine
in 325 AD. If we date persecution from the death of Christ to
313 AD, it endured for 283 years; if we date it from the first
official persecution in 64 AD to 325 AD, it is 261 years. The
authors of the D.P. choose 392 AD, proposing this , the year in
which Emperor Theodosius declared Christianity the state religion
of Rome, as the end of "Persecution under the Roman Empire".
Page 14
If however, we grant 392 AD as the date for the conclusion of
persecution under the Roman Empire (although there is no salient
reason for doing so), then persecution endured either 362 or 328
years. Neither 261, 283, 328, nor 362 are equivalent to 400.
This is but one example of the faulty correlations. Further
examination of our revised history chart, "Y", exposes
similar discrepancies and deformations of the proposed parallelism
between all the periods.
CONCLUSION:
In following the D.P. picture of historical development through
its presentation of the "parallels" between the periods
of the "Age of Image Time-Identity" and the periods
of the "Age of Substantial Time-Identity", we encounter
no concretesystematic evidence in favor of their hypothesis that:
a discrete, discernible series of repeating cycles characterizes
the history of the Jews from the time of Adam until the birth
of Christ. And that this same pattern of cycles is recapitulated
in a point for point correspondence in the history of Christianity
from the death of Christ until the birth of Moon.
Since the duration of every "time period" varies considerably
more than + or - 2.5% error accounted for by Ken Sudo?s "meaningless
random factors", we are compelled to reject the D.P. hypothesis.
Hence it is logical to conclude that the Divine Principle can
not be used to prove that Sun Myung Moon is the Messiah.
Throughout our reseaarch We encountered, with increasing frequency
and monotony, the almost mantra-like repetition of the D.P. hypothesis
complete with definitions and terminology. It is almost as though
the authors believed the divergence between the historical record
and their hypothesis could be overcome simply by repeating this
hypothesis. In this respect the D.P. lends itself to analogies
with sympathetic magic, primitive animism and Voodoo. In all these,
repetition plays an important part in the production of psychological
transformation.
Page 15
For the uninitiated, a large part of the psychological force
of the D.P. picture of history derives from the contrived "identity"
between "time periods" in the Old Testament age and
"time periods" in the Christian era. The seductive appeal
of symmetry is a commonplace. In our research we have laboriously
examined the "parallels" and the "identities"
between the time-periods in the Old Testament times and the Christian
era. This research is leading us to conclude that the orderly,
lawful picture of history presented in the D.P. is not a revelation
of God?s will, but the construction, the fabrication of men. If
we entertain the claim of the D.P. that ?This new, ultimate, final
truth, however cannot come either from any man?s synthetic research
in the scriptures and in literature, or from any human brain?,
(1) we must ask what kind of a brain does it come from?
5.1.) Ref. 19 page 15
6.
7. From our research we can speculate on the nature, the character
of the human consciousness which has acted as the vehicle for
this "new, ultimate, final truth". The Divine Principle
ideology is a psychic artifact. It is an objectification of the
heroic struggle of a defiantly innocent and untutored mind to
wrest order from chaos, to find a solution to age-old problems
and questions which are part of the fabric of human existence.
In analyzing the D.P. Theory of History, in meditating on its
meaning, in wading through its labyrinth of faulty syllogisms,
sweeping generalizations, contradictory hypotheses and outright
distortions of the facts, we began to get a sense of the intelligence,
the personality struggling among these fragments for meaning.
It is one that is interested in but incapable of order. Its hunger
for order has led it to manufacture a beautiful dream image of
history. It believes that history cannot only be rewritten but
actually transfigured by the procrustean superimposition of one
image; it is at war with what exists; it believes in the efficacy
of deception; it is unacquainted with the conventions governing
scientific methodology.
8.
9.Page 16
In psychiatric language we would say it is an obsessive-compulsive
character whose paranoid ideation has produced an elaborate fantasy
image as a defense against the intrusion of a hostile and unpredictable
world. In short, the primitive magical consciousness of a frightened
child. Voegelin, in his article "Wisdom and magic of the
extreme", gives us the type of Moon when he says, ?the philosopher
is confronted with the phenomenon of a diseased consciousness
which understands its own deformation as the possession of a magical
power to transfigure reality?. (2)
Page 17
10.
Ref. 26. Page 244
12.
13.
14.
15.
GLOSSARY
Glossary of the Divine Principle definitions, marked with a
* in the text.
The Divine Principle introduces and employs a complex set of
definitions and terms. These terms frame the D.P. picture of history.
A full appreciation of the definition of these terms in context
is necessary for any real penetration of the "theology"
of the Unification Church and its resultant psychology. In the
glossary which follows we have included a D.P. terminology with
abbreviated definitions, which will allow the layman to follow
the text. For an exhaustive definition of the terms we have included
page references from the authorized version of the D.P. (Ref.
19).
Central Figures
Chosen person through whom God works to advance the spiritual
progress of a particular family, tribe, nation, and so on. page
228
Divine Principle
The teachings of Bak Te-Seon, pirated and popularized by Sun
Myung Moon.
Fallen Nature
A blanket concept encompassing any part of a person?s character
which diverges from the idealized Moonie character. The nature
inherited from Adam and Eve, which leads one to rebel against
God, Mr. Moon and his representatives. Pages 65 and 83
Foundation to Receive the Messiah
The proximate goal of Divine History. The necessary conditions
for recognizing and accepting the Second Advent. Page 227
Foundation of Substance
The next stage after separating oneself from Satan. Bringing
a sacrifice to God: work, money, effort, and so on. page .
iii
Image Tine-Identity
History of the Jews in the Old Testament times. Pages 374 and
375
Indemnity
Payment for loss or damage. Page 221
Providence of Restoration
God?s action in the world through the Divine Principle. Page
221
Providential Time Identity
Supposed correlation between Old Testament time periods and
NewTestament time periods. page 403
Substantial Time Identity
History of Christendom. Pages 374 and 375
Vertical
Having to do with past generations. Page 378
iv
REFERENCES:
The references which follow are in support of each point listed
on chart "Y", the pullout
page in the in the Results and Discussion section of the text.
References are coded 1. to
26. And details can be found in the bibliography which follows.
( chart Y is waiting for me
to figure out a way to
upload it. It should be here soon) Thank you for your patience.
1.8. chronology
2.
3.16. chronology
4.
5.
6.23. p 114
7.
8.8. chronology
9.23. p 31
12. p 33 and 34
8. chronology
24. p 14
1.chronology
d) 23. pp 83-87
1.p 34
23. p 32
II
1.23. p 90
b) 23. p 206
2. p 219
8. p 25
18. p 179
c) 2. p 219
23. p 207
8. p 25
12. p 34
23. p 90
13. pp 117-9 v
d) 14. pp113-4
23. p 206
e) 23. p 206
2. p 219
23. pp 90-1
f) 23. p 90
8. p 31
12. p 34
21. chronology
16. chronology
III
a) 23. p 90
8. p 31
12. p 34
12. chronology
16. chronology
b) 8. pp 31, 33 and 39
23. p 90
16. chronology
21. chronology
c) 21. chronology
8. chronology and p 40
d) 8. p 41
16. chronology
12. p 34
IV
a) 8. chronology
vi
b) 2. p 269 and p 284
8. p 41, 58 an 67
16. chronology
21. chronology
12. p 34
V
a) 8. p 67
16. chronology
21. chronology
12. p 34
b) 2. p 271 and p 306
12. p 34
21. chronology
16. chronology
c) 2. pp 306/7
16. chronology
21. chronology
12. p 34
d) 22. pp 216/7
1. p 243
2. p 306
16. p 461
VI
a) 22. pp 216/7
1. p 243
vii
b) 21. chronology
12. p 34
22. pp 216/7
1. p 243
2. p 306
16. p 416
c) Book by Malachi, espescially chapter 3;
d) 2. p 472
10. p xx
VII
a) 2. pp 466 and 554/5
10. chronology
6. chronology
b) 2. p 573
10. chronology
6. chronology
c) 3. pp 409 an 424/5
d) 10. chronology
6. chronology
3. pp 403-5
e) 6. chronology
3. pp 414 and 423
f) 6. chronology
15. p 337
g) See points c) to f)
viii
VIII
a) 10. chronology
6. chronology
b) 18. p 162
15. pp 96/7
c) 15. p 1222
6. chronology
d) 6. chronology
15. p 971
IX
a) 6. chronology
15. p 275
7. pp 438/9
b) 6. chronology
15. p 275
9. pp 384-6
X
a) 6. chronology
15. p 275
b) 15. p 311
4. pp 524-531
c) 9. p 386
d) 9. pp 387, 388 and 391-402
15. p 954
ix
XI
a) 17. pp 219 and 221
11. pp 228-234
15. p 106
b) 5. p 115
6. chronology
20. pp 180/1
XII
a) 6. chronology
11. pp 232-234
20. pp 180/1
b) 15. p 1053
17. pp 267-328
x
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Ackroyd, P.R. (1970) Israel under Babylon and Persia OUP
2. Alexander, D. & P. (eds.) The Lion Handbook to the Bible
Lion Pub
3. Baus,K. From the Apostolic Community to Constantine in "Handbookof
Church History" H. Jedin (ed.) Herder, Freiberg; Burns and
Oates, London
4. Baus, K., Beck, H.G., Ewig, E. Vogt, H.J. The Imperial Church
from Constantine to the Early Middle Ages in "History of
the Church" Jedin & Dolan (eds) vol. II, Burns &
Oates, London
5. Cross, F.L. (ed.) The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church
(1957)
6. Danielou, J. & Marrou, H. The First Six Hundred Years
in "The Christian Centuries" vol. I Darton, Longman
& Todd
7. Daniel-Rops, H. The Church in the Dark Ages London; Dent &
Sons; NY: Dutton & co.
8. Ehrlich, E.L. A Concise History of Israel: from the earliest
times to the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 Darton, Longman
& Todd
9. Flick, A.C. The Rise of the Mediaeval Church – and its
influence on civilisation of western Europe from the 1st to thje
13th century N.Y. Burt Franklin
10. Foakes Jackson, F.J. The History of the Christian Church:
from the earliest times to AD 461 London: George, Allen &
Unwin
11. Franzen, A. A Concise History of the Church Burns & Oates;
Herder & Herder
xi
12. Halley, H.H. (1965) The Bible Handbook New Revised Ed. Oliphants
13. Harrison, R.K. Introduction to the Old Testament Inter-varsity
Press
14. Herrmann, S. A History of Israel in Old Testament Times SCM
Press Ltd
15. Horsley, E.M. (ed.) The New Hutchinson 20th Century Encyclopedia
Hutchinson, London
16. Jerusalem Bible (1966 ed,) Chronological Tables
17. Johnson, P. (1976) A History of Christianity Pelican
18. Kim, Y.O. (1969) The Divine Principle and its Application
HSAUWC
19. Kim, Y.W. (1973) Divine Principle R. O?Keefe (ed.) HSAUWC
20. Manschreck, C.L. A History of Christianity in the World:
from persecution to uncertainty Prentice Hall
21. Margolis, M.L. & Marx, A. (1927) A History of the Jewish
People Philadelphia, Jewish pub. soc. of America
22. Winward, S. (1968) A Guide to the Prophets Hodder & Stoughton
23. Wood. L. A Survey of Israel?s History London: Pickering &
Inglis
24. Wurmbrand, M. The Jewish People – 4000 years of survival
Cassell, London
25. Sudo, Ken (1975) "The 120 Day Training Manual" Transcript
Copy
26. Voegelin, Eric (1981) Wisdom And Magic Of The Extreme The
Southern Review vol.17/2 Lousiana State University
xii
