EXPLORING THE CONCEPT OF NATURE/NURTURE WITHIN THE LITERARY VISION OF ANCIENT NEAR EAST: FOCUS ON KING DAVID’S FAMILY

Dr. Uchenna Virginus Eze, Dr. Emeka Simon Ejim, Ncheke Nduka

Abstract


The nature/nurture controversy started from human inquiry to determine what affects human behaviour. Two questions are raised to this effect; is it genes or the conditions cum environment where they are raised in? However, debate on nature nurture have often taken one side of extreme proportions but recent discussions especially by psychological researchers carried out on correlational twins, family, and adoptive studies have proven that both nature and environmental factors affects human behaviour on equal bases. Also, scholars have engaged on similar inquiry to find out why the children of King David followed in their father’s evil behaviour; is it genes or the conditions where they were raised? or the fulfillment of Nathan’s prophecy. Another angle to this debate is whether if the redactors envisaged that sin perpetrated be parents could transfer to the offspring. Therefore, the target of this paper is to interrogate the theory of nature/nurture to find out why the children of King David mimicked their father’s evil behaviour quiescently using nature/nurture theory and the theory of child development. The paper employed phenomenological research design and descriptive method in its data analysis. The research discovered that King David evil behaviour, the condition that his children were raised in, parental weakness and the theological import of view of David’s narrative encapsulated in Nathan’s Prophecy all account for the delinquent behaviour of the children of King David. 


Keywords


Exploration, Nature/Nurture Theory, Literary Vision, Ancient near East, Family, King David.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ackroyd, P. R., (1971:7). The First Book of Samuel. London, Cambridge University Press.

Albert, B., (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Alter, R. and Frank, K., (1987).The Literary Guide to the Bible. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Baker, J., (2014). The historical background of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles Bible Commentary (Ohio, USA: Theology of work Project. Inc, 2014. Retrieved on 10 January, 2024, from www. theologywork.org.

Eze, C. Obioma., (2002). Psychology of Human Learning: Revised Edition. Enug u: Fulladu Publishing Company.

Eze, V.U., (2017). Psychological Effect of Rape Among Minors in Nsukka Local Government of Enugu State in the Light of 2 Samuel 13:1-22.UNN: M.A. Dissertation.

Farrington, D. P., Loeber, R. M., Stouthamer-Loeber, Van Kammer, W., (1996). Self-reported Delinquency and a Combined Deliquency Seriousness Scale Based on Boys, Mothers and Teachers: Concurrent and Predictive Validity for African-American and Caucasians. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Fox, T., (2019). The Sons of Eli and Samuel: Children of Priest, Prophet and Judges (Owlocation Humanities Theology: Treaty, 2019) par. 4. Retrieved from https://owlocation.com on 8th January, 2024.

Gottlieb, G., (2003). On Making Brhavioural Genetics truly Human Behavioural Development. New York: NY Wiley.

Guthriel, D., (1990). New Bible Commentary (Third Edition). Leicester: Intervasity Press.

Harmon, B. N., (1939). A Commentary in Twelve Volumes; Volume 2. Abingdon: New York Press.

Howard,N.M.,(2004).Fromhttp://www.bgfl.org/bgfl/Custom/filesuploaded/uploaded/resources/17desforges(2004)

McCarter,K. P., (1984).11 Samuel A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.

McCord, A.J., (1977). Comparative Study of Two Generations of Native Americans. In R. F. Meire (Ed.), Theory in Criminology. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.

Mendinnus, G.R. and Johnson, R. C., (1976). Child and Adolescent Psychology. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.

Miller, H., (1998).D. N. A Blueprints, Personhood, and Genetic Privacy. Health Matrix: The Journal of Law- Medicine: Case Western Reserve University.

Miller, P.H., (2011). Theories of Developmental Psychology (5th ed.) (New York: NY Worth.

Ngwoke, D. U. & Eze, U. N., (2010). Developmental Psychology and Education: Theories, Issues & Trends.Enugu: Timex Enterprises.

Nikehasani, M., (2018).Nature versus Nurture.CUNYAcademicWorks. Accessed fromhttps://academic orks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/2724 on 18thJune, 2024.

Otumba, S. R., (2020). “Reinvigorating Good Values for Nigerian’s Future”. N. T. A Production: Moment for Thought, 29/09/2020.

Sani, H., (2020). “Reinvigorating Good Values for Nigerian’s Future”. N. T. A Production: Moment for Thought, 29/09/2020.

Saul, M.A., (2018). Nature vs. Nurture in Psychology: Simply Psychology. Accessed from https://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html on 18th June, 2024.

Soggin,J.A., (1977).“The Davidic-Solomonic Kingdom”, in Israelite and Judaean History, eds. J.H. Hayesand J.M. Miller. London: SCM Press.

Watson, J. B., (1924). Behaviorism. New York:Norton.

Wilhelm, H, H., (1960). 1&11 Samuel: A Commentary. Philadelphia, United State, Westminster Press.

Zaky, E. A., (2015).“Nature, Nurture, and Human Behavior; an Endless Debate”.Egypt, Journal of Child and Adolescent Behaviour.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2024 Dr. Uchenna Virginus Eze, Dr. Emeka Simon Ejim, Ncheke Nduka

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ISSN (Print):   2695-2319

ISSN (Online): 2695-2327

 

 

   

 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.