Como um blog adquire sua legitimidade?

A internet vai gerar novas formas de inteligência coletiva?

Estou convencido de que sim. Os meios de comunicação oferecidos à humanidade, as redes digitais instantâneas parecem ter um objetivo principal: alimentar ou criar uma coerência global. Um blog adquire a sua legitimidade se for identificado com outros blogs, e o primeiro sítio que surge no Google é aquele que é ‘hiperligado’ pelo maior número de sítios… Essa legitimação por parte da coletividade carrega os seus perigos: ela se defende contra o individual e despreza aquilo que é marginal ou fora dos padrões. Mas também representa um enorme potencial que pode mudar profundamente a nossa relação com o mundo. O humano da condição inumana está bem mais próximo da formiga – que vive, existe e compreende o universo através de sua coletividade – que não é o de um indivíduo autônomo, consciente e singular.

Este é um pequeno trecho da entrevista de Ollivier Dyens, professor do Departamento de Estudos Franceses da Universidade de Concordia (Montreal), que estuda há mais de quinze anos o impacto das novas tecnologias na sociedade. Entrevista publicada no Le Monde, de 26.01.2008. Dyens é autor do livro La Condition inhumaine (A condição inumana).

A entrevista está em IHU On-Line – 29.01.2008.

 

A revolução ‘inumana’

A crescente tensão entre a realidade biológica e a realidade tecnológica resulta na condição inumana.

 

A entrevista

O devastador aumento do poder da tecnologia digital vai transformar-nos profundamente?

Há alguns anos eu pensava que a tecnologia iria mudar o ser humano. Hoje, penso que vai mudar a percepção que temos do ser humano. Eu acredito cada vez menos no fantasma cyborg ou no homem-máquina. Mas a visão que temos de nós mesmos vai ter de mudar para se adaptar à realidade tecnológica de amanhã.

Seu último livro se intitula “A condição inumana”. Por que o título?

O termo “inumano” não é usado aqui no sentido de crueldade, mas no sentido do que está para além do homem. Às questões essenciais que o homem se coloca desde o início dos tempos – Quem sou eu? De onde venho? -, a ciência e a tecnologia podem fornecer respostas que, cada vez mais, contrariam o que dizem nossos sentidos e nosso espírito. É essa crescente tensão entre a nossa realidade biológica e a nossa realidade tecnológica que eu qualifico de “condição inumana”. Historicamente, consideramos as ferramentas e a linguagem como estruturas que existiam para atender às nossas necessidades. É fundamental repensar esta relação.

Por que a crescente interdependência destas duas realidades, biológica e tecnológica, nos perturba tanto?

Para explicar este mal-estar, um roboticista japonês criou uma imagem, a do ‘vale do desconhecido’. Tanto que robôs que continuam bem diferentes de nós, não nos perturbam. Mas se eles estão muito próximos caem no ‘vale do desconhecido’. A mão artificial se torna inquietante no momento em que ela se torna uma mão verdadeira, quando a podemos tocar ou fechá-la como se fosse natural. Estamos à volta com a revolução digital que está se tornando cada vez mais “inteligente”, cada vez mais “viva”… Isso nos preocupa, porque se assemelha muito a nós.

A civilização das máquinas nasceu com este milênio?

Lembre-se do 31 de dezembro de 1999 e do famoso medo do bug do milênio. Este receio era real, inclusive entre as maiores empresas de informática do mundo. Naquele dia, a humanidade toda prendeu a respiração à espera do veredicto das máquinas, para saber se chegariam ou não à ‘compreensão’ dos três zeros da nova data. E o que aconteceu? Os softwares, em todo o mundo, conseguiram se adaptar, nenhuma catástrofe aconteceu. A moral da história é que os sistemas informáticos tornaram-se muito complexos para sermos capazes de determinar o que os torna eficazes ou não. Um pouco como a previsão meteorológica que se tornou muito complexa para prever para além de alguns dias.

Sendo assim, podemos ser esquecidos pelas máquinas que nós mesmos criamos, assustador não?

Para alguns, sim. Mas outros acreditam que este é um processo normal da evolução. Que o importante é a dinâmica da vida, que se encontra no DNA ou no silício. De qualquer forma, a tecnologia já nos obriga a redefinir o nosso lugar na hierarquia mundial. A nos situar não mais no topo da pirâmide, mas numa dinâmica tendo em conta as máquinas como parte integrante da espécie humana.

E se não chegarmos a isso?

Então corremos o risco de, num futuro mais ou menos próximo, desembocar num mundo polarizado, maniqueísta, violento, no qual a maioria da humanidade encontrar-se-á descolado de um mundo cheio de representações, idéias, teorias e da cultura. Um mundo de frustração e desespero e de uma nova alienação: aquela do conhecimento. Esse risco já está acontecendo: temos uma crescente dificuldade para distinguir claramente a informação de sua síntese – dito de outra maneira, do conhecimento. Por quê? Porque a cultura gerada pelas máquinas nos ultrapassa. Para usar uma imagem marítima: a quantidade de informações disponíveis na Net é um oceano, mas não conhecemos mais a arte de navegar. É cada vez mais claro que permanecemos na superfície desse oceano – “surfar” tornou-se uma questão de sobrevivência. Mas os seres humanos ainda navegam como antigamente tanto o conhecimento nos parece ligado à idéia do aprofundamento. A superfície e o profundo: vamos ter de aprender a conciliar essas duas noções.

A “condição inumana” terá consequências positivas?

Menos guerras, talvez. Quanto mais países estiverem enredados economicamente e culturalmente, menos razões teremos para ver os outros como estranhos, e, portanto, para combatê-lo. As tecnologias digitais e da Web são uma aproximação entre os seres. O e-mail, os chats, os blogs podem nos unir para além da geografia do corpo, da cor da pele. Em nossa história, nunca se gastou tanto tempo para se comunicar, mas também para enriquecer-nos e debater através das redes.

A internet vai gerar novas formas de inteligência coletiva?

Estou convencido de que sim. Os meios de comunicação oferecidos à humanidade, as redes digitais instantâneas parecem ter um objetivo principal: alimentar ou criar uma coerência global. Um blog adquire a sua legitimidade se for identificado com outros blogs, e o primeiro sítio que surge no Google é aquele que é ‘hiperligado’ pelo maior número de sítios… Essa legitimação por parte da coletividade carrega os seus perigos: ela se defende contra o individual e despreza aquilo que é marginal ou fora dos padrões. Mas também representa um enorme potencial que pode mudar profundamente a nossa relação com o mundo. O humano da condição inumana está bem mais próximo da formiga – que vive, existe e compreende o universo através de sua coletividade – que não é o de um indivíduo autônomo, consciente e singular.

 

La révolution “inhumaine” – Le Monde: 26 janvier 2008

Pour nous adapter à la puissance des technologies numériques, il va nous falloir, affirme Ollivier Dyens, professeur à Montréal, modifier en profondeur la vision que nous avons de nous-mêmes.

Professeur au département d’études françaises de l’université Concordia (Montréal), vous étudiez depuis quinze ans l’impact des nouvelles technologies sur la société. La foudroyante montée en puissance du numérique va-t-elle nous transformer en profondeur ?

Il y a quelques années, je pensais que la technologie changerait l’être humain. Aujourd’hui, je pense qu’elle va changer la perception qu’on a de l’être humain. Je crois de moins en moins au fantasme du cyborg, de l’homme-machine. Mais la vision que l’on a de nous-mêmes va devoir changer pour s’adapter à la réalité technologique de demain.

Votre dernier ouvrage s’intitule La Condition inhumaine. Pourquoi ce titre ?

Le terme “inhumain” n’est pas employé ici au sens de cruauté, mais de ce qui est au-delà de l’humain. Aux questions essentielles que l’homme se pose depuis la nuit des temps – Qui suis-je ? D’où venons-nous ? -, la science et la technologie apportent des réponses qui, de plus en plus, contrarient ce que disent nos sens et notre esprit. C’est cette tension croissante entre notre réalité biologique et notre réalité technologique qui provoque ce que je qualifie de “condition inhumaine”. Depuis toujours, nous avons considéré les outils et les langages comme des structures qui existaient pour répondre à nos besoins. Il est vital de repenser cette relation.

Pourquoi l’imbrication croissante de ces deux réalités, biologique et technologique, nous trouble-t-elle tant ?

Pour expliquer ce malaise, un roboticien japonais a créé une image, celle de “la vallée de l’Etrange”. Tant que les robots restent bien distincts de nous, ils ne nous dérangent pas. Mais qu’ils deviennent trop proches, et l’on tombe dans la vallée de l’Etrange. La main artificielle devient inquiétante le jour où elle ressemble trop à une vraie main, où on peut la toucher, la serrer comme si elle était naturelle. Nous en sommes là, désormais, avec le numérique, qui devient de plus en plus “intelligent”, de plus en plus “vivant”… C’est cela qui nous inquiète, parce que cela nous ressemble trop.

La prise de possession de la civilisation par les machines, dites-vous, est née avec ce millénaire.

Souvenez-vous du 31 décembre 1999 et de la fameuse peur du bug de l’an 2000. Cette peur était réelle, y compris au sein des plus grandes compagnies informatiques. Ce jour-là, l’humanité entière, le souffle court, attendait le verdict des machines, pour savoir si, oui ou non, elles parviendraient à “comprendre” les trois zéros de la nouvelle date. Et que s’est-il passé ? Les logiciels, partout dans le monde, ont réussi à s’adapter. Dans les pays où peu avait été fait pour les y aider comme dans ceux où beaucoup avait été fait, aucune catastrophe n’a eu lieu.

La morale de l’histoire, c’est que les systèmes informatiques sont devenus trop enchevêtrés, trop puissants pour qu’on soit capable de déterminer ce qui les rend efficaces ou inefficaces. Un peu comme l’environnement météorologique, que l’on sait trop complexe pour pouvoir le prédire au-delà de quelques jours.

Etre ainsi dépassé par l’autonomie de machines que nous avons créées, c’est objectivement angoissant, non ?

Pour certains, oui. Mais d’autres estiment qu’il s’agit d’un processus normal de l’évolution. Que l’important est la dynamique de la vie, que celle-ci soit dans l’ADN ou dans le silicium. Quoi qu’il en soit, la technologie nous force désormais à redéfinir notre place dans la hiérarchie planétaire. A nous situer non plus au sommet de la pyramide, mais dans une dynamique prenant en compte les machines comme une part intégrante de l’espèce humaine.

Et si nous n’y parvenons pas ?

Alors nous risquons d’aboutir, dans un avenir plus ou moins proche, à un monde polarisé, manichéen, violent, dans lequel la majeure partie de l’humanité se retrouvera en décalage complet avec le monde des représentations, des idées, des théories et de la culture. Un monde de frustrations et de désespoir issu d’une nouvelle aliénation : celle de la connaissance.

Ce risque est déjà à l’oeuvre : nous avons une difficulté grandissante à distinguer clairement l’information de sa synthèse – autrement dit de la connaissance. Pourquoi ? Parce que la culture générée par les machines nous dépasse. Pour utiliser une image maritime : la quantité d’informations présentes sur le Net est un océan, mais nous ne connaissons pas l’art d’y naviguer. Il apparaît de plus en plus que rester à la surface de cet océan – “surfer” – est devenu une question de survie. Mais l’humain navigue encore à l’ancienne, tant la connaissance nous semble liée à l’idée d’approfondissement. La surface et le fond : il va nous falloir apprendre à concilier ces deux notions.

La “condition inhumaine” aura-t-elle des conséquences positives ?

Moins de guerres, peut-être. Plus les pays sont enchevêtrés économiquement et culturellement, moins il y a de raisons de voir l’autre comme un étranger, et donc de le combattre. Les technologies numériques et le Web suscitent un rapprochement entre les êtres. Le courriel, les “chats”, les blogs insistent sur ce qui nous lie, au-delà de la géographie, du corps, de la couleur de la peau. Dans notre histoire, jamais nous n’avons passé autant de temps non seulement à communiquer, mais aussi à nous enrichir et à débattre par l’entremise des réseaux.

Internet va-t-il générer de nouvelles formes d’intelligence collective ?

J’en suis convaincu. Les moyens de communication qu’offrent à l’humanité les réseaux numériques instantanés semblent posséder un objectif principal : nourrir, ou créer une cohérence globale. Un blog acquiert sa légitimité s’il est recensé dans d’autres blogs, et le premier site qui apparaît dans Google est celui qui est “hyperlié” par le plus grand nombre de sites… Cette légitimation par la collectivité porte ses dangers : elle se défend contre l’individuel et fait peu de cas de ce qui est hors norme ou marginal. Mais elle représente aussi un potentiel formidable, qui change profondément notre relation au monde. L’humain de la condition inhumaine est bien plus proche de la fourmi – qui vit, existe et comprend l’univers par l’entremise de sa collectivité – qu’il ne l’est d’un individu autonome, conscient et singulier.

Resenha de livro de Mario Liverani causa polêmica

Claude Mariottini em Mario Liverani and the History of Israel fez uma resenha da versão inglesa do livro de Mario Liverani, Oltre la Bibbia: Storia Antica di Israele. 6a. ed. Roma-Bari: Laterza, [2003] 2007, 526 p. – ISBN 9788842070603. Leia a resenha e os comentários ao post.

Jim West escreveu um post sobre a resenha, com o título de Claude Mariottini’s Impossible Impossibility [Obs.: blog falecido, link apagado: 22.03.2008]. Que provocou bastante polêmica sobre a questão da historiografia do antigo Israel. Leia o post e os muitos comentários. E recomendo, como complementação, ver o documentário A Bíblia e seu tempo – um olhar arqueológico sobre o Antigo Testamento. Que acabou de sair no Brasil. Em 2 DVDs.

Conheço e uso o livro de Liverani, desde que saiu em italiano. Acabei de indicar este que considero um excelente livro, para os meus alunos de História de Israel. Existe uma versão em espanhol, a mais acessível para a maioria. É realmente uma pena que não exista ainda uma versão para o português, embora, em italiano, já tenham saído, em cinco anos, seis edições da obra. As aulas do CEARP começam no dia 11 de fevereiro.
É claro que o livro não é perfeito, mas deve ser visto como uma tentativa séria de trabalhar a hoje tão conturbada “História de Israel”.

Atualmente ninguém consegue mais escrever uma “História de Israel” sem ter que enfrentar muitas polêmicas. Nem mesmo um grande especialista em Antigo Oriente Médio como Mario Liverani.

Penso que uma História de Israel deva ser, hoje, não muito mais do que uma história/estória à base de tentativas e aberta ao debate.

HTTP 500 – Erro Interno do Servidor

Desde o dia 25 passado o Livro de Visitas (Guestbook) e as Enquetes Bíblicas (Biblical Polls) da Ayrton’s Biblical Page estão inacessíveis.

Há um HTTP 500, um erro interno do servidor (HTTP 500 – Internal Server Error) do Yahoo! que bloqueia todo acesso ao Banco de Dados. Não funcionam nem mesmo as ferramentas administrativas.

Respondendo a um meu e-mail enviado no dia 26, o Suporte do Yahoo! disse, no dia 27, que

…you are facing issues while connecting to the MySQL database… Few of our other customers have also reported similar concerns and we are looking into any difficulties you reported. We are trying to find out the root cause of this issue to fix it as soon as possible. We apologize for any inconvenience you may have experienced due to this issue.


Atualizando: 28.01.2008 – 22h00
Tudo voltou ao normal. Sem perda de dados. Ufa!

Resenhas na RBL: 25.01.2008

As seguintes resenhas foram recentemente publicadas pela Review of Biblical Literature:

John M. G. Barclay, trans.
Flavius Josephus: Against Apion
Reviewed by René Bloch

Jeannine K. Brown
Scripture as Communication: Introducing Biblical Hermeneutics
Reviewed by Tony Costa

Philip F. Esler and Ronald A. Piper
Lazarus, Mary and Martha: A Social-Scientific and Theological Reading of John
Reviewed by Peter Phillips

Ulrich Fistill
Israel und das Ostjordanland: Untersuchungen zur Komposition von Num 21,21-36,13 im Hinblick auf die Entstehung des Buches Numeri
Reviewed by Ulrike Sals

Thomas R. Hatina, ed.
Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels: Vol. 1: The Gospel of Mark
Reviewed by David du Toit

Christine Helmer, ed.
The Multivalence of Biblical Texts and Theological Meanings
Reviewed by Christoph Stenschke

Dan Jaffé
Le Talmud et les origines juives du christianisme: Jésus, Paul et les judéo-chrétiens dans la littérature talmudique
Reviewed by Bogdan G. Bucur

Christopher R. Seitz
Prophecy and Hermeneutics: Toward a New Introduction to the Prophets
Reviewed by Michael B. Shepherd

A. T. Sulavik, ed.
Guillelmus de Luxi: Postilla super Baruch, Postilla super Ionam
Reviewed by Mark W. Elliott

Robert Tannehill
The Shape of Luke’s Story: Essays on Luke-Acts
Reviewed by Robert F. O’Toole

Stephen Voorwinde
Jesus’ Emotions in the Fourth Gospel: Human or Divine?
Reviewed by William R. G. Loader

Ainda Talpiot

Stephen Pfann, em The View from Jerusalem, faz hoje um apanhado da abordagem da Conferência de Jerusalém sobre a Tumba de Talpiot pela mídia que, como se vê, não combina com as posturas dos participantes do evento.

The Media and Three Surveys by the Tomb Symposium Participants

Assessment of the Facts: The Media and Three Surveys by the Tomb Symposium Participants

on

The Third Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins

“Jewish Views of the After Life and Burial Practices in Second Temple Judaism

Evaluating the Talpiot Tomb in Context”

Jan 13-16, 2008 in Mishkenot Sha’ananim, Jerusalem

An initial assessment of the results of the recent Symposium which was published by the media was quickly rejected by most of the Symposium participants. Most of the media assessments gave a general statement about the conclusions drawn by the “50” participants as a whole. (See conference list of presentations for the participants.)

“Although most of those who spoke at yesterday’s seminar said it was possible the tomb was that of Jesus, Jacobovici’s film was taken with a grain of salt.” Haaretz

“The gathering of world scholars, which some had expected would conclude by dismissing claims linking the tomb to Jesus, wound up inconclusively, but with wide-ranging agreement that the matter required further investigation.” Jerusalem Post

“Until now, international perception of the academic consensus has been that the Talpiot tomb ‘could not be’ the Jesus family tomb. In contrast, 50 of the top scholars in the world now concluded that the Talpiot tomb ‘might very possibly be’ the tomb of the ‘Holy family.’” Marketwire

“Experts Split on Supposed Jesus Tomb: The conference ended with no firm conclusions and with experts divided on the likelihood of the tomb containing Jesus’s family. Charlesworth has not made up his own mind.” United Press International

“After three days of fierce debate, the experts remained deeply divided.” Time Magazine

At times the media became more specific and gave personal statements about the tomb’s historical significance made by individual participants, including the symposium’s chair James Charlesworth (Time), the Jerusalem district archaeologist at the time Amos Kloner (JPost), the tomb’s draftsperson Shimon Gibson (JPost, Haaretz), and historian Israel Knohl (Haaretz).

Simcha Jacobovici’s press representative J9 Communications (see Jim West’s posting on this) singled out a group of four who, they say, had ascertained the identification of the Tomb with Jesus as being “likely”:

“Although some academics continue to deny the possibility, leading New Testament scholars such as Professor Jane Schaberg (Mercy), Professor Claude Cohen-Matlofsky (University of Toronto), Israel Knohl (Hebrew University) and Professor James Tabor (University of North Carolina at Charlotte) all indicated that they thought it was ‘likely’ that the Talpiot tomb was indeed the lost tomb of Jesus.”

(However, the assertions of this report do not at all match the actual statements of Israel Knohl and Jane Schaberg(and not exactly James Tabor) found in the “Fair Representation” survey published in View from Jerusalem).

Three surveys launched by the symposium participants themselves

A large number of participants in the symposium felt disappointed in the media’s portrayal of their view concerning the connection of the Tomb on Dov Grunner St. in the East Talpiot district of Jerusalem to Jesus of Nazareth and his family. In response, they decided to speak out for themselves.

The Fair Representation letter solicited and received the personal statements from a number of participants. The value of this collection is that it allowed the participants to provide a more individualized response, free from the interpretation of the media and the limitations of the general statement.

Two general statements have been published by participants of the symposium:

One general statement was drafted by Professors Jodi Magness and Eric Meyers with the participation of a number of the other participants. The strength of this general statement is that it involved a range of issues treated by an overall group of participants and brought together the signatures of a number of participants who did not find the need to publish their own personal statements.

A general statement by the symposium steering commitee was published on the Princeton Seminary web site. This is valuable since it becomes the official statement by the administration of the Symposium, chaired by Prof. James Charlesworth with D. Mendels, M. Aviam, G. Mazor, S. Gibson and D. Bahat.

A number of participants also provided a more lengthy version of their own statements through their own blogs (or as guests on other blogs), including April DeConick, Stephen Pfann, Christopher Rollston, James Tabor and Joe Zias. If the 25 or so statements (both personal and signatories for general statements) of participants thus far, can be taken to be a fair sampling . . .

The experts are not “split” or “deeply divided” over the issue that the Talpiot Tomb is that of Jesus of Nazareth. Let us be clear on this and to which degree the participants would entertain the possibility of being so.

Who believes that the Talpiot Tomb is actually both the Tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and also his family?

The most positive statement for the tomb being that of Jesus of Nazareth and his family comes from James Tabor who is “convinced that the Talpiot tomb is possibly, and even likely, the family tomb of Jesus of Nazareth”.

Who believes that the Talpiot Tomb is not the Tomb of Jesus of Nazareth but is that of his family or members of the Jesus movement?

According to his public statement at the end of the conference, although James Charlesworth denies that this could be the Tomb of Jesus, he “can’t dismiss the possibility that this tomb was related to the Jesus clan.”

Jane Schaberg stated “In my judgement, the tomb is not the tomb of the family or dynasty of Jesus, but perhaps of important members of the movement.” (including Mary Magdalene)

Among those who remain unconvinced that this tomb is related in any way to Jesus of Nazareth, who would be at least encourage further study of the possibility?

Israel Knohl is not convinced of any of it, since the fact that more evidence is needed encourages further study. “I am not convinced that the Talpiot tomb is that of the family of Jesus. This is a possibility that should be explored with more evidence. ”

Others remain pessimistic:

Geza Vermes (Second Temple historian) stated “Apart from a handful of participants, the large majority of the assembled scholars consider the theory that the Talpiot ossuaries contained the remains of Jesus of Nazareth and his family as unlikely after the conference as it has been before. In my historical judgment, the matter is, and in the absence of substantial new evidence, should remain closed.

Shimon Gibson (archaeologist) stated “In my estimation what came out of the Symposium is that there is no evidence – historical, archaeological, epigraphic, scientific (in terms of DNA and patina studies), architectural/artistic or otherwise – to support the idea that the Talpiot tomb was the family tomb of Jesus. . . . I also repudiate the claim made by the film-makers of “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” that the Symposium had in any way vindicated their argument. In fact, the opposite is true and scholars were hard-pressed to find any evidence supporting the notion of a Jesus family tomb at Talpiot.”

André Lemaire (epigrapher) stated “On the whole, it seems clear enough to me not only that the identification of the Talpiot tomb as the family tomb of Jesus is not probable or even likely but that it is very improbable.”

Christopher Rollston (prosopographer and epigrapher) stated “it is not methodologically tenable to posit that this Talpiyot tomb can be considered the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.”

Rachel Hachlili (archaeologist and expert on family tombs) stated “The East Talpiyot tomb could not be identified with a tomb of Jesus of Nazareth for a significant reason …”

Stephen Pfann (epigrapher and historian): “I don’t believe there is any case, even remotely, that can be convincingly made for this being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.”

The Princeton general statement of the Symposium steering committee (made by J.H. Charlesworth (chair), D. Mendels, M. Aviam, G. Mazor, S. Gibson, D. Bahat) stated: “‘Most archaeologists, epigraphers, and other scientists argued persuasively that there is no reason to conclude that the Talpiot Tomb was Jesus’ tomb.’ Unfortunately, many of the initial reports in the press following the symposium gave almost the exact opposite impression, stating, instead, that the conference proceedings gave credence to the identification of the Talpiot tomb with a putative family tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. As is abundantly clear from the statements to the contrary that have been issued since the symposium by many of the participants, such representations are patently false and blatantly misrepresent the spirit and scholarly content of the deliberations.”

The Duke general statement of participants (signed by M. Aviam, A. Graham Brock, F.W. Dobbs-Alsopp, C.D. Elledge, S. Gibson, R. Hachlili, A. Kloner, J. Magness, L. McDonald, E. Meyers, S. Pfann, J. Price, C. Rollston, A. Segal, C-L. Seow, J. Zias, and B. Zissu) “To conclude, we wish to protest the misrepresentation of the conference proceedings in the media, and make it clear that the majority of scholars in attendance – including all of the archaeologists and epigraphers who presented papers relating to the tomb – either reject the identification of the Talpiot tomb as belonging to Jesus’ family or find this claim highly speculative.”

About half of the participants responded. In the end, nearly all would agree that the identification of the Talpiot tomb with that of Jesus and/or his family is really little more than unfounded speculation.

Tumba de Talpiot: a controvérsia continua

A Tumba de Talpiot, debatida recentemente por dezenas de especialistas em uma conferência em Jerusalém, continua gerando controvérsias.

Por exemplo:

:: Os comentários (comments) sobre a declaração (statement) dos pesquisadores, publicada por Mark Goodacre no dia 21

 

:: O post de The View of Jerusalem, publicado ontem, dia 23, Rushing to Press on Ruth Gat

On the last night of the Talpiot Tomb Symposium, the statement by Joseph Gath’s widow Ruth had the archaeological community mystified. She provided the assembled scholars and media with the dramatic story of a conversation with her husband where he expressed his fears that he had excavated the actual tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.

Earlier in the conference, the participants were shown recently revealed receipts for the ossuaries from Mr. Gat, who recorded that only 4 inscriptions in the tomb had been deciphered. With word out among the participants and the media that he had died in the early 1980’s, how could he have been able to arrive at that conclusion before Joseph Naveh had the opportunity to decipher the very difficult “Yeshua? bar Yehosef” inscription?

It was thought that perhaps we heard the widow wrong or perhaps her memory was not as clear as it should be.

On Friday, The Jerusalem Post corrected its first, early ’80’s dating of Gat’s death to the early 90’s:

“He said Gat, who died in the early 1990s (and not soon after the 1980 dig, as erroneously reported in Thursday’s Post)…”

In fact, Amos Kloner clarified to me yesterday, Joseph Gat died on June 14, 1993, only a year before Rahmani’s catalogue was published.

Well then, that changes things. Joseph Gat actually died several years after the “Yeshua? bar Yehosef” inscription had been deciphered by Naveh. This means that he could have heard of the decipherment of the names within the Department and arrived at his own conclusions, voicing his apprehensions to his wife, without revealing them to others.

Apologies may indeed be due to Mrs. Gat, with all due respect! (Even bloggers can rush to press. I have changed this part of my posting “One more nail in the Ossuary” accordingly).

Does this tip the balances toward confirming the Lost Tomb hypothesis of the filmmakers? Not at all.

The observation that Joseph Gat had believed that the tomb was that of Jesus of Nazareth only goes to illustrate that speculation concerning the tomb was already alive and well during the early 90’s, well before Ray Bruce proposed this in the BBC special of ’96. This new piece of history is but a distraction from the current issue since, with the exception perhaps of Joseph Naveh’s tentative decipherment of the “Yeshua? bar Yehosef” inscription, other essential scientific data, available to us today, were unavailable at that time.

Our job as human beings is to treat Ruth Gat’s memories with respect. As scholars our work is to continue to scrutinize the data that is available and to evaluate it carefully, being mindful of our limitations.

 

:: A declaração de Joe Zias: Deliberate Misrepresentation? – January 23, 2008

The day before the symposium opened I was sent by one of Tabor’s supporters in the US a memo composed by Tabor in which he stated “This is a dream come through (sic) for me and something Simcha and I have worked for, behind the scenes, with Prof. James Charlesworth.” I immediately forwarded it to Professor Charlesworth, believing that this was proof of what I had suspected all along, i.e., outside intervention by Simcha and Tabor in order to distort the agenda and skew the proceedings in a way that was favorable to their pre-conceived plan. Charlesworth, previously unaware of this communication, forwarded it to Tabor. However by this time, many things, we later learned, had already been set in motion. For example, on the first day there was a panel discussion of the Talpiot tomb in which one panelist with no experience whatsoever with the topic or any peer reviewed published research articles appeared as an expert. He, unknown to all of us in the world of archaeology both here and abroad, was the lone supporter of Simcha and Tabor. According to his short resume which was handed out to participants, it would appear that he, like Simcha, is from the world of journalism as his handout mentions “over 1,000 articles in newspapers and magazines” that have nothing to do with Second Temple archaeology. By this time, my worst expectations were coming true as several sound and cameramen with whom I had known previously suddenly appeared on the scene, now working for Simcha Jacobovici.

The Lifetime Achievement Award presented to Mrs. Josef Gat on behalf of her late husband had to be one of the lowest depths to which archaeology has descended in over 30 years. I had known Josef Gat and worked with him in the Dept. of Antiquities until his retirement in 1988. He was a quiet, honest, hard-working man upon whom one could depend. Most of the time, his work was centered in Jerusalem and his job was that of inspector/field archaeologist, which meant following the bulldozers and an occasional salvage excavation. Because Jerusalem was in the midst of an unprecedented building boom and we were always short handed, he on occasion was asked to clear a tomb that had been accidentally discovered by building contractors. Such was the case with the Talpiot tomb. As Josef, despite his many years with the Dept. of Antiquities had solely authored but one very short article and a few popular articles in the press it was a mystery to all of us, why he was receiving posthumously such an award. The acceptance speech by his elderly wife that he had known about the importance of the find and it’s implications but kept quiet, is hard to understand even though the ossuary inscriptions had been deciphered by expert’s years earlier. Josef failed to publish any scientific peer reviewed articles following his retirement in 1988, not only on the Talpiot tomb but other projects in which he was involved. Josef passed away in the summer of 1993 one year before LY Rahmani’s monumental corpus of the ossuaries in 1994 in which the Talpiot ossuaries were first exposed to the public. The cynical use of the Holocaust story as to why Josef kept quiet, over something he was unable to decipher, should be clear to all, the lengths to which the film makers will go in order to be, in the words of Simcha ,”vindicated”, a phrase which was immediately ‘leaked’ to the press. The first media release was, without delay, sent off by an organization J9, which is the same organization, which sent out PR releases on two of his earlier documentaries. The second (“I’m vindicated”) article was written by a long -time personal friend of Simcha’s and it included some rather interesting quotes from an anonymous source quoting the late Amir Drori, supporting his ‘vindication’. So we now have ‘proof’, from two deceased archaeologists and an anonymous source, in the style of the filmmaker Oliver Stone that the whole thing was a conspiracy designed to cover up something, which ‘would harm Vatican relations and promote anti-Semitism.’ Josef Gat, a man of known integrity would have not agreed nor accepted such a cynical award. Now that the damage has been done the sponsors behind the Talpiot tomb publicity stunt are claiming on their blogs that they were misunderstood, ill advised etc. and that the jury is still out on their claim, whereas the truth is just the opposite, the overwhelming majority, if not nearly all scholars present, except one, regarded this as but a shameful and distasteful attempt to achieve fame and fortune at the expense of colleagues, the Holocaust and the profession.

Lastly, James Cameron, The Discovery Channel, Simcha Jacobovici, James Tabor and certain sectors of the media have an enormous financial interest at stake here, not including their tarnished reputations. Moreover, the public should be aware that the first mention of this find in the media surfaced in 1996, (a few years before Dan Brown), in a front page article in the British press, with minimal hype, sans the book, marketing agents, PR firms and mega advances from publishers; it was a dead story within 48 hours until it was ‘resurrected’ by the above. It’s time we rebury the idea, as in the academic world, it was from the beginning but a ‘rehash for cash’ which utterly destroyed the credibility of a colleague or two, who once held promising academic careers.

Livro em homenagem a Philip R Davies online

Parcialmente online, devo dizer. Vi no Awilum.com, de Charles Halton, que viu em John Hobbins

Mas o fato é que no blog da T & T Clark, há sete capítulos disponíveis online, totalmente gratuitos, do livro publicado em homenagem a Philip R. Davies, do qual falei no post Homenagem a Philip Davies.

Esta é uma obra que homenageia Philip R. Davies por ocasião de seus 60 anos de vida. Os autores se propõem refletir sobre a influência de Philip R. Davies nos estudos bíblicos nos últimos 30 anos.


BURNS, D.; ROGERSON, J. W. (eds) In Search of Philip R. Davies: Whose Festschrift is it Anyway? London: T & T Clark, 2007, 288 p. ISBN 9780567027177.


São os seguintes capítulos:

:: Ehud Ben Zvi, When YHWH Tests People: General Considerations and Particular Observations Regarding the Books of Chronicles and Job

:: Lester L. Grabbe, Prophecy as Inspired Biblical Interpretation: The Teacher of Righteousness and David Koresh

:: R. Barry Matlock, “Jew By Nature”: Paul, Ethnicity, and Galatians

:: Jacob Neusner, The Second Temple Origins of the Halakhah of Besah

:: Thomas L. Thompson, Why Talk About the Past: The Bible, Epic and Historiography

:: Robert L. Webb, The Rhetoric of 2 Peter: An Apologia for Early Christian Ethics (And Not ‘Primitive Christian Eschatology’)

:: Keith W. Whitelam, The Death of Biblical History

A controvertida Tumba de Talpiot

Mark Goodacre publicou hoje, a pedido dos Professores Eric Meyers e Jodi Magness, em seu NT Gateway Weblog, a seguinte declaração sobre a Tumba de Talpiot e a Conferência de Jerusalém:

The Talpiot Tomb Controversy Revisited
A firestorm has broken out in Jerusalem following the conclusion of the “Third Princeton Theological Seminary Symposium on Jewish Views of the Afterlife and Burial Practices in Second Temple Judaism: Evaluating the Talpiot Tomb in Context.” Most negative assessments of archaeologists and other scientists and scholars who attended have been excluded from the final press reports. Instead the media have presented the views of Simcha Jacobovici, who produced the controversial film and book “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” with Hollywood director James Cameron, and who claims that his identification has been vindicated by the conference papers. Nothing further from the truth can be deduced from the discussion and presentations that took place on January 13-17, 2008…

E, após várias considerações, a conclusão:
To conclude, we wish to protest the misrepresentation of the conference proceedings in the media, and make it clear that the majority of scholars in attendance – including all of the archaeologists and epigraphers who presented papers relating to the tomb – either reject the identification of the Talpiot tomb as belonging to Jesus’ family or find this claim highly unlikely.

Leia o texto completo.

Texto que é firmado por:
Professor Jodi Magness, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Professor Eric M. Meyers, Duke University
Choon-Leong Seow, Princeton Theological Seminary
F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Princeton Theological Seminary
Lee McDonald, Princeton Theological Seminary, visiting
Rachel Hachlili, Haifa University
Motti Aviam, University of Rochester
Amos Kloner, Bar Ilan University
Christopher Rollston, Emmanuel School of Religion
Shimon Gibson, University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Joe Zias, Science and Antiquity Group, Jerusalem
Jonathan Price, Tel Aviv University
C.D. Elledge, Gustavus Adolphus College

Conferência em Jerusalém avalia Tumba de Talpiot

Na semana passada, de 13 a 16 de janeiro de 2008, vários especialistas (e outros nem tanto), estiveram reunidos em Jerusalém para uma Conferência sobre a Tumba de Talpiot. Tumba que ficou muito conhecida através do filme O Sepulcro Esquecido de Jesus.

O tema da conferência foi Jewish Views of the After Life and Burial Practices in Second Temple Judaism. Evaluating the Talpiot Tomb in Context.

Os debates não podiam deixar de suscitar controvérsias, em matéria tão sensível.

Leia sobre o evento em The View from Jerusalem, e, se quiser, em outros biblioblogs, pois muitos noticiaram e discutiram o assunto.

Leia também em The Bible and Interpretation: Articles on Talpiot.

Dossie Shoah

A Profa. Dra. Lyslei Nascimento, do Núcleo de Estudos Judaicos da Faculdade de Letras da UFMG, distribuiu, via e-mail, em 15 de janeiro de 2008, o seguinte comunicado:

É com grande satisfação que comunicamos o lançamento, online, de Arquivo Maaravi: Revista Digital de Estudos Judaicos da UFMG no site do NEJ. Agradecemos, em primeiro lugar, a todos os colaboradores desse primeiro número, dedicado aos estudos sobre a Shoah. A contribuição dos especialistas que enviaram seus trabalhos foi excepcional. Recebemos artigos, poemas, contos e resenhas de todo Brasil, da Argentina e de Israel, dos Estados Unidos e de Portugal, além da Espanha e da Venezuela. A escolha do tema deveu-se, principalmente, à quase total ignorância ou esquecimento voluntário desse fatal acontecimento que marca, de forma indelével, em sua brutalidade e contundência, o século XX. Nesse sentido, nossa participação no “Seminário Internacional Memória da Shoah”, no Museu Yad Vashem, e no “Seminário Memória e História do Holocausto”, na Universidade Hebraica de Jerusalém, em 2006, foram fundamentais. O extermínio, nos campos de morte nazistas, de 6 milhões de judeus, 500 mil ciganos, 10 mil homossexuais, além de outros grupos minoritários considerados indesejáveis pelo regime de Hitler, não pode ser uma nota de rodapé nos manuais de História, como desejam os negacionistas ou revisionistas. Com essa atitude deliberada, eles compõem um “arquivo do mal” a fim de reduzir a Shoah a um fato irrelevante, abrindo espaço para que, em nossos dias, a intolerância e a barbárie sejam reeditadas. Com essa publicação, desejamos trazer a público estudos que mantenham o arquivo da Shoah continuamente aberto, em memória das vítimas, em defesa da vida. O apoio e a ajuda inestimável dos pareceristas e da equipe do Cedecom da UFMG foram indispensáveis. Também agradecemos à Faculdade de Letras, em especial, à Diretoria, à Coordenadoria de Pesquisa e ao Programa de Pós-Graduação em Letras: Estudos Literários. Solicitamos a divulgação do lançamento da Arquivo Maaravi e convidamos pesquisadores, escritores e artistas a colaborarem nos próximos números dedicados aos Estudos Judaicos.

Visite, portanto, Arquivo Maaravi – Revista Digital de Estudos Judaicos da UFMG – n. 1: Dossiê – Shoah: arquivos do bem, arquivos do mal.