A História de Israel e Judá na pesquisa atual II

:. A História de Israel e Judá na pesquisa atual I
:. A História de Israel e Judá na pesquisa atual II
:. A História de Israel e Judá na pesquisa atual III
:. A História de Israel e Judá na pesquisa atual IV
:. A História de Israel e Judá na pesquisa atual V

TOBOLOWSKY, A. Israelite and Judahite History in Contemporary Theoretical Approaches. Currents in Biblical Research, Vol. 17(1), 2018, p. 33-58.

Este artigo de Andrew Tobolowsky, História israelita e judaíta em abordagens acadêmicas contemporâneas, analisa a evolução do estudo das histórias de Israel e Judá, com ênfase nos últimos dez anos. Durante esse período, tem havido um interesse crescente em evidências extrabíblicas como o principal meio de construir histórias abrangentes, e um renascimento do interesse em teorias pós-modernas. Este estudo oferece uma discussão geral sobre as tendências da última década, considerando a possibilidade dos autores judaítas só terem assumido uma identidade israelita após a queda de Israel [= reino do norte]. Depois de mostrar as principais tendências nos estudos da Bíblia e da História de Israel de modo genérico, o autor aborda o período pré-monárquico, a monarquia unida, os dois reinos de Israel e Judá e o exílio babilônico e, por fim, a época persa.

This article surveys developments in the study of the histories of ancient Israel and Judah with a focus on the last ten years. Over that period there has been an increased focus on extrabiblical evidence, over biblical text, as the primary means of constructing comprehensive histories, and a revival of interest in post-modern and linguistic-turn theories with respect to establishing what kinds of histories should be written. This study offers a general discussion of the last decade’s trends; an inquiry into the possibility that Judahite authors only assumed an Israelite identity after the fall of Israel; and an era-by-era investigation of particular developments in how scholars think about the various traditional periods of Israelite and Judahite history. The latter inquiry spans the pre-monarchical period to the Persian period.

Andrew Tobolowsky: Visiting Assistant Professor at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, USA.

Sempre que o assunto tiver sido tratado em minha página, Ayrton’s Biblical Page, ou neste blog, Observatório Bíblico, colocarei um link. As principais obras citadas terão links para a Amazon.com.br. O texto em português é um resumo e uma tradução livre minha. O texto em inglês na parte final do post é citação do artigo. A publicação será feita em 5 postagens.

2. Sentimento pan-israelita e o período pré-monárquico – Panisraeliteism and the Pre-Monarchical Period

A ideia, que tem atraído um bom número de pesquisadores, é a seguinte: enquanto Israel existia, ou pelo menos na maior parte de sua existência, os judaítas não se consideravam etnicamente israelitas. Os judaítas teriam se apropriado da identidade israelita em algum momento após a queda de Israel [Samaria caiu em 722 a.C.].

Esta proposta bastante radical foi feita por estudiosos de origens diferentes e, no mínimo, podemos dizer que é extremamente difícil desmenti-la. De uma perspectiva TOBOLOWSKY, A. The Sons of Jacob and the Sons of Herakles: The History of the Tribal System and the Organization of Biblical Identity. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017, 283 p.extrabíblica, como notaram Daniel E. Fleming, em 2012, e Schneider, em 2002, nenhuma inscrição descreve claramente uma relação entre os reinos independentes de Israel e Judá. Isto é particularmente surpreendente no caso dos materiais neo-assírios porque, como observa Schneider, os assírios já estavam controlando a região havia uns 130 anos.

Também parece que a maioria do material bíblico datado de períodos anteriores à queda de Israel exibe uma falta similar de declarações claras a esse respeito. Mas a questão é terrivelmente complexa por disputas contínuas sobre a datação de textos bíblicos. Um estudioso que defenda a opinião de que a história da ascensão de Davi ao trono é essencialmente um texto do século IX, por exemplo, dificilmente abraçaria essa história reconstruída de sentimentos étnicos. Ainda assim, em materiais proféticos, parece haver uma diferença notável entre como e com que frequência a relação entre Judá e Israel é descrita em textos supostamente mais antigos e como essas coisas são apresentadas nos livros de Jeremias, Ezequiel e, mais tarde, partes de Isaías. E o autor defende que este sentimento pan-israelita pode ser entendido em paralelo com o pan-helenismo que deu uma identidade grega a grupos regionais independentes.

Esta ideia aparece em Philip R. Davies, 2007, e em Axel Knauf, 2006. Mas eles entendem que isto ter-se-ia dado após o exílio babilônico, resgatando uma identidade israelita mantida viva na região de Benjamin. Entretanto, K. P. Hong, em 2013, e outros autores pensam que isto pode ter acontecido logo após a queda de Israel, portanto, ainda no século VIII a.C.

Mas há pouco consenso quanto aos detalhes. Assim:

. alguns argumentam que embora o pan-israelismo tenha ocorrido após a queda de Israel, suas raízes já aparecem na relação histórica entre os dois reinos de Israel e Judá: H. G. M. Williamson, 2001;  Reinhard G. Kratz, 2005; Daniel E. Fleming, 2012

. outros dizem que este fenômeno foi desencadeado pela chegada dos refugiados de Israel no sul: Israel Finkelstein e Neil Asher Silberman, 2001 e Israel Finkelstein e Neil Asher Silberman, 2006

. e há os que negam a existência desses refugiados: Nadav Na’aman, 2014; P. Guillaume, 2008

. alguns sugeriram que a primeira história pan-israelita – isto é, a primeira composição a fornecer um mito para a afirmação de Judá sobre a identidade israelita – é o resultado do entrelaçamento das tradições do norte sobre Saul com as tradições do sul sobre Davi: Israel Finkelstein, 2013; J. L. Wright, 2014

. Andrew Tobolowsky, em 2017, argumenta que as narrativas monárquicas e patriarcais unidas, tanto quanto a narrativa do êxodo, foram originalmente produzidas como mitos independentes explicando as origens do pan-israelismo. No entanto, este trabalho também sugere que eles apareceram na forma bíblica como história familiar somente após o desenvolvimento do conceito das tribos como “filhos de Jacó”, que teria acontecido apenas no final da época persa, permitindo uma narrativa coerente de um passado étnico compartilhado.

As noted above, we will start our chronological discussion of developments in the study of the Bible and the past with a relatively new but potentially quite disruptive proposal that has begun to gather a fair share of adherents. This is the idea that Judahites never considered themselves to be ethnically Israelite while Israel still existed, or at least for most of the time that Israel existed, but instead appropriated Israelite identity at some point after Israel fell. This quite radical proposal has been advanced by scholars from rather diverse backgrounds and at the very least we can say that it is remarkably difficult to disprove. From an extrabiblical perspective, as both Fleming and Schneider have noted, no inscriptional material clearly describes a relationship between the independent kingdoms of Israel and Judah (Fleming 2012: xii; Schneider 2002). This is particularly surprising in the case of the Neo-Assyrian materials because, as Schneider notes, they were closely ‘engaged in the area for more than 130 years’ (2002: 14).

It also seems as if most biblical material dated to periods prior to the fall of Israel exhibits a similar lack of clear statements in this regard. What this should be understood to mean depends, of course, on where we decide to put the burden of proof, and the issue is made terribly complex by ongoing disputes about the dating of biblical texts. A scholar espousing the view that the History of David’s Rise is essentially a ninth-century text, for example, would be unlikely to embrace this reconstructed history of ethnic sentiments. Still, in prophetic materials there seems to be a notable difference between how and how frequently the relationship between Judah and Israel is described in texts usually presumed to be early and how those things are presented in the books of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and later parts of Isaiah.

I and others have referred to the possible assumption of Israelite identity by Judahites as the development of ‘Panisraelite sentiment’ and in my opinion the term is valuable for its ready comparison with Panhellenism—the rather slow building of the familiar, embracing the concept of Greek identity out of originally independent regional identities, often through narrative expansion.

FINKELSTEIN, I. O reino esquecido: arqueologia e história de Israel Norte. São Paulo: Paulus, 2015, 232 p.As with many ideas of this sort, the concept of ‘Panisraeliteism’ has its origins in the work of Philip Davies, who has used it at various points to evolve his conception of the way the biblical text ‘invents’ his so-called Ancient Israel (1992)… In his formulation, Israelite traditions and ethnic ideas were kept alive in the region of Benjamin well after the fall of the north, but separately from the rest of the south, and were not in fact adopted into Judahite literature for the most part until after the exile (2007a:168-71). This is also, roughly, the argument of Knauf (2006: 316-19). Hong has also praised Davies’s argument, but cautiously, and ultimately advances what is currently the much more common position—‘that Judeans’ identity reconfiguration all began with reflections on their northern neighbor’s fall and their own miraculous survival’ (2013: 288; 2011). Most scholars who embrace the Panisraelite possibility believe at least an early form of the concept appeared in the immediate aftermath of Israel’s destruction.

This is very much an emerging topic of interest and there is as yet little consensus on the particulars. In addition to the approaches described above, some argue that while full-blown Panisraeliteism was indeed a post-Israel development, it had its roots in certain aspects of the historical relationship between the two kingdoms (Williamson 2001: 90; Kratz 2005: 306; Fleming 2012: 45). Some suppose the crucial development originating Panisraeliteism was the arrival in the south of northern refugees (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001: 243-44; Finkelstein and Silberman 2006: 129-38) and some have denied even the existence of such refugees (Na’aman 2014a; Guillaume 2008). Some have suggested the first Panisraelite story—that is, the first composition to provide a charter myth for Judah’s claim on Israelite identity—is the result of the interweaving of northern traditions about Saul with southern traditions abut David (Finkelstein 2013: 153;Wright 2014), while Na’aman has focused on the Jacob story, and Hong on the patriarchal stories more generally (Na’aman 2014b; Hong 2011; 2013). Indeed, in Na’aman’s opinion, Saul and Benjamin were both originally southern entities (2009a; 2009b). Tobolowsky (2017) argues that both the united monarchical and patriarchal narratives, as well as the exodus narrative, were originally produced as independent charter myths explaining the origins of Panisraeliteism. However, this work also suggests that they appeared in familiar biblical form only after the development of the concept of the tribes as the ‘sons of Jacob’, which provided a complex genealogical framework within which they could be made coherent with each other. In short, Panisraelite arguments remain a work in progress.

A História de Israel e Judá na pesquisa atual I

:. A História de Israel e Judá na pesquisa atual I
:. A História de Israel e Judá na pesquisa atual II
:. A História de Israel e Judá na pesquisa atual III
:. A História de Israel e Judá na pesquisa atual IV
:. A História de Israel e Judá na pesquisa atual V

TOBOLOWSKY, A. Israelite and Judahite History in Contemporary Theoretical Approaches. Currents in Biblical Research, Vol. 17(1), 2018, p. 33-58.

Este artigo de Andrew Tobolowsky, História israelita e judaíta em abordagens acadêmicas contemporâneas, analisa a evolução do estudo das histórias de Israel e Judá, com ênfase nos últimos dez anos. Durante esse período tem havido um interesse crescente em evidências extrabíblicas como o principal meio de construir histórias abrangentes, e acontece um renascimento do interesse em teorias pós-modernas. Este estudo oferece uma discussão geral sobre as tendências da última década, considerando a possibilidade dos autores judaítas só terem assumido uma identidade israelita após a queda de Israel [= reino do norte]. Depois de mostrar as principais tendências nos estudos da Bíblia e da História de Israel de modo genérico, o autor aborda o período pré-monárquico, a monarquia unida, os dois reinos de Israel e Judá e o exílio babilônico e, por fim, a época persa.

This article surveys developments in the study of the histories of ancient Israel and Judah with a focus on the last ten years. Over that period there has been an increased focus on extrabiblical evidence, over biblical text, as the primary means of constructing comprehensive histories, and a revival of interest in post-modern and linguistic-turn theories with respect to establishing what kinds of histories should be written. This study offers a general discussion of the last decade’s trends; an inquiry into the possibility that Judahite authors only assumed an Israelite identity after the fall of Israel; and an era-by-era investigation of particular developments in how scholars think about the various traditional periods of Israelite and Judahite history. The latter inquiry spans the pre-monarchical period to the Persian period.

Andrew Tobolowsky: Visiting Assistant Professor at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, USA.

Sempre que o assunto tiver sido tratado em minha página, Ayrton’s Biblical Page, ou neste blog, Observatório Bíblico, colocarei um link. As principais obras citadas terão links para a Amazon.com.br. O texto em português é um resumo e uma tradução livre minha. O texto em inglês na parte final do post é citação do artigo. A publicação será feita em 5 postagens.

Andrew Tobolowsky

1. Principais tendências no estudo da Bíblia e da História de Israel – Major Trends in the Study of the Bible and History

O autor começa explicando que muito do que está acontecendo hoje na pesquisa da história de Israel e Judá (ou seja, “História de Israel”) pode ser entendido como consequência e evolução do debate dos anos 90 do século XX entre “minimalistas“, aqui representados por estudos de Davies, Thompson, Lemche e Whitelam, e “maximalistas”, aqui representados por uma obra de Provan, Long e Longman, A Biblical History of Israel, 2003 (Uma história bíblica de Israel, São Paulo: Vida Nova, 2016).

Sobre a posição “maximalista” ele comenta que não é muito comum ver hoje em dia uma defesa explícita da confiabilidade dos textos bíblicos como base para a história, mas há autores que defendem posições “positivistas”, dizendo, por exemplo, como Amihai Mazar, em 2010, que a Obra Histórica Deuteronomista pode ter se servido de fontes antigas e preservado núcleos de relatos vindos de templos e palácios.

Já sobre o “minimalismo” ele diz que a preferência dada aos dados extrabíblicos, em detrimento dos textos bíblicos, faz com as “histórias de Israel” sejam mais “científicas”. “Teorias e dados” ocupam, assim, o lugar de “histórias e fontes”. E o controle externo das fontes se torna mais necessário. A. Knauf e P. Guillaume escreveram uma abrangente história de Israel nesse sentido em 2015.

Mas há uma “terceira via” nas pesquisas atuais, inspirada por teorias pós-modernas da história e novas perspectivas da linguística. Há teorias pós-modernas que dizem ser impossível, de fato, escrever uma história convencional de Israel. Mas pode ser possível escrever “histórias” e não uma história de Israel. Mesmo não havendo “história”, ainda pode haver “histórias”, ou pelo menos, narrativas contendo fatos precisos e sentidos históricos. O fato da Bíblia estar mais próxima da literatura não a torna menos representativa de realidades passadas, explica Hans M. Barstad em 2008.

Resumindo as três abordagens acima:
1. Há um empenho em refinar os métodos tradicionais de narrar o passado israelita
2. Há um empenho em recontar o passado israelita através de “meios científicos”
3. Há um empenho em descobrir tipos alternativos de histórias nos textos bíblicos

Estas três posturas fornecem, genericamente, a geografia das abordagens históricas contemporâneas. E entre elas ainda não há vencedor claro.

Muitos estudiosos, talvez a maioria, continuam a argumentar que a acessibilidade básica de uma visão real do passado ainda é uma fronteira que vale a pena. Muitos que acreditam nisto hoje também acreditam que o texto bíblico pode não ser a melhor maneira de acessá-lo. E muitos reconhecem as preocupações de todas as três abordagens ao tentar oferecer histórias novas, mas tradicionalmente estruturadas.

O esforço de Liverani, 2003 [Para além da Bíblia: história antiga de Israel. São Paulo: Loyola/Paulus, 2008], que percorre os grandes tópicos políticos dos vários períodos, mas também explora as dimensões da “história inventada”, é um exemplo importante dessa tendência. Assim também é o enfoque de Megan Bishop Moore e Brad E. Kelle em 2011.

Em outros casos, no entanto, historiadores influenciados por preocupações pós-modernas começaram, de fato, a se concentrar diretamente nas razões pelas quais uma determinada história está codificada em textos bíblicos e o que isso significa.

Um estudo de 2013 de Reinhard Gregor Kratz, por exemplo, explora as ramificações do status da história bíblica como “história sagrada”, produzida por razões baseadas em contextos sagrados específicos.

Uma coleção de ensaios de Giovanni Garbini, um pouco mais antiga, de 2003, também explora o significado da possibilidade de que as raízes da visão bíblica da história estejam no período pós-exílico.

A recente investigação de Ian D. Wilson, de 2016, sobre realeza e memória na antiga Judeia traça este curso, explicitamente abordando a natureza do projeto de memória do período persa como uma força na criação da visão bíblica do passado.

Enquanto o estudo de Daniel Pioske, de 2015, Davi de Jerusalém: entre memória e história, explora o que a relação entre espaço físico e memória ao longo do tempo significa para a nossa apreciação das realidades passadas.

Outros, como a investigação de Carol Meyers sobre as mulheres israelitas, de 2013, ou o estudo de Rainer Kessler, de 2006 (História social do antigo Israel. São Paulo: Paulinas, 2010) sobre a história social israelita, continuam a investigar histórias que ainda não foram adequadamente contadas e que habitualmente foram obscurecidas por abordagens tradicionais do passado israelita.

TOBOLOWSKY, A. Israelite and Judahite History in Contemporary Theoretical Approaches. Currents in Biblical Research, Vol. 17(1), 2018, p. 33-58.

To a certain extent, much of what has happened in the field of Israelite and Judahite history in recent years can be understood as an evolution of the debate in the 1990s between ‘minimalists’ and ‘maximalists’. These are designations that refer essentially to the extent the biblical text itself is supposed to be useful to reconstructing history. Whenever references are made to ‘minimalists’, it is usually scholars such as Davies, Thompson, Lemche, and Whitelam who are being indicated (…) Meanwhile, even today, some scholars still pursue what we might call ‘maximalist’ histories, as in the relatively recent study of Provan, Long, and Longman, A Biblical History of Israel (2003).

It is not particularly common to see an explicit defense of the reliability of the biblical account of quite this sort these days, but many scholars certainly do continue to embrace what we might call ‘positivist’ positions—that biblical traditions generally encode the realities of the periods they describe in some way—as in Mazar’s suggestion that ‘the most justified’ view is the one that holds that the Deuteronomistic History ‘preserved kernels of ancient texts and realities… components of geo-political and socio-economic realia… [and that] the authors and redactors must have utilized early source materials, such as temple and palace libraries and archives’ (2010: 29).

The minimalist position, by contrast, may be said to be represented by so‐called scientific histories of ancient Israel, in which the biblical account at least takes a backseat to the supposedly harder—therefore more ‘scientific’—extrabiblical evidence. In these studies, as Knauf recently put it, ‘data and theories’ take the place of ‘histories and sources’ (2011: 49). Knauf and Guillaume recently produced a new comprehensive history of Israel along these lines (2016), and most recent histories are at least influenced by the need for external controls. Therefore, it is the case now as it was twenty years ago that the major vectors of inquiry into ancient Israelite history are how much or how little to believe biblical texts, and how to privilege biblical or extrabiblical evidence respectively.

There is, however, now a ‘third way’, so to speak, in contemporary inquiries into Israelite history that is essentially inspired by post-modern and linguistic-turn related theories of history (…) Post‐modern theories suggest, in a term specifically used by Moore, Barstad, and Becking, that writing a conventional history of Israel might actually be ‘impossible’ (Moore 2006: 9; Barstad 2008: 3; Becking 2011: 4). However, as at least Moore and Barstad acknowledge, we must be very specific about what it means to say that writing ‘history’ may have become impossible, and the use of ‘history’ rather than ‘histories’ is instructive to this end (…) There is no ‘history’; there may yet be ‘histories’, or at least, narratives containing both accurate facts and historical understandings (…) Or, as Barstad puts it, ‘[t]he fact that the Bible has come much closer to literature…does not necessarily make it less “historical”, less representing past reality.

At present, then, efforts to refine traditional methods of relating the Israelite past; efforts to retell the Israelite past through ‘scientific means’; and efforts to discover alternate kinds of histories within biblical texts collectively provide the geography of contemporary historical approaches. And among them, there is as yet no clear winner. Many scholars, perhaps most, continue to argue that the basic accessibility of a real vision of the past is still a worthwhile frontier. Many who believe this way today also believe that the biblical text may not be the best way to access it. And many acknowledge the concerns of all three approaches while attempting to offer new but traditionally structured histories. Liverani’s effort, which pursues the grand political threads of the various periods but also explores the dimensions of ‘invented history’ at some length, is an important example of this trend (2005). So is Moore and Kelle’s effort, which looks at the traditional periodization largely through the lens of trends in the study of Israelite history (2011).

In other cases, however, would-be-historians influenced by post‐modern concerns have indeed begun to focus quite directly on whose history is encoded in biblical texts and what that means—a distinctly post‐modern concern. A 2013 study by Reinhard Kratz, for example, translated into English in 2016, explores the ramifications of the status of biblical history as ‘sacred history’, produced for reasons based in specific sacred contexts (2013; 2016). A slightly earlier col-ection of essays by Garbini also explores the meaning of the possibility that the roots of the biblical vision of history lie in the post-exilic period (2003). Wilson’s recent investigation of Kingship and Memory in Ancient Judah plots this course by explicitly addressing the nature of the Persian-period memory project as a force in creating the biblical vision of the past, while Pioske’s study, David’s Jerusalem: Between Memory and History, explores what the relationship between physical space and memory over time means for our appreciation of past realities (Wilson 2016; Pioske 2015). Others, as in Meyers’s inquiry into ancient Israelite women or Kessler’s study of Israelite social history, continue to pursue histories that have not yet been adequately told and that have habitually been obscured by traditional approaches to the Israelite past (Meyers 2013; Kessler 2006; 2008).

Currents in Biblical Research – October 2018

Vim consultar a revista atraído pelo artigo sobre História de Israel, mas encontrei outras coisas interessantes.

Currents in Biblical Research Volume 17 Issue 1, October 2018 

Currents in Biblical Research Volume 17 Issue 1, October 2018

Dream Accounts in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Jewish LiteratureLaura Quick

The study of dreams and their interpretation in the literary remains from antiquity have become increasingly popular access points to the phenomenological study of religious experience in the ancient world, as well as of the literary forms in which this experience was couched. This article considers the phenomenon of dreaming in the Hebrew Bible and ancient Jewish literature. I consider treatments of these dream accounts, noting the development in the methodological means by which this material has been approached, moving from source criticism, to tradition history, and finally to form-critical methods. Ultimately, I will argue that form criticism in particular enables scholars to discern shifts and developments across diachronic perspectives. Study of dream accounts is thus illuminating not only for the understanding of dream phenomena, but also for the development of apocalyptic and the method and means of early Jewish biblical interpretation.

Israelite and Judahite History in Contemporary Theoretical ApproachesAndrew Tobolowsky

This article surveys developments in the study of the histories of ancient Israel and Judah with a focus on the last ten years. Over that period there has been an increased focus on extrabiblical evidence, over biblical text, as the primary means of constructing comprehensive histories, and a revival of interest in post-modern and linguistic-turn theories with respect to establishing what kinds of histories should be written. This study offers a general discussion of the last decade’s trends; an inquiry into the possibility that Judahite authors only assumed an Israelite identity after the fall of Israel; and an era-by-era investigation of particular developments in how scholars think about the various traditional periods of Israelite and Judahite history. The latter inquiry spans the pre-monarchical period to the Persian period.

Jesus as Goat of the Day of Atonement in Recent SynopticHans Moscicke

Do the Synoptic passion narratives portray Jesus (and Barabbas) as one (or both) of the goats of the Day of Atonement? This question currently has no consensus in biblical scholarship but four contrasting positions: The evangelists portray (1) Jesus as the abused scapegoat in his maltreatment by the Roman soldiers (Mk 15.16-20 parr.); (2) Jesus as a pharmakos-like scapegoat patterned after Hellenistic motifs of redemptive suffering; (3) Barabbas as the scapegoat and Jesus as the immolated goat (Mt. 27.15-26 parr.); and (4) Jesus as neither goat, but the typological fulfillment of alternative (suffering) figures: Isaiah’s Servant, the Psalms’ Righteous Sufferer, the Son of Man, and the divine warrior. This article reviews and evaluates these four positions, suggesting avenues for future research.

Military Forces in Judaea 6–130 ce : The status quaestionis and Relevance for New Testament StudiesChristopher B. Zeichmann

The study of the military in the Roman provinces of Judaea is not the most accessible topic. Though the data upon which scholars rely is familiar (e.g., epigraphs, papyri, ancient historians), its study requires significant methodological deviations from biblical studies. This article summarizes key points relevant for scholars of both Jewish antiquity and early Christianity. First, it provides a summary of recent developments in the social history of the Roman army in the Near East, attending especially to the question of the role and function of soldiers in that region. Second, this article provides a brief social history for all military units in Judaea before it was renamed Syria Palaestina in 130 ce (four legions, 14 infantry cohortes, and five cavalry alae), based on the latest discoveries. Finally, the article concludes with a section discussing two issues specific to New Testament studies: the presence of an Italian cohort in Judaea (Acts 10) and the issue of the Augustan cohort in Judaea and Batanaea (Acts 27).

Sobre a revista

This peer-reviewed journal summarizes the spectrum of recent research on particular topics or biblical books. Each article provides an inclusive treatment of its subject, without in most cases being exhaustive. Articles cover specific biblical books or clusters of books, ancillary ancient literature, archaeology, historical studies, as well as new and developing areas of study. Each article concludes with an extensive bibliography that provides a basic knowledge of significant articles and books on the topic being treated, and provides sufficient information to launch a thorough investigation of the topic.