Centenário da École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem

CENTENAIRE DE LA CRÉATION DE L’ÉCOLE ARCHÉOLOGIQUE FRANÇAISE DE JÉRUSALEM

29 novembre 2019 – École biblique et archéologique française

L’École biblique célèbre cette année le centenaire de sa reconnaissance en 1920 comme École archéologique française par l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (AIBL). Un colloque rassemblant les anciens boursiers de l’AIBL à l’École biblique aura lieu le 6 mars prochain à Paris, mais la célébration de ce centenaire a déjà commencé à Jérusalem par une séance académique qui a eu lieu ce 15 novembre dans la salle de conférences de l’EBAF.

De nombreuses personnalités, chercheurs et amis avaient répondu à notre invitation. Monsieur Michel Zink, Secrétaire perpétuel de l’AIBL, est venu de Paris pour École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusaleml’occasion, de même que Dominique Trimbur, chercheur associé au CRFJ et auteur d’un ouvrage qui analyse le contexte de la création de cette École archéologique française, au moment où la Palestine passait sous mandat britannique.

Cette reconnaissance fut un grand encouragement pour le Père Lagrange qui avait beaucoup souffert pour faire reconnaitre sa vision novatrice des études bibliques. C’était aussi une forme de consécration pour l’exceptionnelle première génération de professeurs de l’École, les Vincent, Abel, Savignac, Jaussen, Dhorme, etc.

Au cours de ce siècle, 150 boursiers ont été envoyés par l’AIBL à Jérusalem. Beaucoup ont fait de brillantes carrières académiques. Réunir ceux qui sont encore en activité sera l’occasion de mesurer l’enrichissement mutuel que constitue le dialogue entre études bibliques et l’orientalisme au sens large (archéologie, épigraphie, langues sémitiques, etc.).

Pour l’École, ce regard sur le passé doit donc être aussi une manière de réfléchir à l’avenir. La séance académique du 15 novembre à déjà été un bel encouragement.

Pour visionner l’ouverture par le Frère Jean Jacques Pérennès o.p., «Pourquoi célébrer le centenaire de l’École archéologique française de Jérusalem?», cliquez ici.

 

CENTENARY OF THE CREATION OF THE ÉCOLE ARCHÉOLOGIQUE FRANÇAISE DE JÉRUSALEM

29 November 2019 – École biblique et archéologique française

This year, the École Biblique is celebrating the centenary of its recognition in 1920 as a École archéologique française by the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (AIBL). A symposium bringing together former AIBL scholars at the École Biblique will take place on March 6 in Paris, but the celebration of this centenary has already begun in Jerusalem with an academic session which took place on November 15th in the EBAF conference room.

Many personalities, researchers and friends had accepted our invitation. Michel Zink, Permanent Secretary of the AIBL, came from Paris for the occasion, as did Dominique Trimbur, associate researcher at the CRFJ and author of a book that analyses the context of the creation of this École archéologique française, at a time when Palestine was under British mandate.

This recognition was a great encouragement for Father Lagrange who had suffered a lot to have his innovative vision of biblical studies recognized. It was also a form of validation for the École’s exceptional first generation of teachers, the Vincent, Abel, Savignac, Jaussen, Dhorme, etc.

During this century, 150 scholars have been sent by the AIBL to Jerusalem. Many have had successful academic careers. This March, bringing together those who are still engaged in biblical studies will be an opportunity to measure the mutual enrichment that is the dialogue between biblical studies and orientalism in the broad sense (archaeology, epigraphy, Semitic languages, etc.).

For the École, studying the past must therefore also be a way of thinking about the future. The academic session on November 15th was already a great encouragement.

To view the report from the Christian Media Center, click here.

To view the opening by Jean Jacques Pérennès OP, «Pourquoi célébrer le centenaire de l’École archéologique française de Jérusalem?», click here.

O Gilgámesh hitita

BECKMAN, G. The Hittite Gilgamesh. Atlanta, GA: Lockwood Press, 2019, 112 p. – ISBN 9781948488068

A tradição de Gilgámesh foi importada para Hattusa, no império hitita, para uso na instrução dos escribas, e tem sido de particular importância para os estudiosos modernos na reconstrução da epopeia e na análise de seu desenvolvimento. Além dos textos na língua hitita que narram as aventuras de Gilgámesh, duas versões em acádico e fragmentos em hurrita foram encontrados na capital hitita Hattusa. Este livro oferece uma edição completa dos manuscritos de Hattusa em hitita, acádico e hurrita.

 

O autor explica na introdução do livro:

From the late third millennium BCE on, the adventures of Gilgamesh were well known throughout Babylonia and Assyria, and the discovery of fragmentary Akkadian-language fragments of versions of his tale at Boğazköy (edited here), Ugarit (Arnaud 2007: 130–38; George 2007), Emar (Arnaud 1985: 328; 1987: 383–84 n. 781), and Megiddo in Palestine (Goetze and Levy 1959) demonstrates that tales of the hero’s exploits had reached the periphery of the cuneiform world already in the Late Bronze Age.

In addition to the manuscripts in the Hittite language recounting Gilgamesh’s adventures, two Akkadian versions and fragmentary Hurrian renderings have turned up at the Hittite capital Hattusa. But there is absolutely no evidence that the hero of Uruk was familiar to the Hittite in the street. No representations of Gilgamesh are to be found in the corpus of Hittite art, nor are there allusions to him or his exploits in texts outside of the literary products just listed.

It seems, therefore, that the Gilgamesh tradition was imported to Hattusa solely for use in scribal instruction, although it cannot absolutely be excluded that the Hittite-language text was read aloud at court for the entertainment of the king and his associates. Nonetheless, as has long been recognized, the material from Boğazköy has been of particular importance to modern scholars in reconstructing the epic and analyzing its development, since it documents a period in the history of the narrative’s progressive restructuring and elaboration for which very few textual witnesses have yet been recovered from Mesopotamia itself. And it is this very Middle Babylonian or Kassite period to which scholarly consensus assigns the composition of the final, “canonical,” version of the epic.

Gary Beckman is George C. Cameron Professor of Ancient Near Eastern Languages and Cultures in the Department of Middle East Studies at the University of Michigan.

Gilgámesh: a vida de um poema

SCHMIDT, M. Gilgamesh: The Life of a Poem. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2019, 192 p. – ISBN 9780691195247.

Neste livro Michael Schmidt discute o fascínio especial que a epopeia de Gilgámesh exerce sobre os poetas contemporâneos, argumentando que parte de seu apelo é sua cativante alteridade. Ele reflete sobre o trabalho de importantes poetas, como Charles Olson, Louis Zukofsky e Yusef Komunyakaa, cujos encontros com o poema são reveladores.

 

Gilgamesh is the most ancient long poem known to exist. It is also the newest classic in the canon of world literature. Lost for centuries to the sands of the Middle EastSCHMIDT, M. Gilgamesh: The Life of a Poem. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2019 but found again in the 1850s, it tells the story of a great king, his heroism, and his eventual defeat. It is a story of monsters, gods, and cataclysms, and of intimate friendship and love. Acclaimed literary historian Michael Schmidt provides a unique meditation on the rediscovery of Gilgamesh and its profound influence on poets today.

Schmidt describes how the poem is a work in progress even now, an undertaking that has drawn on the talents and obsessions of an unlikely cast of characters, from archaeologists and museum curators to tomb raiders and jihadis. Incised on clay tablets, its fragments were scattered across a huge expanse of desert when it was recovered in the nineteenth century. The poem had to be reassembled, its languages deciphered. The discovery of a pre-Noah flood story was front-page news on both sides of the Atlantic, and the poem’s allure only continues to grow as additional cuneiform tablets come to light. Its translation, interpretation, and integration are ongoing.

In this illuminating book, Schmidt discusses the special fascination Gilgamesh holds for contemporary poets, arguing that part of its appeal is its captivating otherness. He reflects on the work of leading poets such as Charles Olson, Louis Zukofsky, and Yusef Komunyakaa, whose own encounters with the poem are revelatory, and he reads its many translations and editions to bring it vividly to life for readers.

 

Ele diz, no Prefácio do livro, que fez, por escrito, 5 perguntas para 50 poetas do mundo de língua inglesa sobre sua relação com a epopeia de Gilgámesh.

1. Quando foi que você encontrou o poema e em qual tradução, ou qual adaptação e meio?

2. Qual é atualmente sua tradução ou versão preferida?

3. Você se lembra da sua impressão inicial do poema? Que relação você tem com ele quando escreve ou planeja escrever?

4. Você o coloca, em sua biblioteca física ou mental, em uma prateleira com épicos e escrituras, em outra prateleira ou em nenhuma prateleira?

5. Gilgámesh é um elemento de informação em seu processo criativo e crítico?

 

I wrote to fifty poets across the Anglophone world and asked them five questions about Gilgamesh. It is hard to frame questions that do not prompt specific answers and reveal more about the questioner than the poem. I wanted the poem to pose its questions.

1. When do you first remember encountering the poem and in which translation (or which adaptation and medium)? [What mattered was the first remembered encounter, the real engagement. It might have come not by textual means but via the collages of Anselm Kiefer, or a surprising episode of Star Trek: the Next Generation, or via oratorios, operas or animations.]

2. Which is now your preferred translation or version?

3. Do you recall your initial impression of the poem? What residual relationship do you have with it in your own writing and thinking about writing? [Men and women responded very differently, almost as though the material of the poem is fundamentally gendered; and unless the reader is able to engage with the textures of the language or to historicise response, the narrative can alienate anyone impatient with heroes and dragons.]

4. Do you place it, in your literal or mental library, on a shelf with epics, with scripture, on another shelf (which?), or on no shelf at all?

5. Is Gilgamesh an informing element in your imaginative and critical being, or ‘being’, and if so, in what ways?

Most respondents first read the poem in N. K. Sandars’s prose translation, the original Penguin Classics version. Dick Davis, the poet and major Persian translator, describes it: ‘the prose of [her] version is quasi King James Bible English, loosened but recognizably on that model, and I have always been a sucker for prose like this, and this was/is an added reason it has remained my preferred version, even though I am aware that this is a rather dubiously appropriate model.’ Some of those reared on Sandars have gone on to other preferences. But there is something to be said for a prose version first time round: it gives the narrative clearly, without the distraction of gaps and fissures. It does, however, pose other problems.

This book recounts some of the stories surrounding Gilgamesh. It looks at the work itself and tries to read it without the back-projections that mar so much reading, the belief that ‘they’ were like an earlier version of ‘us’, and their concerns were in some way prototypes of ours. The otherness of Gilgamesh is what this book tries to be about, though the habits of the age infect the author, who is in the first degree guilty, being—like most of the poem’s would-be translators—unable to read the work in any of its original languages.

 

Michael Schmidt is a literary historian, poet, novelist, translator, and anthologist as well as an editor and publisher. His books include The Novel: A Biography and The First Poets. A fellow of the Royal Society of Literature, he received an OBE in 2006 for services to poetry and higher education. He lives in Manchester, England. Twitter @4Michael7

A epopeia de Gilgámesh e a Bíblia

Um artigo:

The Influence of Gilgamesh on the Bible – By Louise M. Pryke – The Bible and Interpretation: November 2019

Existem apenas algumas referências não cuneiformes a Gilgámesh. A narrativa do dilúvio da epopeia de Gilgamesh continua sendo a conexão mais evidente entre a Bíblia Hebraica e a narrativa épica da Mesopotâmia, um século e meio depois de George Smith tê-la notado pela primeira vez. A narrativa do dilúvio no texto bíblico não é, no entanto, o único ponto de contato entre as duas obras da literatura antiga. O nome do herói da epopeia de Gilgámesh pode ser encontrado em um texto dos Manuscritos do Mar Morto conhecido como O Livro dos Gigantes.

There are only a handful of non-cuneiform references to Gilgamesh. The Flood narrative from the Gilgamesh Epic remains the most overt connection between the Hebrew Bible and the Mesopotamian epic narrative, some hundred years after it was first noted by George Smith. The Flood narrative within the biblical text is not, however, the only point of contact between the two works of ancient literature. The name of the heroic protagonist of the Gilgamesh Epic may be found in a text from the Dead Sea Scrolls known as The Book of Giants.

 

Um livro:

PRYKE, L. M. Gilgamesh. London: Routledge, 2019, 256 p. – ISBN 9781138860698

Gilgamesh focuses on the eponymous hero of the world’s oldest epic and his legendary adventures. However, it also goes further and examines the significance of the story’s Ancient Near Eastern context, and what it tells us about notions of kingship, animality, and the natures of mortality and immortality.PRYKE, L. M. Gilgamesh. London: Routledge, 2019

In this volume, Louise M. Pryke provides a unique perspective to consider many foundational aspects of Mesopotamian life, such as the significance of love and family, the conceptualisation of life and death, and the role of religious observance. The final chapter assesses the powerful influence of Gilgamesh on later works of ancient literature, from the Hebrew Bible, to the Odyssey, to The Tales of the Arabian Nights, and his reception through to the modern era.

Gilgamesh is an invaluable tool for anyone seeking to understand this fascinating figure, and more broadly, the relevance of Near Eastern myth in the classical world and beyond.

 

Louise M. Pryke is a Lecturer for the Languages and Literature of Ancient Israel at Macquarie University, Australia, and a Research Associate at the University of Sydney. Gilgamesh is her second volume in the Gods and Heroes of the Ancient World series. Her first book for the series, Ishtar, explored the world’s first goddess of love.

Três teorias sobre a crítica profética ao culto

Culto, em hebraico ‘abhodhâh (= serviço), é a forma tradicional segundo a qual o crente procura se relacionar com a divindade através de rituais, em geral, prefixados. O culto normalmente é uma expressão comunitária e possui seus agentes especializados, os sacerdotes; além de tender a se estabelecer em locais específicos dedicados à divindade, os templos.

O culto israelita é uma celebração de acontecimentos e tradições mais importantes ocorridos na vida do povo, vistos, sob a ótica da fé, como as obras de Iahweh em benefício de Israel. Segundo o conceito da aliança Iahweh-Israel, o culto só tem sentido quando é, de fato, a celebração daquilo que é vivido no cotidiano e ordenado pela ética javista.

 

E surge uma pergunta:

Profetas como Amós, Oseias, Isaías, Miqueias e Jeremias denunciaram o culto como tal?

Ou passagens como Am 5, 21-27; Os 6,1-6; Is 1,10-20; Mq 6,1-8; Jr 7,1-15 podem ser explicadas de outra maneira?

Depois de mais de um século de intensa discussão acadêmica, ainda não existe consenso.

Olhando o debate acadêmico sobre a crítica profética ao culto, é possível distinguir, do século XX para cá, três diferentes teorias.

 

1. A teoria da rejeição total

Em pesquisas mais antigas costumava-se afirmar que os profetas pré-exílicos clássicos, especialmente Amós, Oseias, Isaías e Jeremias, eram contra todo tipo de culto. Até os anos 50 do século XX essa parece ter sido a visão predominante entre os estudiosos da Bíblia.

Um exemplo clássico é Paul Volz no artigo Die radikale Ablehnung der Kultreligion durch die alttestamentlichen Propheten [A rejeição radical do culto pelos profetas do Antigo Testamento], publicado em Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie (ZSTh) 14: 63–85 em 1937.

Para ele, profetas como Amós e Jeremias rejeitavam o culto em sua totalidade, até mesmo porque o tipo de sacrifício praticado nos santuários de Israel tinha origem cananeia e era inferior e primitivo. Fazendo uma analogia entre Jeremias e Lutero, ele defendia que os profetas lutavam por uma forma ‘superior’ de religião, baseada no culto a Iahweh através da palavra e não através do sacrifício de animais. O viés protestante nesta tradição acadêmica antirritualística e antissacrificial é inconfundível.

Hoje esta posição foi abandonada pela maioria, embora ainda encontre defensores. Dois exemplos recentes:

KRÜGER, T. Erwägungen zur prophetischen Kultkritik [Considerações sobre a crítica profética ao culto]. In: LUX, R. ; WASCHKE, E.-J. (eds.) Die unwiderstehliche Wahrheit: Studien zur alttestamentlichen Prophetie. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006, p. 37–55.

BARTON, J. The Theology of the Book of Amos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012 [cf. o item Condemnation of the Sacrificial Cult, p. 84-92].

Esta teoria de rejeição total do culto pode até explicar as expressões mais radicais da literatura profética, sem a necessidade de suavizar as formulações, mas permanecem questões como: Por que os profetas dos séculos VIII e VII a.C. defenderiam a abolição de todos os sacrifícios em Israel? Por que eles desejariam cancelar as formas estabelecidas de adoração de sua própria divindade, sem sugerir novas formas que pudessem substituí-las?

 

2. A teoria da rejeição limitada

E se profetas como Amós tivessem polemizado apenas contra cultos não-javistas ou fortemente sincréticos, sendo, portanto, a idolatria o grande problema? (Barstad 1984; Hrobon 2010)

E se só alguns tipos de sacrifício eram denunciados pelos profetas, como as oferendas voluntárias individuais, mas não os rituais oficiais? (Milgrom 1991)

Talvez os profetas criticassem o culto formal que não era acompanhado por uma intenção correspondente? (Hertzberg 1950; Mays 1969)

Talvez o não profético ao culto devesse ser relativizado no sentido de que o culto não vem primeiro, pois mais importante do que ele é o comportamento javista correto no dia a dia? (Bons 2004)

E se os profetas não rejeitavam o culto em si, mas aqueles que o praticavam por causa de seu comportamento em desacordo com a ética javista, nisto se aproximando do pensamento sapiencial? (Carroll 2006)

E se os textos mais radicais contra o culto fossem lidos como frutos de discussões acaloradas, fortemente retóricas, e que não deveriam ser entendidas literalmente? (Bibb 2004)

Talvez os profetas critiquem o culto porque os animais que são oferecidos são por eles considerados frutos de roubo – o que era proibido – já que eles viam a exploração dos pobres como roubo? (Klawans 2006)

As muitas expressões desta teoria mostram que é preciso, às vezes, fazer alguns malabarismos exegéticos para ler nos textos o que não está explícito ali, mas que poderia ser implicitamente considerado.

Os autores citados:

BARSTAD, H. M. The Religious Polemics of Amos: Studies in the Preaching of Amos II 7b-8, IV 1-13, V 1-27, VI 4-7, VIII 14. Leiden: Brill, 1984.
BIBB, B. D. The Prophetic Critique of Ritual in Old Testament Theology. In: GRABBE, L. L. ; BELLIS, A. O. (eds), The Priests in the Prophets: The Portrayal of Priests, Prophets, and Other Religious Specialists in the Latter Prophets. London: T&T Clark, 2004.
BONS, E. (ed.) “Car c ‘est I ‘amour qui me plait, non Ie sacrifice … “: Recherches sur Osee 6:6 et son interpretation juive et chretienne. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
CARROLL, R. P. Jeremiah. 2 v. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006.
HERTZERG, H. W. Die prophetische Kritik am Kult. ThLZ 75: 219-26, 1950.
HROBON, B. Ethical Dimension of Cult in the Book of Isaiah. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010.
KLAWANS, J. Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
MAYS, J. L. Hosea. London: SCM, 1969.
MILGROM, J. Leviticus 1-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007.

 

3. A teoria da rejeição total, mas conjuntural

A crítica profética do culto poderia ser vista como uma consequência da mensagem da desgraça. Como os profetas vissem como iminente a chegada do desastre e o colapso da nação, o culto era inútil, não adiantava mais, o desastre não podia ser revertido (Werner H. Schmidt 1973). Ou talvez, alternativamente, os textos possam ser lidos como resultado do desastre (Kratz 1998).

De fato, a rejeição era total e limitada, porque estava ligada a uma situação histórica específica (Eidevall 2012). Tais textos proféticos poderiam ser lidos como respostas parciais a perguntas como:

Como as quedas de Samaria e de Jerusalém aconteceram, apesar de todos os sacrifícios que o povo apresentou a Iahweh? Iahweh permitiria a destruição de seu próprio Templo?

No entanto, alguns aspectos permanecem obscuros nesta proposta:

Até que ponto é possível dizer que as críticas ao culto constituem previsões ou avisos autênticos, isto é, pronunciados antes das catástrofes de 722 a.C. (Samaria) e 586 a.C. (Jerusalém)? Até que ponto eles deveriam ser entendidos como oráculos que refletem muito mais a situação pós-catástrofe?

Os autores citados:

EIDEVALL, G. Sacrificial Rhetoric in the Prophetic Literature of the Hebrew Bible. Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2012
KRATZ, R. G. Die Kultpolemik der Propheten im Rahmen der israelitischen Kultgeschichte. In: KÖHLER B. (ed.) Religion und Wahrheit: Religionsgeschichtliche Studien. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1998.
SCHMIDT, W. H. Zukunftsgewissheit und Gegenwartskritik: Grundzüge prophetischer Verkündigung. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1973.

 

Referência

EIDEVALL, G. Sacrificial Rhetoric in the Prophetic Literature of the Hebrew Bible. Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2012, p. 9-28.

 

EIDEVALL, G. Reciprocity and the Risk of Rejection: Debate over Sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible. Religions 2018, 9, 422.

Neste artigo, Göran Eidevall vê o culto sob a ótica da reciprocidade: ele tem por objetivo manter uma troca contínua e consistente de bens reais ou simbólicos, possibilitando um relacionamento estável entre o fiel e a divindade. Ele argumenta que os profetas clássicos de Israel e de Judá não eram contra o culto em si. Eles não defendiam a abolição do culto. Eles expressaram, mesmo com suas críticas mais radicais ao culto, a consciência do risco de rejeição dos sacrifícios cultuais por razões várias. Rejeição que era, ao mesmo tempo, total e limitada, pois ancorada em situações históricas específicas.

 

In this article, I have argued against the view that the classical prophets in Israel and Judah were against all sacrifices. According to my analysis, they did not advocate the abolition of the sacrificial cult. To be more precise, I have attempted to demonstrate that the authors of these prophetic writings did not express such an anti-cultic view. Rather, they exploited the awareness of a certain risk of rejection, which can be seen as a corollary of the reciprocal character of sacrificial worship, for their own rhetorical and ideological purposes. Thus, it was maintained that some divine declarations of large-scale rejection of the people’s sacrifices served as retrospective explanations of national disasters. Most importantly, the cult-critical passages in the prophetic literature are always connected to a specific site or situation. Therefore, in the book of Amos, radical rejection of the cult performed in one temple (for instance, Bethel) would seem to be perfectly compatible with promotion of the cult of another temple (Jerusalem). Similarly, for the authors of the book of Jeremiah, there was no contradiction between condemnation of sacrificial cult in the past and enthusiastic support of sacrificial cult in their own time. According to the analysis presented in this article, all the diverse statements on cultic offerings that one can find in the books of Amos and Jeremiah (and, by extension, in the prophetic literature as a whole) attest to the centrality of sacrifice in the conceptual world of the biblical writers. If sacrificial worship was considered unnecessary, certain texts that proclaim radical rejection (such as Amos 5:21–24 and Jer 6:20) would lose much of their rhetorical force. Similarly, if they did not regard sacrificial worship as an essential part of a well-functioning human-divine relationship, the prophetic writers would not have included this in their depictions of a utopian future.