Avatar photoairtonjo

Tumba de Herodes: notícia se espalha rapidamente

| Por

A descoberta da tumba de Herodes, divulgada hoje, é, do ponto de vista arqueológico e histórico, da maior importância. E a notícia vai se espalhando rapidamente. Embora os detalhes só venham amanhã.

E nem falo dos jornais… mas fiz uma busca pela palavra Herod no Google News, em inglês, e cheguei agora, 21h50, horário de Brasília, a uma centena de resultados!

Veja, porém, os biblioblogs. Aqui os títulos estão em ordem alfabética, mas a dica foi dada por Aren Maeir e espalhada por Jim West.

Mais:

Descoberto o sepulcro de Herodes Magno

| Por

Researcher: We Have Found Herod’s Tomb

Herod’s tomb has been discovered near Jerusalem, Hebrew University’s Ehud Netzer will announce today. The discovery of the grave at Herodium solves one of the great mysteries of archaeology in the Land of Israel. Professor Netzer, considered one of the most senior researchers on Herod, has been excavating at the site south of Jerusalem since 1972 in efforts to identify the burial site of the King of the Jews. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem will release the details regarding the grave and its exact location at a press conference this morning.

Herod, also known as Herod the Great, expanded the Second Temple and built Caesaria, Masada and other monumental works. Born in 74 B.C.E., he died in 4 B.C.E. in Jericho after a long illness. Most researchers believed Herod was buried at Herodium based on the writings of historian Josephus Flavius, however the grave had not been found in the excavations. Netzer’s current dig focused on a different area that had not been excavated: halfway between the upper and lower palaces. Until now, the search had focused on the lower palace.

Herod chose to build his tomb at Herodium because of the two dramatic events that took place there during his lifetime. In 43 B.C.E., while Herod was still governor of Galilee, he was forced to flee Jerusalem with his family after his enemies, the Parthians, besieged the city. Near the site of Herodium, his mother’s carriage overturned and Herod panicked, until her realized she was only slightly injured. Shortly thereafter, the Partheans caught up with Herod an his entourage, but Herod turned the battle around and emerged victorious.

At Herodium, Herod built one of the largest royal sites in the Roman-Hellenist world which served as a residential palace, shelter and administrative center, as well as mausoleum. Herod first raised the level of the hill artificially, making it visible from Jerusalem and then built the fortified palace on top, surrounded by guard towers for use in times of war. At the foot of the hill, he built a second palace, the size of a small town, known as the “Lower Herodium,” which included many buildings, luxurious gardens, pools, stables and warehouses.

Herod spared no resources in efforts to make Herodium ostentatious. He built aqueducts from Solomon’s Pools and imported soil for the gardens to the heart of the desert. After Herod’s death, his son and heir Archelaus continued to reside at Herodium. After Judea became a Roman republic, Herodium served as the seat of the Roman governors. With the outbreak of the great revolt against the Romans, Herodium fell to the rebels, but they returned it without a fight after Jerusalem fell in 70 C.E.

Fifty years later, the Herodium served the Bar Kochba uprising but was later abandoned. At about 150 C.E., Byzantine monks settled the place which later served as a leper colony until its abandonment in the 7th century.

The first excavations of the site were conducted in 1956-1962 by a Franciscan monk, who uncovered most of the remains known today. After the 1967 Six-Day War, the area was conquered by the Israel Defense Forces and Israeli excavations at the site began in 1972.

Fonte: Amiram Barkat – Haaretz: 08.05.2007

 

Sobre Herodes Magno, que governou a Palestina de 37 a 4 a.C., leia algumas informações, em português, aqui.

Lost Kings of the Bible: resenha de Jim West

| Por

The Lost Kings of the Bible: Live Blogcast and Review [Obs.: blog apagado, link perdido – 22.03.2008]

Jim gostou do programa:
All in all I found the program very good, very fair, very balanced, and very nicely done… Will it change any minds? I doubt it…

Leia o texto completo. E: se não viu ainda do que se trata, consulte aqui.

Parece-me que o National Geographic reapresentará o programa no dia 13 de maio, domingo próximo. Nos Estados Unidos. Por aqui, não vi sinal…

Concilium: Teologia do Pluralismo Religioso

| Por

A Revista Internacional de Teologia CONCILIUM foi fundada em 1965 pelos teólogos Y. Congar, H. Küng, J. B. Metz, K. Rahner e E. Schillebeeckx. Esta revista – iniciada por estes maiores teólogos europeus do século XX – agrupou aos poucos em torno de si teólogos de renome do mundo inteiro. Hoje a revista é elaborada por teólogos europeus, latino-americanos, asiáticos, americanos e africanos. Os números são publicados simultaneamente em 7 línguas: francês, inglês, italiano, alemão, holandês, espanhol e português. Cada número da revista gira em torno de uma temática específica e relevante para o cristianismo.

Acabo de receber o fascículo 319 – 2007/1 da Revista Concilium. Tem 150 páginas. Seu tema: Teologia do Pluralismo Religioso: O Paradigma Emergente.

Leio na última capa:
A emergência cada vez mais clara do pluralismo, a ponto de se desenhar novo paradigma, impele a abordá-lo novamente, com mais força, buscando novos insights e ensaiando nova linguagem. Algumas perguntas conduziram os organizadores deste fascículo de Concilium: Seria o pluralismo religioso apenas consequência do caminho do cristianismo na fase de modernidade, ou seja, um fenômeno ocidental pelo qual outras tradições religiosas não se interessam? Ou as religiões todas são chamadas ao salto paradigmático? E com que recursos poderiam fazê-lo? Em diferentes tradições religiosas não se encontrariam já elementos de universalidade e de aceitação do pluralismo como forma desta universalidade?

Sumário

Editorial
Luiz Carlos SUSIN – Emergência e urgência do novo paradigma pluralista

Parte I – Situação
1. Tissa BALASURIYA – As religiões, especialmente o cristianismo, diante do futuro
2. Faustino TEIXEIRA – O pluralismo religioso como novo paradigma para as religiões

Parte II – Discernimento
1. José Maria VIGIL – O paradigma pluralista: tarefas para a teologia. Para uma releitura pluralista do cristianismo
2. Paulo SUESS – Da revelação às revelações
3. Marcelo BARROS – Moradas do vento nos caminhos humanos. Para uma teologia da hierodiversidade
4. Leonardo BOFF – É o Cristo cósmico maior que Jesus de Nazaré?
5. Javier MELLONI – Mediação e opacidade das Escrituras e dos dogmas
6. Lieve TROCH – O mistério em vasos de barro: balbuciando uma linguagem figurada sobre Deus dentro de novas experiências de religião
7. J. Amando ROBLES – A religião, um mapa para a salvação? Algumas mudanças epistemológicas

Parte III – Perspectivas Práticas
1. Paul F. KNITTER – A transformação da missão no paradigma pluralista
2. Andrés Torres QUEIRUGA- Repensar o pluralismo: da inculturação à inreligionação
3. Felix WILFRED – Cristianismo e cosmopolitismo – Para uma universalidade inversa
4. Pedro CASALDÁLIGA/José Maria VIGIL – Espiritualidade e pluralismo religioso

Conclusão
Luiz Carlos SUSIN – Refletindo o percurso: um clamor e uma luz que vêm de toda parte

Pesquisa Datafolha: as religiões dos brasileiros

| Por

Religiões no Brasil, segundo o Datafolha, em 05/05/2007:

  • Católica: 64%
  • Evangélica Pentecostal: 17%
  • Evangélica não Pentecostal: 5%
  • Espírita Kardecista, Espiritualista: 3%
  • Umbanda: 1%
  • Outra Religião: 3%
  • Não tem religião: 7%

Leia:
Especial 2007: Visita do Papa ao Brasil
Evangélicos avançam na periferia das metrópoles
Papa vai encontrar Brasil menos católico, aponta Datafolha
Pesquisa revela que 11% dos brasileiros têm mais de uma religião

The Lost Kings of the Bible

| Por

Claude Mariottini e Jim West estão debatendo o tema do programa que será apresentado amanhã no National Geographic, como dito aqui. E neste debate apareceu a figura de J. Alberto Soggin.

Fui aluno de J. Alberto Soggin na década de 70, no Pontifício Instituto Bíblico, em Roma. Nós o admirávamos por sua enorme cultura e capacidade de apresentar complexas discussões sobre as tradições patriarcais ou sobre os poemas do Servo de Iahweh do Dêutero-Isaías, só para citar dois dos cursos que fiz com o ilustre mestre. Sei também que em sua História de Israel ele teve a capacidade de ir se adaptando às novas descobertas, com mente bastante aberta. Coisa incomum. Na verdade, ele é um estudioso bastante incomum.

Entretanto, na opinião de Niels Peter Lemche – em The Israelites in History and Tradition, p. 141 -, Soggin, assim como outros estudiosos da História de Israel, ainda fazem apenas paráfrases mais ou menos dogmáticas da imagem do antigo Israel gerada na Alemanha a partir da grande influência de Martin Noth. Neste grupo estão, além de Soggin (1984;1993) as “Histórias de Israel” de Martin Metzger (1983), Siegfried Hermann (1973), Antonius H. J. Gunneweg (1972), Georg Fohrer (1977), Herbert Donner (1984-86), Gösta W. Ahlström (1993), R. de Vaux (1971;1973)… Este texto de Lemche é de 1998.

O texto mais recente que tenho de Soggin é exatamente sobre Davi. E está no livro Recenti Tendenze nella Ricostruzione della Storia Antica d’Israele, publicado em 2005 a partir da Conferência Internacional sobre as Tendências Recentes na Reconstrução da História do Antigo Israel realizada em Roma em 2003. Amanhã preciso ler este texto para ver sua posição mais recente sobre o “caso Davi”.

Antecipo apenas o que tenho no resumo da Conferência feito pela Associazione Orientalisti:
Prof. Soggin showed how the boundary traced by scholars between the historical and the non-historical parts of the Old Testament has shifted in recent years in the relevant literature (including his own Introduction to the History of Israel and Judah’s various editions), up to secluding the kingdom of David into the realm of legend. The foundation of the state by David cannot any longer be considered a historical fact, because the narrative on the foundation in Samuel and Kings is Deuteronomistic (transmitted half a millenium after the events); seven centuries later was composed the book of Chronicles, in which David does not committ any guilt; the quality of the sources is not reliable. This does not mean that David and Salomon never existed. It is possible that Israel and Judah were unified under two kings called David and Solomon. But we cannot use the biblical narrative on David itself as a historical source. Outside the Old Testament, mentions of David are useless to the task of the historian: in the Mesha stele the context in which David’s name appears is not clear; the Tel Dan inscription is too a contentious piece of evidence, in regard both to its genuinity and to the actual meaning of the expression BYT DWD.

Tyler Williams e as cosmogonias mesopotâmicas

| Por

Como noticiado aqui, Tyler Williams, em Codex, vinha apresentando e discutindo, em quatro partes, as cosmogonias mesopotâmicas.

Veja a última parte em Theogony, Cosmogony, and Anthropology in ANE Creation Accounts (Creation in Ancient Mesopotamia, Part 4).

This is the fourth and (probably) final post in the series “Ideas of Origins and Creation in Ancient Mesopotamia.� The first post in the series detailed some methodological issues and highlighted some bibliographical resources. The second and third posts surveyed creation texts from the Old Babylonian and the Neo-Bablylonian periods, respectively. In this post I will attempt to synthesize these findings and while I hoped to relate them to our understanding of the biblical creation texts, that will have to wait until a future post.
Theogony, Cosmogony, and Anthropology in ANE Creation Accounts

What ideas of origins and creation can be gleaned from the texts surveyed in the last two posts? Are there any dominant themes and motifs apparent? This section is subdivided into two parts: the first will examine theogony and cosmogony in the texts and the second will deal with anthropology. Theogony and cosmogony are being discussed together for reasons that will become apparent below. Note that this partition is somewhat artificial as some of the texts span both divisions (e.g., “The Epic of Creation�).

The fifteen texts surveyed in the previous posts may be summarized as follows:

[TABLE=3]

There are eight texts that touch on the topic of theogony, two early and six later (A3, A8; B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, and B7). Concerning cosmogony there are five compositions from the Old Babylonian period and four from the Neo-Babylonian era, making a total of nine texts (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5; B1, B2, B5, B7). There are ten texts that somehow discuss or mention the creation of humankind, five from each time period (A1, A2, A5, A6, A7; B1, B2, B4, B5, B6).
Theogony/Cosmogony

It should be apparent from the above texts that it would be impossible to speak of the Mesopotamian view of the creation of the cosmos without speaking of the creation of the gods: in Mesopotamia theogony and cosmogony were inextricably intertwined. Of this W. G. Lambert notes: “In ancient Mesopotamia there was comparatively little interest in cosmogony as such. Few texts deal in any detail with the process whereby the physical universe originated and attained its present form. A much greater interest was taken in the ancestries of the gods, and these frequently have cosmogonic associations” (“Kosmogonie,â€? in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie [ed. Erich Ebeling and Bruno Meisser; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980-1983], 6:219). It should also be clear from the evidence that one cannot speak of “the Mesopotamian view of creationâ€? as a single specific tradition. Some of the texts have Apsu and Tiamat as the prime movers in creation, while others have the Plough and the Earth, while yet others have Anu the sky god.

The texts will be discussed under three headings: (1) the ancestries of the gods; (2) the creation and ordering of the cosmos; and (3) the relationship of the different conceptions of theogony/cosmogony to geography. Any recurring characteristics or themes will be highlighted.

1. The Prime Elements: Ancestries of the Gods

Much of the theogonic data in the literature takes the form of ancestries of the gods. When discussing the ancestries of the gods it is important to remember that “brief, one-sentence myths and allusions have just as much importance as lengthy epic-style narrativesâ€? (Lambert, “Kosmogonie,â€? 219). In the different texts, typically one of four elements is found at the head of the “genealogyâ€?: Earth, Water, Time, and (less often) Heaven. This reflects the tendency in Mesopotamian literature to reduce everything to one prime element at its inception. A good example of a text that has Earth as a prime element is “The Theogony of Dunnu,â€? where the first pair are the Plough (ha’in) and Earth (ersetu). More elaborate myths of this same type are ones that have the Mother Goddess as the prime element. For instance, in “Emesh and Enten,â€? Enlil and Hursag, the mountain range, cohabit and engender Emesh and Enten. An excellent text that has Water as the first element is the “Epic of Creation,â€? where the lineage of Marduk begins with the pair of water-gods, Apsu and Tiamat (grammatically masculine and feminine, respectively). The “Chaldean Cosmogonyâ€? also fits into this category. None of the texts covered above had Time or Heaven as basic components.

The actions of the prime elements would typically take two forms: either the components represented as deities would themselves bring forth further elements — and the present order of things would result; or the elements would be acted on from without, usually by another god, to produce the known universe. Both “The Theogony of Dunnu� and “The Epic of Creation� would be examples of the first kind. A couple texts that could allude to the elements being acted on from without are “Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Netherworld,� where Anu takes heaven an Enlil takes earth; while in the “Creation of the Hoe,� Enlil separates the heaven and the earth alone.

2. Creation and Ordering of the Cosmos

Under the rubric of creation and ordering of the cosmos two things can be noted. First, Mesopotamian texts tend to emphasise the ordering of the cosmos over its creation. Once again taking “The Epic of Creationâ€? as an example, only the first twenty lines of the first tablet deals with the creation of the universe, while the bulk of tablets four through six covers its organisation. Various other texts focus solely on the ordering of the cosmos, such as “Enki and Sumerâ€? and “Emesh and Enten.â€? Second, one would be hard pressed to find a text where an item of the cosmos is created by a god. Most of the theogonic texts describe the gods as reproducing, separating, or manipulating things, which is not the same as creating something, ex nihilo, so to speak (I’m by no means implying that the biblical accounts present creation ex nihilo; that’s an issue for another post). Even in “The Epic of Creationâ€? when Marduk “createsâ€? the sky, he does so from the corpse of the vanquished Tiamat.

3. Geography and Conception of the Creation of the Cosmos

J. van Dijk, from his work with Sumerian creation myths, posited that there were two originally separate representations of creation (see his “Le motif cosmique dans la pensée sumerienne,� Acta Orientalia 28 (1964/5): 1-60). The first tradition, in which an embryo-like universe (sometimes represented by a mountain) engenders An, whose marriage to the earth leads to the creation of humankind, originated from the nomadic culture of Northern Sumer around Nippur. The second tradition derived from the region around Eridu in the South, and describes creation as starting from the waters of Nammu and Mother Earth. In this scheme humankind was fashioned from the earth. Dijk suggested that these two separate traditions were later conflated with one another.

Van Dijk’s categorization is followed by most recent works on ANE creation, including Richard Clifford (Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and the Bible [CBQMS 26; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1994; Buy from Amazon.ca | Amazon.com]) and Kenton Sparks (Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible [Peabody, MS: Hendrickson, 2005; Buy from Amazon.ca | Amazon.com]). Whether or not it is entierly accurate, there does seem to be a connection between the geography of the land and the way the creation of the cosmos was conceived. Of this relationship (though in a different context) Denis Baly notes that “any form of religious belief is required by the environment is, of course, certainly false. Nevertheless, one must recognise that what men believe is unquestionably conditioned by the environment in which they find themselves� (“The Geography of Monotheism,� in Translating & Understanding the Old Testament [ed. Harry T. Frank & William L. Reed; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970], 254). This is seen in the so-called “Chaldean Cosmology,� which clearly presupposes the environment of the lower course of the Euphrates and the Tigris.
Anthropology: The Creation of Humankind

In relation to the creation of humankind, two points will be considered: (1) the materials and methods of creation; and (2) the purpose of humanity.

1. Materials and Methods of Creation

Typically the two perspectives provided concerning the creation of humankind is that the human either sprang from the ground (a tradition from Nippur) or that the human was formed from a clay mixture, sometimes using the blood of a god (from Eridu). The one text that is in line with the first perspective is the “Creation of the Hoe.� The second type is represented by many compositions. “Enki and Ninmah� and “When Anu Had Created the Heavens� depict humankind as being made out of a clay substance, with no added blood. “The Trilingual Creation Story,� “The Epic of Creation,� and the epic of Atra-hasis all have humanity being made out of a mixture of clay and the blood of a god. In “The Trilingual Creation Story� the blood is taken from two craftsman gods (lamga), while in “The Epic of Creation� it is the blood of the rebel-god Kingu. Likewise in Atra-hasis humankind is composed of the flesh and blood of a rebel-god named Geshtu-e. A couple of variations on this theme exist though. For instance, in “Cattle and Grain,� all that is mentioned is that humankind is “given breath.�

The significance of humanity being created from the blood of a deity seems to imply that in Mesopotamian anthropology humankind shares in the divine nature. This point could be seen as being made more explicitly in Atra-hasis if Moran is correct in his interpretation of the lines:

With his flesh and his blood
Let Nintur mix the clay.
Let the god himself and man
Be mixed together in the clay.

Of the last line Moran notes: “When the goddess finishes mixing the clay, both god and man will be present, but completely fused and compenetrating each other� (W. L. Moran, “The Creation of Man in Atrahasis I 192-248,� Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 200 [1970]: 48-56). Some have also taken the reference to “giving breath� in “Cattle and Grain� to suggest some sort of divine nature in humanity. It would seem that at least in some traditions humanity was somehow understood to share in the nature of a god. Another aspect of the divine nature may be found in connection with a figure named Umul who is the first human baby, fathered by Enki — if Anne Kilmer’s interpretation of the text is correct (see Anne D. Kilmer, “Speculation on Umul, The First Baby,� Alter Orient und Altes Testament 25 [1976]: 265).

2. Purpose of Humanity

A predominant motif found in almost all the creation accounts is the fact that humankind was created for the express purpose of serving the gods. The degree or severity of this service seems to have differed between accounts. Some myths are less specific and only seem to suggest that “serving the gods,� meant to serve them food and drink. For example, “Chaldean Cosmogony,� “Trilingual Creation Story,� and “When Anu Had Created the Heavens,� would all fall into this category. Other tales indicate that the service of the gods was much harsher—that it entailed doing the hard, brute labour that the gods did not want to do for themselves anymore. The myths “Enki and Ninmah,� “The Epic of Creation,� and Atra-hasis seem to suggest this.

This notion concerning the purpose of humanity should probably not be considered to be so much a reflection of their theology or anthropology as a reflection of their society. H. W. F. Saggs notes:

In the Sumerian city-state . . . the characteristic and most significant organisation was the temple-estate, in which thousands of people co-operated in works of irrigation and agriculture in a politico-economic system centred on the temple, with all these people thought of as the servant of the god. The myth of the creation of man, therefore, was not basically a comment on the nature of man but an explanation of a particular social system, heavily dependent upon communal irrigation an agriculture, for which the gods’ estates were primary foci of administration (H. W. F. Saggs, The Encounter With the Divine in Mesopotamia and Israel [Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion 12; London: University of London, Athlone Press, 1978], 168).

Whether the concept has a social or theological origin, it highlights an important underlying philosophy that presupposed that the gods needed people.
Conclusions

So what can be said about the ideas of origins and creation in Ancient Mesopotamia? First, while there are many differences in the specifics of the myths concerning origins, there are also many points of contact between them. Integral to all of the accounts is the central role played by the gods in the creation of the world and humankind. The creation and the ordering of the cosmos was a natural outcome of the engendering of the gods. Also, the dignity and purpose of humankind is fairly consistent among the texts: humankind was created to serve the gods. Many of the discrepancies between the different myths can easily be attributed to geographical or historical changes (for instance, the changing of the name of a god to suit a specific locality). It needs to be remembered though that while there are many parallels, there are also many differences.

Second, as far as any diachronic development in the ideas about origins and creation, it is hard to recognise any significant differences. Even if one employs Jacobsen’s matrix that older elements will be characterised by intransitivity and the newer elements by transitivity, one would be hard pressed to see any difference in the texts (besides the interplay that Jacobsen already sees in “The Epic of Creation�; see his The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976], 9ff). One difference between the materials in the two sections is that some of the Neo-Babylonian texts are longer and in better shape, but that has to do with the preservation of texts, not composition or subject matter.

Overall, it must be said that the ideas of origins and creation found in ancient Mesopotamian mythological texts are not crude and unrefined. While they might seem foreign and odd to the modern reader, if an attempt is made to cross the border of “conceptual conditioning,� within their own context and worldview they make sense out of the cosmos and humankind’s place in it.

Sobre a origem dos antigos Estados Israelitas

| Por

Terminei hoje, com o Primeiro Ano de Teologia do CEARP, na disciplina História de Israel, o estudo da Origem dos Antigos Estados Israelitas. Utilizo como roteiro o artigo do mesmo nome que escrevi para a revista Estudos Bíblicos n. 78, publicada pela Vozes em 2003. Trata-se do estudo dos governos de Saul, Davi, Salomão.

No editorial da Estudos Bíblicos n. 78, assinado por Telmo José Amaral de Figueiredo, se diz de meu artigo:

No olho do furacão estão hoje as teorias sobre o surgimento da monarquia em Israel. No segundo artigo desta revista, o professor Airton J. da Silva irá propor-nos as grandes questões que hoje ocupam o centro do debate sobre o nascimento e morte da monarquia israelita. Ele apresenta, com competência, o status quaestionis das pesquisas a esse respeito. O que não é pouco, pois, ao público brasileiro, é um tanto difícil acompanhar esse colóquio sempre mais intenso e cheio de surpresas. Como bem observa Airton, citando o estudioso Philip R. Davies, a maioria dos estudiosos, “embora sabendo que a estória de Israel do Gênesis a Juízes não deve ser tratada como história, prossegue, não obstante, com o resto da estória bíblica, de Saul ou Davi em diante, na pressuposição de que, a partir deste ponto, o obviamente literário tornou-se o obviamente histórico”. Por isso, uma tendência que começa a ser sempre mais seguida é, na construção da história de Israel, “dar prioridade aos dados primários [levantados pela historiografia geral e a arqueologia a respeito da época em questão], mas fazendo uso do texto bíblico como fonte secundária usada com cautela” – constata o britânico Lester L. Grabbe, citado por Airton. Analisando essas fontes primárias e outras, têm-se um quadro nada completo e acabado do surgimento da monarquia em Israel: “região rural… nenhum documento escrito… nenhum sinal de uma estrutura cultural necessária em uma monarquia… do ponto de vista demográfico, de Jerusalém para o norte, povoamento mais denso; de Jerusalém para o sul, mais escasso…”. Sabe-se que Davi e Salomão devem ter existido, porém não foram artífices de todo aquele esplendor narrado pela Bíblia, o qual se inspira mais na Jerusalém do século VII a.C., quando a teologia deuteronomista exalta a atividade do rei Josias, o qual passa a figurar como “o novo Davi e Iahweh cumprira suas promessas”, percebe Airton, citando os pesquisadores I. Finkelstein e N. Silberman. O artigo de Airton deixa entrever que há muito ainda por se descobrir desse período.

Utilizo, para este item da História de Israel, basicamente a seguinte bibliografia:

  • DA SILVA, A. J. A história de Israel na pesquisa atual. In: História de Israel e as pesquisas mais recentes. 2. ed. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2003, p. 43-87.
  • DA SILVA, A. J. A história de Israel no debate atual (artigo na Ayrton’s Biblical Page, atualizado em 2007).
  • DA SILVA, A. J. A origem dos antigos Estados israelitas. Estudos Bíblicos, Petrópolis, n. 78, p. 18-31, 2003.
  • DAVIES, P. R. In Search of ‘Ancient Israel’. 2. ed. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995 [T. & T. Clark: 2005].
  • DIETRICH, W. Die frühe Königszeit in Israel. 10. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart/Berlin/Köln, 1997.
  • DONNER, H. História de Israel e dos povos vizinhos 2v. 3. ed. São Leopoldo: Sinodal/Vozes, 2004.
  • FINKELSTEIN, I.; SILBERMAN, N. A. A Bíblia não tinha razão [The Bible Unearthed, 2001]. São Paulo: A Girafa, 2003.
  • FRITZ, V.; DAVIES, P. R. (eds.) The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.
  • GEBRAN, Ph. (org.) Conceito de modo de produção. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra, 1978.
  • GRABBE, L. L.(ed.) Can a ‘History of Israel’ Be Written? Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997 [T. & T. Clark: 2005 – ISBN 0-5670-4320-7].
  • LEMCHE, N. P.The Israelites in History and Tradition. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox, 1998.
  • LIVERANI, M. Oltre la Bibbia: storia antica di Israele. 5. ed. Roma-Bari: Laterza, 2006.
  • PIXLEY, J. A história de Israel a partir dos pobres. 9. ed. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2004.
  • VV.AA. Recenti tendenze nella ricostruzione della storia antica d’Israele. Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 2005.

Sei que deveria estar utilizando também FINKELSTEIN, I.; SILBERMAN, N. A. David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition. New York: The Free Press, 2006. Mas ainda não o li.

Pois o canal National Geographic vai apresentar no próximo domingo, dia 6 de maio de 2007, nos Estados Unidos, um especial sobre os reis Davi e Salomão, com o nome de Lost Kings of the Bible.

Como consultores há gente muito competente: Ami Mazar, Roni Reich, Aren Maier, Israel Finkelstein, Ted Brock, John Monson, Deborah Cantrell, Eric Cline. Jim West diz que vai resenhar o programa. Aguardemos.

E leia o comentário de Eric Cline ao post do Jim, no qual ele antecipa: “The ‘groundbreaking’ new evidence will not be new to most biblical archaeologists but some or all of it may well be new to many viewers: Roni Reich’s discovery of the Canaanite constructions by the Gihon Spring; the Tel Dan Stele and the mention of the ‘House of David’; Aren Maier’s ‘Goliath’ sherd; John Monson’s comparison between Solomon’s Temple and the Ain Dara Temple; the names on Shoshenq’s inscription in Egypt and the comparison to the biblical account re Shishak; our own current excavations at Megiddo (with shots of my team excavating the stables) and a nice interview with Deborah Cantrell about raising and training horses; plus a brief look at the Stepped Stone Structure (though unfortunately without an appearance by Eilat Mazar or a mention of her excavations). Throughout the show, the pros and cons of various topics concerning David and Solomon and the extent of their kingdom/empire are debated by various scholars, including Ami, Roni, Israel, and myself…”

The 11th Hour – A Última Hora

| Por

O impactante documentário “A Última hora”

O documentário a “Última Hora” (The 11th hour) é uma experiência capaz de expandir a nossa consciência e responsabilidade sobre a atual realidade ambiental do planeta. Dirigido pelas irmãs Nadia Conners e Leila Conners Petersen, a produção foi idealizada e teve sua pesquisa conduzida pelo ator americano Leonardo DiCaprio. Também é ele quem, em momentos estratégicos, surge no documentário para nos fazer refletir, observar e aprender.

O filme reúne em seus 90 minutos dezenas de entrevistas com 50 especialistas, entre cientistas, ambientalistas e líderes políticos de todo o mundo. A princípio, é revelado um cenário caótico e assustador, no qual as mudanças climáticas, a poluição, o lixo e uma série de desastres naturais mostram um mundo em crescente e sufocante estado de degradação.

Desta realidade, surge o sentimento de urgência. Ainda haverá tempo para salvar o planeta? Há algo a ser feito? E se há, estamos juntos para superar esse desafio? Muitas são as perguntas e, é claro, suas respostas não são exatamente simples. Mas o documentário apresenta possibilidades bastante surpreendentes e capazes de nos fazer sentir o peso da nossa responsabilidade.

O título do filme faz exatamente uma analogia ao momento que pode ser considerado o último para se fazer as mudanças necessárias. E, para inspirar, nos oferece o diálogo com personalidades diversas, por exemplo, o antigo primeiro-ministro soviético Mikhail Gorbachev, o cientista Stephen Hawking, o homem que chefiou a CIA, R. James Woolsey, além dos líderes de grandes projetos de sustentabilidade, como William McDonough e Bruce Mau.

Muitas são as surpresas apresentadas pelo filme. Nenhuma delas será revelada aqui, para que o impacto do documentário não se perca. Mas prepare-se para uma multiplicidade de pontos de vista e que certamente fará você pensar.

Fonte: Pensamento Verde: 21/03/2014

 

About the 11th Hour Film

The 11th Hour is a 2007 documentary film, made, handled and depicted by Leonardo Dicaprio, on the state of the earth.

“The 11th Hour” is the last moment when change is possible. The film explores how we’ve arrived at this moment – how we live, how we impact the earth’s ecosystems, and what we can do to change our course. Featuring ongoing dialogues of experts from all over the world, including former Soviet Prime Minister Mikhail Gorbachev, renowned scientist Stephen Hawking, former head of the CIA R. James Woolsey and sustainable design experts William McDonough and Bruce Mau in addition to over 50 leading scientists, thinkers and leaders who discuss the most important issues that face our planet and people. Narrated by Leonardo DiCaprio, written and directed by Leila Conners Petersen and Nadia Conners. The 11th Hour is produced by Chuck Castleberry, Brian Gerber, Conners Petersen and DiCaprio.

Global warming is not only the number 1 environmental challenge we face today, but one of the most important issues facing all of humanity … We all have to do our part to raise awareness about global warming and the problems we as a people face in promoting a sustainable environmental future for our planet (Leonardo DiCaprio)

 

The 11th Hour (no Brasil, A Última Hora; em Portugal, A 11ª Hora) é um documentário norte-americano de 2007 criado, produzido e narrado por Leonardo DiCaprio, financiado por Adam Lewis e Pierre André Senizergues, dirigido por Leila Conners Petersen e Nadia Conners e distribuído pela Warner Independent Pictures.

Sua Premiere Mundial foi realizada de 16 a 27 de maio de 2007 na 60ª Edição Anual do Festival de Cinema de Cannes e foi lançado em 17 de agosto nos Estados Unidos e 16 de novembro de 2007 no Brasil, ano cujo Quarto Relatório de Avaliação do Painel Intergovernamental sobre Mudanças Climáticas das Nações Unidas foi publicado, e um ano depois do também documentário Uma Verdade Inconveniente, onde retrata, também, o Aquecimento Global.

Com a contribuição de mais de 50 cientistas, ativistas ambientais e políticos, incluindo o ex-líder soviético Mikhail Gorbachev, o físico Stephen Hawking, a vencedora do Nobel da Paz Wangari Maathai e o jornalista Paul Hawken, o documentário relata os graves problemas que os sistemas de vida da Terra estão enfrentando (Wikipédia)