Search

Submitted by Noeme Timbo (noeme.timbo@metodista.br) on 2016-08-11T18:49:33Z No. of bitstreams: 1 BRUNO CAVALCANTE.pdf: 1499849 bytes, checksum: 2ea03be3dbd4327d7ecd93a9c8695d41 (MD5) Made available in DSpace on 2016-08-11T18:49:33Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 BRUNO CAVALCANTE.pdf: 1499849 bytes, checksum: 2ea03be3dbd4327d7ecd93a9c8695d41 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-03-21 Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico - CNPq The research aims to work the event of Jehu's revolt, together with the stele of Dan, taking as a starting point for such exegesis of the perícope of 2 Kings 10 to 28.36. The story Deuteronomist presents the act of Jehu's revolt as an important achievement too, the cult of the restoration to the Lord in Israel, from a context where the worship of other deities in Israel North, was in full swing. However, from the joint analysis of the stele of Dan, whose probable author King Hazael of Damascus, we are challenged to read this story between the lines not covered by the text, pointing to an active participation of Hazael on outcomes related to revolt of Jehu as being directly responsible that gave the rise of Jehu king in Israel, thus clarifying this important period in the Biblical story. For this analysis, it will be observed three distinct topics directly related to the proposed theme: (1) The Revolt of Jehu and the Deuteronomist Writing, from the exegetical study of the perícope of 2 Kings 10.28 to 36, which are described timely information about the period in which Jehu reigned in Israel; (2) Jehu and the Stele of Dan, from the presentation and analysis of the contents of the stele of Dan, comes directly from the war unfolding in Ramoth-Gilead, where takes place the starting point of the revolt of Jehu; and finally (3) The Empire of Syria, where from the ongoing analysis of the contents of the stele of Dan demonstrate the significance of this kingdom, and notes directly related to the reign of Hazael very important character in the Revolt of Jehu event A pesquisa tem por objetivo trabalhar o evento da Revolta de Jeú, em conjunto com a Estela de Dã, tendo como ponto de partida para tal, a exegese da perícope de 2 Reis 10-28,36. A história Deuteronomista apresenta o ato da Revolta de Jeú como sendo um feito demasiadamente importante, na restauração do culto a Javé em Israel, a partir de um contexto onde o culto a outras divindades, em Israel Norte, estava em pleno curso. No entanto, a partir da análise conjunta da Estela de Dã, que tem como provável autor o rei Hazael de Damasco, somos desafiados a ler esta história pelas entrelinhas não contempladas pelo texto, que apontam para uma participação ativa de Hazael, nos desfechos referentes a Revolta de Jeú, como sendo o responsável direto que proporcionou a subida de Jeú ao trono em Israel, clarificando desta forma este importante período na história Bíblica. Para tal análise, observar-se-á três distintos tópicos, ligados diretamente ao tema proposto: (1) A Revolta de Jeú e a Redação Deuteronomista, a partir do estudo exegético da perícope de 2 Reis 10,28-36, onde estão descritas informações pontuais sobre período em que Jeú reinou em Israel; (2) Jeú e a Estela de Dã, a partir da apresentação e análise do conteúdo da Estela de Dã, tratando diretamente dos desdobramentos da guerra em Ramote de Gileade, de onde se dá o ponto de partida à Revolta de Jeú; e por fim (3) O Império da Síria, onde a partir da continuidade da análise do conteúdo da Estela de Dã, demonstraremos a significância deste reino, além de apontamentos diretamente ligados ao reinado de Hazael, personagem mui relevante no evento da Revolta de Jeú.

This article does two things. First, it corrects things in the book, Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200-539 B.C.E. (2004), abbreviated IBP below: • Regarding potential forgeries, the article applies the principles for treatment of unprovenanced inscriptions set forth in Christopher A. Rollston, “Non-Provenanced Epigraphs II: The Status of Non-Provenanced Epigraphs within the Broader Corpus of Northwest Semitic,” Maarav 11 (2004): 71–76. • It disqualifies proposed IDs in eight (8) inscriptions that are forgeries or probable forgeries, notably including the two bullae frequently attributed to the biblical Baruch. Second, it evaluates 32 proposed identifications (IDs) of biblical persons in inscriptions of 1200-539 B.C.E. Doing this updates the book, IBP, from its original coverage through mid-2002, to July 31, 2008. In order to evaluate these proposed IDs, it uses the protocols set forth in the book, IBP, pp. 9-89. Resulting IDs and non-IDs appear in six categories of strength or weakness, from unmistakable to disqualified. • Constructively, it makes eleven strong, reasonable, or possible IDs of biblical persons in provenanced Northwest Semitic inscriptions and two reasonable IDs in inscriptions written in other languages (one in Egyptian hieroglyphics and one in Babylonian Akkadian). • It gives page-by-page corrections to the book, IBP, if they affect IDs. These corrections end with a summary of the results of the book as corrected by this article on pp. 125-126. A summary and an index only of the results in the article appear on pp. 126-132.