cyanic-selkie/wikianc huggingface dataset:
Jacob Neusner
Biografi
Neusner membahas masalah-masalah ini dengan membangun sebuah agenda karier untuk mengangkat pertanyaan-pertanyaan kritis kepada studi Yudaisme. Keberhasilannya mengubah bukan hanya studi Yudaisme, tetapi juga memengaruhi studi agama pada umumnya. Neusner adalah orang pertama yang melihat bahwa sumber-sumber dari Yudaisme klasik tidaklah dibangun untuk menjawab pertanyaan-pertanyaan historis yang standar. Ia menciptakan studi dokumenter tentang Yudaisme, dan melalui studi itu ia memperlihatkan, tanpa kenal henti dan tidak terbantahkan, bahwa masing-masing dokumen dari kanon rabinik mempunyai fokus dan agendanya sendiri-sendiri, dan bahwa sejarah Yudaisme kuno harus diajarkan dalam pengertian teks dan bukan pribadi-pribadi atau kejadian-kejadian.<!--His Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah (Chicago 1981; translated into Hebrew and Italian) is the classic statement of his work and the first of many comparable volumes on the other documents of the rabbinic canon.
Neusner’s discovery of the centrality of documents led him to an even more decisive perception of Judaism as a system: an integrated network of beliefs, practices, and values that yields a coherent worldview and picture of reality for its adherents. This approach led to a series of very important studies on the way Judaism creates categories of understanding and how those categories relate to one another, even as they emerge diversely in discrete rabbinic documents. Neusner’s work shows, for instance, how deeply Judaism is integrated with the system of the Pentateuch, how such categories as "merit" and "purity" work in Judaism, and how classical Judaism absorbed and transcended the destruction of the Jerusalem in 70 C.E. His work depicts rabbinic Judaism as the result of human labor responding to what its adherents believe is God’s call and demonstrates its persistent vitality and imagination.
Mateo Cerezo
Ia wafat pada usia empat puluh tahun, dan karya-karyanya disimpan di Museum Prado Museum, Madrid, dan di Museo de Burgos.
Jacob Neusner
Biografi
In the process of producing his scholarship, Neusner translated, analyzed, and explained virtually the entire rabbinic canon - a massive compendium of texts - into English. The Mishnah, the Tosefta, the Palestinian Talmud, the Babylonian Talmud, and nearly every work of rabbinic Bible interpretation are available to scholars of all backgrounds because of Neusner’s scholarship. In the study of Judaism, no one in history can match Neusner’s work.
In all of this, Neusner made Judaism and its study available to scholars and laypeople of every background and persuasion. That Judaism is now a mainstream component of the American study of religion is due almost entirely to Jacob Neusner’s scholarship.
Neusner’s work did not stop with his exposition - in translation, description, and interpretation - of Judaism alone. To the contrary, unlike any other scholar of his generation, Neusner deliberately built outward from Judaism to other religions. He sponsored a number of very important conferences and collaborative projects that drew different religions into conversation on common themes and problems. Neusner’s efforts have produced conferences and books on, among other topics, the problem of difference in religion, religion and society, religion and material culture, religion and economics, religion and altruism, and religion and tolerance. These collaborations build on Neusner’s intellectual vision, his notion of a religion as a system, and would not have been possible otherwise. By working toward general questions from the perspective of a discrete religion, Neusner produced results of durable consequence for understanding other religions as well.
In addition to these efforts, Neusner has written a number of works exploring the relationship of Judaism to other religions around difficult issues of understanding and misunderstanding. For instance, his A Rabbi Talks with Jesus (Philadelphia 1993; translated into German, Italian, and Swedish, establishes a religiously sound framework for Judaic-Christian interchange and earned the praise of Pope Benedict XVI. He also has collaborated with other scholars to produce comparisons of Judaism and Christianity, as in The Bible and Us: A Priest and A Rabbi Read Scripture Together (New York 1990; translated into Spanish and Portuguese). He has collaborated with scholars of Islam, conceiving World Religions in America: An Introduction (third edition, Nashville 2004), which explores how diverse religions have developed in the distinctive American context. He also has composed numerous textbooks and general trade books on Judaism. The two best-known examples are The Way of Torah: An Introduction to Judaism (Belmont 2003); and Judaism: An Introduction (London and New York 2002; translated into Portuguese and Japanese).
Throughout his career, Neusner has established publication programs and series with various academic publishers. Through these series, through reference works that he conceived and edited, and through the conferences he has sponsored, Neusner has advanced the careers of dozens of younger scholars from across the globe. Few others in the American study of religion have had this kind of impact on students of so many approaches and interests.
Neusner is often celebrated as one of the most published scholar in history. He has written or edited more than 900 books. He has taught at Columbia University, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Brandeis University, Dartmouth College, Brown University, University of South Florida, and Bard College. He is a member of the Institute of Advanced Study, Princeton, N.J., and a life member of Clare Hall, Cambridge University. He is the only scholar to serve on both the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts. He also has received scores of academic awards, honorific and otherwise.
The real measure of Neusner’s contribution to the study of religion emerges from the originality, excellence, and scope of his learning. He founded a field of scholarship: the academic study of Judaism. He has profoundly influenced the academic study of religion. He has created durable networks of interreligious communication and understanding. And he cares for the careers of others. Ever generous with his intellectual gifts, Neusner is one of America’ s greatest humanists. In all he has done, Jacob Neusner fulfills the distinctive promise of the academic study of religion in an open and pluralistic society that values religion as a fundamental expression of freedom.
In additional to his positions as Research Professor of Religion and Theology and Bard Center Fellow, Neusner is Senior Fellow of Bard’s Institute of Advanced Theology. He has taught at Bard College since 1994.
Contributions to scholarship
Neusner is most well known for applying critical-historical scholarship to the documents of classical Rabbinic literature. One of his innovations has been his form-analytical presentation of Rabbinic texts, in which documents are presented in a Harvard outline format, which allow the reader to easily follow the flow of the argument.
Neusner has aimed to make Rabbinic literature useful to specialists in a variety of fields within the academic study of religion, as well as in ancient history, culture and Near and Middle Eastern Studies. His work has concerned the classic texts of Judaism and how they form a cogent statement of a religious system. These classical writings form the canon of a particular statement of Judaism. That canon defined the paramount Judaism in both Christendom and Islam from the seventh century to the present. Neusner addresses the circumstances of its formation, in the beginnings of Western civilization, the issues important to its framers, the kind of writings they produced, the modes of mediating change and responding to crises.
Neusner has translated and reread for historical purposes the classic documents of Judaism as they took shape in the first through sixth centuries C.E., through interaction between the written Torah and the oral law.)
These documents—the Mishnah, Tosefta, Midrash-compilations, and the two Talmuds—represent the collective statement and consensus of authorships (none is credibly assigned to a single author and all are preserved because they are deemed canonical and authoritative) and show us how those authorships proposed to make a statement to their political and social situation—and, Neusner argues, also a judgment upon the human condition. What Neusner does in this reading of the canonical literature of Judaism is divided into stages.
Reading documents critically
Reading documents one by one represents a new approach in this field, though it is commonplace in all other humanistic fields. Ordinarily, in studying ancient Judaism, people composed studies by citing sayings attributed to diverse authorities without regard to the place where these sayings occur. They assumed that the sayings really were said by those to whom they are attributed, and, in consequence, the generative category is not the document but the named authority. But if we do not assume that the documentary lines are irrelevant and that the attributions are everywhere to be taken at face value, then the point of origin—the document—defines the categorical imperative, the starting point of all study.
Second, Neusner seeks to move from the text to that larger context suggested by the traits of rhetoric, logic, and topic shared between one document and some other. Here Neusner compares one text to others of its class and ask how these recurrent points of emphasis, those critical issues and generative tensions, draw attention from the limits of the text to the social world that the text's author(s) proposed to address. Here, too, the notion that a document exhibits traits particular to itself is new with his work, although overall he has episodically noted traits of rhetoric distinctive to a given document, and, on the surface, differences as to topic—observed but not explained—have been noted. Hence the movement from text to context and how it is affected represents a fresh initiative on Neusner's part.
Reframing the paradigm: From Judaism to "Judaisms"
Neusner calls the encompassing Judaism that the canon presents a "system," when it is composed of three necessary components: an account of a worldview, a prescription of a corresponding way of life, and a definition of the social entity that finds definition in the one and description in the other. When those three fundamental components fit together, they sustain one another in explaining the whole of a social order, hence constituting the theoretical account of a system. Systems defined in this way work out a cogent picture, for those who create them, of how things are correctly to be sorted out and fitted together, of why things are done in one way, rather than in some other, and of who they are that do and understand matters in this particular way. When, as is commonly the case, people invoke God as the foundation for their worldview, maintaining that their way of life corresponds to what God wants of them, projecting their social entity in a particular relationship to God, then we have a religious system. When, finally, a religious system looks to the Hebrew Scriptures of ancient Israel or the Old Testament for an important part of its authoritative literature or canon, we have identified a type of Judaism.
Religions form social worlds and do so through the power of their rational thought, that is, their capacity to explain data in a way that is self-evidently valid (to an author). The framers of religious documents answer urgent questions, framed in society and politics to be sure, in a manner deemed self-evidently valid by those addressed by the authors at hand. At stake in this oeuvre is a striking example of how people explain to themselves who they are as a social entity. Religion as a powerful force in human society and culture is realized in society, not only or mainly in theology; religion works through the social entity that embodies that religion. Religions form social entities—"churches" or "peoples" or "holy nations" or monasteries or communities—that, in the concrete, constitute the "us," as against "the nations" or merely "them." And religions carefully explain, in deeds and in words, who that "us" is—and they do it every day. To see religion in this way is to take religion seriously as a way of realizing, in classic documents, a large conception of the world. But how do we describe, analyze and interpret a religion, and how do we relate the contents of a religion to its context? These issues of method are worked out through the reading of texts—and, Neusner underlines, through taking seriously and in their own terms the particularity and specificity of texts. This Neusner accomplishes by special reference to problems in studying Judaism in particular.
Viewing religions as systems illustrated by cases drawn from Judaism
Systems begin in the social entity—whether one or two persons or two hundred or ten thousand—and not in their canonical writings, which come only afterward, or even in their politics. The social group, however formed, frames the system, and the system then defines its canon within, and addresses the larger setting, the polis without. Neusner describes systems from their end products, the writings. He then works his way back from canon to system, not imagining either that the canon is the system, or that the canon creates the system. He sees the canon as the evidence left by the system as it was at the time. The canonical writings speak in particular to those who can hear, that is, to the members of the community who on account of that perspicacity of hearing, constitute the social entity or systemic community. The community then comprises that social group, the system, of which is recapitulated by the selected canon. The group's exegesis of the canon in terms of the everyday imparts to the system the power to sustain the community in a reciprocal and self-nourishing process. The community through its exegesis then imposes continuity and unity on whatever is in its canon.
Therefore, while Neusner posits that we cannot account for the origin of a successful religious-social system, we can explain its power to persist. It is a symbolic transaction, as Neusner explains, in which social change comes to expression in symbol-change. That symbolic transaction, specifically, takes place in its exegesis of the systemic canon, which in literary terms constitutes the social entity's statement of itself. So, he says, the texts recapitulate the system. The system does not recapitulate the texts. The system comes before the texts and defines the canon. The exegesis of the canon then forms that ongoing social action that sustains the whole. A system does not recapitulate its texts, it selects and orders them. A religious system imputes to them as a whole cogency, one to the next, that their original authorships has not expressed in and through the parts, and through them a religious system expresses its deepest logic, and it also frames that just fit that joins system to circumstance.
The whole works its way out through exegesis, and the history of any religious system—that is to say, the history of religion writ small—is the exegesis of its exegesis. And the first rule of the exegesis of systems is the simplest, and the one with which Neusner concludes: the system does not recapitulate the canon. The canon recapitulates the system. The system forms a statement of a social entity, specifying its world view and way of life in such a way that, to the participants in the system, the whole makes sound sense, beyond argument. So in the beginning are not words of inner and intrinsic affinity, but (to echo the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo) the Word: the transitive logic, the system, all together, all at once, complete, whole, finished—the word awaiting only that labor of exposition and articulation that the faithful, for centuries to come, will lavish at the altar of the faith. A religious system therefore presents a fact not of history but of immediacy, of the social present.
The issue of why a system originates and survives, if it does, or fails, if it does, by itself proves irrelevant to the analysis of a system, but of course necessary to Neusner's interpretation of it. He says that a system on its own is like a language. A language forms an example of language if it produces communication through rules of syntax and verbal arrangement. That paradigm serves full well however many people speak the language, or however long the language serves. Two people who understand each other form a language-community—even, or especially, if no one else understands them. So too, by definition, religions address the living, constitute societies, frame and compose cultures. For however long, at whatever moment in historic time, a religious system always grows up in the perpetual present, an artifact of its day, whether today or a long-ago time. The only appropriate tense for a religious system is the present. A religious system always is, whatever it was, whatever it will be. Why so? Because its traits address a condition of humanity in society, a circumstance of an hour—however brief or protracted the hour and the circumstance.
When Neusner asks that a religious composition speak to a society with a message of the is and the ought and with a meaning for the everyday, he focuses on the power of that system to hold the whole together: the society the system addresses, the individuals who compose the society, the ordinary lives they lead, in ascending order of consequence. And that system then forms a whole and well-composed structure. Yes, the structure stands somewhere, and, yes, the place where it stands will secure for the system either an extended or an ephemeral span of life. But the system, for however long it lasts, serves. And that focus on the eternal present underpins Neusner's interest in analyzing why a system works (the urgent agenda of issues it successfully solves for those for whom it solves those problems) when it does, and why it ceases to work (loses self-evidence, is bereft of its "Israel," for example) when it no longer works. He explains that the phrase, "the history of a system," presents us with an oxymoron. Systems endure—and their classic texts with them—in the eternal present that they create. They evoke precedent, they do not have a history. A system relates to context, but, as Neusner has stressed, exists in an enduring moment (which, to be sure, changes all the time). We capture the system in a moment, the worm consumes it an hour later. That is the way of mortality, whether for us one by one, in all mortality, or for the works of humanity in society. But systemic analysis and interpretation requires us to ask questions of history and comparison, not merely description of structure and cogency. So in this exercise Neusner undertakes first description, that is, the text; then analysis, that is, the context; and finally interpretation, that is, the matrix in which a system has its being.
Methodology
Neusner pioneered modern methods to study the history of Judaism in its formative period, the first six centuries C.E. He aimed to find out how to describe a Judaism in a manner consonant with the historical character of the evidence, therefore in the synchronic context of society and politics, and not solely or mainly in the diachronic context of theology which earlier defined matters. The inherited descriptions of the Judaism of the dual Torah (or merely "Judaism") treated as uniform the whole corpus of writing called "the oral Torah." The time and place of the authorship of a document played no role in our use of the allegations, as to fact, of the writers of that document. All documents were ordinarily treated as part of a single coherent whole, so that anything found in any writing held to be canonical might be cited as evidence of views on a given doctrinal, legal or ethical topic. "Judaism" then was described by applying all imperative categories—e.g., beliefs about God, life after death, revelation and the like—to all the canonical writings. Insofar as historical circumstance played a role in that description, it was assumed that everything in any document applied pretty much to all cases, and historical facts derived from sayings and stories pretty much as the former were cited and the latter told.
Prior to Neusner, ignoring the limits of documents and therefore the definitive power of historical context and social circumstance, all books on "Judaism" or "classical," "Rabbinic," "Talmudic" Judaism, promiscuously cited all writings deemed canonical in constructing pictures of the theology or law of that Judaism, severally and jointly, so telling us about Judaism all at once and in the aggregate. That approach lost all standing in the study of Christianity of the same time and place, for all scholars of the history of Christianity understand the diversity and contextual differentiation exhibited by the classical Christian writers. But, by contrast, ignoring the documentary origin of statements, the received pictures of Judaism prior to Neusner presented as uniform and unitary theological and legal facts that originated each in its own document, that is to say, in its distinctive time and place, and each as part of a documentary context, possibly also of a distinct system of its own. Neusner corrected that error by insisting that each of those documents be read in its own terms, as a statement—if it constituted such a statement—of a Judaism, or, at least, for and in behalf of a Judaism. Neusner maintained that each theological and legal fact was to be interpreted, to begin with, in relationship to the other theological and legal facts among which it found its original location.
Neusner worked on describing each in its own terms and context the principal documents of the Judaism of the dual Torah. He further undertook a set of comparative studies of two or more documents, showing the points in common as well as the contrasts between and among them. This protracted work is represented by systematic accounts of the Mishnah, tractate Avot, the Tosefta, Sifra, Sifré to Numbers, the Yerushalmi, Genesis Rabbah, Leviticus Rabbah, Pesiqta deRab Kahana, The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan, the Bavli, Pesiqta Rabbati, and various other writings. In all of this work Neusner proposed to examine one by one and then in groups of affines the main components of the dual Torah. Neusner wished to place each into its own setting and so attempt to trace the unfolding of the dual Torah in its historical manifestation. In the later stages of the work, he attempted to address the question of how some, or even all, of the particular documents formed a general statement. Neusner wanted to know where and how documents combined to constitute one Torah of the dual Torah of Sinai.
Time and again Neusner concluded that while two or more documents did intersect, the literature as a whole is made up of distinct sets of documents, and these sets over the bulk of their surfaces do not as a matter of fact intersect at all. The upshot was that while Neusner could show inter-relationships among, for example, Genesis Rabbah, Leviticus Rabbah, Pesiqta deRab Kahana, and Pesiqta Rabbati, or among Sifra and the two Sifrés, he could not demonstrate that all of these writings pursued in common one plan, defining literary, redactional, and logical traits of cogent discourse, or even one program, comprising a single theological or legal inquiry. Quite to the contrary, each set of writings demonstrably limited itself to its distinctive plan and program and was found not to cohere with any other set. He concludes that the entirety of the literature most certainly cannot be demonstrated to form that one whole Torah, part of the still larger Torah of Sinai, that constitutes the Judaism of the dual Torah.
Neusner continued to work on trying to find out how to describe that "Judaism" beyond the specific texts—now beyond the text and the context and toward the matrix of all of the canonical texts—that each document takes for granted but no document spells out. And that research inquiry brought him to the matter of category-formation, which in this context required him to specify the categorical imperative in the description of a Judaism. As Neusner saw it, there are three components of any Judaism, deriving their definition from the systemic model with which Neusner began: worldview, way of life, social entity. As is clear, "Israel" forms the social entity. The documents at hand, as Neusner shows, demand that we focus upon that same matter. So the category becomes clear both from the theoretical framework that Neusner devised, and from the inductive reading of the sources as Neusner read the bulk of them.
Two theological categories occupied Neusner's further attention. The Judaic category, God "in our image" corresponds to the theoretical component of the worldview, and the Judaic category of the human being "after our likeness" corresponds—though not so self-evidently—to the theoretical component of the way of life. The correspondence will strike the reader as a simple one, when we recall that, in any Judaism, "we" are what "we" do. To all Judaic systems, one's everyday way of life forms a definitive element in the system, and if we wish to know how a Judaic system at its foundations defines its way of life, we do well to translate the details of the here and the now into the portrait of humanity "after our likeness." Neusner spells out both matters in "Israel:" Judaism and its Social Metaphors and in The Incarnation of God: The Character of Divinity in Formative Judaism.
Studies critical of Neusner's work
Some of Neusner's work has been sharply criticised by his peers. However, such critics often find themselves subject to ad hominem rebuttals, either by Neusner himself (e.g., his response to Shaye Cohen, or to Hyam Maccoby -- see below), or by his students. As an example of the latter, one presumes, an earlier version of the present Wikipedia overview of Neusner's work included the observation that "A short review attributed to Saul Lieberman, but published posthumously, has been cited as a criticism of Neusner's translation of the Talmud Yerushalmi. In this review, Lieberman makes the following statement:'And indeed after a superficial perusal of the translation, the reader is stunned by the translator's ignorance of rabbinic Hebrew, of Aramaic grammar, and above all of the subject of matter with which he deals, as we shall presently demonstrate.' Some find this rhetoric uncharacteristic and unbecoming of a scholar such as Lieberman and believe that this review was fraudulently attributed to Lieberman but actually written by his now-infamous colleague, the proven forger, Morton Smith."
Shaye Cohen called Neusner's interpretation of the worldview of Talmudic Judaism a "counter-Rabbinics" driven by an anti-Orthodox, anti-Rabbinic agenda. This judgment is supported by the critical analyses of particularly Maccoby and Zuesse, but it was already adumbrated by Zeitlin in the 1970s (see below). Others have offered criticisms of particular aspects of Neusner's methodological approach.
Though recognizing his critical and argumentative style, hundreds of reviewers have praised Neusner's fundamental and lasting contributions to the study of rabbinic Judaism, religious studies and the humanities.
Impact
Neusner's enterprise has been aimed at a humanistic and academic reading of classics of Judaism, yet with full regard for their specific statements to their own world. He demonstrates how people wrote these books as a way of asking and answering questions that we can locate and understand. According to Neusner, when we can find those shared and human dimensions of documents, we can relate classic writings to a world we understand and share. That imputes a common rationality to diverse authorships and ages—theirs and ours—and, Neusner believes, expresses the fundamental position of the academic humanities.
Neusner has been drawn from studying text to context. Treating a religion in its social setting, as something a group of people do together, rather than as a set of beliefs and opinions, he says, prepares colleagues to make sense of a real world of ethnicity and political beliefs formed on the foundation of religious origins. He argues that if colleagues do not understand that religion constitutes one of the formative forces in the world today, they will not be able to cope with the future. He shows how to see precisely the ways in which religion forms social worlds. In the case of Judaism, a set of interesting examples is set forth. Here Neusner shows us that diverse Judaic systems responded to pressing social and political questions by setting forth cogent and (to the believers) self-evidently valid answers. That is one important aspect of the world-creating power of religion, and one illuminated in the formation of Judaic systems as interpreted by Jacob Neusner. -->
Sumber biografi tambahan: Jacob Neusner. "From History to Religion." hlm. 98-116 dalam The Craft of Religious Studies, disunting oleh Jon R. Stone. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1998.
Buku-buku oleh Jacob Neusner
Sebuah daftar lengkap tentang karya-karya Profesor Jacob Neusner dapat ditemukan di sini:
Kotaro Iba
Kotaro Iba adalah pemain sepak bola asal Jepang.
Karier
Kotaro Iba pernah bermain untuk Montedio Yamagata.
Dorcadion boucardi
Dorcadion boucardi adalah spesies kumbang tanduk panjang yang tergolong famili Cerambycidae. Spesies ini juga merupakan bagian dari genus Dorcadion, ordo Coleoptera, kelas Insecta, filum Arthropoda, dan kingdom Animalia.
Larva kumbang ini biasanya mengebor ke dalam kayu dan dapat menyebabkan kerusakan pada batang kayu hidup atau kayu yang telah ditebang.
Evolusi brakiopoda
Asal usul brakiopoda tidak pasti; mereka mungkin muncul dari reduksi organisme tubular multi-berlapis, atau dari lipat dari organisme siput-seperti dengan cangkang pelindung pada kedua ujung. Sejak asal Cambrian mereka, filum naik ke dominasi Paleozoikum, tetapi menyusut selama Mesozoikum.
Djoko Senoputro
Marsekal Muda TNI (Purn.) H. Raden Mas Djoko Senoputro, S.E., M.M. adalah seorang Purnawirawan TNI-AU yang terakhir menjabat Pa Sahli Tk. III bidang Ekkudag Panglima TNI.
Djoko, merupakan lulusan Akademi Angkatan Udara tahun 1987. Jabatan terakhir jenderal bintang dua ini adalah Pati Sahli Kasau bidang Iptek.
Jabatan Militer
🇨🇴
Ryan Thamrin
dr. Ryan Thamrin, M.Kes. atau yang memiliki nama asli Hesta Meiriansyah adalah dokter dan pembawa acara berkebangsaan Indonesia. Pria berdarah Banjar-Riau ini sebelumnya menjadi cover boy di majalah Aneka Yess! dan sempat menjadi Abang Jakarta tahun 2003. Ia merupakan dokter spesialis anti aging dan penuaan dini. Namanya semakin dikenal setelah membawakan program kesehatan Dr. OZ Indonesia di Trans TV.
Quentin Matsys
Quentin Matsys (Quinten Matsijs) (1466–1529) adalah seorang pelukis dalam tradisi Flemish dan pendiri Sekolah Antwerp. Ia lahir di Leuven
Kematian
Matsys wafat di Antwerp pada 1529.
Christmas with Scotty McCreery
Christmas with Scotty McCreery adalah album natal pemenang musim kesepuluh dari acara American Idol, Scotty McCreery. Album ini dirilis pada tanggal 16 Oktober 2012 di Amerika Serikat. Album ini mendapatkan sertifikasi emas pada tanggal 26 November 2012.
Seiun Kamen Machineman
Seiun Kamen Machineman (星雲仮面マシンマン) adalah serial tokusatsu yang dibuat oleh Shotaro Ishinomori (Ishinomori Productions) dan Toei Company. Serial yang terdiri dari 36 episode ini merupakan hasil produksi bersama Nippon Television, dan disiarkan di Jepang mulai tanggal 13 Januari 1984 sampai dengan tanggal 28 September tahun sama.
Adaptasi bahasa Portugis
Machineman kemudian di sulih suara ke dalam bahasa Portugis di Brasil oleh salah satu TV Rede Record. Sayangnya hasil dubbing ke dalam versi bahasa Portugis ini sangat buruk, banyak kesalahan terjemahan dan nama yang tidak sesuai, diantaranya:
Mbulmu Yalma, Nduga
Mbulmu Yalma adalah sebuah distrik yang terletak di Kabupaten Nduga, Papua, Indonesia.
Distrik ini mencakup wilayah seluas 190 km². Pada tahun 2019, terdapat 3.660 jiwa yang menempati distrik ini.
Pembagian administratif
Terdapat 7 kampung di distrik ini.
Heading to the Ground
Heading to the Ground (Korean: 맨땅에 헤딩) adalah serial televisi Korea Selatan yang disiarkan MBC. Dibintangi Yunho dan Go Ara.
Sinopsis
Bong-gun, seorang pemain sepak bola dengan potensi yang sangat besar, ingin menjadi anggota tim sepak bola nasional. Ketika ia bekerja mengejar tujuannya, ia bertemu Hae-bin, seorang calon agen olahraga yang sangat atraktif dan mandiri yang pada akhirnya bertengkar dengannya sepanjang waktu. Ia bertemu Kang Hae Bin, seorang agen olahraga yang mencoba untuk menjalani hidupnya jauh dari pengaruh ayah yang kaya raya.
Pemeran
Pemeran Utama Pemeran Lain
Mbua Tengah, Nduga
Mbua Tengah (ditulis juga sebagai Mbuwa Tengah) adalah sebuah distrik yang terletak di Kabupaten Nduga, Papua, Indonesia.
Distrik ini mencakup wilayah seluas 323 km². Pada tahun 2019, terdapat 3.138 jiwa yang menempati distrik ini.
Pembagian administratif
Terdapat 9 kampung di distrik ini.
Julio Manzur
Julio Manzur (lahir 22 Juni, 1981) adalah bek yang 12 kali memperkuat negaranya, sejak 2006, ia bermain untuk Santos FC di Brasil. Ia juga alumni perebut medali perak Olimpiade 2004 dan Piala Dunia 2006.
Mimosophronica minettii
Mimosophronica minettii adalah spesies kumbang tanduk panjang yang tergolong famili Cerambycidae. Spesies ini juga merupakan bagian dari genus Mimosophronica, ordo Coleoptera, kelas Insecta, filum Arthropoda, dan kingdom Animalia.
Larva kumbang ini biasanya mengebor ke dalam kayu dan dapat menyebabkan kerusakan pada batang kayu hidup atau kayu yang telah ditebang.
Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra
Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra (kelahiran 7 Juli 1963) adalah seorang pembuat film dan penulis latar India. Ia paling dikenal karena menulis dan menyutradarai Rang De Basanti (2006) dan Bhaag Milkha Bhaag (2013). Ia adalah penulis dan sutradara dari films Aks (2001) dan Delhi-6 (2009); dan sutradara dari Bhaag Milkha Bhaag (2013).
Kehidupan awal
Ia lahir di New Delhi, dalam sebuah keluarga Punjabi di India. Ayahnya bekerja pada hotel Claridges di New Delhi. Ia adalah bagian dari kamp seleksi sebagai perenang dalam Asian Games 1982 yang diadakan di New Delhi namun tidak terpilih pada putaran terakhir. Ia menempuh pendidikan di Sekolah Angkatan Udara Bal Bharti, Jalan Lodi, New Delhi.
Kehidupan pribadi
Pada 1992, Rakeysh menikahi P.S. Bharathi. Pasangan tersebut memiliki seorang putri dan seorang putra yang bernama Vedant.
Belencong
Belencong (juga disebut ganco atau gancu) adalah alat untuk menggali tanah atau membelah batu, diayunkan seperti cangkul, memiliki dua mata, yang satu tajam seperti mata cangkul dan yang satunya lagi runcing seperti pasak. Kadang kala belencong disebut gancu, tetapi gancu dapat juga merujuk kepada tongkat berpengait untuk menghalau atau menggiring ternak. Belencong digunakan dalam bidang pertanian, perkebunan, pertambangan, pertukangan, dan lain-lain. Belencong juga digunakan oleh tukang gali sumur, gali kubur, dan pemecah batu.
Wanita Bangsawan Jelek
Wanita Bangsawan Jelek adalah sebuah lukisan satir yang dilukis oleh artis Flemish Quentin Matsys sekitar 1513.
Strangalia linsleyi
Strangalia linsleyi adalah spesies kumbang tanduk panjang yang tergolong familia Cerambycidae. Spesies ini juga merupakan bagian dari genus Strangalia, ordo Coleoptera, kelas Insecta, filum Arthropoda, dan kingdom Animalia.
D. V. Sadananda Gowda
Devaragunda Venkappa Sadananda Gowda (kelahiran 18 Maret 1953) adalah seorang politikus India yang menjadi Ketua Menteri Karnataka ke-20 dan sekarang menjadi Menteri Hukum dan Keadilan dalam Pemerintahan India. Ia berpindah dari Kementerian Jalur Kereta Api dalam reshuffle kabinet pada 9 November 2014. Ia adalah anggota Lok Sabha ke-16 yang mewakili konstituensi Bangalore Utara.
Kehidupan awal
Sadananda Gowda lahir pada 1953 dari pasangan Venkappa Gowda dan Kamala dari desa Mandekolu di taluk Sulya.
Gowda lulus dalam bidang Ilmu Pengetahuan dari Kolese St. Philomena, Puttur dan kemudian medapatkan gelarnya dalam bidang hukum di Kolese Hukum Vaikunta Baliga Udupi. Ia menjadi aktif dalam politik pelajar pada masa ini dan terpilih sebagai Sekretaris Jenderal Serikat Pelajar Kolese Hukum. Kemudian, ia menjadi Sekretaris Jenderal Distrik ABVP
Pada 1976, ia mulai mempraktikan hukum di Sulya dan Puttur. Ia menjadi prosekutor publik selama beberapa waktu di Sirsi, distrik Uttara Kannada namun mengundurkan diri dari pekerjaan tersebut untuk berkonsentrasi pada karier politiknya.
Keluarga dan kehidupan pribadi
Sadananda Gowda menikah dengan Datty Sadananda dan memiliki seorang putra, Karthik Gowda yang merupakan seorang teknisi. Putra sulungnya, Kaushik Gowda, yang merupakan pelajar pengobatan, meninggal dalam sebuah kecelakaan jalan dekat Puttur pada 2003. Ia memiliki ketertarikan dalam Yakshagana, Seni Rupa Foklor Dakshina Kannada dan juga Bulu Tangkit Shuttle dan Tenis.
Mebarok, Nduga
Mebarok (ditulis juga sebagai Meborok) adalah sebuah distrik yang terletak di Kabupaten Nduga, Papua, Indonesia.
Distrik ini mencakup wilayah seluas 394 km². Pada tahun 2019, terdapat 3.627 jiwa yang menempati distrik ini.
Pembagian administratif
Terdapat 14 kampung di distrik ini.
Joachim von Sandrart
Biografi
Sandrart lahir di Frankfurt, namun keluarganya berasal dari Mons.
Departemen Perdagangan Amerika Serikat
Departemen Perdagangan Amerika Serikat adalah salah satu dari departemen di Amerika Serikat yang berhubungan dengan mempromosikan pertumbuhan ekonomi. Misi dari departemen adalah " meningkatkan lapangan pekerjaan dan meningkatkan standar hidup untuk seluruh masyarakat Amerika Serikat dengan menciptakan infrastruktur yang mendorong pertumbuhan ekonomi, daya saing teknologi, dan pembangunan berkelanjutan". Tugasnya adalah mengumpulkan data ekonomi dan demografi untuk bisnis,dan pemerintah mengambil keputusan, mengeluarkan hak paten, dan merek dagang, dan membantu untuk menetapkan standar industri. Departemen Perdagangan bermarkas di Herbert C. Hoover Building di Washington, D.C.
Sejarah
Departemen ini awalnya adalah Departemen Perdagangan dan Tenaga Kerja pada tanggal 14 Februari 1903.Hal ini kemudian berganti nama menjadi Departemen Perdagangan pada tanggal 4 Maret 1913. Biro dan lembaga yang mengkhususkan diri dalam kerja dipindahkan ke yang baru Departemen Tenaga Kerja. Hak paten Amerika Serikat dan Kantor merek dagang di pindah ke Departemen Perdagangan.
Saudara-saudara Yesus
Saudara-saudara Yesus adalah sebuah penyebutan berdasarkan pada deskripsi Perjanjian Baru terhadap Yakobus, Yoses, Yudas dan Simon sebagai "saudara-saudara" Yesus Kristus. Walau tidak disebutkan namanya, terdapat pula penyebutan "saudari-saudari" Yesus. Beberapa akademisi berpendapat bahwa saudara-saudara ini, terutama Yakobus Muda, memegang posisi khusus dalam Gereja perdana di Yerusalem.
Katolik, Asiria Timur, Ortodoks Timur dan Ortodoks Oriental, serta sebagian Anglikan dan Lutheran, percaya akan keperawanan abadi Maria, seperti juga para pemimpin Protestan yakni Martin Luther, Yohanes Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, dan John Wesley. Mereka yang memegang keyakinan ini menolak klaim bahwa Yesus memiliki saudara kandung dan memegang pandangan bahwa para saudara (laki-laki) dan saudari (saudara perempuan) ini memiliki kedekatan hubungan dengan keluarga inti Yesus, serta menganggap mereka sebagai para saudara/saudari sepupu atau anak-anak Yusuf dari perkawinan sebelumnya.
Pada abad ke-3 kerabat biologis yang terkait dengan keluarga inti Yesus, tanpa rujukan eksplisit pada saudara-saudara atau saudari-saudari, disebut desposyni, dari, bentuk jamak dari δεσπόσυνος, yang berarti "dari atau milik tuan". Istilah tersebut digunakan oleh Sextus Julius Africanus, seorang penulis dari awal abad ke-3.
Saudara dan saudari Yesus
Penamaan lengkap saudara-saudara Yesus hanya dicatat 1 kali dalam Injil Matius (pasal 13) dan 1 kali dalam Injil Markus (pasal 6) dalam konteks yang sama:
Ayat lainnya pada Galatia 1:19 menyebutkan "Yakobus, saudara Tuhan Yesus". Sebutan "saudara-saudara Tuhan" juga tercatat pada 1 Korintus 9:5 bersamaan dengan disebutnya Kefas. Beberapa akademisi mengklaim bahwa para kerabat Yesus itu kemungkinan memegang posisi otoritas di Yerusalem sampai Kaisar Trajan membangun kembali kota baru tersebut di atas reruntuhannya.
Pandangan bahwa saudara-saudara tersebut adalah anak-anak kandung Maria dan Yusuf dipegang oleh beberapa orang dari abad-abad awal; The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church mengklaim bahwa Tertullian (c. 160 - 225) adalah salah satu dari mereka. Kaum Antidikomarianit ("para penentang Maria") dari abad ke-3 meyakini bahwa saat Yusuf menjadi suami Maria, ia adalah seorang duda dengan 6 anak, dan ia menjalin hubungan suami istri yang normal dengan Maria, tetapi mereka kemudian menyatakan bahwa Yesus tidak dilahirkan dari hubungan ini. Bonosus adalah seorang uskup dari Sardica yang pada akhir abad ke-4 menyatakan bahwa Maria memiliki anak-anak lainnya selain Yesus, sehingga para uskup lain dari provinsinya mengutuk dia. Jovinian, dan berbagai pengajar Arianisme seperti Photinus memegang sebuah pandangan serupa. Saat Helvidius menyatakannya kembali pada akhir abad ke-4, Hieronimus — mewakili pandangan umum dari Gereja — menyatakan bahwa Maria tetap selalu perawan; ia berpendapat bahwa mereka yang disebut para saudara dan saudari Yesus sebenarnya adalah anak-anak dari saudari Maria, Maria yang lain, yang dianggapnya sebagai istri Klopas. Istilah "saudara" (laki-laki) dan "saudari" (perempuan) sebagaimana digunakan dalam konteks ini terbuka bagi berbagai penafsiran yang berbeda; ada yang berpendapat anak-anak Yusuf dari perkawinan sebelumnya (pandangan Epifanius dari Salamis), anak-anak saudari Maria (pandangan Hieronimus), anak-anak Klopas, yang mana menurut Hegesippus adalah saudara Yusuf, ataupun anak-anak seorang perempuan yang bukan saudari Maria ibu Yesus (sebuah usulan modern).
Sebagai para pemimpin Gereja
Menurut Robert W. Funk, pendiri Jesus Seminar, Injil Markus menunjukkan bahwa pada awalnya para saudara dan ibu Yesus skeptis atau menolak Yesus namun kemudian menjadi bagian dari gerakan Kekristenan. Yakobus, "saudara Tuhan", memimpin Gereja di Yerusalem (Uskup Yerusalem yang pertama) setelah para rasul menyebar dan kerabat lainnya mungkin menjalankan kepemimpinan di antara umat Kristen di daerah tersebut sampai Kaisar Hadrian membangun Aelia Capitolina di atas reruntuhan Yerusalem dan mengusir semua orang Yahudi dari sana (c. 135), di mana setelah itu umat Kristen Yerusalem sepenuhnya hidup dalam "pembuangan".
Menurut The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ketika Rasul Petrus pergi dari Yerusalem, Yakobus saudara Tuhan (Yakobus Muda) menjadi pemimpin Gereja di Yerusalem dan sangat dihormati oleh umat Kristen Yahudi. Hegesippus (c. 110–c. 180) melaporkan bahwa ia kemudian dieksekusi oleh Sanhedrin pada tahun 62.
Referensi dari Sextus Julius Africanus atas "desposyni" (kerabat sedarah Yesus yang terkait dengan keluarga inti-Nya) tercatat dalam Historia Ecclesiastica karya Eusebius dari Kaisarea. Eusebius juga menyimpan sebuah ekstraksi dari karya Hegesippus, yang menuliskan 5 buku Commentaries on the Acts of the Church (kini telah hilang kecuali beberapa kutipan oleh Eusebius). Ekstraksi tersebut merujuk pada masa pemerintahan Domitianus (81-96) sampai dengan Trajan (98-117), dan memuat pernyataan bahwa 2 desposyni yang dibawa ke hadapan Domitianus kemudian menjadi para pemimpin Gereja.
Tingkatan kekerabatan dengan Yesus
Perjanjian Baru mencatat Yakobus, Yoses, Simon, dan Yudas sebagai saudara-saudara Yesus (Markus 6:3, Matius 13:55, Yohanes 7:3, Kisah 1:14, 1 Korintus 9:5).
Etimologi
Etimologi atau asal dari kata "saudara" (adelphos) awalnya berasal dari "dari rahim yang sama" (a-delphys), namun dalam penggunaan pada Perjanjian Baru, terdapat pengertian yang lebih luas akan "saudara" di kalangan Yahudi dan Kekristenan, bahkan diterapkan juga pada sesama anggota komunitas religius yang sama. Dalam Alkitab, kata-kata Yunani adelphos dan adelphe tidak terbatas pada arti harafiah kata-kata tersebut sebagai saudara atau saudari kandung, ataupun bentuk jamaknya.
Sejak awal telah ada beberapa pandangan seputar penerapan istilah Yunani adelphos pada orang-orang yang digambarkan sebagai adelphoi Yesus apakah berarti bahwa mereka saudara kandung, saudara tiri, atau saudara sepupu. Helvidius, dengan mengutip Tertullian untuk mendukung pandangannya, mengklaim bahwa adelphoi tersebut adalah anak-anak Maria dan Yusuf yang lahir setelah Yesus (adik-adik Yesus); namun Hieronimus menjawab bahwa Tertullian "bukanlah milik Gereja", dan ia berpendapat bahwa adelphoi tersebut adalah sepupu-sepupu Yesus. Untuk mendukung pandangan ini terkadang dicatat bahwa Yakobus (Yakub Iakobos), sebagai yang sulung di antara "saudara-saudara" tersebut, mengambil nama ayahnya Yusuf (juga Yakobus, Iakobos dalam silsilah Yesus menurut Injil Matius), di mana dalam Kitab Suci nama seorang cucu terkadang menggunakan nama kakeknya.
Istilah adelphos (saudara dalam arti umum) berbeda dengan anepsios (sepupu, keponakan). Hegesippus, penulis Kristen dari abad ke-2, membedakan antara mereka yang adalah anepsioi Yesus dan adelphoi-Nya. Namun bahasa ibu dari Yesus dan para murid-Nya adalah Aramaik (seperti tercatat dalam Matius 27:46, Markus 5:41), yang mana tidak dapat membedakan antara seorang saudara atau saudari kandung dan seorang sepupu. Bahasa Aram, seperti juga bahasa Ibrani Klasik, tidak mempunyai kosakata untuk "sepupu".
Tahu Diri Dong
Tahu Diri Dong adalah film drama komedi Indonesia yang diproduksi pada tanggal 1 Januari 1984 dengan disutradarai oleh Arizal dan dibintangi antara lain oleh Warkop DKI, Eva Arnaz, serta Lydia Kandou.
Saudara-saudara Yesus
Etimologi
Bahasa Ibrani dan Aramaik cenderung menggunakan perifrasa untuk menunjukkan hubungan darah, menyebut beberapa orang sebagai "saudara-saudara Yesus" tidak selalu menyiratkan ibu biologis yang sama. Tetapi, "anak-anak dari ibu Yesus" digunakan untuk menunjukkan seorang ibu yang sama. Para teolog dan akademisi yang menyatakan pandangan ini menunjukkan bahwa Yesus disebut "anak Maria" ( the son of Mary), bukannya "seorang anak Maria" ( a son of Mary), di tempat asal-Nya (Markus 6:3).