Costos y Presupuestos en Edificacion - CAPECO

Baltic Worlds, 2024

Commemoration in Russia of Navalny, also one person with one life, revealed historical continuity with the pain of the past, but perhaps more importantly established a sense of community with those who suffered before us. When the first flowers appeared in front of previously desolate memorials to victims of political oppression, grief mixed with hope to create an unexpected feeling of togetherness.

Interpretation, 2019

The so-called "Suffering Servant" of Isaiah 52:15-53:12 takes on new meaning in each of his settings, from the exilic or early post-exilic community of Deutero-Isaiah, to the repurposing of this figure by the author of Daniel, mid-second century BCE during the persecutions of Jews by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, through the numerous New Testament citations of and allusions to Jesus as fulfilling Isaiah's predictions concerning this servant, and on to several post-biblical Jewish understandings of this enigmatic figure. In showing how and why the servant receives such numerous readings, we demonstrate both how readers across the centuries and within different traditions understand Isaiah through their own circumstances, and why Jews and Christians should respect each other's readings rather than attempt to "prove" the truth of one tradition on the basis of a specific understanding of prophecy. Isaiah 52:13-53:12 may be interpreted in multiple ways; nevertheless, as the late scholar Brevard Childs observed: "The initial responsibility of an Old Testament commentary is initially and above all the attempt to hear Israel's own voice in the plain sense of the text." 1 This is what we shall do, first by reading Isa 52:13-53:12 as an oracle of comfort to the exilic (or early post-exilic) Judean community. We believe that Isaiah's "servant" initially referred to an individual living in Babylon, whose vicarious suffering explains why Israel deserves forgiveness for the grievous sins that caused its exile. Placed in the broader narrative of Isaiah 40-55, where the prophet speaks of "Israel my servant" (41:8; cf. 49:3) and "Jacob my servant" (44:1, 2), the figure can be seen as a symbol for the nation exiled and then restored. This servant, who remains otherwise unidentified, will gain central importance in the history of interpretation for both Jews and Christians.

Complex numbers extend the concept of real numbers by introducing the imaginary unit. While real numbers lie on a one-dimensional number line, complex numbers reside in a two-dimensional plane known as the complex plane. The real part of a complex number corresponds to the horizontal axis, and the imaginary part corresponds to the vertical axis.

Archaeological study of the Neolithic of Central Anatolia started seriously in the 1950s with pioneers from the British Institute of Archaeology. After 60 years of intensive research, especially at Çatalhöyük, Aşıklı and Can Hasan, it became clear that the region had a far-reaching impact on both Near Eastern and Anatolian archaeology. The early years of the Mellaart era yielded spectacular discoveries that have yet to be surpassed, as the iconic Fat Lady figurines, paintings, and reliefs on the walls of elaborate shrines showed a different and more developed phase of the Neolithic universe and triggered the development of different theories pertaining to egalitarian and urban society. The scope of Çatalhöyük Research Project resulted in a better understanding of the settlement's spatial extent and changes over time, as interpreted in social and regional terms. On the other hand, the first real attempt at discussing the Central Anatolian Neolithic started only with the CANeW (Central Anatolian e-Workshop) project. The 2001 meeting allowed the results of previous research to be summarized and Central Anatolia to be placed in the context of Neolithic lifeways on a pan-regional scale. As it has now been more than 20 years since this meeting was held, there is a need for a new synthesis that takes into consideration both the work carried out during this period and changes in the domain of archaeological praxis. How has it progressed with intensive excavations of Boncuklu, Çatalhöyük, and Cappadocian sites, primarily Aşıklı Höyük, taking into account a variety of new discoveries, the use of innovative methods and techniques, and an open access policy that makes the data available to the public? How far has the Çatalhöyük and Boncuklu Research Projects influenced our understanding of the Anatolian Neolithic in the "grand picture" of cultural history between East and West? The session is also aimed at presenting current work at Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic sites, as evidenced by new excavations (Canhasan, Gökhöyük) and many intensive surveys over the last 10 years.