Johnny José Mafra

Resenha: JOSEPHUS, Flavius. Autobiografia, 1981. JOSEPHUS, Flavius. Defesa dos Judeus contra Apion e outros caluniadores, 1986.

Introduction

Resenha: josephus, flavius. Autobiografia, 1981. Josephus, flavius. Defesa dos judeus contra apion e outros caluniadores, 1986.. Resenha das obras 'Autobiografia' (1981) e 'Defesa dos Judeus contra Apion' (1986) de Flavius Josephus. Análise crítica e legado do historiador.

Abstract

A existência de duas traduções brasileiras da Teogonia, editadas nos últimos anos, demonstra o interesse que o texto de Hesiodo é capaz de provocar ainda. São trabalhos de índole e objetivos diferentes, merecendo ambos aplausos pela oportunidade de seu aparecimento.

Review

This article is presented as a "Resenha" (review), aiming to critically examine two specific Brazilian translations of works by Flavius Josephus: *Autobiografia* (1981) and *Defesa dos Judeus contra Apion e outros caluniadores* (1986). However, a significant and immediate discrepancy arises when considering the provided abstract. Instead of discussing these works by Josephus, the abstract focuses entirely on "duas traduções brasileiras da Teogonia" by Hesiod, published "nos últimos anos." This fundamental mismatch between the stated subject of the review in the title and the content described in the abstract presents a critical problem for understanding the article's scope and purpose. Evaluating the abstract in isolation reveals further limitations. While it acknowledges the continued interest in Hesiod's *Theogony*, as evidenced by two recent Brazilian translations, and applauds their timely appearance and differing approaches, it lacks any specific details crucial for a review. There is no mention of the translators, the specific publication years or presses, or what precisely constitutes their "different natures and objectives." Moreover, the abstract offers no critical insight or comparative analysis of these translations; it merely celebrates their existence. Such a general statement falls short of outlining the specific arguments, findings, or critical assessments expected from an academic review. In conclusion, the severe inconsistency between the article's title, which clearly identifies a review of Josephus's works, and the abstract, which discusses Hesiod's *Theogony*, makes it impossible to adequately assess this submission. This points to either a fundamental error in content presentation or a lack of careful editorial oversight. For the article to be publishable, it is imperative that the abstract be completely revised to accurately reflect the content suggested by the title, providing concrete details about the reviewed works, the scope of the critique, and the main arguments presented in the review itself. Without this crucial correction, the abstract fails to serve its primary function of informing potential readers about the article's actual subject matter and contribution.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.