Testemunhos sobre o teólogo J. B. Libânio

J. B. Libânio. A trajetória de um teólogo brasileiro. Testemunhos

No ano do cinquentenário do início do Concílio Vaticano II e dos 40 anos do lançamento do livro Teologia da Libertação de Gustavo Gutierrez que abriu um novo e inédito panorama teológico na América Latina e no mundo, celebramos os 80 anos de vida de um teólogo brasileiro, João Batista Libânio. Os testemunhos publicados nesta edição da IHU On-Line descrevem esta trajetória. Contribuem para o debate Leonardo Boff, José Oscar Beozzo, Faustino Teixeira, Carlos Roberto Drawin, Pedro Rubens, Luiz Carlos Susin, Maria Teresa Bustamante Teixeira, Geraldo De Mori e J. B. Libânio.

Fonte: IHU On-Line 394 – Ano XII – 28.05.2012

Selo de argila do século VII a.C. menciona Belém

Toda descoberta arqueológica em Jerusalém gera controvérsias. Esta também.

:: Earliest Archaeological Evidence of the Existence of the City of Bethlehem already in the First Temple Period (May 2012) – IAA

The first ancient artifact constituting tangible evidence of the existence of the city of Bethlehem, which is mentioned in the Bible, was recently discovered in Jerusalem.

A bulla measuring c. 1.5 cm was found during the sifting of soil removed from archaeological excavations the Israel Antiquities Authority is carrying out in the City of David. The sifting is underwritten by the ‘Ir David Foundation’ in a project being conducted in the Emek Tzurim National Park.

A bulla is a piece of clay that was used for sealing a document or object. The bulla was impressed with the seal of the person who sent the document or object, and its integrity was evidence the document or object was not opened by anyone unauthorized to do so.

Three lines of ancient Hebrew script appear on the bulla:
בשבעת Bishv’at
בת לחם Bat Lechem
[למל]ך [Lemel]ekh

According to Eli Shukron, director of the excavation on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority, “it seems that in the seventh year of the reign of a king (it is unclear if the king referred to here is Hezekiah, Manasseh or Josiah), a shipment was dispatched from Bethlehem to the king in Jerusalem. The bulla we found belongs to the group of “fiscal” bullae – administrative bullae used to seal tax shipments remitted to the taxation system of the Kingdom of Judah in the late eighth and seventh centuries BCE. The tax could have been paid in the form of silver or agricultural produce such as wine or wheat”. Shukron emphasizes,” this is the first time the name Bethlehem appears outside the Bible, in an inscription from the First Temple period, which proves that Bethlehem was indeed a city in the Kingdom of Judah, and possibly also in earlier periods”.

In the Bible Bethlehem is first mentioned in the verse “in Ephrath, which is Bethlehem”, and it was on the way there that Rachel died and it is where she was buried (Genesis 35:19; 48:7). The descendants of Judah settled there, among them the family of Boaz (Book of Ruth).

 

More on the so-called ‘Bethlehem’ Bulla – George Athas: 25/05/2012

Since the original announcement by the Israel Antiquities Authority, there has been a flurry of discussion about the new bulla which, it is claimed, refers to Bethlehem. In my previous blog article, I mentioned that the photograph accompanying the announcement didn’t seem to allow for a reference to Bethlehem. At the same time, however, I mentioned that photographs of inscriptions like these can distort critical features. Hence, I called for some extra eyes to take a look at the bulla and let us know what they see.

Today comes news (via an email from Joseph Lauer) that Shmuel Ahituv (Ben Gurion University) inspected the bulla and in the second register he reads the following letters:

[…]יתלח[…]

According to Ahituv, the first fragmentary letter is not a ב (b), as originally reported by Eli Shukron, but a י (y). Furthermore, he claims that though they are slight there are traces of a left vertical stroke on the final extant letter, yielded a ח (ḥ) rather than ה (h). Accordingly, he concludes that the second register does indeed refer to Bethlehem (ביתלחם).

Ahituv is a trusty epigrapher. He’s the author of the Carta Handbook, Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Biblical Period, and he knows his stuff. It’s good to see that we have an actual epigrapher looking at the bulla. One wonders why his opinion was not included prominently in the IAA’s original announcement. I’m more than happy to retract my preliminary conclusion on the bulla, but before doing so, I’d like to hear from one or two other epigraphers who can inspect the bulla itself. Chris Rollston, you’re up!

This raises the issue of the way epigraphic finds are announced. It would seem sound practice to employ two independent epigraphers and have their opinions accompany any such announcement. This is especially vital when the published photograph seems to speak against the announcement.

 

Drawing of the ‘Bethlehem’ Bulla – George Athas: 29/05/2012

There is a facsimile drawing of the so-called ‘Bethlehem’ bulla now available. It has been produced by Pnina Arad.

According to the drawing, the first register contains a triangular-shaped ʿayin (ע) and the lower fragment of a taw (ת), yielding the word בשבעת (bšbʿt), meaning ‘in the seventh (year)’. The second register has the leftmost portions of a yodh (י) as the first extant letter. The fourth visible letter has been drawn as a ḥeth (ח), though apparently the vertical stroke in the top left has been broken off. The proposed reading is ביתלחם (bytlḥm), referring to the toponym Bethlehem. The third register has only one extant letter, but on the basis of other fiscal bullae, has been reconstructed as למלך (lmlk), meaning ‘for the king’.

So it looks like the bulla probably does refer to Bethlehem after all. Nevertheless, a personal inspection by another epigrapher (in addition to Shmuel Ahituv) would still be good to double-check.

Uma hipótese neodocumentária do Pentateuco?

Um professor de Antigo Testamento da Yale Divinity School, USA, Joel S. Baden, acaba de publicar um livro sobre o Pentateuco com um título que chama a atenção: A composição do Pentateuco: renovando a hipótese documentária.

BADEN, J. S. The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012, 392 p. – ISBN 9780300152630

Em artigo na revista online The Bible and InterpretationThe Re-Emergence of Source Criticism: The Neo-Documentary Hypothesis – ele argumenta que a Hipótese Documentária, abandonada por boa parte da pesquisa nos últimos 40 anos, está ressurgindo em nova e mais fundamentada forma. Ela está novamente ocupando o seu lugar como uma importante teoria sobre a composição do Pentateuco.

Entretanto, lendo o artigo, fiquei decepcionado. O que começo a notar é que a proposta hipótese neodocumentária “foge da briga” para manter viva a hipótese documentária. Por um lado, várias perguntas fundamentais da hipótese documentária são consideradas inúteis e ultrapassadas. Isto aparece nos sete argumentos colocados pelo autor. E, por outro lado, termino a leitura sem saber muito bem que o propõe a “hipótese neodocumentária”. Só se isto estiver claro no livro. Quem sabe?

Ao ler o artigo de Joel S. Baden, não deixe de conferir os comentários de  Niels Peter Lemche, Philip Davies, Matt Lynch, Martin Shields.

Trechos do artigo que chamaram minha atenção? Por exemplo:

:: In short, the Documentary Hypothesis is regaining its place as a viable, productive, and current approach to the Pentateuch.

:: This is not to say, however, that the Documentary Hypothesis of the early twentieth century is simply being restated. On the contrary: one of the main contributions of more recent source-critical work has been the identification and correction of the methodological problems that plagued earlier scholarship—the very problems which, it is fair to say, contributed significantly if not primarily to the move away from the Documentary Hypothesis in Europe in recent generations. Two of these methodological problems are worthy of particular attention: the question of stylistic differences as a means of distinguishing among the sources, and the question of similarity of content among the various sources.

:: Thus the very correct criticisms of anti-documentary scholars from the earliest days of the theory until our own time are not necessarily grounds for dismissing the whole hypothesis; they are, rather, a call to refine and revise the methods employed by scholars when describing and applying the hypothesis. When such refinements and revisions are undertaken, as they have been recently, the Documentary Hypothesis regains its place as the most economical, comprehensive explanation for the literary phenomena of the canonical Pentateuch.

:: David Wright has termed the recent source-critical approach the “Neo-Documentary Hypothesis,” a label which is gaining some use among its adherents and others. What, then, is the shape of the Neo-Documentary Hypothesis? How does it differ from its earlier incarnation; how does it take into account the methodological problems of classical documentary scholarship; how does it help us to better understand the composition of the Pentateuch?

:: Why the Pentateuch is incoherent: that is the driving question of all critical enquiries into the composition of the text, and the Neo-Documentary Hypothesis is the most comprehensive and economical answer to that question.

Leia Mais:
Hauser bate forte na teoria das fontes do Pentateuco
A História de Israel no debate atual
Pentateuco 2011: ainda sem um novo consenso

Um aclamado comentário ao Evangelho de Marcos

Um aclamado comentário ao Evangelho de Marcos, publicado em 2002, está agora disponível em paperback.

MOLONEY, F. J. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012, xviii + 398 p. – ISBN 9780801048418.

Este é um comentário bem documentado, com extensas notas de rodapé e duas dezenas de páginas de bibliografia. Quem desejar uma abordagem mais simplificada ao Evangelho de Marcos, pode consultar, do mesmo autor,  Mark: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist, de 2004. Também muito elogiado.

Diz a editora:

“The Gospel of Mark, addressed to an early Christian community perplexed by failure and suffering, presents Jesus as suffering Messiah and Son of God. Recognizing that failure and suffering continue to perplex Christians today, world-renowned New Testament scholar and theologian Francis Moloney marries the rich contributions of traditional historical scholarship with the contemporary approach to the Gospels as narrative. Now in paperback [Hardcover: 2002 – Reviewed by Heike Omerzu – RBL: 07/01/2006], this commentary combines the highest-level scholarship with pastoral sensitivity. It offers an accessible and thoughtful reading of Mark’s narrative to bring the Gospel’s story to life for contemporary readers. Francis J. Moloney is the author of many books, including Mark: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004,  xiv + 224 p. – ISBN 1565635132 [Reviewed by Heike Omerzu – RBL: 06/17/2006, and by William Sanger Campbell – RBL: 04/01/2006]”.

Leia Mais:
Mês da Bíblia 2012: O Evangelho de Marcos – bibliografia sobre Marcos