airtonjo

Nem me atrevo a comentar. A não ser com um estereótipo: “possa ser”… Se, se, se… seriam partes de várias palavras de Mc 5,15-18. Será mesmo? Ou será o Photoshop desfilando na Marquês de Sapucaí, em deslumbrante fantasia?

Veja aqui.

Acabei de ver a notícia no blog Evangelical Textual Criticism, no post First century Mark fragment and extensive papyrus/i? e, em seguida, no comentário deixado no post anterior por Nehemias, do blog Ad Cummulus.

Dan Wallace, que anunciara a descoberta de um fragmento do evangelho de Marcos, do século I, e que causou grande rumor na biblioblogostera, resolveu esclarecer, parcialmente, do que se trata.

No site do DTS (Dallas Theological Seminary), leio: First Century Manuscript? Clarification statement about the discovery of several New Testament papyri – By Dr. Wallace: February 9, 2012 [Nota de esclarecimento sobre a descoberta de vários papiros do Novo Testamento – Por Dr. Wallace: 9 de fevereiro de 2012]

Ele diz que em 01/02/2012, em debate com Bart Ehrman na Universidade da Carolina do Norte em Chapel Hill, na presença de mais de mil pessoas, mencionou a descoberta recente de sete papiros do Novo Testamento, sendo seis provavelmente do século II e um deles do século I. Estes fragmentos serão publicados em cerca de um ano.

Assim, ele diz, hoje temos 18 manuscritos do Novo Testamento provenientes do século II e um do século I. Pouco mais de 43% de todos os versículos do Novo Testamento estão nestes manuscritos [nos 19, segundo entendi].

Mas o mais interessante é o fragmento do século I. Ele foi datado por um dos mais importantes paleógrafos do mundo. Ele disse estar ‘certo’ de que é do século I. Se isto for verdadeiro, este seria o mais antigo fragmento do Novo Testamento conhecido. Até agora ninguém descobrira um manuscrito do Novo Testamento proveniente do século I. O mais antigo manuscrito do Novo Testamento, descoberto em 1934, é o P52, um pequeno fragmento do Evangelho de João, datado da primeira metade do século II.

E isso não é tudo. O fragmento é do Evangelho de Marcos. Antes dele, o mais antigo manuscrito que traz Marcos é o P45, da primeira metade do século III (ca. 200-250). Este novo fragmento é cerca de 100 a 150 anos mais antigo do que o P45.

E o texto continua especulando sobre a contribuição que estes manuscritos poderiam trazer para o nosso conhecimento do texto do Novo Testamento.

Os interessados podem acompanhar o debate nos comentários dos biblioblogs. Li, por enquanto, apenas os que estão sendo feitos em Evangelical Textual Criticism e os achei interessantes. Segundo Tommy Wasserman, os papiros viriam de uma desconhecida coleção particular de Istambul que começou a ser pesquisada pelo Dr. Carroll em novembro de 2011 [“Now in Istanbul looking at a collection of unpublished papyri (…) For over 100 years the earliest known text of the New Testament has been the so-call John Rylands Papyrus. Not any more. Stay tuned…”]

Como dissera no post anterior: gato escaldado… mas, fiquem ligados!

O texto completo do Dr. Dan Wallace, em inglês, diz:

On 1 February 2012, I debated Bart Ehrman at UNC Chapel Hill on whether we have the wording of the original New Testament today. This was our third such debate, and it was before a crowd of more than 1000 people. I mentioned that seven New Testament papyri had recently been discovered—six of them probably from the second century and one of them probably from the first. These fragments will be published in about a year.

These fragments now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century and one from the first. Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the first-century fragment.

It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century. If this is true, it would be the oldest fragment of the New Testament known to exist. Up until now, no one has discovered any first-century manuscripts of the New Testament. The oldest manuscript of the New Testament has been P52, a small fragment from John’s Gospel, dated to the first half of the second century. It was discovered in 1934.

Not only this, but the first-century fragment is from Mark’s Gospel. Before the discovery of this fragment, the oldest manuscript that had Mark in it was P45, from the early third century (c. AD 200–250). This new fragment would predate that by 100 to 150 years.

How do these manuscripts change what we believe the original New Testament to say? We will have to wait until they are published next year, but for now we can most likely say this: As with all the previously published New Testament papyri (127 of them, published in the last 116 years), not a single new reading has commended itself as authentic. Instead, the papyri function to confirm what New Testament scholars have already thought was the original wording or, in some cases, to confirm an alternate reading—but one that is already found in the manuscripts. As an illustration: Suppose a papyrus had the word “the Lord” in one verse while all other manuscripts had the word “Jesus.” New Testament scholars would not adopt, and have not adopted, such a reading as authentic, precisely because we have such abundant evidence for the original wording in other manuscripts. But if an early papyrus had in another place “Simon” instead of “Peter,” and “Simon” was also found in other early and reliable manuscripts, it might persuade scholars that “Simon” is the authentic reading. In other words, the papyri have confirmed various readings as authentic in the past 116 years, but have not introduced new authentic readings. The original New Testament text is found somewhere in the manuscripts that have been known for quite some time.

These new papyri will no doubt continue that trend. But, if this Mark fragment is confirmed as from the first century, what a thrill it will be to have a manuscript that is dated within the lifetime of many of the eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection!