HÁ PAPIROS MUITO ANTIGOS (ANTERIORES AOS MMS VATICANUS E SINAITICUS) ATESTANDO MAIS O TR QUE O TC

Caro irmão WWWW
 
Quando a Crítica Textual estava no seu auge, os mais ousados críticos disseram que somente uma coisa os faria mudar de idéia: se manuscritos comprovadamente mais antigos que Vaticanus e Sinaiticus fossem achados, e estes atestassem mais o Texto Bizantino que o Texto Crítico. Bem, este fato, que eles julgavam impossível de ocorrer, realmente veio a acontecer: uma série de papiros ou de fragmentos de papiros veio a lume e, para grande surpresa e desgosto dos críticos, realmente atestaram muito mais o TR do que o TC. Mas os críticos desconversam, propositadamente ignoram todos esses papiros e fragmentos, não cumprem a promessa, mostram as garras do que realmente são, e renunciam a todo disfarce de honestidade e imparcialidade intelectual e moral.
Estes papiros são P45, P46, os papiros Chester Beatty Papyri e P66, ambos da Bodmer Library Collection.

Há na Internet um série de artigos que trata de todo este assunto com muito mais detalhes, embora sejam difíceis de localizar porque este é um detalhe menor que não se reflete no título dos artigos. Um deles, embora curto, é http://www.tecmalta.org/tft119.htm . Será que dá para o irmão o traduzir? Poderia, pelo menos, traduzir o trecho abaixo?

Um fato que tem que ser enfatizado é este: O tipo de texto Bizantino tem a irresistível sustentação dos manuscritos em grego que sobreexistem até hoje (acima de 95% deles)!

Os mais antigos papiros têm uma leitura distintamente Bizantina. [Os papiros] P45, e P46, e os Chester Beatty Papyri, e P66, da Bodmer Library Collection, contêm leituras assim [Bizantinas].150 leituras Bizantinas podem ser clara e indubitavelmente vistas nos mais antigos papiros. A conclusão é: As leituras Bizantinas podem ser rastreadas tão para trás, no tempo, quanto o século II [os anos 100 a 199, havendo mesmo um pequeno fragmento do ano 75 d.C.], o que é contrário a [e aniquila] a asserção de Westcott e Hort de que a família Bizantina de manuscritos seria uma edição eclesiástica de [fabricada em] o quarto século e [depois] valorizados de uma forma exagerada [e equivocada, errônea].
 

Deus o abençoe.

Hélio.

PS: Segue o artigo completo, seria ótimo se você o traduzisse para mim:




The preservation of the Textus Receptus

This article will tackle two main questions: What is the Textus Receptus? And, How it was preserved?

The Byzantine text-type receives its name from its early association with Constantinople, formerly known as Byzantium. It became the standard text of the church throughout its history since Nicea (by far most of our extant manuscripts go back to the early fourth century and no further).

Before having its connection with Byzantium, though, this form of text (in contrast with the Alexandrian which is largely corrupt by Gnostic interpolations) was associated with the capital of the Roman province of Syria, Antioch. The Cappadocian Fathers, Theodoret of Cyrus and Chrysostom among others are known to have used it regularly.

A fact that must be emphasized is this: The Byzantine text-type has overwhelming support from the extant Greek manuscripts (over 95%)!

The early papyri are distinctively Byzantine in reading. P45, P46, the Chester Beatty Papyri and P66 of the Bodmer Library Collection contain such readings. 150 Byzantine readings can be clearly in indubitably seen in the early papyri. The conclusion: the Byzantine readings can be traced as far back as the second century, contrary to the assertion of Westcott and Hort that the Byzantine family of manuscripts are an inflated ecclesiastical edition of the fourth century.

The sure evidence for the integrity of the Byzantine manuscripts continues in the Uncials: the fifth century Codices Alexandrinus (a-02; Byzantine in the Gospels), and Ephraemi (C-01), and in practically all the later ones.

Fuller support for the Byzantine manuscripts is found in the Minuscules, since nearly all of these are Byzantine in their readings!

Proof that the Byzantine text is the genuine and preserved text:

1. It is supported by the early versions: the Syriac (or Aramaic) and Latin versions; the Peshitta and the Gothic. Some of these go back to the mid-second century.

2. It is confirmed by the early Fathers: Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), Irenaeus (130-200), Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD), Tertullian (160-220 AD), Hippolytus (170-235 AD ) and even Origen (185-254 AD) quote repeatedly from the Majority Text, that is, the Byzantine.

Undoubtedly Satan made his attempt to corrupt the pure Word of God (as he still does today), and this corruption made itself felt in the earliest times, but the pure waters generally prevailed. “The Tradition is also carried on through the majority of the Fathers who succeeded them. There is no break or interval: the witness is continuous” (Edward Miller, quoted in Burgon’s The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels vindicated and established). The same scholar calculates that quotations of the Fathers in the first 400 years of Christianity agree with the Majority Text 2,630 times while other quotations agree with other texts only 1,753 times.

3. The printed Greek New Testament continued the godly Tradition of the Byzantine text. It is well known that Erasmus used representative Byzantine manuscripts for the publication of his edition of the Greek New Testament. Robert Estienne (Latinized as Stephanus) after him, as well as all the others (Theodore Beza, Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir) used the same text. The church universal had been using that text throughout the centuries. That was the New Testament and no other!

The phrase Textus Receptus originated in Elzevirs’ second edition, published in 1633, which contains the words: “Therefore you have a text now received by all, in which we give no alteration or corruption.” Thus: the Received Text (that is, received from antiquity).

As the Old Testament was committed to the Jews for safe-keeping, the church received this heritage from the old covenant-people of God and in turn became the guardian and custodian of both the Old and the New Testament. The question therefore simply is: which text-type, generally speaking, has been recognized and propagated by the church from earliest times? The unequivocal answer is: The Textus Receptus!

[Por que os "altos escalões" dos seminários, da AIBREB - Associação das Igrejas Batistas Regulares do Brasil, e associações estaduais (APIBRE, AIBRECE, etc.) das Igrejas Batistas Regulares, ao invés de estudarem + agradecerem + aprofundarem + divulgarem alertas como este, os temem tanto e tentam a todo custo proibir que se os façam ante todos os membros de suas igrejas batistas regulares?!?! Hélio, 2011]

 

Só use as duas Bíblias traduzidas rigorosamente por equivalência formal a partir do Textus Receptus (que é a exata impressão das palavras perfeitamente inspiradas e preservadas por Deus), dignas herdeiras das KJB-1611, Almeida-1681, etc.: a ACF-2011 (Almeida Corrigida Fiel) e a LTT (Literal do Texto Tradicional), que v. pode ler e obter em BibliaLTT.org, com ou sem notas).



(Copie e distribua ampla mas gratuitamente, mantendo o nome do autor e pondo link para esta página de http://solascriptura-tt.org)




(retorne a http://solascriptura-tt.org/ Bibliologia-PreservacaoTT/
retorne a http:// solascriptura-tt.org/ )