The Apes' Survey (10): The Ocean of Truth

“For a long time I thought that
absence was lacking;
and, ignorant, pitied the lack.
Today I don’t pity.
There is no shortage in absence.
Absence is being in me"
(Carlos Drummond de Andrade)

Ugly Duckling's words, if it were really him, brought the most tangible response to the questions raised by the Monkeys during their investigation. Hence his departure filled their hearts with the most piercing grief. They felt it like the greatest of all losses that may afflict one’s mind. It transcended even the disappearance of a child.
But it is impossible to cross the forest, climb the icy mountain, walk through the desert and down the cliff, and do not acquire resistance to losses. The heroic saga had made the Monkeys intimate of all needs. Of lacks of protection, shelter, heat as well as of water, shade, food. And even of the lack of peace. Every step they had taken, in the long march, had increased the callus of a huge number of deprivations, which made them familiar to the despoilments which animate life. And thought if, at a time like today, when having became the measure of all things, life has not come to be a wire suspended between the neighbor abysses of having and not having.
However, despite the unparalleled conditioning that the march had earned them, the four did not know how to bear that devastating absence, which is the most basic of as many as can exist: the absence of Ugly Duckling. How, why had he departed, after having helped them so much in the lancinating trance of the investigation? Why love, which binds souls, is so fragile, so ready to unleash and to transform presence in absence, climax in anticlimax, all in nothing?
Whipped by these questions, they felt yet another absence: that of immediate remedy for the pain of living. While in the forest, glacier, desert and the woods they had found solace for every evil, there seemed to be no solution for the sharp pain of absence. And in that state of mind, thought they would better withdraw to silence and resume the walk to the sea.
But the day threatened to decline. So they waited for a better occasion to do so. In the meantime, filled up with fruits of the forest and Amphibians of the lake. And as the moon kept aloof, slept as soon as the last rays of sun vanished.
And when trees still dripped the water of the night, as tears poured from heaven, and dawn had not begun to spill over the vastness of the forest, nimble, the four ate some fruit, quaffed sips of the balm that vegetation had collected in its chalices and resumed marching. Skirted the cliff face that looked to the lake and went down to the sea.
They were about to leave the forest, when heard the crowing of a Rooster. Looked around, but half-light still reigned, and they found nothing. Another small lapse, and heard the singing once more. This time they noticed that the sound came from a point at which half-light thickened into shadow. And they glimpsed the outline of the Fowl that had emitted it.
- Good morning, Rooster! Ware exclaimed, linking the figure to the sounds.
- I wish you a great day! Or a great night, given the gloom, answered the Fowl with a fearful voice.
- It will be difficult to have a good day, but we thank you, replied Shard.
- Why difficult? Rooster asked, noticing the plaintive look of his interlocutor.
- Because yesterday we found a group of beautiful Swans. Conversed with one of them, who revealed what we had talked far from here, in the previous days.
- A visionary Swan? A prophet? marveled the Rooster. Who will believe? And what relation does this have with your sorrow? Did the seer predict mishaps, calamities, misfortunes? Prophesied death to you?
- No, nothing like that, but the way he left us abruptly, after having talked about the evolution of species, shocked us deeply.
- Evolution! again marveled the Rooster, who had calmed down when noticing the suffering of the four. Are you interested in this?
- Yes, and a lot. How about you?
- I inquire the origin of the world and how Roosters have emerged.
- What ideas have you formed about these themes? Ware wondered.
- See this forest? replied the other. Thousands of species inhabit it. If all evolved from other species, the DNA of each one has recorded the changes they experienced. That’s why DNA is the key to the evolutionary process.
The Rooster’s pondering made a lot of sense. Glass accepted the premise just set by him and asked curiously:
- Are you suggesting that DNA analysis can reveal the process of evolution?
- Yes, that's what I think. The analysis already exists and is called gene sequencing. Through it, it has been confirmed that species and larger groups actually descended from one another. To provide one reason for that conclusion, Former Repetitive Elements (FRE), which are scraps of genes that changed position in the DNA, were found in almost the same places in human and Mouse genomes. That couldn't have been reached by chance. Francis Collins, who headed the international Project that sequenced human DNA, said: "Unless you take the position that God has placed these FRE’s in the exact positions they are, in order to confuse and delude us, it is virtually impossible to escape the conclusion that Humans and Mice have a common ancestor."
– Okay! applauded Glass. Evolution is a fact, but what concerns us is the extent of the fact. Weeks ago we started a survey to try to understand the range of evolution and if it left space for the idea of a divine creation. Do living beings have a single common ancestor or are they descendants of several? Do species have multiple ancestors? If they do, were they all of the same species or of multiple ones? Depending on the answers to these questions, the tree of life will be more or less branched. Incidentally, it may no longer remain a tree. May become a web. From a scientific point of view, even creation of living beings by God depends on these answers, not on the existence of evolution, which is a fact.
- Unfortunately, the results of science in this regard, said the Rooster, are still controversial and equivocal. In 1986, based on genetic sequencing, Australian scientist Michael Denton published the most impressive critique of evolution so far. In his book Evolution, a theory in crisis, Denton argued that Macroevolution (evolution of major groups of beings) is in crisis. The main argument for this is genetic equidistance. Denton’s favorite example is the cytochrome of Bacteria, which differs 64% from the Horse’s, 64% from the Pigeon’s, 65% from the cytochrome of the Tuna Fish, 65% from that of the Silkworm, 66% from wheat and 69% from the yeast. As the theory of evolution holds that genes that specify proteins alter at regular speeds, the equidistance of different groups could be interpreted as meaning that all arose at the same time. But the fossils show that this has not occurred, which led Denton to conclude that the theory of evolution of large groups is in crisis.
- But Denton has published another book, Monkey Glass reminded his friend, 12 years after the one you mentioned, in which he explained the process by which Macroevolution occurred.
- Yes, but the central thesis of his last book rests on ideas not so accepted by the scientific community. Moreover, given that Denton did not recant his first book in the last one, they must be considered harmonic, not antagonistic.
Tile intervened:
- But the degree of proof of the main theses of the two books are very distinct. Denton’s first book raised the most crucial questions about evolution, since the days of Darwin. That’s why it must be considered one of the most central works on the subject, from the discovery of DNA to date. Denton's judgement doesn’t seem to be casual nor the result of ideological preferences or incomplete information. Scientist Gert Korthof said that "one cannot understand Neo-Darwinism without fully reading Denton's book, because it spells out the implications of Darwinism in greater detail than I ever found in my teachers or in the books about the theme." And see that this conclusion comes from a scientist who doesn’t adopt Denton’s views on genetic equidistance.
The silence that Tile had held contributed to redouble the attention of the others to his words. Therefore he continued:
– Denton’s first book proposes no solution to the crisis it identifies. But defines the territory where evolution’s final battle will be fought. As well as Genetics explained Microevolution, the battle for Macroevolution will be fought within the field of Molecular Biology, particularly in the territory of DNA sequencing.
- Yes, Glass agreed. And, in that very battle, the involvement of God in the evolutionary process will be decided.
At this point, Shard entered the discussion:
- Despite all the controversy about genetic equidistance of large groups, there is no dispute about the examples that Denton provides of it. The only question is whether the examples are sufficient to refute Macroevolution or are just holes in the theory, which will be eliminated by new discoveries. Most scientists treat them as holes or doubts, though no facts can rule them out. But Denton thinks the examples of equidistance authorize us conclude that Macroevolution is shaken.
Suddenly, an idea flashed in Shard’s mind:
- When he said we’re manuscripts, didn’t the Swan refer to the DNA? Aren’t our cells formed in accordance with the genetic code within them? Isn’t that code usually represented by letters which form a text, a manuscript?
One cannot deny that the idea was luminous. If we assume that an intelligence intervened in the process of modification of species, the DNA will be not only similar to, but even the same as symbols. And that will be the clearest reflection of God in science. It will be the expression of a God who does not throw dice, but writes manuscripts.
Here and there in the investigation, the friends had reached the conviction that science and Macroevolution, in particular, are a totalitarian way of thinking. Reality is squeezed into theories of so vast a range that cannot be verified. And theories so vast and so vague shape our minds, not to mention our customs.
If it is the cause of the explanatory success of science, this circular method of deducing and inducing, and of inducing and deducing again, ad infinitum, does not explain the blindness which afflicts the minds of Men? Upon hearing the double crowing of the Rooster and talking with him, the Monkeys made all these questions over and over. And further inquired whether genetic equidistance cannot be seen as a way to reduce the totalitarian character of Evolution.
- Science both clarifies and obscures minds, Shard said boldly. It may serve libertarian or totalitarian ends. Korthof said: "Denton presents the discontinuity of fossils, living organisms, proteins and DNA as a confirmation of his Typological Model, and his description is very consistent with observations. This is a good thing in science. But science without theories is only a descriptive activity. Proximity to empirical reality is an important criterion of science, but not the only one by which we should judge theories." See that, with these words, Korthof makes facts cede to theory. Thus the old adage resurfaces to torment science: "If facts do not support theory, the worse for them." Is this contempt of facts the genuine scientific wisdom or a logical blunder? Didn’t we consider it a blunder, when we found the Mammoth and the Man and when we discovered the Trilobite within the human footprint? Didn’t conclude several times that it’s a real blunder? Didn’t we do so while talking with the Peacock and the Bear? The great evil, the inescapable torment, is that the blunder makes science illusory.
Potshard immediately agreed:
– And the stones? Didn’t they tell us that faith in God has been neglected? Didn’t suggest that the negligence is due to ignorance of faith’s practical meaning? And the Donkey didn’t say the same thing? Didn’t we see in the manuscripts that the Bible’s description of creation may have interpretations quite different from the ones science has refuted?
The conversation was lively, but the sun was high. So the friends said goodbye to the Rooster, who greeted them in a way that sounded quite strange:
- Remember the crowings of our race!

The Monkeys then covered the small distance that separated them from the ocean. Within minutes, they reached the shore and faced the enormity of the waters. The incredible scenery inspired Shard to question:
- The truth we seek isn’t like the ocean?
- And don’t we know about it only what one can take from the ocean with a gourd? Glass completed.
- What would Ugly Duckling tell us about this? Shard asked.
- Would he say that truth is the ocean? echoed Monkey Tile.
- I don’t feel he has abandoned us, Shard completed. Feel, on the contrary, he flies above us every day. And looks at us with the very same care he showed in the woods.
So, every day, under the watchful eye of Ugly Duckling and his band, the guys went from the jungle to the ocean, and back to the woods, until the path became usual. Sometimes, when the weather was firm, they even went to Eden. But their preference was to stay on the beach and play with shells, rocks and small animals. And unlike the come and go to the jungle, these games never became habitual or mechanical.
It was impossible to become such, as the sea was always there to greet them, toast them with its mysteries and fill them with all fading. Thus the friends found in the sea the whole truth, but never ventured into it. Only played before it, even welcomed and admired it. And the door of that truth remained always open.

The Apes' Survey (9): The Garden of Eden

"Laws do not suffice. Lilies are not
born of the law"
(Carlos Drummond de Andrade)

While the Apes talked about the manuscripts, the sentinel of hunger sent them constant warnings. At first, they did not give heed, but the watchman gently managed to make them understand, by repeated suggestions, that thought is circumscribed by nature, like civilization by the wilderness, not the opposite.
The warnings of hunger finally convinced them that it was no longer enough to palliate it with Insects. In order to be able to continue the investigation that had been opened, they needed to solve the increasingly urgent problem of their livelihood. What meant they needed to reach the coastal woods.
In the meantime, Shard’s former idea returned to his brain: why had they not persuaded the Donkey to provide them a shuttle? If had done that, they would already have consummated the crossing of the vast arid element. And that without ailments. But this time, Shard combated the seduction with the thought that, for rational beings, to live involved looking at others and seeing them. Or to apply the principle to the case, though the circumstances of the pilgrimage were adverse, it was not right to evade the Donkey, with flattery or trickery, to transport them to the woods. It was not fair to lower their suffering by increasing that of another being.
Repentance, however, only dissipated totally, when they went back to the manuscripts and discovered more useful helps than the Donkey could furnish them. The scroll with six columns spoke of consolations, instilled hope and enabled them to pull forces not only from other forces, but even out of weaknesses. Thus, the way the wind had led them to the manuscripts, the logos emanating from these, setting in the core of their souls, proved the supreme power of raising their scarce energy and of giving them resources completely new.
So they proposed to continue the march, though with the belly stocked only with Insects that together, shaken and pressed down, did not equal the mass of a single feather. And after another night's sleep, they left the ruins toward the woods.
On the way, Glass asked his fellows:
- The incredible energy that propelled us while reading the manuscripts, the dynamo that made us enough for this crossing, is not the sense of the sacred?
– I also feel its move, said Tile. But don’t stop wondering if the feeling is not produced by some illusion. I ask myself if, as the brain of an exhausted wanderer produces mirages of oases and water, ours doesn’t flood our heart with illusory consolations and vain hopes. And if this mixture of deceit and comfort is not what Men call religion.
Shard was on the way to form a different opinion and expressed it:
- Perhaps these Siamese faces of religion, consolation and illusion, are only a moment of it. So long is the existence of religion in the world, so protracted is the worship that Men rise to the divine that people have difficulty to accurately perceive them. Take one moment as if it were the entire extent of the phenomenon. Closer observation would induce the understanding that religion changes shape, so that we shouldn’t judge it only by its prime moment, when its power of consolation and "illusion" focuses and bends upon itself. We’d better judge it by its whole becoming, that is, by the full process of transformation religion undergoes.
- And how is that process? asked Tile.
- This is the central question to be answered about religion. All other ones are secondary, when compared to it. However, religion is too complex. I can’t give a description of it without shortcomings or failures. Confine myself to say that religious "illusion" is an interpretation, not a datum. And like all interpretations, it’s not the only conclusion that can be drawn from religious experience. Remember the dreams we had last night?
- Yes, and I wonder if religion is not itself a conscious dream, a kind of dream you dream awake.
- I think it is, Shard admitted, or at least it’s analogous to a dream. However, neither dreams nor religion are strictly illusory. When we dream, our mind doesn’t delude us. I mean we don’t see, hear or smell something, and then try to represent it in dreams. Dreams aren’t synthesized to represent actual objects. They are rather responses of the imaginative mind to the emotional needs of the individual. So they aren’t true or false. What conveys the meaning of both dreams and religion is their function, not the representation of the world they bring forth. The function of religion is to protect the person from the extreme risk of living.
While discussing these things, the friends began the descent of the cliff between the desert and the sea. The initial part of the huge formation consisted of bare rocks, among which bushes rose. That day, however, the escarpment was shrouded in a mist that seemed to enter the Monkeys’ eyes. And to further complicate the descent, it rained. So the four friends walked cautiously and, from time to time, stopped to locate. In one of these moments, Tile told Glass:
– You said that religion has not the purpose of representing the world. But doesn’t it produce representations of objects and facts? In Hindu mythology, for example, the world is not described as a Turtle called Kurma? Do you propose that Hindus never understood that myth as a description of the universe?
- No. Of course they did, and that’s one of the possible interpretations of the myth in question. But the same minds that created the interpretation doubted it. That’s why they conceived the alternative interpretation that the Turtle is a metaphor, a symbol, not a literal description of the world. The important thing is that religion per se doesn’t solve the impasse it creates between literal and symbolic interpretations of myth.
Ware could not help joining the conversation at this point:
- From religion’s "illusions" that help overcome challenges of life and death, people go to mythic representations of the world. And do so because the solution, the remedy that religion provides to the problems of life, tends to make the world part of the problem. The world is a threatening place for him who has administered the medicine of religion to himself. It seems to contradict and threaten religion. So, to reconcile religion and the world, societies create the worldviews we call myths. But myths, though reducing the gap between religion and the world, tend to be appropriated more as new drugs than as antidotes to the "illusions". So they are prone to enlarge religion’s dysrhythmia.
- Yes, Shard completed. But the more methods of rational thought are developed, such as philosophy, mathematics, natural science and techniques, more people move to a critical state that allows them to overcome religion’s "illusion". In this process, they tend to break the deadlock between the literal and the symbolic interpretations of myths, resolving it either in favor of the one or of the other, depending on the historical circumstances.
Ware recalled:
- That's what happened with the great Greek philosophers and Roman writers, who questioned the ancient myths. And also with the Jewish rabbis and Christian theologians, which deepened religious thought in rational directions.
– Undoubtedly, Shard nodded. Religion itself begins to question myths, by creating different interpretations of them. However, the continuation of the questioning depends on the help of other forms of rational thought. This process, which can be termed critical, is extremely cruel to religion’s "illusions", for it reduces them to pieces. Carried far enough, it can even cancel the “illusions”. Only then, the cycle of transformation of religion is completed.
It came to be Ware’s turn to agree:
- Yes, but there are things outside the cycle that also help to understand the phenomenon. For example, the extinction of the groups that have not developed religion. Piety and feelings connected to it were so successful, in Natural History, that only groups which cultivated them arrived at the present age. So it’s necessary to observe the various stages of development of the phenomenon we’re debating, without neglecting the contrast between the religious and the non-religious populations.
Tile listened with utmost thoughtfulness. At the end, he noted:
- You suggest that religion should be judged by its entire development, not just by the moment we apprehend as illusion...
- Precisely, said Shard. We're in a survey, perhaps the hardest ever held about the origins of Apes. We have learned that the origin of our species is linked to those of other beings, and that all these origins, intertwined, are governed, in part, by laws such as natural selection. However, this viewpoint, which is usually called scientific, doesn’t make religion illusory. It rather warrants it, since religious people have reached the highest degree of evolutionary success. Consider the case of Men. They emerged long before religion. However, the groups which have turned to transcendence were exactly those that survived. Human evolution allows us to conclude, therefore, that the abandonment of religion is an involution, an evolutionary reversal that is unlikely to succeed.
While debated these ideas, the Monkeys reached a stretch of the sea cliff studded with abundant and lush trees. When breathed the fresh air that pervaded the place, a secret pleasure raided them. It was clear that, from that point on, the fauna would include animals increasingly diverse, sources would multiply, and trees would become lavish in fruits. Lakes, rivers and waterfalls would also be seen with increasing ease. And to their great luck, the mist dissipated quickly. What seemed to mean that they were safe from the enduring risk of death that had accompanied them on the glacier and in the desert. And they were so glad that, inspired by Genesis, named the place Garden of Eden.
They couldn’t but resume the descent increasingly animated. And after two more hours of walk, they came to a lake of serene waters, where a handful of Swans glided. Glass addressed them:
- Hail! What a beautiful place! Is it your home?
- Yes, it is, since we are a family, said one of the Fowls. If we aren’t, it won’t be.
- How so? asked the Ape.
- The exuberance of this environment only makes a home, a haven, if we live as a family. This is my family, he added, referring to the peers who sailed the waters with him.
- Well, I understand it... said Glass. So gallant a family should be one of the pinnacles of the evolution of Fowls!
- What evolutionary ancestor do you come from? Tile asked, unable to avoid the disquieting issue.
- Offspring is too complex a subject to be covered in a question so restrictive, replied the Fowl. We are not obliged to construe it as a synonym for origin from one and the same ancestor trunk.
That last sentence sounded familiar to the Monkeys, especially to Glass, who asked:
- But isn’t it possible for you to mention at least the strongest candidates to be your ancestors?
- Take heed: if life was engendered many times and in many ways, why its spontaneous origin, which science describes, and its divine creation, proposed by religions, can’t be both true? And if they are, the answer to your questions will never be found in an investigation limited to the framework of Evolution.
Once more the Fowl’s response sounded familiar. When heard it, Ware could not help exclaiming:
- Let's lengthen the views of our intellect, let’s lengthen them extremely!
Suddenly, the others understood, as Ware had done, that the Swan quoted sentences uttered during the survey.
- The rules of conceptual thought, continued the inhabitant of the paradise, are subject to a practical imperative of higher order. The ancients made Astronomy a kind of Astrology. They gave it a practical meaning. Today’s Men have lost touch with the harmony of knowledge and its practical principle.
The Monkeys were paralyzed by a sudden stupor. The Swan’s last sentences were no less than quotes from the Donkey!
- When science becomes bragging, from stones, God can raise children to Abraham, added Swan.
Thus, the meeting of the four with the Swans became an exhibition of the entire movie of the survey. Or at least of its main scenes. In that paradise, they felt touched by the deepest sense of truth. A sense like that which the wind had communicated them in the desert.
- The pitch of the wind, the Swan kept saying, is like the voice of a prophet, which echoes when all mouths were gagged, and cultural order varies. And as to passion for science and passion in general...
- Are they not the false Lyrics? completed Monkey Glass, who had passed from stupor to ecstasy. He asked the Swan:
- What conclusion, what end do these sentences suggest to our survey?
- Why not that evolution has multiple sources, which science, because of its limitations (or you think it doesn’t have them?), can know only in part? And why not also that among those sources, there is one that guides most of the evolutionary process? And that you’re manuscripts composed by that supreme source? Yes, manuscripts like the ones you found and that so inspired you...
Glass was stunned with the piercing science and the higher wisdom he found in that Animal. Dared ask him:
- Why don’t you proclaim these things to the world?
- Because the world is governed by appearance. And when looking at mine and my peers’, it dislikes us. It finds us ugly.
Glass looked around and saw only beauty. The fog had dissipated completely. The weather had opened in flower. He was raptured by the scene of the white Swans roaming the dark waters of the lake. Realized that they were seven. And asked them:
- Tell us how you call yourselves.
At that very moment, the Swan who had quoted the sentences flew away elegantly. And the others went after him.
- Ugly Duckling! Potshard cried.
- Yes, Ugly Duckling! the others repeated, as if waking from a sleep. And kept shouting: "Ugly Duckling, Ugly Duckling!" But the Swan did not return. And they sorrowed.
The floor was covered with lilies of most beautiful hues.

Jesus, por Bento XVI (2): A Virgem Conceberá

O Natal nos expõe a uma abundância de mensagens que provam a sua transfiguração em frenética troca de bens. Porém, com as mensagens predominantemente relacionadas ao comprar e vender exaustivos de dezembro, aumenta também o fluxo de informações sobre a figura histórica de Jesus Cristo e o significado espiritual do seu nascimento, vida, morte e ressurreição.
Não só isso: o Natal também é uma oportunidade para ateus enviarem seus particulares votos de felicidade com ou sem fé no menino nascido em Belém (indagam se não terá sido em Nazaré; ou se terá mesmo nascido!), para autoridades eclesiásticas infalivelmente explicarem, e infalivelmente diminuírem, a importância de Jesus ter vindo ao mundo antes de Cristo (por que o recordar tanto, se o dado não tem importância?) e para fundamentalismos para todos os gostos anunciarem de telhados cada vez mais altos suas verdades definitivas.
No mês do Natal, historiadores, arqueólogos, biblistas são também convocados a recontar e, se possível, a reconstituir o tempo de Jesus. Produtos holywoodianos revivem-no em tantas versões quantas são demandadas pelos gostos submetidos à pasteurização cultural. Não podem faltar os lapsos imaginativos mais acariciados, que se transformam em despretensiosas mercadorias natalinas, assim como a descoberta do túmulo de Jesus, a interpretação gnóstica da traição de Judas e as cada vez mais presentes narrativas da paixão (e olhem que não é o sofrimento) de Jesus por Maria. Claro que tantos e tão diferentes discursos, articulados ao mesmo tempo, constituem uma síntese um tanto desvairada do que se pensa e se vê no fatídico mês de dezembro.
É o caso de perguntarmos por que, nos mundos cristãos atuais, os elementos da síntese acima devem existir do modo como os observamos. Por que a culminância do consumo deve ocorrer a pretexto da culminância da espiritualidade (o nascimento de Cristo)? Por que não arrumaram um outro motivo? Teremos sucumbido a uma nova tentação no deserto? À tentação de nos lançarmos do pináculo do Shopping para que os anjos de Deus nos sustenham? Cabe questionar se os ateus que nos votam felicidade dissociada do menininho de Belém podem prover-nos, com a boa vontade que lhes sobra, também o regalo de um mundo suportável sem fé. E se o evangelista que duvidou de que caberiam no orbe os livros com os feitos do Verbo algum dia pensou se nele haveria lugar para tantos Verbos quantos a humanidade se deu.
Todos esses questionamentos são justificáveis, em face do quadro que o Natal nos coloca, mas são tão numerosos que tentar tratar de todos ao mesmo tempo, e em tão poucas palavras quantas me é dado escrever, deve ser o mesmo que tratar de nenhum e fazer aumentar o desvario. Então, vou-me deter no que de mais sério encontro a circular, a propósito do controvertido nascimento.
No ano que finda, Bento XVI completou sua trilogia sobre Jesus, com a publicação de um livro sobre a infância em Nazaré. Chamou-o a antecâmara dos volumes lançados antes, que formam sua continuação lógica e cronológica. Em nenhum dos volumes, Bento se entrega à investigação do Jesus histórico. Tampouco ignora essa investigação. Todo o tempo se refere a ela, e todo o tempo o faz de passagem, sem aprofundar a análise das teorias críticas sobre os Evangelhos. Esse é um primeiro ponto que chama a atenção do leitor situado e que ele se tortura para explicar.
Em tantos aspectos, o livro recém-lançado de Bento reflete um estudo seriíssimo, uma erudição completa, uma piedade entranhada e, é claro, a disponibilidade infinita de recursos bibliográficos etc. do Vaticano. Reflete também a maturidade intelectual do seu autor, que explica, ao menos em parte, por que ele não se doa ao debate crítico, que afinal é o maior e o mais original do nosso tempo sobre a pessoa de Jesus.
Chego a pensar que não interessa ao Papa enquanto Papa resolver, talvez nem mesmo contribuir para a resolução do debate. Compete-lhe justificar a fé. Se, no primeiro século, Paulo pregou a justificação do pecador pela fé, Bento parece querer justificar a própria fé no XXI. E justificá-la por meio dela própria, pois só a fé pode ser a razão da fé. Por isso, abordando-o sempre e às vezes até parecendo atribuir-lhe o lugar central na discussão de determinados assuntos, o Papa jamais mergulha no tema do Jesus histórico. Mergulha, sim, todo o tempo, no mistério da fé em Jesus.
Mas seja-me permitido observar que, ao fazê-lo, ele parece atuar mais como justificador da fé da Igreja que da fé em Jesus, embora às vezes sustente retoricamente o contrário. Darei o exemplo do grande sinal do profeta Isaías. Com base em Stanislas Lyonnet e René Laurentin, Bento propõe que a saudação do anjo Gabriel a Maria atualiza a profecia de Sofonias 3:14-17, principalmente no trecho em que diz: “Rejubila, ó Israel [...] o Senhor está no meio de ti”.
Rejubila é o equivalente de “Alegra-te, muito favorecida!”, em Lucas 1:28. Bento explica: “Impressiona o fato de [o anjo] não dirigir a Maria a habitual saudação judaica shalom – a paz esteja contigo – mas a fórmula grega khaire, que se pode tranquilamente traduzir por Ave, como sucede na oração mariana da Igreja” (BENTO XVI. Joseph Ratzinger. A infância de Jesus. São Paulo: Planeta, 2012. pp. 30-31). Já “o Senhor está no meio de ti”, em Sofonias, “traduzida literalmente diz ‘está no teu seio’” (idem. p. 31). Obviamente, a interpretação do Papa faz de Israel uma prefiguração de Maria, em cujo seio o Salvador foi gerado.
Desse modo, Jesus e também sua mãe são postos no centro da nova dispensação. “Jesus é o novo Adão, um novo começo abintegro, ou seja, [a partir] da Virgem que está plenamente à disposição da vontade de Deus. Acontece assim uma nova criação, que todavia está ligada ao sim livre da pessoa humana de Maria” (idem. pp. 51-52). Afirma ainda, com base em Lucas 2:19,51, que "Maria aparece não só como grande crente, mas também como imagem da Igreja [obviamente a de Roma], que guarda a Palavra no seu coração e a transmite" (idem. p. 105).
Mas com Jesus e Maria no centro, algo inusitado transcorre: a nova ordem inaugurada por Deus se alarga extraordinariamente. Deixa de ser a ordem de uma nação, a ordem judaica, para passar a ser a humanidade. Como Bento o demonstra? Pelo sinal de Isaías: “Continuou o Senhor a falar com Acaz, dizendo: Pede ao Senhor teu Deus um sinal, quer seja em baixo nas profundezas ou em cima nas alturas. Acaz, porém, disse: Não o pedirei nem tentarei ao Senhor”. Ante a recusa de Acaz, "disse o profeta [...] O Senhor mesmo vos dará sinal: Eis que a virgem conceberá, e dará à luz um filho, e lhe chamará Emanuel” (Is 7:10-12-14).
O rei de Judá não quis pedir um sinal, como Deus lhe ordenou. Então, o próprio Deus lhe deu o sinal, sem que o pedisse. Não é preciso dizer que o sinal foi a concepção da virgem. Nem que o Papa vê, nessa concepção, a ordem centrada em Jesus e Maria, ou seja, a ordem católica. Para justificar essa ordem, ele mostra ainda mais que os intérpretes que identificaram a virgem como uma mulher da época do próprio Isaías fracassaram. Não há um só relato judaico, lendário que seja, que afirme que uma virgem tenha concebido.
E por não encontrar a virgem no Antigo Israel, Ratzinger passa a interrogar os pagãos, à procura dela. Como se o profeta tivesse anunciado uma diva. Busca-a no Egito, em Virgílio, entre os persas, mas só acha aproximações grosseiras e semelhanças remotas. “A diferença entre as concepções [judaica e gentia]”, conclui, “é tão profunda que – de fato – não se pode falar de verdadeiros paralelos” (idem. p. 49).
Enfim, tudo coopera para introduzir a conclusão de que “a afirmação relativa à virgem que dá à luz o Emanuel é uma Palavra à espera. No seu contexto histórico, não se encontra qualquer correspondência [nem em Israel, nem entre os pagãos], pelo que [...] não é uma Palavra dirigida apenas a Acaz, nem somente a Israel; mas dirige-se à humanidade” (idem. p. 47).
A afirmação de que a profecia é para a humanidade tem propósito claro. Serve para justificar uma Igreja Católica, isto é, global. E também para que o reino de Deus, que não é deste mundo, possa implantar-se em cada polegada da Terra, a partir de um centro, que faltou ao Papa afirmar que é Roma.
Como hábil argumentador, Bento encosta o remo nas pedras da problemática histórica, apenas para impulsionar o barco, sem permitir que ele se despedace de encontro a elas. Nenhuma pedra crítica é o destino para o qual ele navega. Mas é certo que tem um destino, e que ele é a justificação das coisas católicas.
Não menos habilmente, o Papa omite a bem estabelecida informação de que nenhum manuscrito original de Isaías 7:14 traz a palavra virgem (bethulah). Todos os originais grafam almah, que significa jovem. A versão a que Mateus e Lucas tiveram de recorrer para representar o nascimento virginal foi a Septuaginta, que é apenas uma tradução do original hebraico. Uma tradução acertada, pois na cultura hebraica não se esperava que uma jovem solteira (almah) conhecesse homem, mas fosse virgem. Porém, mesmo assim, virgem é apenas uma tradução do original almah.
Se mantivermos presente que o sinal prometido é a concepção de uma jovem, vários cumprimentos possíveis da profecia estarão à disposição. Uma possibilidade é que Emanuel fosse um dos filhos de Isaías. Só um Emanuel tão antigo poderia cumprir a seguinte predição: “Antes que esse menino saiba desprezar o mal e escolher o bem, será desamparada a terra, ante cujos dois reis tu tremes de medo” (Is 7:16).
Que terra é essa? É a dos dois reis mencionados no primeiro versículo de Isaías 7: “Sucedeu nos dias de Acaz, filho de Jotão, filho de Uzias, rei de Judá, que Rezim, rei da Síria, e Peca, filho de Remalias, rei de Israel, subiram a Jerusalém, para pelejarem contra ela”. A terra desses soberanos da Síria e de Israel foi desamparada, durante a infância de Emanuel, quando a Assíria conquistou os dois reinos, cerca de 11 anos após o oráculo ter sido proferido.
Nesse tempo, Emanuel comeu manteiga e mel (Is 7:15). Sabemos que, no Antigo Israel, o leite era tirado de uma cabra ou de um segundo animal que cada família mantinha em casa. O fato de terem leite significa que as casas permaneceram intactas. E o fato de serem capazes de processar o leite até se tornar manteiga ou coalhada transmite ainda mais essa ideia. Assim, apesar da infidelidade de Acaz, Deus protegeu Judá, quando Síria e Israel foram conquistados.
Estou a afirmar que Emanuel não é Jesus? De maneira nenhuma. Isaías 7:14 é uma daquelas profecias que se cumprem em dois tempos. O primeiro cumprimento se deu entre 733 e 722 a. C. Mas a segunda e mais forte realização do oráculo foi a concepção da virgem, no ano 4 a. C. De onde era essa virgem? De Nazaré, na Galileia. Portanto, o segundo Emanuel foi tão judeu quanto o primeiro. De modo que não há vestígio de que a profecia se referisse ao mundo todo ou a uma ordem mundial, como a que a Igreja Católica governou e governa.
Quando um profeta quer dizer nações ou o mundo todo, ele o diz. Em Isaías 7:10-16, não o disse. Disse, antes: “Ouvi, agora, ó casa de Davi” (Is 7:13). A profecia à casa de Davi cumpriu-se na própria casa de Davi, no tempo de Isaías e no de Jesus.
Como é difícil prover uma justificação da fé em Cristo, tendo de justificar a fé em algo mais! Espanta-me não encontrar, no livro do Papa, uma sólida interpretação da profecia das 70 semanas, que tanto se presta a recomendar a fé em Jesus. Mas só me espanta enquanto espero, credulamente, do Papa, uma justificação da fé em Cristo. Quando deixo de o esperar, quando vejo que o propósito prioritário dele é outro, deixo também de me espantar.
As 70 semanas serviam ao propósito dos primeiros cristãos, que era demonstrar que Jesus é o Cristo. Não podem servir ao do Papa, que é mostrar que a Igreja é o reino de Deus na Terra. A esse propósito ele devotou sua vida, seus muitos dons pessoais e continua a consagrar os seus livros. E olhem que o livro de Bento pode ser incluído no rol do que de melhor circula sobre a Natividade!

The Apes' Survey (8): One Little Word

"In vain
We travel volumes"
(Carlos Drummond de Andrade)

The Monkeys had to interrupt their discussion to hunt. If it is true that trying to kill the rare Birds that landed in the ruins in search of Insects could be called hunting. For the runs and jumps that the friends performed, in their effort to capture the volatiles, the ambushes they prepared to them, the chirps they imitated never reached the goal and only loosely mimicked the act of hunting. In the end, as many blows were tried as failed. And instead of slaughtering Birds, Glass and his companions had to share the local Insects with them. Each, therefore, swallowed as many as could and tried to enjoy the rest of the day.
But did not succeed, for the moon did not rise in the sky and, though many, the stars did not suffice to gild the night. Thus the clarity sequestration suppressed the opportunity of good conversations and jokes. And to complete their sense of defeat the dismal aspect of the place expanded, as a metal in the crucible, and the four kept around taciturn. Finally, finding no remedy for the hollow of the stomach and the weariness of the night, they went to sleep.
And if dinner was meager, and night insipid, the weakness the Monkeys had accumulated during the march subsidized their rest. A deep sleep fell upon all. And dreamed that Amphibians offered themselves to them as a meal, trees sprouted spontaneously from the soil and rocks flung plenty of water. So, they ate and drank, in dreams, all they had lacked during the days in the desert.
When woke up, they commented the dreams. But readily remembered the advice the rocks had given them to study the manuscripts, and began to do so.
Taking the larger scroll, Glass read the Latin "In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram." And translated it:
- "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Since they knew the original verse was written in Hebrew, Glass immediately jumped to the verse in that language:
- "Bere'sit bara elohim et hasamayim we'et ha'ares."
And as all fell silent to hear him, the Monkey continued to read the following verses on the days of creation. When he got to the thirty-fifth, which is the fourth of Genesis 2, and met the words "Istae sunt generationes caeli et terrae quando creata sunt", his eyes glittered in a different way. Glass read the Latin verse to the others, as well as the corresponding verse in Hebrew: "eleh toledot hasamayim weha'ares behibare'am."
- These words mean "Such are the generations of the heaven and the earth when they were created," he explained.
And continued in the same breath:
- The last verse is very similar to the first one we read.
Sherd approached the brother who had the scroll in his hand to compare the two verses. Once more he saw that the first one said: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", and the other "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created."
- The words heaven and earth appear in both verses, Glass noted. And the verb attached to them is the same, bara, which means to create. The subject of the action of creating is also identical: God. Therefore, the two excerpts make the same statement.
- So we have a repeat? Sherd asked.
- Somehow, replied the other, without much conviction.
- I mean... It is undoubtedly a repetition, he completed.
- But the adjunctive in verse 1, "in principle," does not appear in the other verse, said Potsherd.
- The adjunctive doesn’t, but the phrase that is in its place, eleh toledot, has the very same meaning of origin or beginning. Therefore, the subjects, verbs, objects and time phrases of both verses are equal.
- Well, said Potsherd, if the first verse has the same meaning as the last one, doesn’t it refer to the days of creation, as the other one certainly does?
– That was the impression I had, and it shook me, when just read the fourth verse of chapter 2. When people think "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" refers to a time prior to the seven days, they deny the equivalence between this verse and the one that starts with the words "These are the generations." This procedure brings in the idea of a creation in two steps. For centuries, mainstream Christian theology has adopted this interpretive path.
Sherd interrupted:
- But theologians may have got confused, since Christianity became a universal religion and lost contact with the Hebrew language. An indication of this shift may lie in the fact that creation in two phases cannot be easily found in ancient Jewish literature. Josephus, for instance, interpreted "in the beginning" as the very first day of creation. He expounded the first verse of Genesis this way, in the beginning of his work on Jewish Antiquities. And his attitude was natural, since the text on creation in Hebrew paralleled the verses we studied.
Glass recalled:
- The two-phase creation was a Greek idea. Both primitive and Olympic religions taught that first a chaos was formed, and order followed it. But the Jews didn’t adopt this idea. The author of the 2nd Book of Maccabees, for example, admonished: "Son, look at the heavens, the earth and all things that are therein, and understand that God created them out of nothing, as well as men". Out of nothing doesn't mean out of chaos. So, in Maccabees, the creation of heaven and earth and all that is in them, including Men, is mentioned without distinctions or nuances, as one sequence. We don't see the two phases in it.
While the two dialogued, Ware had his eyes fixed on the manuscript. It was obvious at first glance that he was in an apex of concentration. Suddenly he shouted:
- The Hebrew verb, bara! Appears in both verses and also in versicles 21 and 27!
The others immediately reread the passages Ware cited.
- You're right, Sherd recognized. But where do you want to lead us by your statement?
- Chapter 1 deals with creation, but the verb to create appears only in verses 1, 21 and 27. Isn't it too little to accomplish the purpose of describing creation?
- I admit that it is a very parsimonious use, said Glass. Especially considering that bara is the term that best expresses the idea of creation.
Sherd intervened:
- If depart a bit from Josephus, we may conclude that the seven days don’t begin in verse 1, but in the third one. As the verse "These are the generations of the heaven and the earth when they were created" is a general closure, the words "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" form a general introduction, a preamble to the narrative. Don’t yet describe the seven days.
Tile, who had remained silent so far, expended a particular effort. He tried to understand and fit the ideas of the others in a general framework. But the intervention of Monkey Ware led him to anticipate his account:
- Two important points of the text attracted our attention this morning. The first one is the equivalence between the verse "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created." Bara appears in both. The other point is that, in verses 21 and 27, bara is used to describe the origin of particular beings of heaven and earth: Whales, Birds and Men.
- This is a very suitable summary! Sherd exclaimed. It induces understanding. Between the verses that open and close the narrative, the seven days describe particular acts of God. In them, the verb bara appears only twice. And in both cases it is associated with God's blessing. In addition to these two appearances of bara (to create), we have plenty of other verbs that express God's creative acts.
Sherd asked:
- Doesn’t this form a... pattern? If we isolate the seven days from the introduction and conclusion represented by "In the beginning" and "These are the generations", expressions such as let there be, separate, let be gathered, appear, make, swarm and bring forth are used to describe the creative acts of God, except the ones that appear associated with divine blessings. To these only the verb bara is connected.
Sherd had got from the text its extreme implication: the work of the seven days reveals a clear pattern consisting of the use of several verbs to describe the appearance of beings that are not blessed by God and of one single word (bara) for the blessed beings.
Glass recalled:
- Scholars have shown that the term toledot ("These are the generations") appears many times in the Hebrew text of Genesis. Verse 4 of chapter 2 is one of the cases. It’s actually the first one. In all other appearances, the term is employed to delimit a story which was originally transmitted separately. Therefore, toledot is a term of binding, a hinge wherein two portions of Genesis revolve. So, if the first verse of Genesis and the fourth of chapter 2 are equal and the last is a toledot, the other one must also be.
- Yes, and the story of the seven days was originally independent from the one which begins in verse 4 of chapter 2, Sherd confirmed. Each was written by a different author, in a different time. Even the name used for God in one story is Elohim, and in the other is Yahweh or Yahweh Elohim. This radical autonomy of chapters 1 and 2 allows us to consider the existence of different nuances of the idea of creation in the two texts. By the way, the pattern we have just identified in the first chapter may not appear in the work of the second author.
The idea of Sherd caused some shudder. Could two authors of biblical sources have different conceptions about creation? They could not rule out that doubt, unless they read chapter 2 of Genesis quite carefully. So, they gave themselves to that task. Read the entire chapter the way they had read the first one. And noted that the beings whose creation is designated by the word bara in chapter 1 were "formed" (wayiser in Hebrew) by God in chapter 2. Such was the case of Man, "formed from the dust of the ground" in verse 7, of Animals and Birds, also "formed from the ground" in the nineteenth, and of Woman, formed from the rib of Man at verse 22. There seemed to be no doubt: the pattern of chapter 1 did not appear in chapter 2, which confirmed the independent origin of the original texts. They also found that the association of bara with the blessing of God did not appear in scattered sections of the Bible about creation, which led Sherd to suggest:
- If the pattern is not seen outside of Genesis 1, it must have been adopted exclusively by the chapter’s author. He may have intended to communicate something that no other biblical author ever said. Just consider: if the pattern we’re talking about is based on the blessing, it brings in the idea that to create, for God, is to create and bless. Therefore, the beings which were created, but not blessed, within the seven days, must have been created before, when they were also blessed.
- But that doesn’t bring us back to the creation in two phases, which we have seen to be foreign to Jewish thought? asked Tile, and he had good reasons for doing so.
- Yes, it does, Sherd admitted. The author of Genesis 1 was a dissenting voice, in regard to the two phases. He may have been a forerunner of that idea among the Jews. And may have avoided disclosing it, in order not to be harassed by people who thought differently.
- Admittedly, Tile said. But where do these findings lead us? What’s their practical meaning?
- If Genesis 1:1-2 are an introduction to the narrative of creation, the seven days must begin when they end. Thus, the pattern of a single verb for the beings who receive the divine blessing and of various verbs for those who don’t becomes all the more evident. The pattern is an implicit message, a tacit testimony hidden in the text, which could not be manifest. In terms of Natural History, it indicates that the works of the seven days were preceded by other creative acts. No one can understand the message of creation in Genesis without considering these implied acts. But as he considers it, he discovers that the world was created long before the fourth or fifth millennium BC, in which Adam lived. And that the Bible doesn't start from that former creation, but from the latter.
- The little word bara... Sherd muttered. Is it not the key to the text we read? And does not this key open the door of its truth?
Ware went straight to the point:
- You mean someone hid the key for millennia?
And to these questions of Sherd and Ware Tile added others:
– Doesn’t the discourse of science contradict the Bible? Isn’t religion a mirage of benefits like those of the dreams we had last night? And the passion of science? Doesn’t it remove what ignites the flame of faith?
Glass accompanied them in the questioning, which was also a kind of catharsis:
- The passion of science... he murmured. The passion in general... Aren’t they the false Lyrics? Don’t we travel in vain the volumes of a science which has got lost?

Livre Exame de Romanos (3): A Depravação Sexual dos Gentios

Em Romanos 1, Paulo afirmou três vezes que os gregos rejeitaram o conhecimento de Deus e, também três vezes, que Deus os entregou a pecados. Em duas ocasiões, os pecados mencionados por ele foram sexuais; só na terceira ocasião, foram pecados não sexuais.
No versículo 24, lemos: “Por isso Deus entregou tais homens à imundícia, pelas concupiscências de seus próprios corações, para desonrarem os seus corpos entre si”. Imundícia e desonra, nesse versículo, são pecados sexuais.
Já os versículos 26 e 27 afirmam: “Por causa disso os entregou Deus a paixões infames: porque até as suas mulheres mudaram o modo natural de suas relações íntimas, por outro contrário à natureza; semelhantemente, os homens também, deixando o contato natural da mulher, se inflamaram mutuamente em sua sensualidade, cometendo torpeza, homens com homens, e recebendo em si mesmos a merecida punição de seus erros”.Também aqui,o pecado citado,o homossexualismo, é de natureza sexual.
Por esses motivos, pode-se afirmar que, em Romanos, a impureza sexual é o pecado primeiro dos gentios. Curioso é que essa conclusão não aparece no restante dos escritos de Paulo. É uma característica peculiar de Romanos. Indispensável é, portanto, encontrarmos uma explicação para ela.
A centralidade dos pecados sexuais e do homossexualismo, em Romanos, parece-me mais histórica do que teológica. Roma não era só o centro do Império, mas também das bacanais, festa que se tornou célebre pela prática das mais grotescas licenciosidades. A princípio, só mulheres participavam das bacanais. Porém, mais tarde, os homens foram admitidos. O historiador Tito Lívio afirmou que, quando isso ocorreu, eles passaram a “se entregar mais entre si do que com mulheres” (Liv. 39, 13,10). Plutarco descreve o comportamento das damas da elite romana em termos ainda mais pungentes: "Essas mulheres são insaciáveis na busca do prazer. Na sua concupiscência, experimentam  tudo, desviam-se e exploram, do princípio ao fim, toda a escala da devassidão até resultarem nas mais indizíveis práticas".
Paulo toma essa liderança, essa posição de vanguarda dos romanos nas orgias como um espelho de toda a sua vida. Como se destacavam na celebração dos festins de libertinagem, os romanos praticavam as mesmas impurezas no seu dia a dia, como Plutarco atesta. Não era diferente, pelo contrário era o que ocorria corriqueiramente, também na Corte de César.
Por esse motivo, só ao citar pela terceira vez os pecados a que os gregos foram entregues, Paulo aludiu a transgressões não sexuais. E é digno de nota que, ao fazê-lo, ele mudou totalmente a sua abordagem do elemento comportamental para o motivacional do pecado. Com efeito, ao descrever os pecados sexuais, em 1:24,26-27, Paulo se concentrou na conduta externa, assim como o ato de desonrar o próprio corpo e as relações homossexuais. Porém, ao abordar os pecados não sexuais, nos versículos 29 a 31, ele depositou ênfase na intenção e não na conduta.
Esse corte é assinalado pela “disposição mental reprovável” (1:28) e pelo fato de os gentios estarem “cheios de toda injustiça, malícia, avareza e maldade; possuídos de inveja, homicídio, contenda, dolo e malignidade” (1:29). Estar cheio ou possuído de algo não é ainda o praticar, mas tê-lo no coração. Não é diferente com os outros pecados não sexuais mencionados por Paulo. Quase todos eles são internos, assim como o aborrecer-se, a soberba, a presunção, a invenção de males, a insensatez, a perfídia e a falta de afeto ou de misericórdia (1:30-31).
Por que Paulo mudou sua ênfase do aspecto externo para o interno do ato pecaminoso, em Romanos 1? O motivo parece ter sido a dualidade fundamental do pecado. Para Paulo, assim como o homem possuía uma substância física e outra espiritual, havia duas classes distintas de pecado: os que tinham sede no corpo e os que se passavam fora do corpo. Em 1ª aos Coríntios 6:18, ele escreveu: “Fugi da impureza [sexual]! Qualquer outro pecado que uma pessoa cometer, é fora do corpo; mas aquele que pratica a imoralidade peca contra o próprio corpo”. O pecado no corpo é físico; o pecado fora do corpo é psíquico.
Assim como em Coríntios, em Romanos 1, são mencionados pecados físicos (sexuais) e também psíquicos. Os primeiros têm por característica contribuir de modo direto para a morte física do homem. É o que acontece com a prostituição, que é o comércio do próprio corpo e o aniquila, por expô-lo a doenças, quando não a outros males, já que um pecado físico costuma vir associado a outros, assim como a prostituição e os excessos de lascívia à bebedeira.
Mas, se os pecados se dividem em físicos e psíquicos, a embriaguez, a glutonaria, a prostituição e o homossexualismo não diferem tanto em princípio. Paulo não hierarquiza os pecados. Não os dispõe em graus. Limita-se a dividi-los em físicos e psíquicos ou em pecados no corpo e fora do corpo. Essa parece ser a maior distinção que ele traça. Entende cada um desses tipos de pecado como regido por princípios próprios. E que os primeiros revelam o julgamento presente de Deus, ao passo que os outros tornam necessário o vindouro.
Nesse sentido e sob essa luz, Romanos 1:18 afirma que a ira de Deus já se revela do céu. Revela-se onde? Nos pecados físicos. Nesse caso, os pecados não são a causa do julgamento, mas o próprio julgamento divino. Já em 2:1-2,5, é dito que o juízo futuro virá como punição e em consequência dos pecados não sexuais de 1:29-31: “Portanto [isto é, por causa dos pecados não sexuais mencionados antes] és indesculpável, ó homem, quem quer que sejas; porque no que julgas a outro, a ti mesmo te condenas; pois praticas as próprias coisas que condenas. Bem sabemos que o juízo [vindouro] de Deus é segundo a verdade, contra os que praticam tais coisas [...] Segundo a tua dureza e coração impenitente acumulas contra ti mesmo ira para o dia da ira e da revelação do justo juízo de Deus”.
Temos aqui dois tipos de pecados: os físicos e os psíquicos. Os primeiros são, eles próprios, juízos divinos, não causas de outros juízos. São o término e não o início de um processo de desvio espiritual. Já os últimos, são causas de julgamentos futuros de Deus. Portanto, são o início de um desvio que terminará com o julgamento vindouro.
Quando lemos Romanos 1:18-32, sentimos que não é possível a alguém traçar condenação mais completa e enfática. No entanto, Paulo não se contentou com afirmação tão cabal da perdição dos gentios. Prova disso é que continuou a desenvolver o tema, em 2:1-16. E por que o fez? Porque Romanos 1:18-32 trata apenas do juízo presente, isto é, dos pecados físicos. Para uma pessoa com visão dualista do pecado, como era o caso de Paulo, era indispensável mencionar também o juízo vindouro, que é consequência dos pecados psíquicos. Isso ele fez em Romanos 2:1-16.
A chave para a compreensão da depravação sexual dos gentios, com toda a imundícia a ela relacionada, em Romanos 1, é a sua natureza de pecado físico. Portanto de juízo, e não de causa do juízo de Deus. Os atos sexuais são mais instintivos e menos voluntários. O que é instintivo produz consequências imediatas, inclusive quando se deprava. É o que Romanos 1 está a nos dizer. O capítulo 2, porém, afirma outra coisa. Afirma que, no terrível juízo vindouro, os homens terão de prestar contas a Deus de toda injustiça, malícia, avareza, maldade, inveja, homicídio, contenda, dolo, malignidade, difamação, calúnia, desagrado de Deus, insolência, soberba, presunção, invenção de males, desobediência aos pais, insensatez, perfídia, falta de afeição e falta de misericórdia. Esses males envolvem a vontade, não impulsos irrefreáveis. Por isso, nenhum deles escapará da avaliação divina. Sobre eles, recairá a sentença de morte de Deus.

The Apes' Survey (7): The Manuscripts of the Desert

"It is time for dead talkers
and for old, paralytic women nostalgic about ballet, but
it is still time to live and tell"
(Carlos Drummond de Andrade)

The Donkey remained several days with the four. Accompanied them in the collections of fruits and roots, in the search of mouthfuls of honey and in the hunting of animals that could swell their legs for the walk. More than anything, however, he followed them in the scrutiny of species inhabiting the oasis, in the study of the pebbles that filled the cave and in the research they undertook of the sky.
Thus, in fatigues and fascinations, they spent the time of a season. One night, based on the movement of some stars, calculated that if they did not hurry to reach the cliff, which marked the border of the desert to the ocean, they would do so only in the winter, which would imply higher penalties and perhaps death. So, reluctantly, the Apes decided to brave the distance that segregated them from the coastal woods and the animal community that lived there. Devised a plan for that, as simple as annoying to play: they would walk by day and seek refuge in shelters at night.
Potsherd, however, faltered as a reed shaken by the wind. Uncertainties assailed him. Terrors populated his dreams. But he emerged from the conflict with the conviction that they should leave. Communicated this idea to his friends, who trembled at the thought that, coming from Sherd, who was the most reticent in the group, the invitation should indicate a considerable delay. And assented, anxious to redeem the lost time.
After saying farewell to the Donkey, to whom had become attached, they departed from the oasis and resumed journey. As they marched, the wind blew the music characteristic of those stops. His pitch was like the voice of a prophet, which echoes when all mouths are gagged, strength is quenched in all hearts, and surrender dictates its terms. In short, when culture itself staggers. And culture, human and simian, staggered indeed.
Thus, the melodious oracle of the wind filled the desert and turned it into a concert hall. And every ear that was not deaf heard that music. And the music became logos and dwelt in the hearts of the four.
After filling all dimensions of the space, the melody, beauty in the body of sounds, did not remain idle, but conceived and gave birth. However, like any birth, this one also started with pangs. But by a miraculous touch like that of the Donkey on its owner, the pain became effusive joy because of what happened next.
When exhaustion reached its paroxysm and the spirit vanished from each one’s body, from four nothings life was made. Suddenly, Potsherd notified to the others the presence of a rocky formation, that looked similar to the caves and dens where they had harbored during the saga. At first, thought it was a cave. But astonishment took them when got near and saw the ruins of a building.

- Men have lived here, Potsherd concluded. Monks, as the style of construction suggests...
– It’s a monastery! Ware completed.
Glass consented and immediately informed the others:
- If it is, there must be a water fountain somewhere.
And they began to look for it, with the thread of zeal that remained in their hearts. The problem was that the thread was a micron thick, and there was no visible source. Which meant they needed to dig.
Having no other remedy to employ, they began to thin and pull out the earth with stones they found. And they did not know if they dug a well or their own grave. The stones, however, were so appropriate for the work of digging that, in the space of an hour, they reached a layer of damp earth.
The view of the stratum of clay so animated them that they found the strength to dig a little more swiftly. Some more time elapsed, until they finally found water. Yes, water pure and clear! Though almost dead, they fell on their knees and drank. And the water caused them to live again.
After drinking, they lay down under the trees that insisted on growing near the source, and slept an untimely yet restorative sleep. When woke up, Glass asked if they were not in a Hindu monastery. Driven by the question, that was in everyone's heart, the group began to inspect the building. Found that it was quite small by the standards of the time when it had probably been built.
In an instant, they heard a muffled voice:
- Bones, bones!
It was the voice of Monkey Ware, screaming terrified. Everyone rushed to find out what was going on. The Monkey had crept through the slit of a wall to the interior of an underground grave, where fainted at the ghoulish sight of a number of bones on the ground. The place was not only cramped, airtight and smelly. It was also gloomy and dark, though not completely, since light invaded it through cracks like the one that had served him as an entrance.

Tile soon slipped into the tomb, and the others followed. When entered, they saw Monkey Ware covered with some cloths he had found and put on his head to protect it he was not sure from whom or what. He was prostrate with an apoplectic expression on an altar to which a small staircase led.
They all helped the half-dead brother, and calmed him down in all ways they could. But especially told him that humans not infrequently offer much danger, but not their bones. Ware calmed down as he heard the last sentence. It was as if it turned on a hemisphere, a circuit or whatever else in his brain, which had been paralyzed.
Thus, Ware could inspire long gusts of the stale air of the tomb and feel a little better. With glazed eyes, Glass gazed every corner, every inch, every object inside the sarcophagus. But darkness prevented him from seeing clearly. Even so, he thought it was time for the group to examine the findings. However, when he realized, the musty smell had driven his fellows out of the tomb. And having no other alternative, he followed them.
When passing the gap through which they had come in, Glass noticed a sticky object at the distance of a few steps. In one leap, he turned and snatched it. A cloud of dust rose from the finding. Instinctively, Glass shielded his eyes. After uncovering them, he saw it was a manuscript. Shutting the nose with his hand, he examined it slowly and thought: "There may be others."
And he began to rummage the ground around the site where he had found the scroll. He did the same ahead and beyond. Spared no effort, care, tactile examinations of all kinds. But he found nothing, until suddenly stumbled on a second object laid in a corner. His heart beat hurriedly. Glass felt his new find, then lifted it one foot from his head to examine it under the clarity of the gap. But the sequence of movements was enough to lift a second cloud that filled the room.
Glass was annoyed for failing to prevent the last cloud, when he had already inhaled the first one. But covered his eyes and waited for what seemed time enough for the dust particles to drop. And slowly reopened his eyes and found he was in possession of a scroll even larger than the first one.
Feeling lively and unwavering in his resolution to research, Glass restarted the examination. But did not find any other valuable object. So, elated, he narrowed the findings in his arms, squeezed up against the sides of the crack and went out.
Seeing the Monkey dirty from head to toe, like a Wild Pig after rolling in filth, his friends laughed so much that could hardly breath. But as he dragged two large objects, they rushed to meet him, taken by interest. In the sunlight, they realized that one scroll was the Old Testament in six columns, each in a different version, and the other was a copy of Against Celsus, by Origen of Alexandria.
Glass felt that predestined moment reserved them more, much more than the discovery of mere old stuff. He exclaimed:
- The music took us on her wings, so that we could live this moment! She led us by the hand to these books...
The Monkeys had heard of the Bible. They also had some knowledge about the Hexapla, the first manuscript that had been found, and Against Celsus. But Glass had not referred to the knowledge that is like hearing a rumor that wicked winds lead to and fro. He had referred to the experience of the music he and his friends had heard. The symphony that made possible their crossing of the desert was unlike anything that Glass had ever heard about the Bible.
So he continued:
- I heard that Origen, who commanded that the first book was copied and wrote the second one, did so to prove that Jesus was the Christ. In order to verify that the different versions of the Old Testament really said it, Origen had them drafted verse by verse, in parallel columns.
Tile asked:
- But why compare them, if they were translations of a single text? Didn’t they say basically the same?
- No. The differences between the versions were considerable, which led Origen to align them and make a long detective work on the columns.
- But the differences were large enough to justify handwriting a text as long as the Old Testament? And doing so six times? And in several languages? And taking care to align the text verse by verse? Tile insisted with puzzled air.
- The versions differed greatly. As the text’s parallel columns, they sometimes met only at infinity...
These words by Monkey Glass shook his friends and even himself. Without waiting, he continued:
- Origen didn’t order so huge a work for nothing. He had a problem to solve. Someone needed to say a definite word on the greatest jewish debate of the time: if Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ. Origen commanded the Hexapla to be composed only with the the Old Testament books for no other reason.
- And the other book we found?
- The Anti-Celsus is Origen’s answer to the first libel of a philosopher against Christianity. Celsus lived in the second century, when faith in Jesus began to penetrate vigorously the privileged strata of the Roman Empire. Origen transcribed the book of Celsus word by word, in order to refute it completely. That’s why the manuscript is so heavy to drag.
Glass was still speaking when the stones that they had used to dig said:
– Until when shall Men hear the dead without hearing the wind? Until when shall they read Moses and Origen without listening to the music that the east wind blows?
The four froze when heard these words. But not as much as they had done at the time the forest stones had cried. Even Ware behaved.
- Stones, Tile said, who has communicated you this incredible gift of speaking?
- Who? Now who... Don’t you know that from stones God can raise up children to Abraham?
- How so? Ware asked in a supreme effort.
- When Men don't hear the dead, or the singing of the wind, when science becomes bragging, from stones, God raises up children to Abraham.
– So… So, you’re daughters of Abraham? Ware stammered.
- Naturally...
- And even naturally? he said increasingly amazed.
- Yes, when Men no longer hear Moses, Origen, the music of the winds and many other messengers, stones are not limited to cry. They can become children of Abraham.
- And Jesus? asked the discoverer of the tomb. Should he also be heard?
- Not just heard. He is also the subject everyone talks about. "Who is Jesus?" This is the question that all ages have asked. The manuscripts you discovered were composed to answer it. The dechristianization we see raging in the world today also echoes it. But responds it in a reverse mode.
- Study the manuscripts, eventually said the rocks.
And after this sentence, no sound came from them. In spite of how much the Apes interrogated and even poked them, the stones they had used to dig no longer uttered a word. They got into their natural state, into their deep sleep.
However, the four had understood, with unsurpassed clarity, that the investigation they had undertaken was much wider than had suspected. It was about time. And time required that the dead would retell the ancient history in a new way.
The four looked at the manuscripts laid on the ground.

Livre Exame de Romanos (2): As Coisas Invisíveis de Deus

Em Romanos 1:20, lemos: “Porque os atributos invisíveis de Deus, assim o seu eterno poder como também a sua própria divindade, claramente se reconhecem, desde o princípio do mundo, sendo percebidos por meio das cousas que foram criadas. Tais homens são por isso indesculpáveis.”
Se Romanos é um tratado, a culpabilidade dos gregos deve assentar-se em motivos sólidos. É impossível firmar a condenação do mundo gentio em apenas três linhas, no interior de um tratado. Isso traz a certeza de que o versículo que estabelece o motivo dessa condenação tem entrelinhas bem largas, que justificam e detalham a conclusão implacável a que Paulo chega.
Aparentemente, a culpabilidade dos gregos se funda no conhecimento que têm dos atributos invisíveis de Deus e em mais nada. Paulo não dá outras explicações. Devia, porém, ter outras ideias na sua cabeça. Essas ideias estão nas entrelinhas do verso 1:20. Poderíamos perguntar: que são os atributos a que Paulo se refere? Como podem ser conhecidos?
Para responder ou tentar responder essas perguntas, devemos partir do que Paulo afirmou. A começar pelo termo grego aórata, traduzido atributos invisíveis, na Versão Almeida Revista e Atualizada. A tradução é boa, mas extensiva. Literalmente, aórata significa só “os invisíveis”. A palavra atributos não consta no original. Por isso, em várias versões, lê-se “coisas invisíveis”.
Boa parte dos primeiros escritores cristãos considerou que, com essa palavra grega, Paulo quis dizer o que, na literatura da época, se denominava, mais propriamente, “coisas inteligíveis”. Por não se dirigir a filósofos, o apóstolo preferiu dizer invisíveis, em vez de inteligíveis, mas a ideia subjacente à palavra parece ser essa última. Ao menos é o que se conclui do exame da literatura da época, que está repleta de alusões ao invisível ou inteligível em oposição ao visível ou sensível. O primeiro é o que não pode ser visto, tocado ou conhecido por qualquer dos sentidos. O outro é o que o pode ser.
Vejamos alguns exemplos dessas ideias opostas. Orígenes escreveu: “Para quem pode compreender, Paulo apresenta sem rodeios as coisas sensíveis, sob o nome de visíveis e as realidades inteligíveis que só o espírito pode captar, sob o nome de invisíveis. Ele sabe que as coisas sensíveis ou visíveis têm apenas um tempo [e] que as realidades inteligíveis ou invisíveis são eternas” (ALEXANDRIA, Orígenes de. Contra Celso. São Paulo: Paulus, 2004. p. 471). Sob essa ótica, não é preciso dizer a que Paulo se referiu quando escreveu: “Não atentando nós nas cousas que se veem, mas nas que se não veem; porque as que se veem são temporais, e as que se não veem são eternas” (2 Co 4:18).
A interpretação de Orígenes não reflete apenas o seu modo de ver, a sua preferência pessoal, mas uma vasta literatura composta desde o século V a. C. Porém, vejamos um segundo exemplo, já que por duas testemunhas toda palavra será estabelecida. O filósofo pagão Celso escreveu, no século II: “A essência e a geração constituem [respectivamente] o inteligível e o visível. A verdade acompanha a essência, o erro a geração. À verdade se liga a ciência, ao outro domínio a opinião. O inteligível é questão de intelecção, o visível, de visão. É o intelecto que conhece o inteligível, e o olho o visível” (CELSO. O discurso verdadeiro. In ALEXANDRIA, Orígenes de. Ob. cit. p. 583).
Orígenes discordou em quase tudo de Celso. O debate entre eles foi um dos mais célebres de toda a Antiguidade cristã. Porém, o mestre de Alexandria não fez o mais leve reparo à distinção adotada por Celso entre o sensível e o inteligível. E por que não o fez? Porque as palavras em questão haviam entrado para o léxico e assumido significados inequívocos nos primeiros séculos. Eram utilizadas tanto por quem acreditava num mundo inteligível, além do sensível, quanto por quem só cria na matéria. Nesse contexto, portanto, quando se referiu às coisas invisíveis de Deus, com toda probabilidade, Paulo quis dizer o que é estritamente inteligível.
O mesmo contexto não nos permite dúvidas sobre o significado da palavra inteligível. Por esse termo, designa-se o que pode ser conhecido pela inteligência. Contrapõe-se, de certa maneira, ao místico ou irracional. Quer isso dizer que Deus não é “místico”, mas apenas inteligível? Não. Porém, não há, na Bíblia, uma frase que garanta que o que em Deus há de místico possa ser conhecido pelo homem ou comunicado por um homem a outro. Místico é o não revelado, o incompreensível e incomunicável.
Mas avancemos. A afirmativa seguinte de Paulo, em 1:20, é tão importante quanto a referência às coisas invisíveis de Deus. Ele diz que essas coisas “claramente se reconhecem (katorátai), desde o princípio do mundo, sendo percebidas por meio das cousas que foram criadas”. Se a opção de Almeida VRA por “atributos invisíveis” é boa, não se pode dizer o mesmo dos verbos reconhecer e perceber, nas frases acima. O original não diz "claramente se reconhecem", mas "claramente se veem".
Quis o apóstolo afirmar que o invisível se vê? Que o inteligível é percebido pelos sentidos? Obviamente não, pois isso contraria não só o modo de pensar de Paulo, mas de quase todos os escritores da época. No original, o verbo katorátai aparece ao lado de outro, nooúmena, que significa entender. Portanto, o ver claramente, a que Paulo se referiu, é um ato transformado por nooúmena. É um ver com os olhos da inteligência, pois Deus e os seus atributos são invisíveis. A tradução mais literal do versículo seria: “as coisas invisíveis de Deus [...] ao serem entendidas, claramente se veem”.
Como o milagre da visão intelectual dos atributos de Deus se realiza? Paulo afirmou que isso se dá, “por meio das coisas criadas”. Calvino referiu-se à revelação geral de Deus, na natureza, e à revelação especial, nas Escrituras. O desvelamento dos atributos de Deus, por meio das coisas criadas, inclui-se no primeiro caso.
Todos os homens, inclusive os idólatras, a quem Paulo se refere em Romanos 1, têm essa espécie de conhecimento de Deus, como Lutero bem explicou: "Por que razão [os gentios] poderiam chamar de Deus uma imagem ou qualquer outra coisa criada e, além disso, crer nessa comparação, se não soubessem nada acerca do que seria Deus e do que lhe compete fazer? De que modo poderiam atribuir estas qualidades à pedra ou, então, àquilo que julgavam ser semelhante a ela, caso não acreditassem que estas [qualidades] eram [atributos próprios] de Deus?" Por isso, os gentios "sabem que a divindade (a qual também dividiram em muitos deuses) seguramente é invisível" (LUTERO, Martinho. A Epístola aos Romanos. In Obras selecionadas. São Leopoldo: Sinodal/Concórdia, 2003. Vol. 8, p. 262).

Que dizer de todas essas declarações de Paulo? Em Romanos 1, vemos a condenação dos gentios. Mas, no versículo 20, é-nos revelado o justo motivo dela. Por que os gentios merecem ser condenados? Porque receberam a palavra de Deus, por meio das coisas criadas, e não o glorificaram (Rm 1:21), antes adoraram e serviram a criatura (Rm 1:25).
O regime idólatra é a rejeição da revelação de Deus na natureza. Paulo fundou a condenação do mundo gentio nessa rejeição. E, ao declará-la, supôs a clareza com que os atributos de Deus se manifestam por meio das coisas criadas. Por isso escreveu “claramente se veem”, o que se coaduna com a literatura da época. De Platão em diante, o mundo chamado culto passou a aceitar, cada vez mais, que os atributos da divindade se manifestam na natureza. Passou, outrossim, a afirmar a existência de um Deus supremo. Paulo percebeu os dois fatos, assim como a contradição entre eles e a adoração aos ídolos. Os gentios conheciam Deus? A resposta do apóstolo é um firme e sonoro sim. Adoravam a Deus? A resposta é não.
Só nos resta juntar a pergunta fatal: e as pessoas do nosso próprio tempo? Paulo viu diferentes motivos para firmar a condenação de judeus, gentios e bárbaros, na sua época. Se povos distintos, num mesmo século, mereciam a condenação por motivos diferentes, quanto mais os que viveram 20 séculos depois!
A consciência do homem culto de hoje não é como a do cidadão romano do século I. O homem atual não tem a certeza do grego do tempo de Paulo de que os atributos da divindade estão refletidos na natureza. E, se não tem tal certeza, pode a condenação do gentio daquela época ser transportada aos nossos dias? A resposta, senhoras e senhores, é um gordo não.

The Apes' Survey (6): A Donkey in the Wilderness

"They reached the luminous spot
where truth glew in fire"
(Carlos Drummond de Andrade)

The night already fell over the desert, when the Monkeys decided to go out for a little fresh air after the sophisticated but anguished debate they had maintained. Upon leaving the rocky cloister where had been confined, they were startled by the magnificent sky of a deep black contrasted only by the way of shining stars that the ancients called Milky Way. As the day animated that picture with the movement and symphony of birds, night plunged it in such a calm and silence that the soul of the observer froze.
The starry sky, final word of beauty, always constituted the ultimate expression of the mystery of existence. For no other reason it had been in almost all primitive religious manifestations. Prehistoric Man ever saw heaven as the abode of gods. But how often that carved work of artists or that bid of data (depending on the philosophy espoused) is forgotten, trivialized to the point of insignificance? Even him whose innumerable and immeasurable aspect seems to dictate, line by line, the Constitution of the misery of the mind which contemplates it...
In the wilderness, the expanse of the sky is often extraordinarily clear. No cloud hides its wonders, unless, quite seldom, one or another of sand. Therefore, at the first fleeting glimpse they had of the night sky, the friends reached the immediate understanding that such a magnificent darkness, whatever it was, had a confession to tell them. And decided to delay a bit, so that they could hear it.
The lavishness of the oasis in terms of fruits, roots, shadows and water certainly favored their project. As a matter of fact, the green formation they had found was no less than a microcosm, a system for the preservation of life provided with everything that living beings needed or might need, although surrounded by sands whose temperatures exceeded 86 degrees. So, it is not unreasonable to say that an oasis provided of all things as that one was the perfect place for the four friends to scan the sky for as many days as they found necessary.
And they stayed there for a whole week, during which they exploited the site by day; and at night probed the firmament. Altogether, they discerned near three thousand stars. But halted in those that clustered in constellations such as Andromeda and the two Bears, whose forms they discussed with no consensus. In the twilight of the seventh day, when involved in a lively conversation in the woods, they were surprised to see a Donkey grazing. The animal’s taut ears seemed able to capture the most subtle sounds including, as obvious, the conversation of the four.

– I’m also interested in stars, said the Donkey without introduction.
- Good! marveled Tile. We have a new companion! And asked with as much circumstance as the other had employed:
- But how can you see them, if you have the head facing the ground?
- Don’t misunderstand me. I have many reasons for walking with the head down. But I have the snout and the mouth down, not the eyes. Nothing escapes my sight. I see and hear with the same perfection.
- You must see very well, since you have very long ears... Tile said.
- You can’t imagine how much! Donkey agreed. And what about my nose? Have you noticed it?
- Yes, dear friend. It's enormous.
– You overstate it, but it's as big as powerful. Smells perfectly all the smells!
Those words were the cause of an awakening of the four. Suddenly, they understood that their new party had especially accurate senses. Potsherd even imagined that an animal with such acuity could provide them a great means of transport. And he already saw himself installed in the back of the freighter, which woke the same demons of prostration that had tempted him before. And had recourse to flattery:
- You have the most powerful senses in the animal kingdom!
- Far from it, said the Donkey. But they suffice me and yield leftovers. I also deduct, and can make accounts.
Something in those words unveiled a very special feeling, but it was difficult to discern which. They ruled out the possibility of it being vainglory, of which the Donkey’s words had the form, but lacked the elation, the pride, and everything else that constitutes the vital core of that feeling. Rather, the tone in which the Donkey addressed them was the antithesis of vainglory. But still, they had doubts about what animated the newcomer.
- Tell us: how many stars you see in heaven? Tile intervened.
- Thousands, answered the Ass, but there are many others.
- How many? insisted the Monkey.
- Infinite.
- You say that the universe is infinite!
- Yes, although this is little relevant.
- How so? The universe being or not being infinite is irrelevant?
- Sure it is, as a theoretical question, the Donkey promptly replied. Science and Philosophy depend on the rules of conceptual thought. They can’t forsake them without losing their meaning. But those rules are subject to a practical imperative of a higher order: animals only think what helps them perform tasks. The universe being or not infinite does not help them do their daily works. Thus it’s irrelevant.
- So Astronomy is a useless discipline?
- It depends on how you take it. The ancients made Astronomy a kind of Astrology. Thus they gave it a practical meaning. They thought the stars should be studied to determine their influence on human life. It’s true that they understood the movements of celestial bodies far more imperfectly than today’s Men. But have adopted the right principle. I wonder if that principle is not more important than the volume of knowledge. Science must always remain in harmony with its practical imperative. I suspect that Men lost touch with that harmony, as they expanded their knowledge wildly.
- So you read the Zodiac every day? Glass questioned unexpectedly.
- I read the stars, I study them in search of possible messages. I don’t read horoscopes.
- Why don’t you? Glass insisted.
- For very practical reasons. I have a friend, a Donkey like me, who does not go to work without reading the horoscope. Because he was born in January, believes strongly that the constellation of Capricorn governs his life. One day, by mistake, he read the horoscope for Gemini and went to work. As usual, he did only what was recommended in the constellation’s message. At the end of the day, his master gave him a bucket of oats. The Donkey thought it was a reward of the stars for his faithfulness. He swallowed it all until could not eat more. And ended up with indigestion. When he turned to the horoscope to understand why good had turned into evil, found out he had read the wrong message. And concluded that the oats were no prize. On the contrary, the indigestion manifested the wrath of the stars for his lack of faithfulness in reading the right message. Do you understand why I don’t believe in horoscopes? I don’t want to end up like my friend.
Glass replied:
- What you expounded applies to the entire saga of reason, since it made its appearance on Earth. The current disjunction between reason and faith is artificial. It has never been made in the past and seems to be misleading. It conceals a deeper disjunction between reason divorced from its practical imperative and reason married to it. This disjunction is shown throughout the History of Reason. Faith is not credulity, superstition, illusion. It's simply reason’s nuptials with the practical meaning of existence. As such, it is justified by its effect, by the practical result it produces, not by the description of the world it gives. Only a fool would think that the act of believing is intended to describe the world. It’ true that faith can be tainted when it goes astray from reason, when it protects itself from the corroding critique of reason and alienates the intellect. But this is not the normal situation. The problem of the present time is to have fashioned a knowledge contrary to the practical meaning of other knowledges, and having relapsed in the historical disjunction of reason and its practical imperative.
The dialogue thus initiated, continued for much more time. The five Mammals spoke lively, as night unraveled its mysteries slowly. At the end, Glass asked the Donkey:
- You said that your friend has an owner. And yours, where is he?
– Don’t have anymore. As a new Midas(*), I made him an ex-owner, by combining faith to reason and senses. Since then, he left for the world saying he is Apollo. I assumed the faith which is appropriate to my nature, he assumed the deity he thinks fit to his own. And lost reason.
– Didn’t he say you believe because you’re a Donkey?
The Donkey looked at Glass with the downcast eyes characteristic of his species. It was the only answer he offered. His look crossed Glass and went into the immensity of the desert.
Along with the others, Glass continued to walk to and fro, but all of them were silent. The Donkey's last words reverberated in their minds: "He lost his reason. He lost his reason." Yes, and never ceased to be an Ass.
Above them, the truth glew in fire.


(*) In Greek mythology, Midas was the king to whom, in a fit of rage, Apollo gave donkey ears. In another myth, Midas received from Bacchus the power to transform into gold whatever he touched.

The Apes' Survey (5): Footprints on Rock

"My name is turmoil, and is written
In stone"
(Carlos Drummond de Andrade)

The joints of the Apes snapped because of the cold, when they said goodbye to the host who had provided the most pleasant hours of the expedition up to that point and, in the dead of night, resumed the descent of the mountain’s face that lay opposite to the one they had climbed.
Within hours, the four reached a gorge, which they crossed carefully not to climb inadvertently the multiple slopes of the impressive formation. At the end, they found a barren and wavy land that looked like a desert. And thought they were on the right track.
The landscape had been greatly transfigured. Instead of the ice and the mountain’s typical trees, a sandy soil stretched so vastly that it seemed to jam up on the horizon. And instead of the bitter cold and the wild aroma that moisture drew from the soil in the highlands, a warm wind blasted the faces of the travellers. However, so different scenarios had something in common: both concealed mysteries.
In the highland’s desert, those mysteries were concentrated in sharp cliffs at intervals of a few miles from each other, that offered refuge to all sorts of bizarre creatures from Arthropods to Mammals and gangs of Men. The ground burned during the mornings and afternoons, but cooled as the air temperature declined to the level of temperate regions. These features, which are covered in the word rustic, somehow imparted the place its own charm. They also taught that space, more than an abstract data, is existence's greatest condition of possibility and usually shelters only the strong or very cooperative. Especially the very cooperative.
After walking two hours under a scorching sun, the Monkeys saw a small oasis, where they stopped. First, they quenched the thirst in the fountain that sprang like a miracle from the sandy floor. When satisfied, they admired the magnificent trees of the place and ate their pendant fruits. Finally, as the heat increased, they took refuge in a cliff that rose behind the source as a finger pointing to the sky.
Inside the rock, there were no living beings, no single plant, except for mosses that insisted on covering some stones. Rocks, however, were everywhere: on the walls, the ceiling, and especially on the ground. So numerous were they that covered the floor as a treasure of shells that hide pearls. The reader will understand why.
Not resisting the unusual supply of pebbles, Monkey Tile began to play with them. Grabbed a few, threw others, and rubbed still others. He soon realized that a part of the pebble could be sharpened and wielded as a weapon. And did not hesitate to lend the stones formats of guns, in which he was imitated by his companions. And they started to play and to run and to join battle with the inert forms inside the cave. And as they exercised, their shadows projected on the wall of the cave entrance, making them fight with spectra and almost believe they were real. In the end, it might be concluded that Chance had made them enact the Platonic myth in a way more appropriate to science, which examines projected images as well as facts.

And as if he answered Chance, Tile struck a stone with the tip of a sharp pebble, and with such power that it opened up like a book, in equal parts. For general uproar and confusion, two crisp brands emerged from the faces that had lain at the heart of the mineral for ages. Both were shaped like feet. At the bottom of one, something was embedded, and in the corresponding position of the other, a small pit denounced the location where the object had rested before Tile’s stroke unraveled it.

Tile took the half stone with the object jammed. He looked at it in multiple angles. As the gloom did not help him see, he took the stone out, so that under sunlight he might submit it to the desired scrutiny. And astonishment fell over all, when seeing consecutively the distinct shape of a small animal in it!
- It's a Trilobite! Glass screamed in ecstasy.
- Yes, a Trilobite! nodded the one who had cracked the rock. And the brand in which it rests is a human footprint! (*)
- Humm, the cave must contain other stones with such animals... Potsherd completed. We have discovered a fossil deposit!
The conclusion seemed sensible. However, still skeptical, the four continued to look at the footprint with the animal for some time. Looked over and over, as if struck by a crisis of laziness. They also groped and discussed it, before deciding to pursue other fossils. But after taking this decision, they spent the rest of the afternoon in striking and opening stones with other stones, with clumsy tools, even with hands. Though playing, for playing was their role in the world, they already did so in a serious way.
With joy similar to that which had seized them moments before, the friends dicovered other Trilobites and other human footsteps in some of the rocks they opened. However, a stone like the first one, with a Trilobite on a footprint they did not find. Yet gave over quite satisfied.
By the end of the day, they harvested coconuts, bananas, cherries, chinaberries, and other fruits, that carried to the cave entrance. Byproduct of this operation was a trail of fruits throughout the way to the cave. If meant no advantage to the Apes themselves, the trail certainly served the Birds. Anyway, when the job was over, the friends sat down to eat. Did it quite fast, as hunger assailed them, but not fast enough to prevent conversation.
- The fossils we found are of Men and Trilobites, recalled Glass while they ate. The rocks being scattered and not arranged in strata means that Men and Trilobites lived at the same time in the same site.
Potsherd had long waited the obvious though unusual conclusion. When it was uttered, he confidently exclaimed:
- But the Trilobites became extinct 250 million years ago! How could they have lived with Men, who have been on Earth for only two million?
And without waiting for an answer, he brought to the center of their conversation some data that had not gone unnoticed, but lacked being discussed:
- Just note the rectilinear shape of the edges of the footprint. It could only be produced by a shoe, never by a bare foot. The walker smashed the little animal with a sandal.
- Which brings us to an even more recent period, in which Men already wore shoes and clothes, intervened Ware.
- But the extinction of Trilobites, Glass remembered, is well documented in Paleontology. They abound in fossils up to 250 million years ago and suddenly disappear. The fossil testimony is corroborated by the total absence of Trilobites today. None of these creatures, once abundant, has been found alive or recently dead.
- You are right, said Ware. The coexistence of Men and Trilobites can be explained in several ways. We can retreat Men to the time of these animals or bring them into the human era. What can’t be denied is the coexistence attested by so many stones.
- Nor should we lose sight, interrupted Glass, that Trilobites may have been extinct between the time in which they prospered and the appearance of humans on Earth. As much as the science of origins reflects the image of a tree, with many categories emerging from fewer, and these from only three or four, nothing must have prevented the groups from emerging one or more times in different places and ages. Trilobites as the ones we found may have emerged, been extinguished and reappeared. At least this hypothesis can explain their coexistence with Men, which the stones show.
- Days ago, recalled Ware, the forest stones shouted to us. These are not less about to cry...
The Monkeys spoke while thinking, and thought while speaking. Their discussion reflected the always distressing circumstances of the investigation. The turmoil of the adventure induced turbulent moods, that led to messy and passionate discussions. But neither the difficulty of the adventure, nor the heated discussions sufficed to stop their undertaking.
Glass pointed out the relationship of their fossil finds with the modern theory of kinship of living beings:
- A population having almost the same genetic heritage as the first being of its kind does not mean it descends from him. The Trilobites we found today share some genes with their elder peers, but do not descend from them, since the first Trilobites were extinct. The dogma of the single origin of each group falters. And if it does, we are not obliged to conceive offspring as a synonym for origin from one and the same ancestor trunk.
After considering for a while, Glass also formulated two questions as one who fires well-aimed arrows:
– Shouldn't we extend our reflections on the Trilobites to other groups? If a being on Earth may descend not from the first specimen of its kind, but from a later one, isn’t it legitimate to think that a group may have originated several times and not only one? A scientific law, a natural regularity like the common heritage of all beings of a kind shall mark out, but not hamper thought. It cannot enforce intelligence to disregard any possible explanation of phenomena. Especially explanations that rest on evidence so clear that seems to claim like the forest stones.
And added:
- Darwin created a clear-cut idea of descent with modification. He even carved it as an artist. However, as ancient happenings changed the existing species, recent findings demand changes in the concept of descent. Change over generations does not necessarily imply a single ancestor. And if it does not, the offspring of beings of all ages may look even more like a web, with interwoven yarns, than a tree.
It can’t be denied that so many conjectures, questions, doubts and contradictory evidences mirrored minds in atrocious conflict. But the greater tumult that assailed the friends and made them quiver was laid on the facts. From these it was loose and imprinted on the soul of the four, as a stamp of many truths or a light beam passing through a prism.

(*) A fossil trilobite within the footprint of a man wearing sandals was discovered in 1968, 45 miles away from the city of Delta, in the United States, by William J. Meister. The text is based on this real finding.