Can Methodological Limits Be Set in the Debate On the Identification of 7Q5?
1999; Brill; Volume: 6; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1163/156851799x00054
ISSN1568-5179
Autores Tópico(s)Historical, Religious, and Philosophical Studies
ResumoThe papyrus fragment 7Q5 has caused a polemic based on the fact that it has few recognisable letters, even fewer words, and a generally cloudy history. The polemic started when J. O'Callagban identified 7Q5 as Mark 6 5 5 3 in 1972, and has remained tenacious in his proclamation of the certainty of his identification since he first published it.' He and his follower C.P. Thiede often move the debate to joumals and reviews where the severe and rigorous objections of serious scholars do not appear. Lately, on the Internet, 1 came across an interview with O'Callaghan by G. Mckenzie G o n z a l e ~ , ~ in which O'Callaghan's personable and open expressiveness certainly did not hide his authoritarian arguments. He explains the history of the identification of 7Q5 with Mark 652-53, stsessing the honesty and papyrological rigor observed by him throughout the process, and showing more eagerness to succeed in his thesis than the scientific interest needed to gain a valid conclusion. The readeican perceive that O'Callaghan does not pay enough attention to the actual meaning of the opposing argu~nents.~ Although he says that he seriously considers
Referência(s)