Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
logo share SHARE BASE
Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL | DATACITE

Can methodological limits be set in the debate on the identification of 7Q5?

AuthorsSpottorno, Mª Victoria CSIC
KeywordsFilología bíblica
Papiros del Mar Muerto
Issue Date1999
PublisherConsejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (España)
CitationDead Sea Discoveries, vol. 6, Nº 1, 1999, págs. 66-77
AbstractThe 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 65-53 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 Gonzálea,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.
Appears in Collections:(CCHS-ILC) Artículos

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
20091210090254088.pdf583,16 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
Show full item record
Review this work

Page view(s)

checked on Jan 18, 2022


checked on Jan 18, 2022

Google ScholarTM


WARNING: Items in Digital.CSIC are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.