English   español  
Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar a este item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/19478
Compartir / Impacto:
Add this article to your Mendeley library MendeleyBASE
Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL

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

AutorSpottorno, Mª Victoria
Palabras claveFilología bíblica
Papiros del Mar Muerto
Fecha de publicación1999
EditorConsejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (España)
CitaciónDead Sea Discoveries, vol. 6, Nº 1, 1999, págs. 66-77
ResumenThe 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.
Aparece en las colecciones: (CCHS-ILC) Artículos
Ficheros en este ítem:
Fichero Descripción Tamaño Formato  
20091210090254088.pdf583,16 kBAdobe PDFVista previa
Mostrar el registro completo

NOTA: Los ítems de Digital.CSIC están protegidos por copyright, con todos los derechos reservados, a menos que se indique lo contrario.