English   español  
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/19478
logo share SHARE   Add this article to your Mendeley library MendeleyBASE
Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL | DATACITE
Exportar a otros formatos:

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSpottorno, Mª Victoria-
dc.identifier.citationDead Sea Discoveries, vol. 6, Nº 1, 1999, págs. 66-77en_US
dc.description.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.en_US
dc.format.extent597156 bytes-
dc.publisherConsejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (España)en_US
dc.subjectFilología bíblicaen_US
dc.subjectPapiros del Mar Muertoen_US
dc.titleCan methodological limits be set in the debate on the identification of 7Q5?en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer revieweden_US
Appears in Collections:(CCHS-ILC) Artículos
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
20091210090254088.pdf583,16 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
Show simple item record

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