{"title":"两个大马士革文献碎片和错误的身份","authors":"E. Tigchelaar","doi":"10.1163/15685179-20201001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Two of the unidentified Cave 4 fragments preserving text of the Damascus Document which were mistakenly associated with 4Q269 should instead be assigned to 6Q15, since they join to 6Q15 fragment 1. This is the first case of a join between fragments claimed to have come from different caves. Also PAM 41.734 does not clearly distinguish between all Cave 4 and Cave 6 fragments.","PeriodicalId":42669,"journal":{"name":"Dead Sea Discoveries","volume":"28 1","pages":"64-74"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Two Damascus Document Fragments and Mistaken Identities\",\"authors\":\"E. Tigchelaar\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15685179-20201001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Two of the unidentified Cave 4 fragments preserving text of the Damascus Document which were mistakenly associated with 4Q269 should instead be assigned to 6Q15, since they join to 6Q15 fragment 1. This is the first case of a join between fragments claimed to have come from different caves. Also PAM 41.734 does not clearly distinguish between all Cave 4 and Cave 6 fragments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42669,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dead Sea Discoveries\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"64-74\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dead Sea Discoveries\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685179-20201001\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dead Sea Discoveries","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685179-20201001","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
Two Damascus Document Fragments and Mistaken Identities
Two of the unidentified Cave 4 fragments preserving text of the Damascus Document which were mistakenly associated with 4Q269 should instead be assigned to 6Q15, since they join to 6Q15 fragment 1. This is the first case of a join between fragments claimed to have come from different caves. Also PAM 41.734 does not clearly distinguish between all Cave 4 and Cave 6 fragments.
期刊介绍：
Dead Sea Discoveries is an international journal dedicated to the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and associated literature. The journal is primarily devoted to the discussion of the significance of the finds in the Judean Desert for Biblical Studies, and the study of early Jewish and Christian history. Dead Sea Discoveries has established itself as an invaluable resource for the subject both in the private collections of professors and scholars as well as in the major research libraries of the world. ● Discussions on new discoveries from a wide variety of perspectives. ● Exchange of ideas among scholars from various disciplines. ● Thematic issues dedicated to particular texts or topics.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
