On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 22:05:01 -0500, jgibson000@...
[... Snip ...]
>and then went on to attempt to show him that his claim was contradicted by
>evidence from the DSS, Tom wrote:
>> One verse from one chapter and fragments of a verse from another
>> are hardly evidence for the whole text being known over the Turn
>> of the Era and being common knowledge until the Opus of Samuel
>> was completed. It argues, for me at least, for a late composi-
>> tion of Samuel. There's no large body of text to support such
>> other than such a view, IMO. Now, show me whole sections of the
>> work surviving and watch me change my mind. Until then, I'll not
>> take the stretches you seem to think good scholarship.
>You might then wish to be aware -- which you seem not to be -- that evidence
>contrary to your claim was offered by Milik and Strugnell as long ago as 1959.
>Strugnell, translating Milik's _Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness in
>Judea_, noted (p. 25) that
> (and this is irrespective of what is found in each of the other 3 DSS
> Samuel MSS, including, by the way, one found cave 1 [1Q7] which, as
> D. Barthelemy [ DJD 1, 64-65] has shown, testifies to a knowledge at
> Qumran of something as extensive as our canonical Samuel)
>4Q51 [4QSam(a)] is just such a large body of the text of Samuel which you deny
>existed at Qumran since it was something that "originally contained 37
>columns", 33 of which were devoted to 1 Samuel and 24 of which to 2 Samuel,
>and which, even in its fragmentary state, testifies that Samuel as we know it
>was NOT a relatively late construct, since the scroll contains "samples from
>**every chapter of** (emphasis mine)" our present 1 and 2 Samuel.
>Moreover, F.M. Cross demonstrated from paleographic evidence (and Strugnell
>and Milik concurred with him on this) that another Samuel manuscript, 4Q52
>[4QSam(b)], which testifies to knowledge at Qumran of something as extensive as
>and, in content, very similar to our canonical Samuel, was to be dated towards
>the end of the third century B.C.E (see F.M. Cross, "the Oldest Manuscript
>from Qumran", JBL 74 (1955) 147-172 --pl 6). Such an early dating of a
>witness to the BOOK of Samuel, if valid, certainly goes a long way to in-
>validate any contention that there was no BOOK of Samuel until well after
>the turn of the century or that, even if there were, it would not be widely
>known before that time.
I see now, Jeff, why you got your shorts in a knot so badly over
this matter. You, like Goranson, have painted yourself into a
corner and refuse to accept what today's scholarship is reveal-
ing. I rather doubt you will send this comment to the List or my
reply to Goranson's position so I will make sure this post and
the one to Goranson is viewed by as many as possible in any case.
[... Snip ...]
BTW, have you heard back from Marty Abegg &c?