Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [XTalk] arrest of Jesus

Expand Messages
  • Tom Simms
    ... Let me quote from an earlier post of mine to the List: Here s what Wise, Abegg and Cook (1996) index From 1 Sam 3:14-17 4Q160 1 1-7 p. 208 WAC 8:6
    Message 1 of 9 , May 30, 2000
      On Tue, 30 May 2000 17:30:18 -0500, jgibson000@... writes:
      >
      >In response to my inquiry regarding whether Tom Simms was saying
      >And I suggest that you look at _The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible_ " ed. M.
      >Abegg, P. Flint, and E. Ulrich along with the latest edition of Geza
      >Vermes' _An Introduction to the Complete Dead Sea Scrolls_ where it is
      >independently noted that that we have 4 MSS of Samuel. 1 from cave 1
      >and 3 from cave 4. 2 Sam 15-17 is found in 4QSam(c). (also 4qsam(a).
      >True, the MSS break off and contain only v.23 of chap 17 and chap 16
      >is fragmentary, but this seems to be due to the vicissitudes of
      >preservation and NOT to the fact that Samuel was not known and used at
      >Qumran (let alone anywhere else) as you seem to be claiming.

      Let me quote from an earlier post of mine to the List:

      Here's what Wise, Abegg and Cook (1996) index
      From 1 Sam
      3:14-17 4Q160 1 1-7 p. 208 WAC
      8:6 4Q389 4 355
      16:1-13 11Q5 28:3-11 448
      19:22 4Q522 1 i 13 422

      From 2 Sam
      7:10-14a 4Q174 2::19-3:2 227
      7:11b 4Q174 3:7 227
      7:11C-14a 4Q174 3:10-11 227

      Look at p. 227 for context.

      Doesn't that look as the encyclopedia?

      Some serious Qumranites advised me that Wise, Abegg and Cook gave
      the whole ball of wax, as you can see above. Until that advice
      and what I note below, I see contra yours following, having found
      it lacked rigor.

      >It seems to me that your appeal to WAC for your contention (and the
      >conclusion you draw from it regarding Ted's thesis) is faulty because
      >you assume that WAC are intent to do something that they never claimed
      >they were doing, namely listing all of the **biblical** manuscripts
      >found at Qumran. The fact that the manuscripts of Samuel are not, or
      >are only incompletely, indexed in their texts is NOT, therefore, due
      >to the fact that no MSS of Samuel were found at Qumran, but that it
      >was never WACs' intention to list all of, let alone discuss, the
      >specifically BIblical finds.

      See above. Do you follow the post 70 CE deposit date too?
      ..

      Let me go back to when I viewed their work as you do. My change came from
      the tenor of a post that Abegg sent me about two years ago when I wrote him
      about the Introduction to the volume where he says just about contra the
      view you take. He didn't deny his own work. Then I made my inquiries of a
      number of Orionites. Pursuing that view, it soon became clear the C-14
      testing was being wrongly interpreted. The result was a Qumran deposit
      circa the arrival of Pompey.

      >Yours,
      >
      >Jeffrey Gibson
      >--
      >Jeffrey B. Gibson
      >7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
      >Chicago, Illinois 60626
      >e-mail jgibson000@...
      > jgibson000@...


      Regards,

      Tom Simms
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.