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

2 Sam 15-17 in the DSS

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    ... What it **looks like** is not the issue here. There is reason to believe, not the least of which is Abegg himself publishing, in his _Dead Sea Scrolls
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 1, 2000
      Tom Simms wrote:

      > 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?

      What it **looks like** is not the issue here. There is reason to believe, not the
      least of which is Abegg himself publishing, in his _Dead Sea Scrolls Bible_,
      translations of manuscripts from Qumran which attest to 2 Sam 15-17 having been
      found among the DSS, that you have not grasped what the index to WAC represents.

      > 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.

      Lacks rigor? Really? Let me note, first of all, that WAC mention in their intro
      (p. 5) that the DSS consist of thousands of fragments and the remains of 870
      separate scrolls. So the very fact that the number of scrolls (let alone
      fragments) listed in their index is far fewer than this, should be a clue that
      their index was NOT intent to list the "whole ball of wax" as you put it.

      Secondly, WAC themselves note -- in their intro (p.11) -- and quite contrary to
      the serious Qumranites who advised you otherwise -- that copies of every book of
      the OT except Esther were found amongst the DSS.

      So I hardly think that my claim 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.

      shows lack rigor at all, unless it is a lack of rigor to take WAC at their own
      word and to trust them, rather than someone else, to be the best interpreters of
      what they themselves are claiming.

      So I would again insist that

      > The fact that the manuscripts of Samuel are not, or
      > >are only incompletely, indexed in [WAC] 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.

      No as to your appeal to let you

      > ... 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.

      I have this to say. Given what Abegg himself has published in his DSS Bible (not
      to mention the listing of the finds at Qumran in Vermes latest assessment of the
      scrolls, the discussion of what biblical manuscripts have been found at Qumran
      by J.T. Barrera in his _The Jewish and The Christian Bible_, and some personal
      correspondence on this matter with John J. Collins) I seriously wonder whether you
      have interpreted the "tenor" of Abegg's note to you correctly. But I'm willing to
      be proven wrong. Care to share the contents of this letter with the List?

      In any case, I have written to Abegg myself, as well as to Cook, and asked them
      directly whether or not they intended to be encyclopedic in their index to WAC and
      whether their not listing a particular Biblical book or passage in the index means
      that that book or passage was not found among the scrolls. If they tell me that
      I'm wrong in my assumptions about what they were (or more importantly, were NOT)
      and that you were right about the import of the index, I'll be happy to agree. But
      I trust that if they tell me that their intent was not what YOU have claimed it to
      be, and that absence of a notice in the index does NOT mean absence among the
      scrolls, that you will admit that your claim about the absence of 2 Sam 15-17 in
      the DSS is wrong.



      Jeffrey B. Gibson
      7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
      Chicago, Illinois 60626
      e-mail jgibson000@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.