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

Abegg's quote

Expand Messages
  • Tom Simms
    ... Here is a piece of my reply from Marty Abegg collected from a download sent 2 Jan 1999, showing that mmy reply came in late 1998. I wrote Marty Abegg at
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 2 10:53 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      On Thu, 01 Jun 2000 20:04:42 -0500, jgibson000@... writes:
      >Tom Simms wrote:
      >> On Tue, 30 May 2000 17:30:18 -0500, jgibson000@... writes:
      >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 as-
      >sumptions 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.

      Here is a piece of my reply from Marty Abegg collected from a download sent
      2 Jan 1999, showing that mmy reply came in late 1998.

      I wrote Marty Abegg at <abegg@...> about the difficulty I had trying to
      figure out the discrepancy between the number of texts in their (Wise,
      Abegg and Cook) book and the total number of fragements, receiving this

      "First a word of definition. The title now claims 'complete' but Vermes is
      quick to inform us that this does not mean every manuscript retrieved from
      the caves-as one might expect-but rather, "it is complete in one sense: it
      offers in a readable form all the texts sufficiently well preserved to be
      understandable in English" (xiii). Nor does it mean that it is the most
      complete scroll translation available. If completeness is an issue, both
      The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, (M. Wise et al., San Francisco:
      HarperCollins, 1996) and The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, (F. Garcia
      Martinez, Leiden: Brill, 1994) come out on top by nearly 50 texts. Vermes,
      however, has widened his cast from 100 texts (4th edition, 1995) to 212. He
      also continues his pattern of translating only the largest or most inter-
      esting fragments of the manuscripts he includes. This means that by
      fragment count he includes only 65% of the text of his nearest contender,
      The Dead Sea Scrolls (M. Wise et al). If one desires completeness, The Dead
      Sea Scrolls Translated (F. Garcia Martinez) is the clear choice."

      Jeff, I see in my file of '99 Abegg references, a note from you on the same
      topic as above. I'd forgotten - this was on the old Crosstalk, Sun,
      17 Jan 1999. You were then arguing for Barrera's _Bible_. I also have
      responses from NPL on this topic. I also see my reply to Jim West which
      he solicited requests for his spare WAC copy which I took him up on...

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


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