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

Re: [XTalk] Abegg's quote

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    In response to my statement to Tom Simms in which I first asked to be allowed to ... and then went on to attempt to show him that his claim was contradicted by
    Message 1 of 6 , Jun 2, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      In response to my statement to Tom Simms in which I first asked to be allowed to

      > >... remind you of what started this thread. It was your notice that Ted
      > >Weeden's claim about Mark having derived some of his ideas for his Gethsmene
      > >story from the story of the betrayal of David by Ahithopel as this is set out
      > >in 2 Sam. 15-17 was impossible since (to quote you):
      > >
      > >> The Dead Sea Scrolls contain NOTHING of this text nor do they
      > >> contain any MSS which suggests this "Book" existed. Also, as I
      > >> understand, no before the Turn of the Era MSS show any evidence
      > >> of either book of Samuel. Hence, to me, the material was being
      > >> assembled, bruited about and talked over as the Tanakh began to
      > >> grow.

      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 invalidate any contention that there was no book
      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.

      Now before you dispute me on any aspect of the above, here are a few for you, Tom.
      Have you ever read 4Q51 [4QSam(a)]? How about 1Q7 or 4Q52 [4QSam(b)] and 4Q53
      [4QSam(c)]?

      And what do you do with the evidence from Philo -- namely, the (by my count) nine
      quotes, spread out in his writings, from books 1-10 of 1 Samuel -- which seems to
      show not only that Samuel was known as a book outside of Palestine before the first
      cent. C.E., but was accepted as Scripture by Jews not associated with Qumran?.

      Yours,

      Jeffrey
      --
      Jeffrey B. Gibson
      7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
      Chicago, Illinois 60626
      e-mail jgibson000@...
      jgibson000@...
    • Tom Simms
      On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 22:05:01 -0500, jgibson000@home.com writes: [... Snip ...] ... I see now, Jeff, why you got your shorts in a knot so badly over this
      Message 2 of 6 , Jun 3, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 22:05:01 -0500, jgibson000@... writes:

        [... 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?

        Tom Simms
      • Liz Fried
        To my knowledge 2Sam. 15-17 is in all versions of the LXX. It would be pertinent to know if these chapters were in the LXX at Qumran. This was the version of
        Message 3 of 6 , Jun 3, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          To my knowledge 2Sam. 15-17 is in all versions of the LXX.
          It would be pertinent to know if these chapters were in the LXX at Qumran.
          This was the version of the OT most NT writers used anyway.
        • Rikki E. Watts
          Jeffery, I would add that the Josephus account (Antiq.7.9.2ff. (197ff)) further supports your contention. But even if the book itself didn t exist then there
          Message 4 of 6 , Jun 3, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            Jeffery,

            I would add that the Josephus' account (Antiq.7.9.2ff. (197ff)) further
            supports your contention. But even if the book itself didn't exist then
            there is evidence here that the relevant stories were known.

            Further, NA26 sees numbers of NT citations of Samuel (1 Sam 12.22 in Rom
            11.22; 2 Sam 5.2 in Mt 2.6; 2 Sam 7.8 in 2 Cor 6.18; 2 Sam 7.14 in 2 Cor
            6.18; Heb 1.5; Rev 21.7; and 2 Sam 22.50 in Rev 15.9) plus around 50-60
            allusions. Given that several of these texts are Pauline and therefore
            pre-Markan, it seems that all this would suggest that Ted's appeal to Sam
            (whatever one might think of the rest of his theory) is reasonably
            well-supported.

            Rikk


            Dr. R. E. Watts (PhD, Cantab) Phone (604) 224 3245
            Regent College, UBC Fax (604) 224 3097
            5800 University Boulevard
            Vancouver, BC
            CANADA V6T 2E4
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.