Re: [XTalk] Abegg's quote
- 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-I see now, Jeff, why you got your shorts in a knot so badly over
>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.
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?
- 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.
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
Dr. R. E. Watts (PhD, Cantab) Phone (604) 224 3245
Regent College, UBC Fax (604) 224 3097
5800 University Boulevard
CANADA V6T 2E4