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

Review of "The First New Testament" by BeDuhn

Expand Messages
  • David Inglis
    In an Amazon review here http://www.amazon.com/review/R15WZET7H7WW08/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R15WZET7H7WW08 the following claim is made: Nine fragments of New
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 23, 2013
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment

      In an Amazon review here http://www.amazon.com/review/R15WZET7H7WW08/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R15WZET7H7WW08  the following claim is made: “Nine fragments of New Testament books were discovered in Qumran Cave 7, these being 7Q4 - 1 Tim 3:16-4:3; 7Q5 - Mark 6:52-53; 7Q6, 1 - Mark 4:28; 7Q8 - James 1:23-24; 7Q6, 2 - Acts 27:38; 7Q9 - Romans 5:11-12; 7Q7 - Mark 12:17; 7Q10 - 2 Peter 1:15; and 7Q15 -Mark 6:48.” In the first case, is there ANY evidence supporting this claim, apart from that from O’Callaghan and Thiede? However, even if the words in ALL of these fragments could be shown to be the same as we see in one or more NT mss, surely it would be going too far to claim that these mss from Qumran were fragments of NT books, not least because that implies a directionality for which there is zero evidence. Taking 7Q5 as the most plausible (least implausible?) example, even if the words could be proved to be the same as in 1 Tim, how could anyone use this to show that they were at some time part of a whole letter that we know as 1 Tim? Surely all we could say is that they are the same words, and nothing more.

      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

    • Dave Washburn
      The short answer to your question is, no. There isn t really any supporting evidence. If you ve read the book you know that O Callaghan used tons of special
      Message 2 of 2 , Nov 23, 2013
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        The short answer to your question is, no. There isn't really any supporting evidence. If you've read the book you know that O'Callaghan used tons of special pleading, including a variant in Mark that's not found anywhere else, to maintain his identifications. I don't know of any reputable scholar who has taken it seriously, which is probably why virtually nothing has been written about it since this book appeared decades ago.

        Dave Washburn
        http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
        Check out my review show, No Life With Irving



        From: davidinglis2@...
        To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 11:49:53 -0800
        Subject: [textualcriticism] Review of "The First New Testament" by BeDuhn

         

        In an Amazon review here http://www.amazon.com/review/R15WZET7H7WW08/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R15WZET7H7WW08  the following claim is made: “Nine fragments of New Testament books were discovered in Qumran Cave 7, these being 7Q4 - 1 Tim 3:16-4:3; 7Q5 - Mark 6:52-53; 7Q6, 1 - Mark 4:28; 7Q8 - James 1:23-24; 7Q6, 2 - Acts 27:38; 7Q9 - Romans 5:11-12; 7Q7 - Mark 12:17; 7Q10 - 2 Peter 1:15; and 7Q15 -Mark 6:48.” In the first case, is there ANY evidence supporting this claim, apart from that from O’Callaghan and Thiede? However, even if the words in ALL of these fragments could be shown to be the same as we see in one or more NT mss, surely it would be going too far to claim that these mss from Qumran were fragments of NT books, not least because that implies a directionality for which there is zero evidence. Taking 7Q5 as the most plausible (least implausible?) example, even if the words could be proved to be the same as in 1 Tim, how could anyone use this to show that they were at some time part of a whole letter that we know as 1 Tim? Surely all we could say is that they are the same words, and nothing more.

        David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA


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