From: Nichael Lynn Cramer (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Apr 25 1998 - 14:46:54 EDT
James Trimm wrote:
>One must be very careful. In April of 1990 BAR (p. 24) strongly implied
>that 4Q246 was a fragment of Luke (Lk. 1:32, 35). [...]
Since 1] the fragment was presumably in Hebrew or Aramaic (i.e. virtually
all the Greek fragments found in the DSS came from cave 7) --and so in no
meaningful sense a "fragment of Luke-- and 2] given the level of
misinformation and conjecture on this topic that has been bouncing around
here as "fact" in the last couple of days, I trust that one might be
forgiven if we were to forstall judgement on what was actually being
"implied" here until one could actually get ones hands on a copy of the
BAR article in question.
>A fragment rumored in 1990 to be a fragment of Luke is now thought to refer
>to an anti-christ figure. So again, one must be very careful not to make
>the same mistakes twice.
In any case, be that as it may, a rather wild conjecture --and I think it's
safe to say tha one would be pretty hard pressed to come up with a single
(other?) refernce that takes such an identification even remotely
seriously-- really has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
In short, no such "mistake" was made in the first place.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:36 EDT