mc2499 at mclink.it
Mon Dec 20 04:00:17 EST 1999
At 19.46 19/12/99 -0700, Dave Washburn wrote:
>> At 19.49 19/12/99 +0200, Jonathan D. Safren wrote:
>> >The Melchizedek incident of Gen. 14 is not referred to; but Melchizedek
>> >is, in Ps. 110.
>> Yes, Jonathan, I did refer to Ps. 110 specifically as not appearing at
>> Qumran being part of a group that has no presence.
>And you're wrong. Psalm 110 does not appear thus far in the
>published texts, but cave 4 has yielded all but 106, 107, 110, 111
Could you please cite the fragments, Dave. I may be using an old list. The
omission in the cave 11 scroll was what I was working on. Where nearly all
the numerically later scrolls are present there is a gap from 110 to 117.
The scribe responsible reordered all the scrolls available to him and those
don't seem to have been available.
>Even absence from the Psalms scroll of cave 11 can't be
>pushed too far, because it is a very unusual scroll and certainly
>can't be taken to indicate that they were or were not familiar with a
>particular psalm or group of psalms. Thus, absence of Psalm 110
>from Qumran (at least as far as we know until DJD 16 comes out)
>is meaningless for this discussion.
Peculiar, yes. Comprehensive, except for just those psalms, is significant.
If as I argue elsewhere that Melchizedek should be tied to the Hasmonean
dynasty, then Qumran with the Michaelesque 11QMelch shows the nascent
tradition. The scrolls belong to the right period for the emergence.
More information about the b-hebrew