JEDP (Melchizedek) (Dave)
mc2499 at mclink.it
Mon Dec 20 18:58:34 EST 1999
>Ian, if you're going to cite me please do it accurately. I said no
>such thing about Psalm 110.
If I've done you wrong here, Dave, sorry.
>And I dealt in more depth with the
>cave 11 curiosity scroll in another post.
I came across another post by you after I wrote the one you're now
>This scroll proves
>absolutely nothing about order,
I have no gripe about order. It may not have been set at the time of
writing, though there may already have been groups of psalms.
>content or canonicity of any psalm
>or group of psalms.
Content is a different matter. You seem to think that it is just
coincidence that the text doesn't have a string of the psalms. You wanna
say what theological (or any other) grounds those ones might have been
>You can flail it about all you want,
We all flail, Dave. I don't consider I do it more than anyone else on this
list. You've been flailing here, so why should I be any different. You're
trying hard to b/s your way around dealing with dating the psalm. How about
trying to date it instead of this performance?
>but it won't
>get you anywhere because this particular scroll is so bizarre that
>nothing solid can be built on it.
When nothing else is available one attacks the physical evidence. This text
is no good because it doesn't adhere to your desire for the text. But it is
a text that was around long before the setting of textual canonicity. It
has most of the psalms, just not this one sequence. It must therefore be so
bizarre. Hey, it includes other psalms! The psalm canon wasn't fixed at the
time, right? It didn't have pslams 110 - 117. Is that so difficult?
More information about the b-hebrew