JEDP (Melchizedek) (Dave)

Ian Hutchesson mc2499 at
Mon Dec 20 17:21:35 EST 1999

>> The scribe responsible reordered all the scrolls available to him and those
>> don't seem to have been available.
>This is an assumption, Ian.  The simple truth is, we have no idea  why the
>scribe of 11QPs did what he did with the text.  I suspect  that the scroll
>is a liturgical composition/collection of some kind,  but that's also an

Yeah, Dave. Out of over sixty psalms there is one string of them missing.

>> >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.
>Comprehensive?  Yes, it even includes 4 non-canonical Psalms.  It  also
>includes wild interpolations in several of the canonical ones, adds
>refrains after each verse in others, rearranges some psalms internally and
>otherwise mucks with the text in ways that we've never seen before or

Hey, you got a better source? Or are you just retrojecting?

>Don't hang your hat on this scroll, Ian.   There's no hatrack there.
>> 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.
>I believe Peter has answered this sufficiently, so I'll repeat his 
>question: have you read Psalm 110 in Hebrew lately?

Let me be succinct: if you (or Peter) would like to make a case for dating
the psalm, feel free to do so. This vague reliance on attributing the
textual problems of the psalm to its age in preference to a number of other
possible reasons doesn't cut it.



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list