JEDP (Melchizedek) (Dave)
mc2499 at mclink.it
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