JEDP (Melchizedek) (Dave)
dwashbur at nyx.net
Mon Dec 20 20:51:05 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.
I suggest you go back and read my previous post then.
> >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
> responding to.
> >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.
It's easy to say "there may have been X" and then proceed as if it
has been proven...
> >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
> omitted under?
Actually, yes, I suspect it's coincidence. Is it also coincidence
that the last half of Psalm 109 is preserved, not on the main part of
the scroll, but on a separate fragment? Of course it is. Where is
that fragment placed, and how much room might there have been
for these "missing" psalms? Psalm 93 is the lowest-numbered of
the canonical psalms that appears in it (the scroll actually begins
with Psalm 105, at least the preserved portion), so we have to
conclude from it that Psalms 1-92 were composed later than the
scroll too, right? Why were they excluded? What theological
reasons can you give for it? The verse order in Psalm 118 (in part)
is 15, 16, 9, 9, 29 in column 16 with verse 29 repeated on fragment
E. Psalm 133 appears between Psalm 141 and 144 and adds
$LWM (L YSR)L at the end. Psalm 145 adds a refrain, BRWK
YHWH WBRWK $MW L(WLM W(D after each verse. The scroll
throws an extra, hitherto-unknown verse between 146:9 and 10.
And all that is just for warm-up. All this is to respond to this:
> 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?
First of all, we don't know that it was "around long before the
setting of textual canonicity" (whatever "textual canonicity" is).
Second, I had no idea that omitting the first 92 psalms constituted
"it has most of the psalms." Third, the fragmentary nature of the
area of the scroll around Psalm 109 suggests that we don't know
for sure about the omission of 110-117. Fourth, and most
important, until you can explain ALL the peculiarities of this scroll -
its odd ordering, its unique textual character (and it is UNIQUE, not
just minority readings), the addition of refrains, the fact that it lacks
more than half the Psalter and all the other strange features of this
scroll, you're not likely to convince anyone of anything related to
Psalm 110. As I said before, and it would be a good idea for you to
take note, hanging your hat on this scroll because it happens to
seem to support a notion of yours - in fact the very thing you
accuse me of - is a bad idea. As my dad used to say, you're
leaning on a broken reed.
Teach me your way, O Lord, and I will walk in your truth;
give me an undivided heart that I may fear your name.
More information about the b-hebrew