JEDP (Melchizedek) (Dave)

Ian Hutchesson mc2499 at mclink.it
Tue Dec 21 07:10:11 EST 1999


At 18.54 20/12/99 -0700, Dave Washburn wrote:
>> >> 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
>> >assumption.
>> 
>> Yeah, Dave. Out of over sixty psalms there is one string of them missing.
>
>Two, actually.  See my other post.

I did. Your argument didn't cut much, given the location of ps93. At the
same time, despite the coincidence, I am more willing to contemplate the
possibility that ps110-117 were part of the scroll, given the possible
location between fragments D & E.

>[das geschnippen]
>> >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.
>
>I notice you're not answering the question...

Pure obfuscation, Dave. How about making a point about the data instead of
assuming your conclusions. So there are textual problems. Get to some
evidence, will you? I look forward to your attempts at producing a
mechanism that will supply a tangible dating of ps110 based on your
philological analyses. Otherwise I'll take the assertions regarding the
textual anomalies in the psalm as interesting but irrelevant.


Cheers,


Ian





More information about the b-hebrew mailing list