JEDP (Melchizedek) (Dave)
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
>> >> 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.
>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.
>> >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.
More information about the b-hebrew