JEDP (Melchizedek) (Dave)
dwashbur at nyx.net
Tue Dec 21 11:42:41 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
> >> >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
Excuse me? Psalms are rearranged all over this scroll. The
position of 93 is just one more rearrangement. What exactly are
you trying to read into this?
> 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.
Thank you for that, anyway.
> >[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.
Say what? I asked if you had read the psalm in Hebrew. It's not a
hard question, it can be answered with one word. So what exactly
is it that I'm assuming? And why don't you just answer the
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.
Once again, we haven't even gotten to philological analysis of the
psalm yet. We're still correcting your flagrant errors about
11QPs(a). The challenge is still there, Ian: in the face of every
other Psalms scroll found in the Dead Sea region, this one is
unique. The burden is on you to demonstrate why the "textual
anomalies" of this scroll are preferrable to the unified evidence of all
the others. I repeat what I said in my other post: put up or shut up.
Trying to shift the burden to me is a nice dodge, but that's all it is.
You're the one making confident assertions in the face of the
science of textual criticism. Defend them or give them up.
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