JEDP (Melchizedek) (Dave)

Dave Washburn dwashbur at nyx.net
Wed Dec 22 17:04:20 EST 1999


[snip]
 have also
> maintained that it is also the first ext on record to have the Melchizedek
> episode. I have also maintained that the episode is the only place in
> Genesis where the writer uses "Most High God", and I have also maintained
> that this is the normal epithet for God in the GenAp. So, no I have
> admitted nothing. I have maintained my view. Perhaps it has just dawned on
> you that it is in the GenAp.

:-)  I know it's there, Ian, I've read the Aramaic text and compared it 
with the Hebrew text (something I'm sure you haven't done).  As for 
it begin the "normal epithet for God in the GenAp," let's see: 
column 3 has "Most High, the Lord, the Great One, the King of all 
Et[ernity] in line 4 and "the King of Eternity" in line 7, "The Great 
Holy One, the King of He[aven] in line 14; column 13 has "the Lord 
of heaven, the Most High God, the Great Holy One" in line 17; 
column 20 has "[Etern]al God" in line 6; column 21 has "God Most 
High, Eternal Lord, Lord and Master over all" in line 12 and "God 
Most High" in line 16; column 22 has "God Most High, Eternal 
Lord, God" in line 2 and "God" in line 3, "God" in line 8 and "God 
Most High" in line 20; column 23 is the Melchizedek episode and 
hence has "God Most High" in lines 15, 16 and 21, "God" in lines 
27 and 34, and "Lord God" in line 32.  So yeah, "God Most High" 
occurs somewhat often, but it hardly qualifies as the "normal 
epithet" for God in this document.  It is also significant that nearly 
all occurrences of the phrase are in the section dealing with 
Abraham, and thus likely constitute a kind of setup for the 
Melchizedek encounter.  You still haven't made your case.

[snip]
> >in addition, it's hardly "book 5" as it's known from other 
> >manuscripts both Masoretic 
> 
> Your being anachronistic.

You were the one who brought in the term "book 5"...

[snip]
> >It doesn't 
> >work.  I said nothing about my "idea of how the psalms should be." 
> 
> Oh, not in those words, Dave. But talking about how anomalous the
> collection is is doing just that. It's the earliest, fullest collection
> we've got. You're the one who wants the collection to be something else for
> it not to be anomalous.

This is just silly.  One manuscript out of dozens has all these 
unusual characteristics.  In English, that's called an anomaly.

[snip]
> >How do you explain the verse-by-verse interpolations?  
> 
> How do you? You say it must be anomalous and forget it.

Now who's not reading?  I specifically said that I suspect it's a 
liturgical scroll of some sort.  It resembles nothing so much as a 
lectionary of sorts.

[snip]
> >How do you explain any of this, Ian?  
> 
> There is no need, Dave. You're the one making rash generalisations about a
> text. If you stop retrojecting for a while, stop doing what most other
> scholars have done with the texts, ie make them conform to the MT structure
> and form, and look at what there actually is, you might conclude that your
> questions are rather futile and value judgment laden.

Oh, this is just too good.  If you knew anything about me and the 
DSS you would know that I have little in common with "most other 
scholars" on the subject.  I tend to restrict my work in the scrolls 
to biblical textual criticism, and when we take all the DSS evidence 
into consideration, 11QPs(a) is the odd man out.  You may not like 
it because it shoots down your Hasmonean-period ideas, but that's 
just too bad.  And for your information, I have in fact read all the 
published Psalms scrolls.  I've read them in Hebrew and studied 
the photos.  Have you?

To all: I'm weary of this.  I honestly don't give a rip whether Ian 
faces the bulk of the Qumran evidence or not; my goal has been to 
demonstrate for the sake of newer members, perhaps those who 
aren't as familiar with the use of the DSS in textual criticism, the 
various ways in which Ian is abusing the material and particularly 
the cave 11 scroll.  If I have upset or offended anyone in my part of 
this exchange, I sincerely apologize.  When Peter responded to 
some things, Ian complained that he didn't like tag-team matches 
especially when he didn't have a partner.  Apparently it doesn't 
occur to him that there's a good reason why he doesn't have a 
partner, but that's not my problem.  Again, if I have offended, I am 
sorry and hope you will forgive me.  I won't be responding to this 
thread any more (in any of its various manifestations).

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
Teach me your way, O Lord, and I will walk in your truth;
give me an undivided heart that I may fear your name.
                                   Psalm 86:11



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list