Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

 Ian,
> At 19.46 19/12/99 -0700, Dave Washburn wrote:
> >Ian wrote:
> >> At 19.49 19/12/99 +0200, Jonathan D. Safren wrote:
> >> >The Melchizedek incident of Gen. 14 is not referred to; but Melchizedek
> >> >is, in Ps. 110. 
> >> 
> >> Yes, Jonathan, I did refer to Ps. 110 specifically as not appearing at
> >> Qumran being part of a group that has no presence.
> >
> >And you're wrong.  Psalm 110 does not appear thus far in the 
> >published texts, but cave 4 has yielded all but 106, 107, 110, 111 
> >and 117.  
> 
> Could you please cite the fragments, Dave. I may be using an old list. The
> omission in the cave 11 scroll was what I was working on. Where nearly all
> the numerically later scrolls are present there is a gap from 110 to 117.

They are somewhat too numerous to list here.  I would suggest you  begin with Skehan, CBQ 26:313322 which is a preliminary publication of  4QPs.

> 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.

> >Even absence from the Psalms scroll of cave 11 can't be 
> >pushed too far, because it is a very unusual scroll and certainly 
> >can't be taken to indicate that they were or were not familiar with a 
> >particular psalm or group of psalms.  Thus, absence of Psalm 110 
> >from Qumran (at least as far as we know until DJD 16 comes out) 
> >is meaningless for this discussion.
> 
> Peculiar, yes. Comprehensive, except for just those psalms, is significant.

Comprehensive?  Yes, it even includes 4 non-canonical Psalms.  It  also includes wild interpolations in several of the canonical ones,  adds refrains after each verse in others, rearranges some psalms  internally and otherwise mucks with the text in ways that we've  never seen before or since.  Don't hang your hat on this scroll, Ian.   There's no hatrack there.

> If as I argue elsewhere that Melchizedek should be tied to the Hasmonean
> dynasty, then Qumran with the Michaelesque 11QMelch shows the nascent
> tradition. The scrolls belong to the right period for the emergence.

I believe Peter has answered this sufficiently, so I'll repeat his  question: have you read Psalm 110 in Hebrew lately?


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