Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

>> >Ian, if you're going to cite me please do it accurately. 
>> 
>> If I've done you wrong here, Dave, sorry.
>
>I suggest you go back and read my previous post then.

Actually Dave, I didn't feel like arguing about. You wanna?

>> >And I dealt in more depth with the 
>> >cave 11 curiosity scroll in another post.  
>> 
>> I came across another post by you after I wrote the one you're now
>> responding to.
>> 
>> >This scroll proves 
>> >absolutely nothing about order, 
>> 
>> I have no gripe about order. It may not have been set at the time of
>> writing, though there may already have been groups of psalms.
>
>It's easy to say "there may have been X" and then proceed as if it 
>has been proven...

But of course I didn't. Slurs are pretty easy as well, Dave.

>> >content or canonicity of any psalm 
>> >or group of psalms.  
>> 
>> Content is a different matter. You seem to think that it is just
>> coincidence that the text doesn't have a string of the psalms. You wanna
>> say what theological (or any other) grounds those ones might have been
>> omitted under?  
>
>Actually, yes, I suspect it's coincidence.  

Yeah, Dave, just like there's naturally no Gen14 Melchizedek and a long
list of other controversial bits. (Of course the Melchizedek episode is in
the so-called Genesis Apocryphon -- perhaps the first mention of the story
-- and of course that document commonly uses the epithet "Most High God",
which is only coincidentally found in Genesis in this episode.)

>Is it also coincidence 
>that the last half of Psalm 109 is preserved, not on the main part of 
>the scroll, but on a separate fragment?  Of course it is.  Where is 
>that fragment placed, and how much room might there have been 
>for these "missing" psalms?  Psalm 93 is the lowest-numbered of 
>the canonical psalms that appears in it (the scroll actually begins 
>with Psalm 105, 

You said it, Dave (though if you're going to look at frag D then you should
look at frag.s A - C2 which supply ps101 - 103 and the Yadin frag E which
gives ps104). We have nearly all of book 5 (except ps110 - 117) plus some
others. The lonesome ps93 at the end of col.XXII should render your quibble
here irrelevant. It has its place

>at least the preserved portion), so we have to 
>conclude from it that Psalms 1-92 were composed later than the 
>scroll too, right?  Why were they excluded?  What theological 
>reasons can you give for it?  The verse order in Psalm 118 (in part) 
>is 15, 16, 9, 9, 29 in column 16 with verse 29 repeated on fragment 
>E.  Psalm 133 appears between Psalm 141 and 144 and adds 
>$LWM (L YSR)L at the end.  Psalm 145 adds a refrain, BRWK 
>YHWH WBRWK $MW L(WLM W(D after each verse.  The scroll 
>throws an extra, hitherto-unknown verse between 146:9 and 10.  
>And all that is just for warm-up.  

Are you arguing here that your idea of how the psalms should be isn't
fulfilled by the scroll? Hey, that's not too strange -- lot's of ideas of
what should be aren't fulfilled by the real evidence from Qumran. People
will just have to stop retrojecting.

>All this is to respond to this:
>
>[snip]
>> When nothing else is available one attacks the physical evidence. This text
>> is no good because it doesn't adhere to your desire for the text. But it is
>> a text that was around long before the setting of textual canonicity. It
>> has most of the psalms, just not this one sequence. It must therefore be so
>> bizarre. Hey, it includes other psalms! The psalm canon wasn't fixed at the
>> time, right? It didn't have pslams 110 - 117. Is that so difficult?
>
>First of all, we don't know that it was "around long before the 
>setting of textual canonicity" (whatever "textual canonicity" is).  

The existence of the cave 11 scroll should make it clear that canonicity,
ie the fixed nation of the text wasn't as yet in vogue. But this is also
true for many other parts of what would become the canonized text of the
OT/HB. Red herring, Dave.

>Second, I had no idea that omitting the first 92 psalms constituted 
>"it has most of the psalms."  

Go back and check in earlier posts that I did actually talk about later
psalms. You're being unnecessarily ornery, Dave.

>Third, the fragmentary nature of the 
>area of the scroll around Psalm 109 suggests that we don't know 
>for sure about the omission of 110-117.  

This is the one item in your puffed up list that has argument value, Dave.
I was working on the notion that ps118 was wedged between ps136 and ps145,
though this is an unusual version of the psalm and there are a few other
verses at the start of frag E.

>Fourth, and most 
>important, until you can explain ALL the peculiarities of this scroll - 

This is downright off the wall, Dave. You have to come up with a prior
canonical text. As you can't, you take the line here. Hey, man, this text
is weird, which translates to: it doesn't adhere to your presuppositions.

>its odd ordering, its unique textual character (and it is UNIQUE, not 
>just minority readings), the addition of refrains, the fact that it lacks 
>more than half the Psalter and all the other strange features of this 
>scroll, you're not likely to convince anyone of anything related to 
>Psalm 110.  

You still seem to be working on some idea of a fixed canonical notion of
the texts because only one version has hitherto survived. This isn't a
strong arguing point, Dave.

>As I said before, and it would be a good idea for you to 
>take note, hanging your hat on this scroll 

It didn't work the first time, Dave. Far too often people argue for the
coincidence in their favour in this field.

>because it happens to 
>seem to support a notion of yours - in fact the very thing you 
>accuse me of - is a bad idea.  

There are just too many coincidences regarding what's not there. I rather
argue on what we have and treat the possibility of the maybe as
non-existent until proven.

>As my dad used to say, you're 
>leaning on a broken reed.

Well how about some effort to give a dating to ps110 according to your
philological opinions, Dave. Otherwise it would seem that you are guilty of
what you're imputing on other people.


Cheers,


Ian