Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

At 18.54 20/12/99 -0700, Dave Washburn wrote:
>> >> 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.
>> 
>> 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.

>[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. 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.


Cheers,


Ian