Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Niels Peter Lemche <npl AT teol.ku.dk>]

According to Abegg, Flint and Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scroll Bible, Harper
1999, there is no evidence of Psalm 110 (they say maybe lost because of a
lacuna in the mss), and the order of psalms is different , they have 103,
112, 109, 113, 114.

NPL


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Hutchesson [SMTP:mc2499 AT mclink.it]
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 December, 1999 00:49
> To:   Biblical Hebrew
> Subject:      Re: Re[4]: JEDP (Melchizedek) (More Dave)
> 
> Dear Dave,
> 
> Would you be so kind as to tell me which psalms scroll has ps110? I have
> looked through all the various scrolls whose contents are listed in
> Fitzmyer's DSS Publications and Tools and have not found mention of it.
> 
> Fitzmyer lists parts of psalms for each of the following manuscripts:
> 
> 1Q10: 86, 92, 94, 95, 119
> 1Q11: 126, 127, 128
> 1Q12: 44
> 2Q14: 103, 104
> 3Q2 : 2
> 
> Cave 4:
> a: 5, 6, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38 + 71, 47, 53, 54, 56, 62, 63, 66, 67, 69,
> 74
> b: 91, 92, 94, 96, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 112, 115, 116, 118
> c: 16, 17?, 18, 27, 28, 35, 37, 42, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53
> d: 104, 106?, 147
> e: 76, 77, 78, 81, 86, 88, 89, 104, 105, 109, 115, 116, 120, 125, 126 129,
> 130
> f: 22, 107, 109
> g: 119
> h: 119
> j: 48, 49, 51
> k: 99, 135
> l: 104
> m: 93, 95, 97, 98
> n: 135, 136
> o: 114, 115, 116
> p: 143
> q: 31, 33, 35 (32 omitted as in 4QPs(a))
> r: 26, 27, 30
> s: 5, 6, 88
> 4Q236: 89
> 4QPs122
> 
> 5Q5: 119
> 6Q5: 78
> 11QPs(b): 141 [last word only], 133, 144, 118
> 11QPs(c): 2, 9, 12, 14, 43, 77, 78, perhaps 36, 86, 18
> 11QPs(d): 39, 43, 59, 68, 78, 81
> 11QPs(e): 37
> 
> MasPs: 81 - 85 (but this may be well over 100 years later)
> 
> 5/6HevPs: 15, 16, and Fitzmyer mentions the possibility of what seems like
> a large sequence from 7:14 to 31:22.
> 
> I think that exhausts the Dead Sea psalms evidence. I see nothing to
> support your claims about order. Perhaps a lot more has come to light
> since
> Fitzmyer's effort.
> 
> I wrote:
> 
> >> there are no fragments of Gen14 amongst the DSS (the first part of
> >> Genesis is particularly poorly represented). There is also no mention
> of
> >> Melchizedek in Jubilees (I have mentioned problems here elsewhere).
> >> However, the GenAp is the first occasion in which we come across the
> >> Melchizedek episode and not unstrangely it is a document in which the
> >> epithet "Most High God" is quite common.
> 
> Dave started thus:
> 
> >Please notice what Ian has done here: 
> 
> Prelude to another load of Dave's obfuscation.
> 
> >first he asserts that Gen 14 is not represented; 
> 
> True or false, Dave?
> 
> >then he admits, 
> 
> Admits? That is your rhetoric. At the time, I noted a fact.
> 
> >...in an aside so hopefully not too many people will notice it, 
> 
> It was there on your little video screen, Dave. Whatever one says can be
> taken down and used, so this is just more of your rhetoric (read:
> polemic).
> 
> >that the first part of Genesis is poorly represented.  
> 
> True or false, Dave?
> 
> >Let me expand on that: there's a gap in the material 
> >between chapters 8 and 12 (which is to say nothing survives of 
> >chapters 9, 10 and 11); the Genesis Apocryphon stops at 15:4 and 
> 
> The Genesis Apocryphon is not Genesis, Dave. So it's nice that they are
> related, but they are also different beasts. Read my lips, Dave: you
> cannot
> assume anything about Genesis from GenAp.
> 
> >there is nothing more of Genesis surviving until 17:12; we have only 
> >the latter parts of chapters 18 and 19; chapter 20 is not preserved; 
> >and he wants to make a big deal about absence of chapter 14!  Yet 
> >he admits 
> 
> Admits! Gosh, you like this type of polemic. I've seen it used so often
> though. Dave, would you "admit" that you are being over polemic and trying
> to hide the fact that the earliest example of the Melchizedek episode is
> in
> a text that used the same epithet for God that is found in Genesis only in
> the Melchizedek episode, yet it is the common epithet in the Genesis
> Apocryphon?
> 
> >it is in fact preserved.  
> 
> It had to be preserved somewhere, Dave, or we wouldn't have it at all.
> Don't be vacuous there.
> 
> >From there he wants to try and 
> >explain away preservation of chapter 14 
> 
> Note the presumption that the Genesis Apocryphon is by necessity based on
> Genesis. And you claim to know something about text criticism. You
> *blindly* accept that GenAP is based on Genesis. This is a rash assumption
> that would be seen if you did a close comparison between the various texts
> that deal with the same materials as GenAp. You will find that there is no
> one plain source, for each has its own flavour and supports one then
> another of the other varieties.
> 
> >in the GA 
> 
> Preserved in GenAP, not *Genesis*.
> 
> >by resorting to 
> 
> More jaded polemic.
> 
> >the document's use of the phrase El Elyon.  
> 
> That's called text criticism, Dave. As you said:
> 
> >[..] "It's there and it's staring me in the face, but I don't want to
> deal 
> >with it."
> 
> You have this bad habit of not dealing with the text as it is, but trying
> to make it something else to fit your presuppositions. The cave 11 psalms
> scroll is anomalous because it doesn't fit your predefined ideas of how a
> psalms scroll should be structured. GenAp must be based on Genesis.
> Convenient, very convenient.
> 
> Let me ask:
> 1) is the earliest form of the Melchizedek episode that of the
>    Genesis Apocryphon?
> 2) is the use of the means to refer to God in GenAp as "God Most
>    High" a normal means?
> 3) is it a normal means in Genesis?
> 4) is it true that in a space of only five verses in Genesis the
>    term is used four times and found nowhere else in the book?
> 5) is the term found in other books commonly thought of as older?
> 6) is Melchizedek speculation evidenced anywhere prior to the era
>    of the Qumran documents (ie late or post biblical)?
> 7) is it true that the Hasmonean rulers who flourished around that
>    time were known as the "priests of the Most High God", the
>    epithet found in Genesis only in the Melchizedek episode?
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: npl AT teol.ku.dk
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.