Psalm 22:16 DSS 4QPsf

This forum is for discussion of the Hebrew texts of the DSS, both biblical and sectarian texts.
S_Walch
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm

Psalm 22:16 DSS 4QPsf

Postby S_Walch » Sat Jan 09, 2016 1:45 am

4QPsf reads the following for Psalm 22:16 (15):
יבש כחרש כחי] ולשוני מדבש מל[קוחי ואל] עפר מות שופט

There are two evident variants in the above, and a reconstructed one:
1. מדבש for the usual מדבק
2. שופט for the usual תשפתני
3. ואל עפר for the usual ולעפר

And I'm just looking at the best way of understanding words 1 & 2; #3 is quite easily the full way of saying "and to death's dust".

מדבש is used in Tanakh as mainly meaning more than honey, of which having this as a noun here doesn't make much sense, and so I would take it as a verb. I'm thinking something like melts or sticks or dissolves.

שופט is the hardest one to understand; usually means judge or ruler, but again I would take this as a verb rather than a noun here. I've understood it as meaning something like I have been judged or possibly even I am worthy.

Full translation (as I understand it): My strength is dry like earthenware, and my tongue is dissolving in my jaw; and I have been judged in death's dust.

Thoughts?

Edit: Managed to type r instead of f (twice!) - It's 4QPsf, not 4QPsr - Apologies!
Last edited by S_Walch on Sat Jan 09, 2016 4:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ste Walch

kwrandolph
Posts: 999
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Psalm 22:16 DSS 4QPsr

Postby kwrandolph » Sat Jan 09, 2016 12:51 pm

S_Walch wrote:4QPsr reads the following for Psalm 22:16 (15):
יבש כחרש כחי] ולשוני מדבש מל[קוחי ואל] עפר מות שופט



Full translation (as I understand it): My strength is dry like earthenware, and my tongue is dissolving in my jaw; and I have been judged in death's dust.

Thoughts?


Do you have a digitized image of this fragment that we can view? How accurate is the transcription thereof?

It’s also known that the quality of mms varied among those at Qumran, this could be a low quality one.

As I remember from looking at the Nahal Hever image (unfortunately I can’t find a copy of that image at this moment), this verse was the same as the consonantal MT text. The Nahal Hever scrap contains a few verses, not just one, and when I looked at an image of them, I looked at all the verses.

Karl W. Randolph.

S_Walch
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Psalm 22:16 DSS 4QPsf

Postby S_Walch » Sat Jan 09, 2016 4:52 pm

The transcription is taken from that seen in our favourite book, Karl - https://archive.org/details/TheBiblicalQumranScrolls (page 634) - and looks to be quite the decent size fragment. The full transcript is as follows (hoping this works okay...)

[עלי פיהם א]ריה [טרף ושאג]
[כמי]ם נשפכת[י והתפרדו]
[כל עצ]מתי היה [לבי כדונג]
נ[מ]ש בתוך מעי [יבש כחרש כחי]
ולשוני מדבש מל[קוחי ואל]
עפר מות שופט [כי סבבוני]
כלבים עדת מר[עים]
הקיפני כר[ו] ידי ורגלי


The image is here (black and white) - http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explor ... e/B-367901 & here (colorur) - http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explor ... e/B-367900
Ste Walch

kwrandolph
Posts: 999
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Psalm 22:16 DSS 4QPsf

Postby kwrandolph » Mon Jan 11, 2016 11:37 am

Thank you for the links.

S_Walch wrote:The transcription is taken from that seen in our favourite book, Karl - https://archive.org/details/TheBiblicalQumranScrolls (page 634) - and looks to be quite the decent size fragment.…


I have that as a .pdf file on my computer.

S_Walch wrote:The image is here (black and white) - http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explor ... e/B-367901 & here (colorur) - http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explor ... e/B-367900


Those images are rather eye-opening. The book has added many letters that are not on the fragment, and made determination on other smudges and partial letters that could be any number of other letters. In short, and to be brutally honest, I don’t see how the editor of the scrolls made the determination that this is of Psalm 22.

In contrast, the Nahal Heber fragment is clearly that of Psalm 22, the lettering is clearer once photographically enhanced, and except in verse 17 where it has a waw in the place of a yod in the MT, and in verse 18 it has a yod where the MT has a waw, both of which make better sense than the MT readings, the rest is clearly recognizable from the MT consonantal text.

Karl W. Randolph.

User avatar
Ken M. Penner
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:31 pm

Re: Psalm 22:16 DSS 4QPsf

Postby Ken M. Penner » Mon Jan 11, 2016 11:48 am

kwrandolph wrote:In short, and to be brutally honest, I don’t see how the editor of the scrolls made the determination that this is of Psalm 22.

Just in case any readers interpret Karl's comment to mean that the editor was overconfident in this identification: It does take a bit of training, but it's not terribly difficult to identify this as Psalm 22. As for the letters that are added and uncertain, editors use diacritical marks to indicate what is entirely reconstructed, probable, and merely possible.
Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.
St. Francis Xavier University

S_Walch
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Psalm 22:16 DSS 4QPsf

Postby S_Walch » Mon Jan 11, 2016 2:05 pm

One can quite easily see the following letters to the right on lines 5-7 on that fragment:
ולשוני
עפר מות שופט
כלבים עדת מר


If we take ולשוני, there's only two other places than Psalm 22:16 that this could come from: Psalm 35:28 and Job 27:4. But taking the next fully complete words that can be seen עפר מות, these don't fit in anything in Psalm 35:28 or 29, or in Job 27:4 or 5 - it does however fit completely in at the end of Psalm 22:16. Coupled with the next complete extant words כלבים עדת, this only fits in as Psalm 22:17 (only other places that we see כלבים is in Isa 56:10, which doesn't fit in with the next word עדת).

So I have no quibbles in this fragment showing an alternative reading to Psalm 22:16 than that seen in the Masoretic, and the Nahal Hever manuscript.

I wasn't putting this question forth as a "is this the right reading" of Psalm 22:16, but just as a translation/meaning discussion.

Hopefully we can return to that :)
Ste Walch

kwrandolph
Posts: 999
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Psalm 22:16 DSS 4QPsf

Postby kwrandolph » Mon Jan 11, 2016 3:40 pm

Ken M. Penner wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:In short, and to be brutally honest, I don’t see how the editor of the scrolls made the determination that this is of Psalm 22.

Just in case any readers interpret Karl's comment to mean that the editor was overconfident in this identification: It does take a bit of training, but it's not terribly difficult to identify this as Psalm 22.


That’s assuming that this is a Biblical text, is it? There’s so little there that can be positively identified.

And yes, this is my personal opinion based on looking at the photographs of the fragment.

Ken M. Penner wrote:As for the letters that are added and uncertain, editors use diacritical marks to indicate what is entirely reconstructed, probable, and merely possible.


Actually the editors should use more diacritical marks, as many of the letters that they listed as positives are, when looking at the photographs, only partial letters or smudges that could be two or three different letters. The state of preservation is so low that it leaves one questioning.

S_Walch wrote:One can quite easily see the following letters to the right on lines 5-7 on that fragment:
ולשוני


What is left of the next word is not at all from Psalm 22. In fact, it doesn’t appear to be Biblical Hebrew at all.

S_Walch wrote:
עפר מות שופט


Yes, that is there, but nowhere in Tanakh is this phrase found in the consonantal MT.

Literally, the meaning is “the dust of death is judged”, but a larger (missing) context could give it a different meaning.

S_Walch wrote:
כלבים עדת מר


Again missing context.

S_Walch wrote:
I wasn't putting this question forth as a "is this the right reading" of Psalm 22:16, but just as a translation/meaning discussion.

Hopefully we can return to that :)


I go back to the question, is this Psalm 22? The photographs show a lot more reconstructions than what the book transcribed. There are plenty of scrolls other than Biblical texts at Qumran, is this a fragment of one of those?

Basically, what I’m saying is that before we can discuss this as a variant reading, we need to establish beyond a doubt that this actually is from Psalm 22. But the state of preservation is so poor and lacking in context that I think it is legitimate to question the assumption. The top line doesn’t have a single letter that can be unambiguously recognized though one appears to be a resh, The second line only two letters. The third line only four letters. The same with the fourth line. There are a lot more assumptions that have to be made than with which I’m comfortable making in order to say that this is a variant reading of Psalm 22.

Karl W. Randolph.

S_Walch
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Psalm 22:16 DSS 4QPsf

Postby S_Walch » Mon Jan 11, 2016 7:23 pm

kwrandolph wrote:Basically, what I’m saying is that before we can discuss this as a variant reading, we need to establish beyond a doubt that this actually is from Psalm 22. But the state of preservation is so poor and lacking in context that I think it is legitimate to question the assumption. The top line doesn’t have a single letter that can be unambiguously recognized though one appears to be a resh, The second line only two letters. The third line only four letters. The same with the fourth line. There are a lot more assumptions that have to be made than with which I’m comfortable making in order to say that this is a variant reading of Psalm 22.

Well other things to consider is the fact that this is one fragment of 4QPsf, which is a Manuscript of the Psalter containing the following: 107:2‑5, 8‑16, 18‑19, 22‑30, 35‑42; 109:4‑7, 24‑28; and three previously unknown Psalms: Apostrophe to Zion:1‑2, 11‑18; Eschatological Hymn: 4‑14; Apostrophe to Judah:5‑14.

The fragment that we're discussing has the same parchment, ink, and handwriting as seen in the rest of the fragments labeled 4QPsf, so it's hardly an assumption that we're looking at a Biblical Psalm here.

There are more than enough visible extant letters to place this fragment as containing text from Psalm 22:15-17, with the other letters not extant easily placed in the lacunae.

Image

Image
Ste Walch

kwrandolph
Posts: 999
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Psalm 22:16 DSS 4QPsf

Postby kwrandolph » Mon Jan 11, 2016 9:38 pm

S_Walch wrote:Well other things to consider is the fact that this is one fragment of 4QPsf, which is a Manuscript of the Psalter containing the following: 107:2‑5, 8‑16, 18‑19, 22‑30, 35‑42; 109:4‑7, 24‑28; and three previously unknown Psalms: Apostrophe to Zion:1‑2, 11‑18; Eschatological Hymn: 4‑14; Apostrophe to Judah:5‑14.

The fragment that we're discussing has the same parchment, ink, and handwriting as seen in the rest of the fragments labeled 4QPsf, so it's hardly an assumption that we're looking at a Biblical Psalm here.


Already this list leaves a very distinct possibility that it’s a portion of an unknown psalm, eschatological hymn or other writing that was contained in this scroll. Notice the other two Biblical psalms that survive are far from Psalm 22.

S_Walch wrote:There are more than enough visible extant letters to place this fragment as containing text from Psalm 22:15-17, with the other letters not extant easily placed in the lacunae.

Image


Yeah, but. Just comment on the letters that appear and are not dotted.

The top line has only one letter, and it’s differently shaped than the rest of the yods. The closest it comes to is a resh.

The next line has what undotted is a nun, or is it a waw with a smudge? I would dot it as a reconstruction, just like the rest of the dotted letters.

The fourth line the undotted letters are the same as what I read.

The fifth line has a letter that is listed as a daleth, but it’s different from the daleth the next line down. and what I’ve seen in other manuscripts of that age. However it’s the same shape as a resh.

The sixth line, the last letter has the same shape as a kaph or poorly preserved beth, not a mem. Or else you’ll have to admit that some of the other letters listed as kaphs or beths are really mems. For an example of a mem, look at line four.

The seventh line the dotted tau has the same shape as the undotted tau the following line.

All in all, it’s anything but a slam dunk that this is a fragment from Psalm 22. Given that the surviving fragments of this document contain only two other Biblical psalms, but six non-Biblical writings, makes it more likely that this is a fragment of another possibly still unknown non-Biblical document than Psalm 22.

Just my 2¢.

Karl W. Randolph.

S_Walch
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Psalm 22:16 DSS 4QPsf

Postby S_Walch » Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:33 am

kwrandolph wrote:Notice the other two Biblical psalms that survive are far from Psalm 22.

Would only be applicable if the DSS Psalter manuscripts followed the same Psalm order as the Masoretic, which none of them do.

Take the Psalm order in the Great Psalms Scroll (11Q5) for instance: 101, 103, 112, 109, 110, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 104, 147, 105, 146, 148, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 119, 135, 136 (with additional Catena), 145 (with additional Postscript), 154 (Syriac Psalm 1), Plea for Deliverance, 139, 137, 138, Sirach 51, Apostrophe to Zion, 93, 141, 133, 144, 155 (Syriac Psalm 2), 142, 143, 149, 150, Hymn to the Creator, David’s Last Words, David’s Compositions, 140, 134, 151A+151B (a form of Psalm 151 LXX).

This manuscript contains not just the usual Psalms seen in the Masoretic, but also mixes in Psalms only seen in other traditions (LXX, Syriac), previously unknown Psalms (usually in the midst of "Biblical" Psalm numbers), and even chapters from other books that are poetry (Ben Sira (Sirach) 51).

The fact that we have a Psalm in 4QPsf away from Psalms 107 and 109 (4QPsf then has the new "Apostrophe to Zion" straight after 109, so again not following the usual Psalm order) doesn't mean that we should dismiss the text as coming from an earlier Psalm - the manuscript hardly conforms, and there's no evidence that it was a manuscript of all the Psalms in order - it is just a manuscript containing Psalms, regardless of what order they're in.

Yeah, but. Just comment on the letters that appear and are not dotted.

Of the letters that are clear, there's more than enough agreement with the words seen in Psalm 22 to see that the fragment is indeed from that Psalm. Of the "alternative" Psalms seen in the DSS Psalter scrolls, none are confused for other Psalms, containing different text from that seen in our usual Psalms. This fragment has 35 completely extant letters, all of which fit in Psalm 22:15-17. There are smaller fragments with less letters seen in them that have been identified with similar certainty due to how the extant letters fit in.

The top line has only one letter, and it’s differently shaped than the rest of the yods. The closest it comes to is a resh.

The extant reshs on line 6 and 7 are larger than the extant letter, which is a similar size to a yod

The next line has what undotted is a nun, or is it a waw with a smudge? I would dot it as a reconstruction, just like the rest of the dotted letters.

The right line of the letter is too straight to be a waw, which has a curve on it. Also in the images over at the DSS Digital Library, one can see the base of the letter nun better.

The fifth line has a letter that is listed as a daleth, but it’s different from the daleth the next line down. and what I’ve seen in other manuscripts of that age. However it’s the same shape as a resh.

That's a final kaph - not got the line long enough in my image. That's a mistake on my part

The sixth line, the last letter has the same shape as a kaph or poorly preserved beth, not a mem. Or else you’ll have to admit that some of the other letters listed as kaphs or beths are really mems. For an example of a mem, look at line four.

It has the left line of the mem missing. Look at the beth just before the shin on the same line - the bottom line is a lot thicker, and the right line is straighter than the bent one on the mem's, and the top line is straighter than that seen on the mem.

The seventh line the dotted tau has the same shape as the undotted tau the following line.

Not sure which one you're looking at here. It may've been my first edited image that I've corrected some mistakes on it now.

All in all, it’s anything but a slam dunk that this is a fragment from Psalm 22. Given that the surviving fragments of this document contain only two other Biblical psalms, but six non-Biblical writings, makes it more likely that this is a fragment of another possibly still unknown non-Biblical document than Psalm 22.

Again, I would argue the extant letters show that this is more than likely from Psalm 22 than an unknown Psalm - the new Psalms discovered don't agree with known Psalms in text.

Take this line from the Apostrophe to Zion:
ערבה באף תשבוחתך ציון מעל כל תבל
There's nowhere else in Scripture that has this, and it cannot be confused with any other verse.

I could use other examples, but you get my drift :)

Just my 2¢.

Which is always more than appreciated; thanks for always causing me to think!

But if people would humour me; how should we best understand the text of Psalm 22:16, taking the transcribed text as a given:
יבש כחרש כחי ולשוני מדבש מלקוחי ואל עפר מות שופט
Ste Walch


Return to “Dead Sea Scrolls”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest