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