S_Walch wrote: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.
And there are enough differences to call that into question.
S_Walch wrote: 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 reason this thread was opened is because there are enough differences, including readings that don’t make sense, if they were part of Psalm 22.
S_Walch wrote: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
You assume that the whole letter survives, I don’t make that assumption. Even if this letter were a yod, only part of it survives.
S_Walch wrote: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.
I carefully examined the letter, both color and black and white, at maximum magnification, and I don’t see the curve of the nun. In fact, your image seems to give a stronger indication of that base than on the DSS digital library.
S_Walch wrote: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
OK, I’ll grant you that. But the smudge to the right of the kaph sofit isn’t big enough to contain the two letters needed to make it fit Psalm 22.
S_Walch wrote: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.
That argument doesn’t fit. Look at all the beths, kaphs and mems. There are variations enough to call this into question.
S_Walch wrote: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.
So you did the dotting. (For some reason your images aren’t showing up anymore, because I could give more questions based on the dotting.)
S_Walch wrote: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.
This statement makes the assumption that we have the full text of all the psalms that were extent at Qumran. Is that assumption legitimate? I don’t think so. Further, it is very likely that this fragment is the only surviving fragment of a psalm or other writing of which we have no other copy.
S_Walch wrote: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
But it doesn’t rule out an unknown writing. The fact that this scroll has three psalms that are otherwise unknown makes it very possible that this fragment is of a fourth psalm that is otherwise unknown. You can’t rule that out. In fact, because of all the differences between this fragment and Psalm 22 makes this a more likely probability.
S_Walch wrote: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
That’s just it, I don’t take this transcription as a given. In fact, this transcription doesn’t make sense. Because it doesn’t make sense, is why I say that this is evidence that this is not from Psalm 22.
Karl W. Randolph.