<< Paul: In Psalm 105:34 "He spake and the locusts came" is a waw
consecutive with two indicatives, yet Ex 10:13 (19:13 in my first note is a
typo) shows that there
is an intervention of an east wind between the two actions, and that wind is
a part of the same overall action. At least, that is how I see it. So what
do you see wrong with this besides my typo?
<<George: I don't think that this is conclusive.
1) The psalm speaks of the same general events as Exodus but quite
possibly
from a somewhat different tradition of those events. (Note, e.g., that in
Exodus water
into blood is the is the 1st plague & darkness the 9th, while in Ps.105 the
darkness
comes 1st (v.28) before the blood (v.29).) The psalmist probably didn't
have the
present text of Exodus in front of him & we can't assume he knew about, or
had any
interest in, the east wind. The grammatical construction has to do only
with what the writer was intending to say.
2) In Exodus, the east wind brings the locusts & so in a sense isn't a
separate
event.
Paul:
The psalmist probably did not have the present text of Exodus in front of
him; but, that does not mean he was not aware of the tradition that it was
wind that brought the locusts. Both the MT and the LXX mention the wind both
in conjunction with the bringing of the locusts and in conjunction with the
removal of the locusts as well; and this is the only tradition that exists to
my knowledge, albeit I did not check the DSS. Assuming the DSS also tell of
the wind, the only tradition we know of has the wind as an integral part of
it. Unless there are compelling higher critical reasons, that is, something
beyond conjecture, I see no reason to suppose that the psalmist was not aware
of this tradition.
The fact that he changes the order of the plagues (and does not mention all
of them) does not constitute even a probability much less a proof that he was
looking at or thinking about a different tradition. There are any number of
reasons why he may have changed the order of events. Matthew is not a poet,
yet even he makes changes in the order of events in Mark, but few doubt that
it is Mark he is following.
I think your second suggestion is much more likely, namely that the psalmist
did not have any interest in the east wind. But, this could also be said
about the psalmist in 33:9. He did not have any interest in anything that
may have intervened between God's speaking and the creation which followed.
This does not mean that the resulting creation which followed the action of
God's speaking had to occur "with nothing intervening." A simple lack of
interest leaves open the possibility that something unmentioned did
intervene. Also although admittedly not conclusive, I see nothing
unreasonable about appealing to Ex 10:13 to show that in fact something
probably did intervene in the grammatically parallel case of Psalm 105:34.
Paul S