@Davïd Thanks. Still not sure what I know about a date after reading that paragraph though. The phenomenon is related to something that happened between 200 BCE and 700 CE. ;-) There may be something more specific there I can’t piece together. Just was looking at DSS pictures and was surprised that they seem to have both final forms and spaces (except the few Greek scrolls).

@ThaddeusB And it seems to be doing pretty well there, too!

@Dan That’s where I would have expected it to go too.

@Susan I have no conception of what is a good Area51 launch - I take it that 23 followers in a month a good start? (Incidentally, I did put the Q on the sample questions list too.)

@ThaddeusB Oh, I meant the Q seems to be doing well on History.SE. Last I checked the Greek proposal wasn’t doing so well. (Contrast Hebrew!)

Incidentally, the Latin proposal looks likely to make it to Beta

@Susan Ah, that's make more sense. Greek proposal did not seem too healthy to me, but I didn't really know.

^^^^ ...what does it mean in Christian Theology? | How is this on topic here? I'm quite puzzled. @Dan @Susan @Caleb

OK - just noticed the date (!) ... which actually makes it even more puzzling. I expect there are other questions like this lurking?

@Davïd Didn’t the Christian Theology bit just happen 57 minutes ago?

@Susan That's not what the diff markup is showing me, but I think you're right. Must be something odd in the revision history.

(And no, I don’t think there are many others lurking. If you find any, though, by all means...)

Here's what I see.

@Davïd Oh, yeah, I see what you mean. I was kind of ignoring the parallel column I guess. I just note that those words aren’t there in the prior version.

@Susan Which seems to be what you see. :) Puzzled that the "new" text isn't in green.

@Susan Using your eyes ... I was just looking for colours!

@Susan Ah, that's why - that wording is there in the first "commit".

@Davïd Normally I would just roll it back, but given the OP’s interests and the existing answers, which don’t seem terribly out of place relative to the new question, it’s now on hold.

Odd that OP came back to "accept" 16 months after the answer was given!

@Davïd Odd to me that you don’t put an article in front of “OP”. This is a Proper Name, then?

@Susan Yeah - good call. At least the "on hold" prevents it from defining an "in scope" question.

@Susan No? "OP Wan Kenobe"...?

:)

In my ears, "OP" as "oh-pea" is a name thing - its own entity.

@Davïd Could you give me an example of a real appellation where that works (i.e. it can be abbreviated thusly)?

@Susan Hmmm... Brain's still a bit mushy here...

@Susan Nope. Can't think of one.

@Davïd May be worthwhile Meta.SE surfing to find out if this usage is standard. But “worthwhile” is a relative notion....and there are many other interesting things in life...

@Susan Maybe I picked up usage from Meta.

@Susan Snap.

@Davïd But note the usage pattern in the top answer.

@Susan Yeah - a quick scan suggests article more common.

Btw - would "anarthrous" make sense to you? or does that have some other meaning more familiar that would make it odd in this case?

@Davïd That would be my word of choice, and I have no other associations. I learned it with Greek, though, and I’m not sure quite how it applies in English where the article milieu is a bit different.

@Susan Apparently it's used in zoology of limbs... Btw - interesting that the quasi-official definition of OP omits the article.

And I notice that a lot of times the question-title will omit the article, but it will be included in the body of the question itself. Abbreviating the abbreviation, perhaps.

Sadly, though, work beckons! Must scoot.....

I was going to call this “not an answer" as a NT response to a HB question, but the question actually does ask for explication of the NT appropriation of the Psalm as well, which seems to me a different question. So I guess the answer is seriously conflating things but not really NAA.

(Is the word appropriation derogatory? I feel like it is, but I see that ^^ particular usage around in what seems to be neutral contexts (certainly how I meant it!).)

@Susan "...seriously conflating..." is putting it mildly. Wee shame, since some helpful observations are couched in skewed formulations.

@Susan (Doesn't seem derogatory to me.) (But then my faculties of perception have not been very reliable of late....)

@Davïd If you care... our revision history confusion seems to have arisen because that text was in the original. I would expect the diff to compare the new text to the most recent version, but evidently that’s not exactly the case.

@Davïd Oh, voting, forgot I could do that - thanks.

@Susan I reckoned as much. Good to have that confirmed.

@Davïd My faculties of comprehension...

:)

@Susan Too bad that Q didn't attract one fully decent answer. Most of the info is in there somewhere, but the answer thread is a bit of a mess.

Well, I suppose it could get one some day.

@Davïd I think that’s at least partly because there are two different questions folded into one. Not normally a fatal flaw for a Q here, but our user base has a particular proclivity for conflating that sort of pair.