1902Re: Beloved Disciple passages in ms Pepys
- Aug 17 2:37 PMRobert Brenchley wrote:
The DSS texts are clearly closely related to canonical Job. The
cited is not in the book; Job 2:7 (you cite 2,7, which doesn't look
canonical reference) says: 'So Satan went out from the presence
of the LORD,
and inflicted loathesome sores on Job from the sole of his foot
to the crown
of his head'. Nothing to do with female doorkeepers. I'm not
the Testament of Job (is it online anywhere?) but for the moment
Yuri's word for it. You're talking about different texts here.
Robert, in the first place read: H. Heater, A Septuagint translation
technique in the Book of Job (Catholic Biblical Quarterly
Monograph Series, 11; Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of
America Press, 1982); and Cecile Dogniez, Bibliographie de la
Septante: (1970-1993) (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum,
60; (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995); and Emanuel Tov, The Greek and
Hebrew Bible : collected essays on the Septuagint (Leiden ;
Boston : Brill, 1999. BS 410 .V452).
Second, I cited Job 2,7b-10 which corresponds to "The
Prologue" (E) as proposed by the versification suggested by P.
W. Skehan, "Strophic Pattern in the Book of Job" CBQ 23
(1961):125-142. The Prologue is not considered a later addition
and the textual criticism of it reflects what Greenfield calls
"Standard Literary Aramaic" (700-200 BC) (cf. J. C. Greenfield,
"Aramaic and its Dialects," 34-36, in H. H. Paper, ed., Jewish
Languages: Themes and Variations (Cambridge, MA: Assoc. for
Jew. Stud., 1978):29-43).
Third, you said "which doesn't look like a canonical reference" to
a book you consider Apocryphal. Isn't this a contradiction of
Fourth, like Yuri you seem to think that the Book of Job and the
Testament of Job are two different texts completely. This is
Fifth, when you say "I'm not familiar with the Testament of Job"
how can you give a professional academic opinion that goes
well beyond the text and has eruditely examined and reflected on
the survey of all scholarship regarding Job? Hence, I gave the
bibliographic references in Dogniez, and Tov for your
convenience. To render an opinion without any reading
whatsoever is hardly the material suitable for an academic
discussion. To say "I'll take Yuri's word for it." in this regard not
only deteriorates the academic discussion to the level of a chat
room but evidences a very uncritical measure on your part.
Sixth, following your line of logic only the few verses of P52 can
said to be canonical as of c. 100-125 AD and the remainder of
the text should/could be or must be later redactions, which some
have claimed using this very line of reasoning. However, this is
hardly a strong argument and it is overly cautious to the point of
using the argument from silence (that is, a lack of physical or
antique documentary evidence) as proof to justify a rather
tenuous and weak position. This argument ignores the principle
of text criticism that calls for critical examination of later texts
since they may have been based on earlier exemplars and
closer to the original than extant earlier ones that post date them.
So, your summarily dismissing the "Prologue" of Job out of hand
disregards critical lines of reasoning and the research that has
ensued. I realize that postings to lists are sometimes made in
haste off the cuff and my suspicion is this is true in your case.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>