Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1902Re: Beloved Disciple passages in ms Pepys

Expand Messages
  • John N. Lupia
    Aug 17 2:37 PM
      Robert Brenchley wrote:

      The DSS texts are clearly closely related to canonical Job. The
      text you
      cited is not in the book; Job 2:7 (you cite 2,7, which doesn't look
      like a
      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
      familiar with
      the Testament of Job (is it online anywhere?) but for the moment
      I'll take
      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
      terms?

      Fourth, like Yuri you seem to think that the Book of Job and the
      Testament of Job are two different texts completely. This is
      false.

      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.

      Cordially,
      John
    • Show all 26 messages in this topic