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

Re: [John_Lit] Beloved Disciple passages in ms Pepys

Expand Messages
  • Horace Jeffery Hodges
    ... I suppose that one could assume this as the case in most texts, but I think that one would have to be careful about building an argument on it. ... Whether
    Message 1 of 26 , Aug 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@...> wrote:

      > I guess I should not have stated so categorically
      > that in Pepys the porter is male, because the text
      > does allow the possibility that the porter is
      > female. But since, unlike in the canonical version,
      > the gender is not specified, it may be assumed that
      > the porter was meant to be male.

      I suppose that one could assume this as the case in
      most texts, but I think that one would have to be
      careful about building an argument on it.

      > This principle of textual criticism is known as
      > "lectio difficilior potior", meaning roughly "The
      > more difficult reading is preferable". But
      > this is usually taken to apply to cases of textual
      > corruption because of careless copying, because
      > scribes tend to replace odd words with ordinary
      > ones. In this case, though, this can hardly be
      > relevant.

      Whether this principle is "usually taken" as you
      state, I do not know (lacking statistics), but you may
      be correct.

      However, I do know that the principle is used for the
      case that I proposed. Readings that are theologically
      difficult (or difficult for other reasons) are
      sometimes subject to later editing to bring them more
      into line with expectations.

      > Are you suggesting that the scribes of all five mss
      > in question have done the same thing independently
      > purely by accident?

      Easier readings do not arise only by accident. Some
      are intentional.

      Also, would these texts all have been independent of
      one another? Just curious.

      > Again, like in the previous case, your suggestion
      > does not seem very relevant. This is not how "lectio
      > difficilior potior" principle is normally applied in
      > textual criticism.

      Whether "normally" or not, it is thus applied.

      > > Also, I suspect -- but others on this listserve
      > > would need to give their more expert opinions --
      > > that if the evangelist had meant "believed that
      > the body had been taken away", then he would have
      > > used a verb other than "pisteuo" (possibly
      > > "dokeo", as in John 5:45; 11:13, 31).
      >
      > Just like you, I'm not sure about this.

      Then, we have to hope that others will weigh in on
      this and let us know for certain.

      > > Also -- as I mentioned previously -- the fact that
      > > the Pepys manuscript refers to Peter and the
      > > beloved disciple as "Saint" Peter and "Saint" John
      > > suggests that it has undergone ecclesiastical (or
      > > at least "pious") editing.
      >
      > This has already been addressed previously.

      Yuri, are you sure that you posted this reply? I
      looked carefully in your posts for a response but
      found none. Either I missed it (somehow), or the post
      didn't appear (at least, not on my server).

      Anyway, what was your answer?

      > Also, I take it that you're persuaded by the third
      > case that I cited, the Toscan DT parallel. Perhaps
      > because lectio difficilior rule would support
      > the primitivity of Pepys in this case?

      Sorry, I don't recall your argument on this point. I
      responded to what appeared to me to be possible
      difficulties with some of your arguments. Absence of a
      response to other points doesn't necessarily mean that
      I either agree or disagree with those points. More
      likely, it means that I was pressed for time (which I
      am).

      Best Regards,

      Jeffery Hodges

      =====
      Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
      Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
      447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
      Yangsandong 411
      South Korea

      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
      http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
    • Yuri Kuchinsky
      ... Jeffery, This is what the standard reference books say. ... But for this case (the gender of the porter), we haven t yet considered which reading is the
      Message 2 of 26 , Aug 6, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:
        > Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@...> wrote:

        > > This principle of textual criticism is known as
        > > "lectio difficilior potior", meaning roughly "The
        > > more difficult reading is preferable". But
        > > this is usually taken to apply to cases of textual
        > > corruption because of careless copying, because
        > > scribes tend to replace odd words with ordinary
        > > ones. In this case, though, this can hardly be
        > > relevant.
        >
        > Whether this principle is "usually taken" as you
        > state, I do not know (lacking statistics), but you may
        > be correct.

        Jeffery,

        This is what the standard reference books say.

        > However, I do know that the principle is used for the
        > case that I proposed. Readings that are theologically
        > difficult (or difficult for other reasons) are
        > sometimes subject to later editing to bring them more
        > into line with expectations.

        But for this case (the gender of the porter), we haven't yet considered
        which reading is the more difficult theologically, and from which
        perspective.

        > > Are you suggesting that the scribes of all five mss
        > > in question have done the same thing independently
        > > purely by accident?
        >
        > Easier readings do not arise only by accident. Some
        > are intentional.

        Again, which reading do you consider the more difficult theologically in
        this case, and from which perspective?

        > Also, would these texts all have been independent of
        > one another? Just curious.

        Good question, and again something to consider...

        > > Again, like in the previous case, your suggestion
        > > does not seem very relevant. This is not how "lectio
        > > difficilior potior" principle is normally applied in
        > > textual criticism.
        >
        > Whether "normally" or not, it is thus applied.

        And who applies it thus?

        > > > Also, I suspect -- but others on this listserve
        > > > would need to give their more expert opinions --
        > > > that if the evangelist had meant "believed that
        > > the body had been taken away", then he would have
        > > > used a verb other than "pisteuo" (possibly
        > > > "dokeo", as in John 5:45; 11:13, 31).
        > >
        > > Just like you, I'm not sure about this.
        >
        > Then, we have to hope that others will weigh in on
        > this and let us know for certain.

        See my next post.

        > > > Also -- as I mentioned previously -- the fact that
        > > > the Pepys manuscript refers to Peter and the
        > > > beloved disciple as "Saint" Peter and "Saint" John
        > > > suggests that it has undergone ecclesiastical (or
        > > > at least "pious") editing.
        > >
        > > This has already been addressed previously.
        >
        > Yuri, are you sure that you posted this reply? I
        > looked carefully in your posts for a response but
        > found none. Either I missed it (somehow), or the post
        > didn't appear (at least, not on my server).
        >
        > Anyway, what was your answer?

        I wrote on Jul 23, 2001 in message,

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/message/1855

        "It's clear that among its special material ms Pepys also contains some
        late glosses. It's a medieval ms, after all, with a long history of
        transmission of its own. And yet, in my estimate these glosses are no more
        than 1% of the text. Obviously it's your choice if you wish to focus on
        this 1%, or on the remaining 99% of the text."

        > > Also, I take it that you're persuaded by the third
        > > case that I cited, the Toscan DT parallel. Perhaps
        > > because lectio difficilior rule would support
        > > the primitivity of Pepys in this case?
        >
        > Sorry, I don't recall your argument on this point. I
        > responded to what appeared to me to be possible
        > difficulties with some of your arguments. Absence of a
        > response to other points doesn't necessarily mean that
        > I either agree or disagree with those points. More
        > likely, it means that I was pressed for time (which I
        > am).

        Still, it's clear that the lectio difficilior rule would support the
        primitivity of Pepys in the case of the Toscan DT parallel.

        Best,

        Yuri.

        Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

        Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority,
        it is time to reform -=O=- Mark Twain
      • John N. Lupia
        ... typical during ... normally ... personage as ... Yuri, the Book of Job, written between 600-450 BC evidences the Palestinian custom of female doorkeepers.
        Message 3 of 26 , Aug 6, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In johannine_literature@y..., Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote:
          >
          > On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, John Lupia wrote:
          >
          > > Yuri, the woman doorkeeper mentioned in John 18,16 was
          typical during
          > > this period
          >
          > John, I wonder what is the basis for your view that a girl would
          normally
          > be given the job of guarding the doors of such an important
          personage as
          > Caiaphas.
          >
          > Best,
          >
          > Yuri.
          >
          > Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

          Yuri, the Book of Job, written between 600-450 BC evidences the
          Palestinian custom of female doorkeepers. For example,
          Samuel L. Terrien, Job.(Neuchatel, Editions Delachaux &
          Niestle,1963) dates it to 575 BC
          If Terrien's dating is correct then female doorkeepers in Israel
          had a history for at least 600 years from the Book of Job to St.
          John's Gospel where he mentions a female doorkeeper.


          Job 2, 7 The Evil One, having failed in this, went away and took
          upon his shoulder an old, torn basket and went in and spoke to
          the doorkeeper saying: "Tell Job : Give me bread from thine
          hands that I may eat". 8 And when I heard this, I gave her burnt
          bread to give it to him, and I made known to him : "Expect not to
          eat of my bread, for it is forbidden to thee". 9 But the door-keeper,
          being ashamed to hand him the burnt and ashy bread, as she
          did not know that it was Satan, took of her own fine bread and
          gave it to him. 10 But he took it and, knowing what occured, said
          to the maiden : "Go hence, bad servant, and bring me the bread
          that was given thee to hand to me". "

          As I mentioned in an earlier posting the "janitrix" or "ancilla" was
          a female doorkeeper typical of the period. I also provided the
          Senatusconsultum regarding the manumission of ancillae. So,
          John 18,17 PAIDISKH H QURWROS "the doorkeeper maiden" is
          reminiscent of Job 2,10. This ancilla or charwoman was a well
          known class of female slaves as I have already said.

          Westerman (1955) says, " The customary term for an adult
          female slave was "ancilla". (cf,. William L. Westerman, The Slave
          Systems of Greek and Roman Antiuity, (Philadelphia, 1955) 58,
          see also footnote 21: W. W. Buckland, Roman Law of Slavery
          (Cambridge, 1908) 8

          Cordially,
          John

          John N. Lupia
          501 North Avenue B-1
          Elizabeth, NJ 07208-1731
        • Yuri Kuchinsky
          ... John, Actually, this is more commonly known as the Testament of Job. Bankole Davies-Browne argues that it is a Christian work, Testament of Job
          Message 4 of 26 , Aug 12, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, John N. Lupia wrote:
            > --- In johannine_literature@y..., Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote:
            > >
            > > On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, John Lupia wrote:

            > > > Yuri, the woman doorkeeper mentioned in John 18,16 was typical
            > during > > this period

            > > John, I wonder what is the basis for your view that a girl would
            > normally > be given the job of guarding the doors of such an important
            > personage as > Caiaphas.

            > Yuri, the Book of Job, written between 600-450 BC evidences the
            > Palestinian custom of female doorkeepers. For example, Samuel L.
            > Terrien, Job.(Neuchatel, Editions Delachaux & Niestle,1963) dates it
            > to 575 BC If Terrien's dating is correct then female doorkeepers in
            > Israel had a history for at least 600 years from the Book of Job to
            > St. John's Gospel where he mentions a female doorkeeper.

            John,

            Actually, this is more commonly known as the Testament of Job. Bankole
            Davies-Browne argues that it is a Christian work,

            Testament of Job
            http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sd/tjob.html

            > Job 2, 7 The Evil One, having failed in this, went away and took
            > upon his shoulder an old, torn basket and went in and spoke to
            > the doorkeeper saying: "Tell Job : Give me bread from thine
            > hands that I may eat". 8 And when I heard this, I gave her burnt
            > bread to give it to him, and I made known to him : "Expect not to
            > eat of my bread, for it is forbidden to thee". 9 But the door-keeper,
            > being ashamed to hand him the burnt and ashy bread, as she
            > did not know that it was Satan, took of her own fine bread and
            > gave it to him. 10 But he took it and, knowing what occured, said
            > to the maiden : "Go hence, bad servant, and bring me the bread
            > that was given thee to hand to me". "

            There are a number of questions about this passage, and about this whole
            text more generally and its dating. For example, one may suppose that the
            detail about replacing inedible bread with good bread would presuppose a
            female servant doing it. So then the female doorkeeper would be more or
            less required by the logic of this story.

            Again, Job of the story seems to be just a regular middle-class citizen,
            so it would not be surprising that a female servant has the job of opening
            the door in his household.

            Best,

            Yuri.

            Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

            Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority,
            it is time to reform -=O=- Mark Twain
          • John N. Lupia
            Yuri, first you say there were no women doorkeepers, only burly men who acted as security guards, a notion supported by no Hellenistic scholar I know. I think
            Message 5 of 26 , Aug 12, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Yuri, first you say there were no women doorkeepers, only burly
              men who acted as security guards, a notion supported by no
              Hellenistic scholar I know. I think they would laugh. Moreover,
              you never even ask yourself why is there a Latin word janitrix?
              Nor do you pursue this venue which can certainly lead you to
              antique Latin authors who use the term. Then in this last
              posting you say a woman is appropriate as a doorkeeper for
              Job. This roller-coaster ride evidences a complete lack of
              cognizance about these issues and it only turns off scholars in
              the know.

              Then in order to summarily dismiss out of hand the evidence in
              Job you give an extremely imbalanced argument citing Bankole
              Davies-Browne, a PhD student from Sierre-Leone at St.
              Andrews, Scotland, who is studying under the American Dr.
              James R. Davila. You cite a URL which gives the impression
              that this is as much as you know on the subject (an internet
              university student) a view reinforced by the fact that you never
              mentioned M. R. James who was a staunch advocate of the view
              that Job was written in the 2nd or 3rd century. However, the most
              important scholar in the first half of the last century on Job was
              the Eli, C. C. Torrey who was the foremost authority on LXX
              apocrypha. Cf. Charles Cutler Torrey, The Apocryphal Literature.
              A Brief Introduction, (New Haven: Yale, 1945) 140-145.

              Moreover, it is rather audacious to discard Job saying it is a
              Christian work without having undertaken serious research and
              then go on to defend the Pepys Ms. a late medieval work! No
              biblical scholar I know would even give it a second thought.
              When Rev. Jack Kilgallen, SJ, the New Testament editor of
              Biblica and professor of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome
              gets out of the Loyal University Jesuit Community's Infirmiry in
              Chicago and returns to Rome slated September 30th I suggest
              you write to him and ask his opinion.

              http://www.bsw.org/index?l=71

              Don't be too disappointed as I know you will be since I can see
              you have devoted much time to this project.

              I for one think it is time to bring this thread to an end since you
              summarily dismiss any suggestion without serious erudition.


              Cordially,
              John

              John N. Lupia
              501 North Avenue B-1
              Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
              jlupia2@...
            • John N. Lupia
              To Yuri Kuchinsky: A further question regarding your posting at Johannine_Literature archive no. 1890 In your defense of Pepys Ms. 2498 where you discard the
              Message 6 of 26 , Aug 16, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                To Yuri Kuchinsky:

                A further question regarding your posting at
                Johannine_Literature archive no. 1890

                In your defense of Pepys Ms. 2498 where you discard the
                doorkeeper in Job saying it is a Christian writing, dating it to the
                3rd cent. AD, I am curious how you (and Mr. Davies-Brown for
                that matter) explain and account for the Targums of the Book of
                Job among the Dead Sea Scrolls:

                1 lQlO; 4QtgJob=4Q157, 11QtgJob=11Q10; 11QtgJob XXIV 6-7

                (cf. Ernst Kutsch, "Die Textgliederung im hebräischen Ijobbuch
                sowie in 4QTgJob und in 11QTgJob," BZ ns 27 No
                2(1983):221-228).


                Cordially in Christ,
                John

                John N. Lupia
                501 North Avenue B-1
                Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
                JLupia2@...
                <>< ~~~ <>< ~~~ <>< ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><>

                "during this important time, as the eve of the new millennium
                approaches . . . unity among all Christians of the various
                confessions will increase until they reach full communion." John
                Paul II, Tertio Millennio Adveniente, 16
              • Yuri Kuchinsky
                ... Dear John, Earlier you confused the Book of Job with the Testament of Job. Such confusion may also explain the above. Also (in regard to your previous
                Message 7 of 26 , Aug 16, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, John N. Lupia wrote:

                  > In your defense of Pepys Ms. 2498 where you discard the
                  > doorkeeper in Job saying it is a Christian writing, dating it to the
                  > 3rd cent. AD, I am curious how you (and Mr. Davies-Brown for
                  > that matter) explain and account for the Targums of the Book of
                  > Job among the Dead Sea Scrolls:
                  >
                  > 1 lQlO; 4QtgJob=4Q157, 11QtgJob=11Q10; 11QtgJob XXIV 6-7
                  >
                  > (cf. Ernst Kutsch, "Die Textgliederung im hebräischen Ijobbuch
                  > sowie in 4QTgJob und in 11QTgJob," BZ ns 27 No
                  > 2(1983):221-228).

                  Dear John,

                  Earlier you confused the Book of Job with the Testament of Job. Such
                  confusion may also explain the above. Also (in regard to your previous
                  post) I don't think the fact that Davies-Browne is from Sierra-Leone
                  should reflect negatively on what this scholar is saying.

                  Regards,

                  Yuri.

                  Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

                  It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
                  to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith
                • John N. Lupia
                  Yuri, my posting in the archive no. 1880 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/message/18 80 refers to the Book of Job as the reference cited.
                  Message 8 of 26 , Aug 16, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Yuri, my posting in the archive no. 1880

                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/message/18
                    80

                    refers to the Book of Job as the reference cited.

                    Your posting archive 1890

                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/message/18
                    90

                    Corrects me inappropriately saying that it "is more commonly
                    known as the Testament of Job"

                    Now you claim in archive 1896

                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/message/18
                    96

                    "Earlier you confused the Book of Job with the Testament of Job.
                    "

                    So, Yuri, after being shown apodictly that you have no credibility
                    in academic circles whatsoever you have the hutzpah try to
                    inappropriately accuse me of bigotry because I mentioned Mr.
                    Davies-Browne is from Sierre-Leone? In that same posting
                    (archive no. 1880) I also mentined St. Andrews is in Scotland
                    and that Dr. Davila is an American. Any critical reader can see
                    that I in no way ever insinuated to discredit Mr. Davies-Browne
                    because of his place of origin. I was merely showing that I knew
                    exactly who you were referring to and where he was studying,
                    and that I know Dr. Davila having corresponded with him on his
                    former Qumran-List. So, now getting back to your claim that Job
                    is c. 300 AD how do you explain the DDS texts in my posting
                    archive no. 1885

                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/message/18
                    95

                    Cordially,
                    John
                  • RSBrenchley@aol.com
                    ... 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
                    Message 9 of 26 , Aug 17, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      John Lupia writes:

                      > So, now getting back to your claim that Job
                      > is c. 300 AD how do you explain the DDS texts in my posting
                      > archive no. 1885

                      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.

                      Regards,

                      Robert Brenchley,
                      Birmingham, UK.

                      RSBrenchley@...
                    • John N. Lupia
                      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
                      Message 10 of 26 , Aug 17, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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
                      • RSBrenchley@aol.com
                        ... To some extent, yes. I don t claim to be making any professional academic opinion, I merely checked the citation you gave, and found something rather
                        Message 11 of 26 , Aug 18, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          John Lupia writes:

                          > 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

                          To some extent, yes. I don't claim to be making any professional academic
                          opinion, I merely checked the citation you gave, and found something rather
                          different. I'm not dismissing the prologue to Job, I'm trying to find the
                          female doorkeeper, and failing. Looking at the references you give, is this
                          from the LXX? That would clear the matter up, as you didn't specify, so I'd
                          assumed you referred to Hebrew Job; the LXX would require a trip to the
                          library.

                          <<Job 2, 7 The Evil One, having failed in this, went away and took
                          upon his shoulder an old, torn basket and went in and spoke to
                          the doorkeeper saying: "Tell Job : Give me bread from thine
                          hands that I may eat". 8 And when I heard this, I gave her burnt
                          bread to give it to him, and I made known to him : "Expect not to
                          eat of my bread, for it is forbidden to thee". 9 But the door-keeper,
                          being ashamed to hand him the burnt and ashy bread, as she
                          did not know that it was Satan, took of her own fine bread and
                          gave it to him. 10 But he took it and, knowing what occured, said
                          to the maiden : "Go hence, bad servant, and bring me the bread
                          that was given thee to hand to me". ">>

                          Regards,

                          Robert Brenchley,
                          Birmingham, UK.

                          RSBrenchley@...
                        • John N. Lupia
                          Yuri, to settle the issue with closure and bring an end to this discussion (archive nos. 1866, 1873, 1880) of women doorkeepers which is a widely known
                          Message 12 of 26 , Aug 18, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Yuri, to settle the issue with "closure" and bring an end to this
                            discussion (archive nos. 1866, 1873, 1880) of women
                            doorkeepers which is a widely known phenomenon among
                            biblical researchers for two centuries which any survey of the
                            literature will show and which is pellucidly evident in Exodus
                            38,8 I give the following:

                            cf. Adam Clarke's Commentary (Abingdon-Cokesbury, n.d.):1
                            "Exodus, Chapter 38" (6 paragraphs)

                            "Of the women-which assembled at the door] What the
                            employment of these women was at the door of the tabernacle,
                            is not easily known. Some think they assembled there for
                            purposes of devotion. Others, that they kept watch there during
                            the night; and this is the most probable opinion, for they appear
                            to have been in the same employment as those who assembled
                            at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation in the days of
                            Samuel, who were abused by the sons of the high priest Eli, 1
                            Sam. ii. 22.

                            Among the ancients women were generally employed in the
                            office of porters or doorkeepers. Such were employed about the
                            house of the high priest in our Lord's time; for a woman is
                            actually represented as keeping the door of the palace of the
                            high priest, John xviii. 17: Then saith the DAMSEL that KEPT THE
                            DOOR unto Peter; see also Matt. xxvi. 69. In 2 Sam. iv. 6, both the
                            Septuagint and Vulgate make a woman porter or doorkeeper to
                            Ishbosheth. Aristophanes mentions them in the same office,
                            and calls them shkiv, Sekis, which seems to signify a common
                            maid-servant. Aristoph, in Vespis, ver. 7lxviii. - Æoti thn quran
                            anewxen h shkiv laqra.

                            Homer, Odyss., y, ver. 225-229, mentions Actoris, Penelope's
                            maid, whose office it was to keep the door of her chamber:-
                            aktoriv - h nwin eiruto qurav pukinou qalamoio.

                            And Euripides, in Troad., ver. 197, brings in Hecuba,
                            complaining that she who was wont to sit upon a throne is now
                            reduced to the miserable necessity of becoming a doorkeeper or
                            a nurse, in order to get a morsel of bread. - h tan para proquroiv
                            fulakan katecousa, h paidwn qrepteira.

                            Sir John Chardin observes, that women are employed to keep
                            the gate of the palace of the Persian kings. Plautus, Curcul., act
                            1., scene 1, mentions an old woman, who was keeper of the
                            gate.

                            Anus hic solet cubitare, custos janitrix.

                            Many other examples might be produced. It is therefore very likely
                            that the persons mentioned here, and in 1 Sam. ii. 22, were the
                            women who guarded the tabernacle; and that they regularly
                            relieved each other, a troop or company regularly keeping watch:
                            and indeed this seems to be implied in the original, wabx
                            tsabeu, they came by troops; and these troops successively
                            consecrated their mirrors to the service of the tabernacle. See
                            Calmet on John xviii. 16. "

                            See also BAGD "PAIDISKH" 604 where the term is shown as
                            one known to "always" signify the female servant class
                            illustrated by citations.

                            Moreover, P59 and P66 both attest to the woman doorkeeper.
                            (cf. W. J. Elliott and David C. Parker, eds., The Gospel According
                            to St. John. The New Testament in Greek IV, Volume 1.
                            (American & British Committe IGNTP; Leiden, 1995): 377. See
                            also Comfort & Barret who date P66 (P. Bodmer II + Inv. Nr.
                            4274/4298) c. AD 150. (cf. Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett,
                            The Text of the Earliest Greek New Testament Manuscripts
                            (Tyndale, 2001):376.

                            The servant-girl motif is also cited in Luke 22,56 and Matthew
                            26,69 while Mark 14,66 calls them TWN PAIDISKWN TOU
                            ARCIEREWS "the maids of the high priest." the earliest
                            witnesses are the early fourth cent. uncials 01and 03, except
                            Luke which has its earliest in 0171 dated to the late 3rd cent. or
                            beginning of the fourth c. 300 (cf. Philip W. Comfort and David P.
                            Barrett, The Text of the Earliest Greek New Testament
                            Manuscripts (Tyndale, 2001):685)..

                            Cordially,
                            John

                            John N. Lupia
                            501 North Avenue B-1
                            Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
                          • Yuri Kuchinsky
                            On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, John N. Lupia wrote: ... I would like to bring it to the attention of the moderators of johannine_literature-l that such use of ad hominem
                            Message 13 of 26 , Aug 18, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, John N. Lupia wrote:

                              ...

                              > So, Yuri, after being shown apodictly that you have no credibility in
                              > academic circles whatsoever ...

                              I would like to bring it to the attention of the moderators of
                              johannine_literature-l that such use of ad hominem comments by Mr. John N.
                              Lupia violates the protocols of the list.

                              I do hope that basic rules of scholarly discourse will be followed by all
                              posters.

                              Respectfully,

                              Yuri.

                              Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

                              The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                              equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                            • Yuri Kuchinsky
                              On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, John N. Lupia wrote: ... John, please cite us any passage in the standard canonical Book of Job that has anything to do with any female
                              Message 14 of 26 , Aug 18, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, John N. Lupia wrote:

                                ...

                                > 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.

                                John, please cite us any passage in the standard canonical Book of Job
                                that has anything to do with any female doorkeepers. You have cited a
                                passage from an Apocryphal Testament of Job, which is not the same as the
                                canonical Book of Job. As most of us know, the Catholic canon had been
                                already fixed authoritatively quite a few centuries ago. Of course I
                                respect your views and all that, but to my mind the Council of Trent
                                (1556) has more authority on this matter.

                                Respectfully,

                                Yuri.

                                PS. And in reply to the query by Robert Brenchley, yes, indeed, the
                                Testament of Job is available online at the following address,

                                http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/ot/pseudo/test-job.htm

                                Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

                                The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                                equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.