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

Re: [John_Lit] Beloved Disciple passages in ms Pepys

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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.