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

Re: [John_Lit] Beloved Disciple passages in ms Pepys

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