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

Re: [John_Lit] Beloved Disciple passages in ms Pepys

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