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

Re: Re: Beloved Disciple passages in ms Pepys

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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. - ├ćoti 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 5 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 6 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.