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

Re: Beloved Disciple passages in ms Pepys

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.