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

Re: [John_Lit] canonical writings (was: Beloved Disciple passages in ms Pepys

Expand Messages
  • John Lupia
    On Sat, 18 Aug 2001 15:18:05 -0400 (EDT), ... It took you long enough to find Montague Rhodes James, ed. Apocrypha anecdota. Second series (Cambridge :
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 18, 2001
      On Sat, 18 Aug 2001 15:18:05 -0400 (EDT),
      johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com wrote:

      >
      > 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 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.


      It took you long enough to find Montague Rhodes James, ed. Apocrypha
      anecdota. Second series (Cambridge : University Press, 1897; Texts and
      Studies ; v. 5, no. 1). My citing this text was to make the double point:
      (1) that your argument about the gender of the doorkeeper in the medieval
      Pepys ms. having precedence over the canonical text of the Gospel of St.
      John is as valid an argument as citing the Testament of Job. (2) But, even
      then the Testament of Job says a woman doorkeeper!

      So if you can argue about the validity of a medieval ms. evidencing that it
      is older and closer to the original why not the Testament of Job being
      closer to the original? Do you get it? I realize that setting deliberate
      traps is viewed by some as a bit unkind but I could not find it morally
      reproachable but rather a fair play and a bit of fun.


      Cordially,
      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





      _______________________________________________________
      Send a cool gift with your E-Card
      http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
    • Jeffrey B. Gibson
      ... John, I think you need to have a look at the Testament of Job in Charlesworth s _The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha_, vol 2, pp. 829-868. It will be
      Message 2 of 4 , Aug 18, 2001
        Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

        > 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,

        I think you need to have a look at the Testament of Job in Charlesworth's
        _The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha_, vol 2, pp. 829-868. It will be abundantly
        clear that the Testament of Job and canonical Job are by no means the same
        writing.

        Yours,

        Jeffrey Gibson


        --
        Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
        1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
        Floor 1
        Chicago, Illinois 60626
        e-mail jgibson000@...
      • John N. Lupia
        Jeff, I think you need to have a look at archive no. 1907 because I don t think you either read it or got the punchline.
        Message 3 of 4 , Aug 18, 2001
          Jeff,


          I think you need to have a look at archive no. 1907 because I
          don't think you either read it or got the punchline.

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/message/19
          07


          It took you long enough to find Montague Rhodes James, ed.
          Apocrypha
          anecdota. Second series (Cambridge : University Press, 1897;
          Texts and
          Studies ; v. 5, no. 1). My citing this text was to make the double
          point:
          (1) that your argument about the gender of the doorkeeper in the
          medieval
          Pepys ms. having precedence over the canonical text of the
          Gospel of St.
          John is as valid an argument as citing the Testament of Job. (2)
          But, even
          then the Testament of Job says a woman doorkeeper!

          So if you can argue about the validity of a medieval ms.
          evidencing that it
          is older and closer to the original why not the Testament of Job
          being
          closer to the original? Do you get it? I realize that setting
          deliberate
          traps is viewed by some as a bit unkind but I could not find it
          morally
          reproachable but rather a fair play and a bit of fun.


          Cheers,
          John
        • Yuri Kuchinsky
          I see, John... So now you say that, for the last couple of weeks, you have only been pretending not to know the difference between the Book of Job and the
          Message 4 of 4 , Aug 21, 2001
            I see, John... So now you say that, for the last couple of weeks, you have
            only been "pretending" not to know the difference between the Book of Job
            and the Testament of Job? If so, then this was quite a prank, surely...

            But what would have been your larger point in all this, one wonders...
            That no extra-canonical materials should ever be studied by any biblical
            scholar, is this it?

            On Sat, 18 Aug 2001, John Lupia wrote:
            > On Sat, 18 Aug 2001 15:18:05 -0400 (EDT), Yuri wrote:

            > > 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.

            > It took you long enough to find Montague Rhodes James, ed. Apocrypha
            > anecdota. Second series (Cambridge : University Press, 1897; Texts and
            > Studies ; v. 5, no. 1). My citing this text was to make the double
            > point: (1) that your argument about the gender of the doorkeeper in
            > the medieval Pepys ms. having precedence over the canonical text of
            > the Gospel of St. John is as valid an argument as citing the Testament
            > of Job.

            Again, you seem to misunderstand what this argument is all about. Because
            what about those three ancient Semitic-language texts that likewise have a
            male porter? I remind you that they are,

            - SyrS, the very valuable Old Syriac Sinaiticus ms, which seems to be the
            oldest Semitic-language gospel text we have.
            - One of the versions of the Arabic Diatessaron.
            - the margin of the Harklensian Syriac version of early 7c.

            So even if you have some sort of an allergy to ms Pepys, certainly it will
            not be so easy to dismiss these ancient witnesses from consideration.

            > (2) But, even then the Testament of Job says a woman doorkeeper!
            >
            > So if you can argue about the validity of a medieval ms. evidencing
            > that it is older and closer to the original why not the Testament of
            > Job being closer to the original? Do you get it? I realize that
            > setting deliberate traps is viewed by some as a bit unkind but I could
            > not find it morally reproachable but rather a fair play and a bit of
            > fun.

            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
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.