Re: [John_Lit] canonical writings
- 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
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