Jeffrey Gibson

Leaving aside the fact that I never used the word "expert", and the matter of why they cite Earl is not pertinent to the question of whether they do, here's the way that Eddy & Boyd begin the first of their s 10 references to/discussions of Earl's "work" and claims.

Sounds to me like they are citing Earl as both an "expert" and an "authority" of some sort. Do you disagree?

.

He does? Where? What are they?

Jeffrey

Sheshonq

The word in question was "authority" - a word which you also used several times. Note the following definition for "authority":

7. an expert on a subject: He is an authority on baseball.

The terms are the same. Yet you continue to try and split hairs over "authority" vs. "expert".
This behavior only demonstrates what Toto said about you earlier:

you are the expert in dragging discussions off topic. You are expert in posing questions and then disavowing the clear implications of your questions.

Toto

You say that you didn't use the word expert; neither did they. They are citing him preliminary to arguing that he is wrong. Does that make him an expert in their eyes? Or a tool of Satan?

He has a degree in classics and reads ancient Greek, and had time on his hands when he could work on the subject.

EarlDoherty

My definitions of:

"Authority" - one recognized by a substantial portion of those interested or working in a field as one who is knowledgeable in that field and makes reliable statements about it.

Here the key word is "recognized." In other words, in the opinion of the observers. It does not necessarily entail that those statements are IN FACT correct and reliable.

"Expert" - one who in fact makes correct and reliable statements on a certain subject, regardless of whether anyone else recognizes that. A person stranded on a desert island could be an expert in the quality of desert island sand, even though there's noone there to witness or verify it.

Incidentally, I have never used either word for myself. The mere fact of quoting myself is simply to put forward my views and arguments. Surely that is permissible?

Also incidentally (on another matter), Jeffrey likes to use the phrase "to my knowledge" as though this is supplying us with actual evidence or argument for the stance he is taking. I beg to differ. It is nothing more than saying "in my opinion" if he doesn't tell us what his alleged "knowledge" is based on. It's another avoidance tactic, at which he is so proficient.

Earl Doherty

Jeffrey Gibson

Actually I use the expression to mean, as many others do, and as is cited in dictionaries as the expression's connotation, to mean "as far as I am aware", and nothing more.

In any case, can you point me, Earl, to where I have I have persistently (Jeffrey likes to = has a demonstrable habit of) do what you claim I do with it?

Are you saying I've never mentioned what the "knowledge" is that I speak of when I use the expression "to my knowledge"? If so, could you provide some evidence that this is the case? And are you really saying that I possess no knowledge of that which I speak when I use the expression in question?
Yes, of course it is! But may I remind you that you have yet to answer my now oft put call to you to demonstrate (and not just assert) that I indeed make it my regular practice, as you claim I do, to comment upon, and raise questions about, things I have not read and that, in light of the particular occasions upon which my calls for evidence from you have been made, any of those calls I have uttered for supporting evidence have been unwarranted or gratuitous.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Whether you've ever used the word for yourself or not, you have claimed, both directly and indirectly, an expertise over, and an insight into matters NT that is superior to that possessed or exhibited by many of the most prominent NT scholars (who you have called prejudiced and blinded by their ([in your eyes] unwarranted presuppositions), yes?

And even granting that you've never used the word "expert" of yoursef, are you saying that you are not an expert in, and a (largely [and wrongly] unrecognized) authority when it comes to, matters NT, and especially in the matter of the theology of Paul and what the Pauline Epistles really say with respect to Jesus -- and this in comparison with those who are recognized within the guild as experts on these matters?

Note, I am asking a genuine, not a loaded, question.

Of course that is. But are you saying that the only reason you've ever quoted yourself is "to put forward [your] views and arguments"? More specifically, are you really saying that you've never quoted yourself for the purpose of showing (and reminding those here of "the fact") that you have greater expertise over, and greater insight into, matters NT (e.g. what Paul was really saying) than the best scholars in the guild and/or of registering a complaint against those who do not see that your views are "true"?

Jeffrey

EarlDoherty

Jeffrey, what on earth are you on about?

I put forward my views and arguments because I think I am correct. Not necessarily on every detail, but certainly on the whole. Why would I put those views forward, put together a half-million-word website, write and publish a book, if I didn’t believe I was right? And if I think I’m right, then inevitably if mainstream scholarship doesn’t agree with me, I think they are wrong, whether they constitute “the best scholars in the guild” (undoubtedly that includes yourself), or not.

It’s not a case of me putting myself forward as an “authority” or an “expert.” I simply believe I’m right and that you’re wrong. Yes, I do believe I have acquired a better insight into, well, certain matters NT, but certainly not everything to do with NT research. There’s a lot I don’t know, or know only incompletely. Some of your “best scholars” could run rings around me where Aramaic or Coptic or Syriac, and probably even Greek, is concerned. Some aspects concerning the Gospels I could improve my knowledge and proficiency in. I hardly know everything there is to know about every document of the early Christian record. However, I feel that I know more than enough on the important stuff which determines whether there was an historical Jesus or not.

Besides that, I can recognize when established scholars are committing fallacies, special pleading, reading things into documents, and all the other faults that lead them to erroneous conclusions. Whether they are governed by confessional interests, peer pressure, not wanting to see a lifetime’s commitment compromised, not wanting to feel they’ve been ‘had’ to such a degree—I don’t know. Take your pick, I guess.

There’s a lot of disagreement, some of it dramatic, between different people in NT scholarship. Doesn’t each one of them think he or she is more or less right and the others wrong? Shouldn’t you be criticizing them on the same basis? Or is it that, a priori, those established scholars have to be right, and I have to be wrong? No one outside those hallowed halls can possibly have learned enough, or brought a legitimately fresh judgment to things, that he or she could ever call the views of those halls into question?

I think you are so caught up in your commitment to the circles you move in and the views you’ve always held, that you can only react to someone like me and ideas like mine with uncompromising antagonism, with no capacity to even consider the possibility that I have anything legitimate to say. That’s demonstrated by your disdainful refusal to read any of my writings before you dump all over them. (At least, you’ve never given any sign that you’ve actually read them.) The assumption is overriding that they cannot possibly say anything which could call into question your tidy little world.

It’s a shame, really. Life is too short and unpredictable to set yourself so firmly in concrete. Concrete has a way of anchoring us in one position, with a limited view on the world, and limited rewards.

Earl Doherty