mountainman

During the course of discussion of the hypothesis that the NT
was in fact a "fiction of men composed by wickedness" in
the time of Constantine, and implemented by the supreme imperial
mafia thug at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, there have been
certain responses which, from memory (I went looking for the
relevant threads and posters but could not find them), ask for
some form of evidence that writings were perverted in the
epoch leading up to Nicaea, or indeed prior to 500 CE.

I have just finished going through Rufinus's Epilogue to
"Pamphilus the Martyr's Apology for Origen", otherwise
known as "the Book Concerning the Adulteration of the
Works of Origen.", and have broken this up into a series
of smaller paragraphs, for easier review.

We consider all references to "christians" from Josephus
to Origen to be either interpolations or wholesale fabrications
of literature enacted in the fourth century. Consequently,
we must consider that Origen was not a christian whatsoever,
but in fact a scholar of the Old Testament only, and a
philosopher, because christianity did not yet exist at the
time Origen lived.

Therefore we expect to see evidence of two forms of
literature with respect to Origen. Firstly, the original
writings of the author in the third century. Secondly,
there will be massive interpolations and/or frabrications
of the literature in the fourth (or subsequent!)
centuries in order to insert the christians related material.

There were problems with this approach. Unless all available
original manuscripts could be recalled, it was obvious that
manuscripts would continue to exist, in which some of these
authors of antiquity (such as Origen, and Pamphilus) had not
been "officially corrected" by the new and strange religion.

We believe that this Rufinus's Epilogue to
"Pamphilus the Martyr's Apology for Origen"
exemplifies the modus operandi of "correction".

We believe that it is more reasonable to consider that
Pamphilus had earlier written a work in relation to the
thoughts, philosophy, etc of Origen, which had in it, of
course, absolutely no reference whatsoever at all to do
with christianity (4th CE).

This work (and works like it) naturally became a problem.
Eusebius, we believe, admitted partial authorship for this
work (with Pamphilus) in order to disallow any definite
attribution back to Pamphilus alone, dissembling tactic.

We believe that the work, written prior to the beginning
of the holy Roman catholic church (at Nicaea), had in it
no information whatsoever christian, and could not be
allowed to remain in that state, seeing that the fiction
had already inculcated Eusebius, and thus through him,
Pamphilus, and Origen, as being "christian".

Here is the admission from Rufinus ....


Thus, we regard the above as a type of confession
and/or evidence related to the actions of properly
authorised scribes in the post-Nicaean epoch, trying
to harmonise the fraudulently presented patristic
literature (eg: Josephus, ..., Origen, Pamphilus, etc)
with the originally written words of the authors of
antiquity.

The literature was "corrected" in order to conform
with the fact that Origen and Pamphilus had to be
made conversant with the new and strange christian
religion of the supreme imperial mafia thug Constantine.

Support for this theory of (Julian's) fiction will continue
to identify salient features and parameters of the literature
record on both sides of the Nicaean boundary.

Analysis of core samples of the literature on both sides
of the boundary will result in interesting evidence related
to the chaotic implementation of a new and strange religion
with effect from Nicaea, and no earlier.





Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

mountainman

For those who may not have noticed we have Rufinius
producing a letter purportedly written by the 3rd century
author Origen. As far as I can determine, the following
is claimed to be the text of Origen, complaining over
heretics - in his own lifetime - altering text and doctrine.

Nazaroo

I'm finding this incredibly simplistic.

What if Origen actually *was* some kind of 'Christian', or messianist of any flavour at all, including Gnostic or Jewish mystic:

Then certain works of his, such as his commentary on John would be reasonably authentic documents. Again, your presentation of the problem facing Constantine and Eusebius would be unrealistic in that case.

If Origen were simply a Jewish or Egyptian heretic of almost any flavour (and it must be conceded that there were many such animals throughout the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries), he could have written many works.

In this case, It is not simply the problem of 'uncorrected' versions of his works floating about and exposing the revision done by Eusebius/Constantine. That is only *ONE* problem. There would also be the problem of whole works, like Origen's commentaries on John and Matthew, which clearly indicate that Origen was some kind of 'Christian' or messianist.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you are claiming that these works too in their entirety were later fabrications of Constantine. But this is anachronistic.

Isn't it a bit silly to allocate EVERYTHING, even whole histories of the life and times of Origen et al., to a fiction of Eusebius? Why and how has this ever happened in the past before the Constantine/Eusebius pair?

If all that we know of Origen is just a fantasy of Eusebius, was there an Origen at all? Why even assume there was a historical person named Origen? Do you really need to exaggerate the extent and the depth of the fabrication this much? Wouldn't a simple hijacking or commandeering of a local religion/sect/superstition do well enough for your theory?

Why exaggerate the work of Constantine to this extreme, only to discredit your own theory because of its implausibility?

What are we to do with Origen's long discussion of the Story of Susanna? This was a story, which along with the Pericope de Adultera, was removed by the Jews and also by Constantine and Eusebius, because of its obvious problematic content for Constantine and the Jews.

Why would Eusebius and Constantine make up a story about the removal of Susanna by the Jews, and have Origen defend it? It seems absurd to claim that Eusebius made up this exchange of Origen over Susanna.

But if Origen really wrote this argument about Susanna, then it seems clear that he was some kind of 'Christian' after all.

The removal of Origen's comments on the Pericope de Adultera are explainable using tampering by Eusebius. But the fabrication of both the discussion of Susanna, and the fabrication of the entire commentary on John are too much for your theory to credibly sustain.

That Constantine tried to delete the Pericope de Adultera is easily understood. He boiled his own queen to death for adultery. That Eusebius may have tried to either save the story of Susanna or tried to remove it to appease the Jews is fully explicable, and there is some flexibility there.

But how can you have us seriously believe that every 'Christian' commentary and apologetic work before 320 A.D. was forged by Eusebius and Constantine? Don't you think that's incredibly far-fetched?

mountainman

No. It is a possibility that needs to be explored.

We know that Constantine made christianity the state religion
in the fourth century, and we assume that there must have been
an existent tradition by the very literature which was generated
in the regime of Constantine, (Eusebius).

That there may not have been, is a possibility which should
be objectively explored, and assessed. That is all I am trying
to achieve ---- an objective assessment of the possibility.

Nazaroo

Suppose we accept the premise that Constantine ordered Eusebius to tamper with the text.

The next natural question is, what text, and to what extent did Constantine tamper with it?

--------------------- Problem A: the Synoptic Independances -----

When we compare the three Synoptic Gospels, it is clear that not only did they depend upon extensive previous documents (Matt. & Luke on Mark and possibly a proto-Thomas/Q), they also had quite independant agendas, reflecting different eras or at least circumstances (Matt = synchretistic church document harmonizing Luke/Paul with James/Mark).

We must conclude that Mark, Luke and Matthew are working with overlapping sources but written by independant parties, irrespective of how the details of the Synoptic Problem are solved. There is *no* single author/forger solution for the synoptics.

The purposes and methods between Luke and Matthew for instance are so disparate that it appears an absurdity to suppose they are forgeries by the same hand, for the purpose of fabricating a 'history'. Its simultaneously too sophisticated and amateurish in execution to hold our attention.

When we add to this Mark's primitive agenda, and John's drastically different gospel, the concept of common authorship is utterly preposterous.

Conclusion: Several hands, authors, redactors, and probably different eras, timing or at least provenance must be concluded. By basic logic, Constantine (and Eusebius as a projedt leader/coordinator) can only be the 'author/fabricator' of one or at most two of the four gospels.



------------------ Problem B: the Two Main Text-types --------

That there are two basic text-types of strong definition and wide popularity is a basic result of 200 years of textual criticism and study of the primary documents (extant MSS). Other 'text-types' have a less distinct and weaker representation, so much so that even the most convincing such as Streeter's "Caesarian text" are of doubtful existance, except as vague tendencies or clusters of isolated readings.

These two text-types are:

(a) the 'Byzantine' text (the traditional text used by Christians for almost a thousand years between 250-1400 A.D.), and based in the Eastern half of the Greek Byzantine Empire, the central area of activity for the early church. That is, the Greek speaking basin of what is now modern Greece and Turkey, Syria/Lebanon etc. This text is represented by the majority of all late manuscripts, Greek, Latin, and most 'versions' (translations) produced after 500 A.D.

(b) the 'Alexandrian' Text, (an early [circa 200 C.E.]Egyptian text predating Constantine [310 A.D.]). This text clearly circulated in Egypt and extended its influence to the North coast of Africa, Southern Italy, and even East as far as Caesarea or Antioch. This text is represented by a handful of 2nd century to 4th century documents (papyri and early uncials), all either found in Egypt or showing a text copied from an Egyptian exemplar (master copy).

Now the natural question poses itself: Which text could Constantine or would Constantine and Eusebius have manufactured? Because we must choose ONE as the text fabricated according to Mountain Man's theory. No third option is available.

And this question virtually answers itself. At least in the case of John for instance, ALL the early papyrii (2nd/3rd century) and Uncials (4th/5th century) have essentially the 'Alexandrian' text-type. Only one or two show stong 'Byzantine' readings, such as (ironically) Codex Alexandrinus.

If Constantine is responsible for *either* text, the only text that can be shown to have existed between 200 A.D. and 500 A.D. is the Alexandrian text, by the direct evidence of manuscripts.

Thus Constantine is most likely to have created or edited an 'Alexandrian' text, if he can be responsible for any text at all.

The 'Byzantine' text, if we are strictly going by 'hard' evidence (as I assume Mountain Man would insist upon) cannot be actually 'proven' to have existed before the 8th century in its final stable form. This would mean that its essential features would have been formed nearly 500 years AFTER Constantine's and Eusebius' death.

So we have to assign, according to the skeptical method approved by Mountain Man, the Byzantine to yet another 'conspiracy' of a much later time than the conspiracy of Constantine under consideration here, and so the Byzantine text itself can be ignored for the purposes of the question.

The question which then remains is, how much could Constantine and Eusebius have edited or fabricated of the Alexandrian Text? And how much of the Alexandrian text was already in existance or fabricated by earlier 'proto-Christians'?

The answer again seems straightforward. The bulk of the documents were already in existance (in some form similar to the Alexandrian text) hundreds of years before Constantine and Eusebius.

Even the most glaring differences between the two texts, (e.g. the omission of the Pericope de Adultera [John 7:53-8:11]) seem to have taken place BEFORE Constantine.

While we certainly don't want to let Constantine off the hook for omitting the story of the Woman Taken in Adultery (he clearly had strong motive and opportunity to do so), even this can only be cast in an opportunistic light.

Apparently, the omission is much older than Constantine, and was perpetrated by early Egyptian (Jewish) scribes offended by it in a manner similar to the offence that Babylonian (2nd Temple Palestinian) Jews took against the story of Susanna (Greek Daniel, provenance Egypt!).

All we can really pin on Constantine is the good fortune of having a variant reading already in existance which provided the excuse for the excision of the story so offensive to Constantine personally. (His queen was boiled alive for adultery).


---- Problem C: The Secondary Nature of the Alexandrian Text ---

Many modern analyses have shown that the tendency of scribes was to omit portions (often accidentally) more often or at least as often as they 'harmonized', interpolated or grammatically corrected texts.

At least one third of the significant omissions of the Alexandrian Text (the modern critical Greek text of Aleph/B) can be shown to be simple errors of omission by HAPLOGRAPHY. This actually proves too much for the standard theories of transmission and dependance to sustain.

The evidence of a multitude of serious errors of omission certainly proves there was an earlier text behind both the 4th century Uncials (Aleph and B), but it also proves too much.

For the evidence is of a type called 'agreement in error'. That is, we know these are early readings BECAUSE they are clearly mistakes, minority readings that would be unlikely to have been independantly generated by two different later copyists. Hence their very interpretation as evidence of a common ancestor of distinction also forces the conclusion that the important readings of the Alexandrian text are secondary accidental mistakes by an early careless copyist in a shared ancestor from Egypt /Alexandria.

Since it can also be shown that the same significant readings of the later 'Byzantine' text (differing from the Alexandrian) are at least as early, the plain conclusion is this:

The important readings of the Byzantine Text are more primitive and authentic than those of the Alexandrian, in spite of the lack of manuscript support for a complete early Byzantine text-type. And also in spite of the obvious modernizations of the Byzantine text, such as its imposed standardizations in spelling and grammatical features (like the movable nu).

Paradoxically, in the Byzantine Text we have the most primitive and original text for the significant readings, although its surface form and appearance is much later than that of the Alexandrian.

Since we can already demonstrate with reasonable surety that the Alexandrian text is older than Constantine and Eusebius (independant quotations and fragments from Egypt etc.), and the Byzantine appears even *OLDER* in its significant readings, there is nothing really left for Constantine and Eusebius to have authored in their lifetime.


--------- Problem D: The Lack of Uniformity of Readings ------

While it is true that possibly hundreds, even thousands of minor readings may have been doctrinally motivated and deliberate tamperings, no textual tradition shows a purely consistent set of tampered or skewed readings that supports a major single doctrine.

This is true even for important and much debated doctrines at the time of Constantine and Eusebius, such as the question of Arianism, Sabellianism, and the nature of Jesus the Christ. Neither the Alexandrian nor the Byzantine supports a clearly Arian or Sabellian text, but rather reflects a plain state of confusion over later sophisticated doctrinal questions.

The text of the New Testament is relatively 'primitive' not evidencing mature reflection over difficult and poorly articulated doctrines surrounding the meaning and person of the Messiah and His religious Function.

Thus again, the evidence indicates a loose and unguided, uncontrolled gathering of materials from various sources about Jesus and the Gospel. There was no sharp and distinct 'agenda' that would be a good fit for the many loudly articulated controversies and debates of the 4th century A.D. (Constantine's world).

Again the primary documents indicate earlier sources which have largely escaped tampering by 4th and 5th century 'control freaks'.


All the ordinary evidence suggests that if Constantine tried to influence or control the primary documents of Christianity, it was on a very shallow and crude level, lacking any of the sophistication necessary for the theory that Constantine and Eusebius outright fabricated 'Christianity'.

What may indeed have been accomplished by Constantine and Eusebius was the total suppression of some documents, like the Nag Hammadi texts, or the Gospel of Thomas.

But his influence upon the surviving documents (the NT canon) seems to have been limited to hacking out the Pericope de Adultera and making some crude changes to some key passages. The final result was not a lasting distortion of the Christian gospel but a rather minor pollution of some streams of textual transmission.


-------------- Problem E: The Letters of Paul ----------

This corpus of letters has already been analyzed with the result that several of the documents appear to be later forgeries. But by 'later', German critics etc. don't mean anything like the age of Constantine.

Rather, it is almost essential that questionable documents like 2nd Peter, Jude, Timothy etc. be assumed to have been forged in the 2nd Century, not the 4th.

The most radical and skeptical approach to Paul's letters to date, in which one critic has outright rejected the entire corpus as a forgery, has laid the blame upon Marcion, and this means 200 A.D., not 320 A.D.

In fact, the only way this extreme interpretation can garner any plausibility is by positing the forgery as perpetrated by Marcion at least 100-150 years before Constantine.

That's the best theory of 'forged Paul letters' available.


In conclusion, the theory that Constantine forged the gospels and the entire religion of Christianity in the early 4th century goes against all the evidence we have that can bear upon the question.

Even those who would reject virtually all the NT documents as 'forgeries' or late, secondary accounts biased by religious agendas, would place them at the latest as 2nd century compositions.

mountainman

Thanks for the detailed response Nazaroo.

For the purposes of the following discussion this appears to be
your postulate. However, the postulate I have been exploring is
different. Namely that Constantine ordered Eusebius (and others)
to create the text., hereafter referred to as the fiction
postulate.




My explanation for the "gospel independences" is that they were
written by scribes using a simple process of working through two
lists. One master-list listed all the events to be reported in the
fiction, whereas the four gospels were formed by taking a unique
set of some of these listed events, but not all.

I cite the Eusebian canon tables as the cross-reference to the
gospel accounts, not as an afterthought, but as a mechanism
by which we have certain things in four gospels, certain other
things common to three gospels, certain other things common
to only two gospels, and the balance of events, to be reported
by one gospel alone.

My response is to point out that firstly I dispute the dating citations
referred to above which have been prepared via paleographic (hand-
writing) assessment.

As far as I know we do not know which text type was used in the
preparation of the Constantine Bibles c.331 CE, although I am sure
that some commentators have made certain guesses.

There is no direct evidence in the prenicene epoch IMO.
Handwriting assessment (paleography) was used to date
these papyrii fragments and mss to the prenicene.

There is a story that a female priest and scribe created
the Codex Alexandrinus sometime after the Council of Nicaea,
and possibly using the Constantine Bible as a source.

Our hypothesis is that the Constantine Bible represented not
only the first time the NT was bound to the Jewish Bible, but
the first time the NT appeared in history.


The answer seems straightforward because we have become very
loose in the acceptance of any old evidence without objective
questions. Your assertion that documents existed prior to the
fourth century is based upon:

1) Eusebius' claims of the fourth century that they were.
2) Handwriting (paleographic) assessment of dates.


The prior existence of this variant reading is an assertion, no more,
made by Constantine's minister of propaganda, Eusebius. It may
indeed have been good fortune that this was "lying around", but
from my perspective it was no accident.

Fiction by deliberate fraud.




The Constantine Bible ..... c.331 CE



Again, just to repeat, that your chronology is currently based
upon "handwriting analysis", with zero carbon dating citations.

The fiction postulate sees the Constantine Bible as the blueprint
behind the surviving major codexes.



We are left to infer that the NT canon represented in the
Constantine Bible of 331 CE was the canon of Eusebius at
the time.



Again, thanks for the elucidation of these separate issues.



I have dealt with the dating of papyrii fragments via paleography.
What other evidence do you see as supporting your statement?



Mainstream chronology has been assumed since it was tendered
by Eusebius in the rule of Constantine. The hypothesis being
considered by me at the moment is that Eusebius tendered
fiction by order of Constantine in the 4th century.

Independent assessment of "evidence for prenicene christianity"
is required from first principles, in order to treat this fiction
postulate in an objective fashion. Nevertheless I appreciate
your dialogue in this issue.

Nazaroo

With all due respect, it appears that your position may be based partly upon some misunderstandings or simplifications of the evidence at hand. For example,

(1) The bulk of the manuscripts of the NT are not really dated according to paleographical methods.

They are really dated by strongly corroborated historical methodology, in which "paleographic (hand-writing) assessment" is only a minor supporting component.

For instance, we date the majority of early Uncial manuscripts as 4th, 5th and later centuries because we know that is when parchment production, 'uncial' (early majiscule hand-printing) style calligraphy, and most importantly, church service and preaching methods match the documents physical form. The techniques and preferences of churches, bishops and scholars like Jerome etc. are known, not through paleography as such but through credible historical documents written by the participants themselves.

The case of Jerome for instance, is an excellent example of how historical writings substantiate and provide details of contemporary practices. Jerome tells us important details about manuscripts dyed purple and written in silver. This would appear almost incredible or even a fabricated story if it were not for the fact that such manuscripts have actually been found, and they fit Jerome's description to a 't'. The manuscripts and Jerome corroborate each other. Again, Jerome mentions a certain textual variant (the shorter ending of Mark), and independantly, Codex W is later discovered confirming Jerome's testimony. And so it goes.


(2) The majority of the Early Uncials are dated AFTER Constantine's time.

Even the earliest Uncials, like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are dated "paleaographically" to during or AFTER Constantine's reign. So your assertion or implication that somehow the dating methods are wrong or unreliable is a complete 'red herring'. The bulk of experts AGREE with you that these documents are more recent than Constantine. So how can the paleographical methods be WRONG?

Your apparent claim that people have believed in the early existance of Christianity because of 'mistaken' datings of early documents is non-sequitous. These are simply NOT the reasons that most scholars (even atheists and skeptics!) assign an earlier date than Constantine for the essential cult of Christianity.


(3) Earlier Papyri are dated by ARCHAEOLOGICAL methodology, not paleographic analysis.

The sad but basically true fact of the matter is that almost all early papyrii look virtually the same in terms of their primitive and simple 'hand-printed' style. There is no catalogue of special 'letter forms' that allow these papers and fragments to be sorted closer than plus or minus an entire century.

Here and there you find a small modification of a few letters, usually in size or trivial flourish. But there is no way of telling with any real certainty that in a given manuscript this is a small 'evolution' of scribal style, or simply the peculiarity of an individual scribe.

The single most important key to dating all the early papyri is the location in which they were found. The place, for which various times and groups can be determined to have occupied the area, and the physical strata of the document, as well as the other objects/documents found in close proximity or buried above and below it.

And the bulk of the early papyri are fairly accurately dated, not because of 'paleographical' analysis, but because we know where they were dug up, and what else was found there.

In fact, most of the early papyri come from two locations in Egypt. Thats it.

Most scholars accept that these papyri were made (and buried) in the 2nd century, because of the archaeological evidence of the digs.

There *is* no 'paleographic' method to really apply. In these cases, we are not spanning multiple centuries but rather narrow time frames, and small geographical distances.

We find a book buried under a business receipt dated by an Emperor's year of reign, or some important political or military event. Thats all there is.

So for instance, while P66 is optimistically dated to about 150-180 A.D. by some, it is more conservatively dated as late 2nd or early 3rd century by skeptics. But nobody tries to move the date much further ahead than this, because it wouldn't make sense archaeologically or historically.

To give an example of why paleaographical evidences are not really either useful or credible, consider that one scholar dates Codex W (an unusual uncial) as 1st or 2nd century (!) on 'paleographics', while most others assign it to the 5th century and parts of it to the 7th century!...

There has been no massive 'self-delusion' as to the value of paleography or the dates of most manuscripts. Most historians take hand-writing analysis with a grain of salt.


(4) Scholars believe in a pre-Constantine history for Christianity and Christian evangelists, apologists, and martyrs, because a multitude of independant records and criteria seem to indicate this.

...and the premise makes good sense of the subsequent popularity of this sect in Constantine's time and beyond. The idea that Constantine or any other Emperor would have the sweeping powers your theory seems to claim, is an incredible strain on everyone's credibility.

Its simply not about mis-dating manuscripts. Its about making a coherent and plausible history out of the wide variety of evidence.


(5) Nobody is relying upon Eusebius, or his history.

As far as I know, most historians of every flavour rely upon a wide variety of evidences, many secular, and many completely independant of Christianity.

Even most scholars like myself with a religious bias think Eusebius was a liar, exaggerator, and self-confessed fabricator or cover-up man.

So again, the premise that Christianity is older than Constantine and Eusebius is simply not based upon Eusebius. In the 25 years of my own study of Christian historical roots, I have never once to my recollection relied upon Eusebius, except to point out his bias and unreliability.

Most other scholars probably feel the same.


I would invite you to join TC-Alternate List, where there are many scholars who have a wider view of textual criticism than simply Christian apologists or (the other extreme) atheist debunkers.

You should start a thread there and subject your theory to the critical analysis and review it deserves, by a group of real scholars. You will find more of them there than here.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/

jgibson000

Many scholars? How many is many? You have 36 members on your list (which has attracted and includes the likes of Steve Avery and Yuri Kuchinsky). Just how many out of that 36 do you claim are among this "many" you speak of?

And scholars?

Apart (perhaps) from Jim Snapp, there's not a single person now subscribed to your list who has had formal training in Biblical studies, let alone in T-C, who has -- or who has even ventured to have -- published material in any scholarly venue, who has presented papers at academic conferences, who has taught anywhere or who has been invited to an academic post, who has or could secure professional recommendations , or who meets the any of the ordinary and accepted criteria for being recognized as a scholar.

And those members who do have scholarly credentials, who have published, who are recognized within the world of scholarship as scholars, you've booted off!

JG

Nazaroo

Wrong again.

There are about a dozen overqualified and amply decorated scholars on mr.scrivener's Alt-TC List, including subscribers like Maurice Robinson.

And why haven't such eminent scholars as Dr. Robinson been "booted off"?

According to mr.scrivener (Davidson), they behaved themselves and you didn't.

Can you produce a list of qualified scholars who were booted of Alt-TC list? No. Why?

Apparently, you were the only "qualified" credentialed scholar EVER to be booted off any TC List.

Quite an achievement, making you unique.

jgibson000

A dozen? One third of your list membership? Would you care to name these "scholars" and give their qualifications?

He's never posted.

Really? Would you be kind enough to outline:

1. how "behaving oneself" is defined by "Davidson" and the specific criteria he employs to determine when one is and isn't "behaving oneself";

2. rebut the charges made by several list members, some of whom unsubscribed in protest of "Davidson's" booting me, and including the co-moderator Jim Snapp, that Davidson's idea of what "behaving oneself" entails is arbitrary and arbitrarily applied, has more to to do with his not wanting to be shown up when he claims possession of knowledge he does not have than anything else, and that he himself has mote than once violated his own canons of "proper" behaviour;

3. how specifically I didn't "behave myself"; and

4. what the reaction was from list members to "Davidson's" action?

JG