FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Reload this Page Who Wrote Hebrews? and Gibson digression split from THE JESUS PROJECT
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM
Search

 
Page 3 of 4 12 3 4
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-22-2007, 04:58 PM   #21
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default
From Jeffrey?

Quote:
More comments to Jeffrey clearing up some of the accusations made by Earl (jeez, am I the only one who remembers Earl complaining when this sort of thing happened to him? How indeed does one change their positions when they feel empowered).

===============================

Earl,

You wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl Doherty
Wow! Talk about bringing on the big guns! Chris called me on my
statement but couldn't back up his challenge on his own (he still
refuses to acknowledge that the ball was in his court), so he called in
the Big Daddy Howitzer himself.
Wow indeed since this is another instance, Earl, of your asserting as
fact what is in the end only an assumption on your part. Moreover, and
more importantly, what you assert is -- as seems to be too frequently
the case in these instances -- absolutely untrue.

Chris **never** approached me on this matter. And he most certainly did
NOT "call me in" at any time for anything, let alone to back up what he
asked you, Earl. **I approached him** to post what I wrote since I
read but am no longer subscribed to IIDB.

So your statement Earl is not only baseless (care to provide some hard
evidence for your claim? Indeed, is your claim grounded in anything
other than a chain of assumptions?), it is false.

So you owe Chris an apology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl Doherty
First of all, Jeffrey is reading a hell of a lot into a short
informal comment. I never claimed to go back to 1890!
And I never claimed you did. My going back that far was, **as I
indicated**, only to illustrate (a) when the view you asserted was the
current mainstream view originated and (b) that it was never a majority
position.

So once again, to score some points against me, you've both misread and
misrepresented me. Good show, old boy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl Doherty
Jeffrey has provided us with a huge list (something he's very
good at) of seemingly just about every scholar on record who ever spoke
the word “Hebrews” in conversation. And as usual, in his typical
bulldozer, take-no-prisoners style,

Oh how I love it when instead of actually answering the questions or
objections I raise, you respond by characterizing them and and by
commenting on my "style"!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl Doherty
the supposed inaccuracy of that comment
Supposed??? Are you actually claiming that you [now] "informal"
assertion about what the current scholarly consensus vis a vis Heb.
13:20-25 is, is **accurate**?

If so, we're back to where we started. And if we are back to where we
started, would you please do what you have so far rescinded from doing,
but should be able to do in the light, and given the implications, of
this new claim that your assertion is accurate, namely, demonstrate
that "It's pretty well agreed in mainstream scholarship that the final 4
verses, in which "Timothy" is mentioned are a later addition"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl Doherty
indicates not only that I am a faux scholar of worldwide
disrepute, completely undependable in everything I say, but that I
surely beat my (non-existent) wife as well.
Ah how true to form! Again, in order to show how much you are
unjustly treated and persecuted by the beastly Gibson, you resort to
accusing me of doing things I never did. Thanks for showing me the
strength of your argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl Doherty
I find it hard to believe that in the short time since Chris made
his appeal, that Jeffrey actually was able to survey the texts of all
the scholars he lists and verified that in fact they disagree with my
statement, or in what manner and to what extent.
I note with interest

(1) how you here employ the appeal to incredulity -- which, especially
with you, is always a questionable tactic. Why, given your
demonstration again and again that you haven't done your homework,
should what you find hard to believe is the case be used as the
criterion for truth?

(2) how you disdain my abilities to do research quickly and how you
present the gathering of information as something that is more difficult
than it is (what's so hard at looking at commentaries and periodical
literature if you have [or have access to] a well stocked library, ATLA
, and JSTOR, and

(3) how you make what is in fact another false and absolutely unfounded
and question begging assumption about how long I've been dealing both
with the question of the authorship of Hebrews and the scholarly
literature written on it (not to mention other questions surrounding the
study of the Epistle).

You are apparently -- but not unexpectedly -- unaware of the fact,
stated publicly in print (and as long ago as 1995) and privately in
conversation and in correspondence with John Muddiman, George Caird,
Harold Attridge, William Lane, Craig Koester, Lincoln Hurst and other NT
scholars Trevor Williams and others in between 1976-77 that Hebrews has
long been one of my research interests.

So to put it mildly, stuff it Earl. You are again making claims to
possession of knowledge you do not have, and you are again making an ass
of yourself in engaging in unwarranted and questionable assumptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl Doherty
One he missed, however, does not.
Missed one, did I? May I ask you to go back and actually read closely
what I said in my previous message. How in the name of sweet Jebus can
you actually say I did not mention Buchanan? And for what it's worth, I
read and wrote on Buchanan back in 1976 in preparation for the tutorial
I mention in the preface to _The Temptations of Jesus in Early
Christianity_ that sparked my research interest in Hebrews.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl Doherty
Most think that the “postscript” comes from Paul? Jeffrey is
right, I was not aware of this, even though I mentioned Hering as one
who thinks so, but I hardly thought that a dubious idea like that could
be widespread.
Then again you are admitting that contrary to the implications of the
apodictic and global statements you make when you speak of mainstream
scholarship, you really don't have your finger on the pulse of such
scholarship.

And that you think the idea is dubious shows that you haven't looked at
the linguistic data that has been used to support it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl Doherty
(Clearly, the only recourse left to me is to withdraw into a
monastery for assuming that a lowly and disreputable amateur like myself
would surely not be the only one see all this logic in regard to the
final verses of the epistle.)
Ah true to form. The use of the "woe is poor little me card"! It is
not only tiresome. It's very revealing vis a vis how poor, despite your
claims to be a master of the literature and to know what mainstream
scholarship thinks, , your grounding in the literature and in
scholarship is, since you seem to be unaware of how bifurcated your
reading of the things you think are self evident actually is, not to
mention where and how much the things you see as part of an unassailable
"logic" have been noted and discussed in the literature on Heb.
13:20-25..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl Doherty
The fact that I threw this ‘claim’ out in a rather
alacritous, informal and tangential comment about the completely unknown
author of the document (disingenuous scholarly guesses based entirely on
the tunnel-vision concept that everything had to be the product of
somebody known in the orthodox picture of a single Christian movement
was the actual target of my posting) is, of course, no excuse
whatever.
"Whatsoever".

I note with interest not only this revisionist rewriting of what you did
and this recharacterizing of what your "comment's" nature was, but also
how you once again claim to be up on, and entirely knowledgeable about,
what it is that scholars have based their "guesses" about Hebrew's
authorship on.

Can you -- and, more importantly, will you -- defend **this** claim? Or
is this just another of your hyperbolic remarks that is not meant to be
taken at face value, let alone seriously?
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl Doherty
Considering that I have proven myself to be a thorough-going
dunce and charlatan (one of your favorite appellatives,
Jeffrey),

Poor persecuted and misunderstood Earl!

But leaving aside the issue of how you may very well be speaking truly
of what you have proven about yourself, I'd be very grateful if you
would document that I have actually, let alone frequently (as your use
of "favorite" implies), applied the appellations "thorough going dunce"
and "charlatan" to you. Where and when specifically have I done this?

Seems to me that you are once again putting words in my mouth. But you
can always prove me wrong by providing actual quotations in which I have
actually engaged in such name calling.

So I call upon you now to do this.

Jeffrey Gibson
==========================================


Quote:
Ted/Jacob wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted/Jacob
Note that [Jeffrey] only presents a list. He does not indicate
what the scholars actually say. For example, what exactly does A.M.
Wedderburn (2004) write about the subject?
I really do have to wonder, Ted/Jacob, whether you are capable of
reading, not to mention reporting accurately, what people write.

How on earth do you conclude that I "don't indicate" what the scholars I
listed in my message say about the authenticity of Heb. 13:20-25 (of
which 20-21b **is** a benediction; only 21c is a doxology)?

It should be clear, given not only

1. what I say about Simcox etc. but also

2 that my claim that " with the exceptions of Grasser and Wedderburn,
there is, so far as I know, not a single Hebrews scholar writing in the
last 30 years – including all of those who have written commentaries
for such "mainstream" commentarial series as Word, NIGNT, Hermeneia,
Anchor, NICNT, etc. -- who thinks that the Simcox/Wrede view is
correct", is **prefaced by**, and is **given with the context of**, a
note clearly naming the names of scholars who have written on Hebrews in
the last 30 years

that I **did indeed** indicate who stands where.

And how do you possibly come to the conclusion that I didn't tell you
what Wedderburn's position on the authenticity of Heb. 13:20-25 is given
that I explicitly stated that Wedderburn stands in opposition to the
majority view that it is?

If you want to level accusations of sloppy scholarship against anyone,
level them against Earl.

How is it, given both his claim that he knows what the recent scholarly
consensus about Heb. 13:20-25 is and your assertion that Earl is a
master of the literature on Hebrews, that until I mentioned Wedderburn,
Earl apparently (note how his primary and [again apparently] only
authority on this matter was Buchanan) was unaware of Wedderburn's
study? This study is not only something he implicitly claims to be
aware of, since it is recent. It is something which also is well known
among recent Hebrews scholars (see how often it shows up in the
citations index and in commentaries on Hebrews written since 2004 when
it appeared) and is, so far as I know, regarded by them as the most
comprehensive defense of the inauthenticity of Heb. 13. See Koester.

More importantly, how is it that Earl -- and you -- are wholly unaware
that Wedderburn himself, writing and acknowledging as he does, that he
is writing against a consensus and that “It is generally thought that
Heb 13 is an integral part of the document”, absolutely denies the
validity of Earl's claim about what the recent scholarly consensus is
vis a vis Heb. 13:20-25?

This is hardly explicable if one really is up on what recent mainstream
scholarship says, as Earl frequently poses himself as being and you,
without warrant, believe him to be.

Jeffrey
Chris Weimer is offline  
Old 10-22-2007, 08:30 PM   #22
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,435
Default
If anyone thinks, Jeffrey and Chris included, that I am going to get embroiled in all this nitpicking about every little word I may have used in this ridiculous exchange, forget it. I wonder that Jeffrey is able to do any of his vaunted work when is willing to waste so much time on absolutely nothing.

I have already admitted that I was guilty of unfounded hyperbole on the matter of "consensus" on the authenticity of the postscript. What else are Chris and Jeffrey asking for? They're beating a dead horse!

In all the endless picking apart of what I've written in the last few postings, not only do both of them show no ability to recognize humor, including the self-deprecating kind, they both carry literalness to bizarre lengths. And they see an insult behind every second phrase. What is it about defenders of the faith? No wonder that never the twain shall meet.

And amidst all the extended verbiage, I do not see a single counter-argument offered to any of my 8 "points of logic" in which I demonstrated the infeasibility of any scholarly stance that the postscript is authentic either to the author or anyone associated with him. But then, that too is typical.

I might venture the opinion that since they have always seemed unwilling or unable to engage the actual arguments effectively, they settle for a distant second in finding any pretext they can find to dump on me personally. Again, typical.

So rant on, if you like. I'm going to spend my time more productively.

Earl Doherty
EarlDoherty is offline  
Old 10-22-2007, 08:54 PM   #23
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Weimer View Post

From Gibson himself:
Jeffrey Gibson
I wonder if Jeffrey got an answer to that question he
asked in the ANCIENT-L discussion list, as to whether
or not any ancient historian other than ecclesiastical
historians actually wrote (or were preserved) in the rule
of Constantine? I do admire the process of research
when well conducted, restrained, tolerant, helpful,
and generally cooperative with all levels of scholarship.
mountainman is offline  
Old 10-23-2007, 09:56 PM   #24
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default One more...
I second Jeffrey's opinion here as my own - the question was over what the mainstream thought, not over whether the ending of Hebrew's was authentic or inauthentic. You'll notice that neither Jeffrey nor I ever made a pronouncement on the (in)authenticity of the post-script of Hebrews.

Chris

=============================
Quote:
Earl wrote:

Quote:
If anyone thinks, Jeffrey and Chris included, that I am going to
get embroiled in all this nitpicking about every little word I may have
used in this ridiculous exchange, forget it.
Oh how I love it when you mischaracterize things to your advantage so
that you can play the aggrieved scholar card and then use that
mischaracterization as grounds for not participating any longer in an
exchange in which you've embarrassed yourself!

But so far as I can see, no one has asked you to become embroiled in
nitpicking. They've asked you to be responsible for your claims.

And, FWIW, I cannot see that there has been any nitpicking of any sort,
let alone over **every** word that you "may" have used (don't you know
what words you used?). But maybe I've missed something. If so, would
you please be kind enough to demonstrate that there **has** been any
nitpicking, let alone that there's been nitpicking over "every little
word" you've penned (and what about the big words you've used?)? Could
you point out what it is within the exchange that earns it the label
"ridiculous"? And can you do this without misrepresenting what Chris
and I have actually said?

Quote:
I have already admitted that I was guilty of unfounded hyperbole
on the matter of "consensus" on the authenticity of the postscript. What
else are Chris and Jeffrey asking for?
Well, for starters, since your characterization of your claim as
"hyperbole" (i.e., an over exaggeration of something one nevertheless
holds to be true to draw attention to that truth) misrepresents what
your claim was (a demonstrable and demonstrated **untruth**), we're
asking, for starters, that you say this:

"It is simply not true, as I claimed it was, that there is **any**, let
alone a "general", agreement in "mainstream scholarship" that Heb.
13:20-25 is inauthentic and a later addition to the Epistle. My claim
to this effect is plainly wrong. It has no evidence to back it up and
plenty of evidence to negate it. And since it **is** plainly wrong,
**I** was wrong to say, even hyperbolically, that there is any such
agreement. In fact, it is plain when one reviews the evidence -- as I
should have done but did not do **before** I made my claim (even
assuming that I knew, as I did not, what the nature and extent of the
pertinent evidence was and where it was to be found) -- that the view
that Heb. 13:20-25 is inauthentic is, and always has been, not only a
minority position, but a position that has been acknowledged **even by
its proponents** as a minority position. Indeed, it is even one over
which its advocates differ with respect to the particulars of what the
claim of "inauthenticity" means or entails. So I clearly did not know
what I was talking about when I made my claim."

We are also asking that you say:

"I had -- and have -- no right to say **anything** about, let alone to
present myself, as I often do, as an authority on the matter of, what
mainstream scholarship holds to be the case with respect to the critical
questions surrounding the text or the exegesis of Hebrews. This is
because I have been and am demonstrably not as familiar with, and not
anywhere near as well grounded in, either current or classical Hebrews
scholarship as one needs to be to be able to speak competently, let
alone authoritatively, on it. This is the case even when it comes to
the scholarship that advocates the position I accept -- that is, to say,
the one I wrongly claimed was the majority one! Moreover, what Hebrews
scholarship I **am** familiar with, I tend to misread, misunderstand,
and/or misrepresent. Witness how I misread and selectively quoted
Moffatt to make him appear to be saying something he did not say!"

And if you ask us why we are asking you to say these things, it's
because each and every one of them is true.

Quote:
In all the endless picking apart of what I've written in the last
few postings, not only do both of them show no ability to recognize
humor, including the self-deprecating kind, they both carry literalness
to bizarre lengths. And they see an insult behind every second
phrase.
We do? Could you please provide me with some quotes of what I wrote
which show that I thought I was being insulted at all, and especially in
every second phrase?


Quote:
And amidst all the extended verbiage, I do not see a single
counter-argument offered to any of my 8 "points of logic" in which I
demonstrated the infeasibility of any scholarly stance
that the postscript is authentic either to the author o r anyone
associated with him.
Even assuming that you actually demonstrated your position (a question
begging assumption at best), the question remains: Why we should have
produced any counter argument? Your complaint is a red herring.

I remind you of what you apparently do not want to be reminded of --
that the question being discussed was NOT the truth of the
"inauthenticity" view of Heb. 13:20-25 or the validity of the arguments
that anyone has advanced in support of it.

It was whether **you knew what you were talking about** when you claimed
that the "inauthenticity" view of Heb. 13:20-25 was the majority
position in mainstream scholarship.

And given that the truth or falsity of **that** claim is absolutely
independent of the question of the truth of the "inauthenticity" view --
indeed, given that **as even the proponents of the inauthenticity view
themselves admit** your claim would be false **even if** the
"inauthenticity" view was correct, there was absolutely no reason for
us to deal in any way with your "points".

Quote:
I might venture the opinion that since they have always seemed
unwilling or unable to engage the actual arguments effectively, they
settle for a distant second in finding any pretext they can find to dump
on me personally.
Is that really what we do? Poor, poor Earl. So put upon! And yet how
much you operate under a double standard! I note with interest that
whether or not we actually do "dump upon you personally (rather than
impersonally?)", you are most certainly and undeniably engaged in doing
to us the very thing that you complain about us doing! Pot meet kettle.

In any case, I note that you admit above that we **have** engaged "the
actual arguments" you've made. Your gripe is that we haven't done so
"effectively". I trust you'll forgive me for saying this, but you are
hardly qualified to be the judge of what an effective argument is.

For one who is pretty big on accusations of how his opponents run away
from what in his eyes they should be doing, would you care to show me
where **you've** actually engaged with, not to mention countered
effectively, the arguments I've made, say, against the claims you
deduced from your (mis)reading and (mis)application of Moffatt?

I cannot see anywhere that you have done this.

Jeffrey
Chris Weimer is offline  
Old 10-24-2007, 12:57 AM   #25
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Mornington Peninsula
Posts: 1,306
Default
I have found this double act CW/Gibson a little confusing at times. However, it seems that the comments are basically from Gibson, who, correct me if I am wrong, used to be http://www.iidb.org/vbb/member.php?username=jgibson000

Now I like a good stoush as well as the next person - just wondering about the propriety of banned users utilising proxies to post comments?

Mods? Or have I misunderstood?
youngalexander is offline  
Old 10-24-2007, 01:07 AM   #26
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default
Gibson was suspended during an admin sweep of users with egregious infractions, but his infractions were not so numerojus that he would be ineligible to return if he agrees to abide by the rules. However, he decided to withdraw from the board for time reasons, so he allowed his suspension to turn into a ban.

There's nothing in the rules against quoting him, although it has raised some concerns.

I am more concerned with the vitriol spent on what is essentially a side issue. Earl has made his opinions of mainstream scholarship clear enough, so if he was wrong on the question of what mainstream scholarship says, this is really too minor for the length and intensity of the above quote from Gibson. I am tempted to split this off just to keep the thread manageable.
Toto is offline  
Old 10-24-2007, 11:22 AM   #27
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default
It is not vitriol to correct an issue which was only made intense by Jacob Aliet's attack on Jeffrey and me defending what even Earl said was incorrect (the mainstream position) along with their both mischaracterizing the actual arguments made, something that even other neutral parties have shown by quoting me directly.

If Earl had only said, "You're right, that's not the mainstream opinion, etc..." It would have been dropped. Instead, he chose to fight.

:wave:
Chris Weimer is offline  
Old 10-24-2007, 12:15 PM   #28
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default ...think alike...
Toto wrote:

Quote:
Gibson was suspended during an admin sweep of users with
egregious infractions, but his infractions were not so numerojus that he
would be ineligible to return if he agrees to abide by the rules.
However, he decided to withdraw from the board for time reasons, so he
allowed his suspension to turn into a ban.

There's nothing in the rules against quoting him, although it has raised
some concerns.

I am more concerned with the vitriol spent on what is essentially a side
issue. Earl has made his opinions of mainstream scholarship clear
enough, so if he was wrong on the question of what mainstream
scholarship says, this is really too minor for the length and intensity
of the above quote from Gibson.
Quote:
Toto,

FWIW, given the acceptance of the definition of vitriol as "abusive or
venomous language used to express blame or censure or bitter deep-seated
ill will, " I find your charge that **my** posting contains/exhibits
vitriol as amusing as it is misplaced

As far as I can see, but, apparently (given both your misreading of
what Earl said and what appears to be an evident "Earl can do no wrong"
attitude) on your part, you cannot, I'm not the one who is guilty of
this charge. Earl is.

In addition, as private correspondence between us over the matter of my
being "usubbed" would show, your present public explanation both of who
"unsubed" me and why I was "unsubed" is not exactly true to the facts,
is it.

And isn't it a wholesale mischaracterization of what Earl's was up to
when he posted the particular assertion that Chris and I have been
asking him to back up, was that he was expressing a (negative) opinion
of the **value** of mainstream scholarship?

And what do you mean by "**if** he was wrong about what mainstream
scholarship said" (about Heb. 13:20-25)?? Do you think his assertion
about what mainstream scholarship says vis a vis Heb. 13:20-25 is true?

Jeffrey
===================================

(Chris)

I agree. Vitriol is evident with Earl's "pulling a Gibson", as if Jeffrey Gibson is someone to be loathed and avoided.
Chris Weimer is offline  
Old 10-24-2007, 02:23 PM   #29
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson
In addition, as private correspondence between us over the matter of my being "usubbed" would show, your present public explanation both of who "unsubed" me and why I was "unsubed" is not exactly true to the facts, is it.
I will just say for the public record that I do not know what this refers to, or what "unsubed" or "unsubbed" means (unsubscribed? why the quotes?) and that if I have made any error of fact, you may PM me or email me or post a correction. But this is getting off topic and, I suspect, boring or driving away the readers of this forum.

And I've already spent more time on this than I think it deserves.
Toto is offline  
Old 10-24-2007, 02:26 PM   #30
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Weimer View Post
....

If Earl had only said, "You're right, that's not the mainstream opinion, etc..." It would have been dropped. Instead, he chose to fight.
I thought Earl did say that's not the mainstream opinion. Of course, he added that he couldn't believe how lame the mainstream opinion was. . .

And "pulling a Gibson" does not necessarily imply that Gibson is to be loathed or avoided - just that he has his characteristic style ("take no prisoners" sounds about right.)
Toto is offline  
 
Page 3 of 4 12 3 4

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:58 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.