Jeffrey Gibson

Any wagers that Jay won't, even if I provided him with the text of the references I gave?

Jeffrey

Toto

If you have followed Jay's work over the years, you will find that he has suggested a number of things and discarded them when they didn't work out. That might not be your modus operandi, but it is how many successful people operate.

Jeffrey Gibson

He has? Can you provide some examples of this, please?

Leaving aside the cheap -- and uncalled for -- innuendo about my MO, can you tell me if among the things Jay has discarded are particularly any of his ill informed assertions about Eusebius and Eusebian forgeries and/or the way he is/was certain that ancient authors operated?

Moreover, how do you account for Jay's penchant for making (over)confident "guesses" about things he presents himself as qualified to speak about when it's clear (as it is in this present matter) that he has no such qualifications. Does he enjoy shooting himself in the foot, do you think?

And what do you think of the quality of Jay's "guess" about pre Eusebian references to divisions of pre Eusebian writings is? Good? Bad? Familiar with what the facts are?

Jeffrey

squiz

That's a laugh. Coming from the master of cheap and uncalled for innuendo.

Here again Jeffrey sarcastically attacks the person instead of sticking to the topic. We are not all professionals in this obscure field Jeffrey. Why can't you just patiently teach us from your expansive knowledge instead of just constantly throwing out snide innuendo? Is this type of behaviour typical of theologians?

Amaleq13

Asking someone about the nature and extent of their research is certainly not a personal attack nor does the question appear to be sarcastic.

Jeffrey Gibson

The topic was how good a guess Jay's "guess" was. So asking what it was that led him to "guess" the way he did was eminently on topic.

I'm sorry that you are unable to appreciate that fact.

So far as I can tell, I wasn't addressing my question to you, but to someone who claims in one way or another to be a professional in the matters he pronounces upon. So why you are reminding me of what you are (or, more accurately, what you are not) is beyond me.

I'll ignore the over-blown language ("constantly"??) above, the inaccuracy contained within your assertion (I don't deal in innuendo. let alone in nothing but innuendo), and the fact you don't really want to be "taught", even if you were "teachable" and even if I should be so presumptuous as to think or profess that "teaching" is my role here, and ask whether you truly believe that I have not actually shared -- and have not been in any way intent to share -- data on the matter of pre Eusebian references to divisions of ancient works into books that would allow even someone like you to judge the validity of Jay's "guess" and to form an opinion on how well informed that "guess" is?

The question only confirms what I have suspected -- that you have no acquaintance with, or grounding in the literature written by, theologians. Otherwise you'd know.

But be that as it may be, what do you think of Jay's "guess"? Is it is particularly well informed? Do you think it stands up in the light of the data to the contrary that I have presented?

Jeffrey

Toto

I thought you were more familiar with the JesusMysteries list. Jay has propsed and dropped a number of suggestions. He published a paper in the Journal of Higher Criticism, A DISCOVERY, THE CRUCIFIED, SIMON, ZEALOTS, AND ESSENES but has since changed his mind.

I am at a loss as to why you took offense at this, which I certainly did not intend. People in business and advertising will at times adopt a strategy of deliberately throwing out ideas and seeing if any of them fly. People who have gone through corporate training sessions are instructed to withhold any criticism of these ideas, to avoid inhibiting the imagination. (Criticism comes later, when the ideas are evaluated.)

I don't think that academics operate the same way, at least in public.

Jeffrey Gibson

Nope. You thought wrong.

Glad to hear it. But is his new position any more well informed than what he dropped?

But more to the point, has he changed his mind on matters Eusebius?

Do you really believe that Jay thinks that what he was doing in stating his "guess" about book divisions and in making his particular claims that he has here (let alone in his book) about how we can tell where Eusebius has interpolated texts is simply "brainstorming"?

Jeffrey

Toto

Jay's suggestion about book divisions was clearly labeled as tentative, asking for more information.

Have you read Jay's book? It is well beyond brainstorming.

Jeffrey Gibson

It was, was it? And his claims about his criterion for judging when and where Eusebius interpolates texts? Was he asking for more information there?

Umm .. I believe that was my point.

And I note that you have not said how good of a guess you think Jay's "guess" is and whether it stands up in the light of the contrary evidence that Roger and I have produced.

Jeffrey