Nazaroo

Other independant observers and neutral outsiders might gaze in puzzlement at the strange 'tag-teaming' performance of Mr. Gibson and Mr. Julian.

Why have they consistently attacked and tried to dislodge the thread from its topic, and why haven't they addressed any of the evidence or arguments regarding the this topic, namely the authenticity of the Pericope de Adultera?

Each has posted in this thread a dozen times, and yet the total content of those posts doesn't seem to amount to a single well-written post on topic.


Gibson

The behaviour of Mr. Gibson is perhaps the most difficult to explain. He after all is apparently an expert in this field, with a PhD from some kind of Bible College or American University. Yet his comments are startling for their lack of any substantial evidence or argument regarding the subject. Instead, he has latched on again and again to some peripheral or unrelated issue, like a bulldog unable to tell a real arm of flesh from the padded 'training glove'.

The motive cannot be simply to be a pest. In fact, it turns out that Julian and Gibson are 'buddies', hooking up at various NT Text-crit conferences. According to Julian's blog:

It seems Mr. Gibson has something of an interest in allying himself to Julian. Lets see just what that might be:


Julian

Julian presents himself as something of a NT Textual Critical 'expert'. Going to his blog-site, one might naturally get the impression that Julian is also some kind of expert in textual criticism. Yet credentials are strangely lacking.

JULIAN'S BLOGSITE <-- Click here.

In fact, it appears that Julian is really an outsider, very new to the field. As he himself confessed in an earlier post here,

Julian appears rather to be a self-studied computer expert and math major with a serious interest in linguistics, and fancies himself something of a 'math wiz'.

Possibly still in school or continuing education, Julian walks and talks like a typical young man, full of energy and enthusiasm for his hobbies, but lacking some of the perspective and wisdom that only a mature age can bring.

Julian commits the perennial boner on his 'Text Crit' Blogsite, essentially calling all the other real experts and professionals in the field of Textual Criticism naive idiots without any scientific or investigative skills:

Nor is this a 'one-time' slip-up. He goes on to explain with examples.
Regarding Giovanni Bazzana he has this to say:

Its obvious that Julian is here acting as the young would-be expert, vying for attention. He wants to show his superiority to the experts in this field. Its the standard over-compensation.

The issue for Julian is 'scientific method'. He is convinced only he knows what it is, knows how to do it, and only he is doing it. Its the ultimate cause. How can anyone fault him for this position? He feels perfectly safe.

But its all about Julian. The young man proving his elders wrong. Wrong about everything. This shows in what Julian considers to be some of the highlights of the SBL conference.

What obviously thrilled Julian was when Ehrman stood up and criticized another heavyweight, Hurtado. Lets watch through Julian's eyes:


Again, Julian first characterizes his target as 'very smart', and 'has done some excellent work over the years'. Julian is so full of himself it is stunning to watch, like the excited teenager commenting on a chess-game in a coffee shop, Julian can't help kibbutzing.

Julian is as sloppy and unscientific with his praise as he is with his critique. He falls in love with Ehrman because Ehrman is acting as the challenger: "He laid into him so effectively".

But even this isn't enough to qualify anyone as Julian's equal. Julian must slag Ehrman as well, since Ehrman "did not truly understand the exact nature of the problem" and "all he knew was something was wrong".

There seems to be no pleasing Julian. And of course there isn't. He's the young contender, the challenger of the establishment, showing up the elders as dunces.

The problem is, no mature professional would open up a blog called "Textual Crit" and present themselves as an expert unless they actually were. And no mature professional would immediately fall on their face so badly by portraying everyone else in the field as an idiot.

Its not that we necessarily disagree with Julian on some of these points, but then, I don't give a damn. I'm not trying to join an elite group of researchers in an obscure field. I'm not really trying to impress them, or make friends.

These are the concerns of a young man, wishing to be taken seriously.

And this is precisely why the young man lacks credibility when it comes to critiquing experts who have spent lifetimes in their respective fields. Julian has a long way to go, to fit into the world of academia.

The first thing required in that esoteric ivory-tower world is a system of manners and politeness based on tenure.

When will the young ever learn? Julian is like a rock-star in a silk jumpsuit, completely unaware that the small size of his genetalia is apparent for all 10,000 spectators to see.


Julian and Willker

Now we can begin to understand why Julian is irrationally defending Willker. Willker is also an outsider, a man of science with TC as a hobby:

Julian needs Mr. Willker, because he has few friends in the field of textual criticism. Julian admires Willker, because of Willker's attempt to bring a mathematical technique to this field.

This makes Willker look a lot like what Julian wants to be, with his own linguistic software.

Because of this, it is important in Julan's mind that Willker succeeds. And again, the scientific disinterest vanishes as Julian goes overboard to defend Willker.

Instead of accepting moderate criticism and assisting toward putting Willker's work on a more scientific footing, Julian becomes emotional and responds by attacking the person he imagines is attacking his hero. Again the young man struggling for recognition shows embarrassingly through the Emperor's clothes.

But Julian is no Willker. As I've said previously, Willker is sincere enough, although his attempts have been sloppy. Just the sort of quality one might expect from an older man engaging in a not too serious hobby. The problem is, Willker isn't serious enough for Julian.


Julian and Mr. Gibson

And now the missing piece of the puzzle falls into place. Gibson is hanging around Julian, hoping to pinch whatever techniques and software he can, to do something in this field that might give him some credibility for himself.

Unlike Julian, Gibson already has the PhD. He doesn't need that. But he knows that his lambskin isn't worth a tinker's cuss, unless he actually does something significant in this field, and achieves the respect and admiration of his peers.

This is why Gibson can't really afford to associate himself directly with Julian, who's 'young-man' words can only cause him to be dismissed and ignored by textual critics at large. Who can get near enough to a porcupine to give it a hug?

But Gibson can opportunistically benefit from Julian's busy activity. So we can expect some 'cooperative' type papers to be coming out shortly, once they think they have something solid enough to take a pounding from people like Nazaroo.

But honestly, Julian's name will have to be left off the paper, except as some kind of reference in a footnote, because Gibson must close ranks with the other scholars. He can't afford to be connected to hotheads.

Gibson is the Abbott of the team, and Julian the real Costello. And we are looking forward to their breakthrough-paper on TC.

Willker unfortunately will have to wait for a three-way. He would have to head the new team as Moe, organizing the antics of Curly and Larry.

Julian

Well, I am flattered that almost a whole post should be dedicated to me, a young man of questionable behavior. I am not so sure that it will be allowed to stand since it discusses other posters here. I, personally, have no problems with the post but I suspect it is against the rules. I have no problems with it because it exposes Nazaroo and his techniques perfectly. I trust that the members of this forum can read the above post and easily pick out the large number of misrepresentations. Here are a few of them:

Apparently, I hooked up with Jeffrey at various conferences (it was one, we had lunch, it was fun),

I call the other experts idiots (I wonder where?),

saying they have no 'scientific and investigative skill' (I was talking about the scientific method and say so explicitly),

I give examples (yeah, that's generally good form if you are going to criticize something),

he thinks I am young (flattering but subjective, and strange that he would speculate seeing how my birthday is part of my public profile and shows that I am not as young as I would like),

I never presented myself as an expert (I wish I was),

I am not in school (I would like to be, though),

despite the quotation marks on 'math viz' I certainly never claimed to be that,

I do not show my superiority to the experts in the field (since none of them, to the best of my knowledge, read me blog),

while Nazaroo presents my blog (thanks for the advertisement) like some kind of discovery it has been linked to many times from here,

I am certainly not the only one using the scientific methodology (nor did I ever claim that),

I don't know Willker at all (apparently one of my few friends which I am sure he will be surprised to hear),

I am not part of the establishment and probably never will be since that is not my goal (I already have a job),

Willker is also not my hero (although I respect his knowledge and work),

etc, etc, etc...

I am hard pressed to find even one single sentence that is correct. Anyways, my posts, opinions, and views are posted freely and openly around the internet. I try to always justify my viewpoints and change them when the evidence demands it. I have no interest in launching any kind of personal attack on Nazaroo, that would actually mean that he had some value and that his opinion mattered in some minuscule way.

A few other points. I have a great respect for Larry Hurtado and his work. "Text-critical Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean Text: Codex W in the Gospel of Mark," his doctoral thesis, is an examplary landmark study of excellent merits. I was merely disappointed that he strayed from his earlier approach where he supplied solid statistics for his conclusions to his current work that seems just so much speculation. He may be right but he provides us no way to ascertain his surety.

Ehrman's critique was sharp but he needed to supply more solid reasons as to why he was pointing out some of the issues that he raised.

I should also point out that while I like Jeffrey Gibson personally and our off-list communications are friendly and pleasant, I do not agree with his techniques and approaches on this forum. I have said this to him directly. While his style is what it is, we are certainly not likely to ever become allies, except that we both require evidence for any given position rather than speculation. I also respect Jeffrey's extensive knowledge in this field.

I also find it humorous that Nazaroo would take me to task for attacking the experts (I don't, I merely pointed out methodological shortcomings) when he does so all the time to defend his crackpot viewpoints.

As stated earlier, all of my criticisms are out in the open, Nazaroo hides behind a handle.

Criticizing Nazaroo is a waste of time, however, pointing out flaws in his 'evidence' and 'methodology' is not since people read those things and may, for a brief moment, believe that Nazaroo has anything intelligent and useful to convey. Trust me, that is never the case.

Julian

Julian

Oh, one more thing. I said that didn't have an valid opinion on the pericope since I didn't feel I have enough knowledge. I think it is a good idea not to speak out on subjects where one doesn't have a deep enough understanding. Be humble before the truth. Better to be quiet and thought a fool than to speak and dispel any doubt.

I do have an opinion on the pericope but I am not sure it is entirely valid since I have more evidence to review.

Julian

jgibson000

:rolling: :rolling:

And yours are what?


Really? But you/"Mr. Scrivener", certainly no professional by the ordinary and accepted understanding of the term (published, credentialed, affiliated with professional societies, employed by a university or other academic/professional institution to do/teach textual criticism) feel free to open up a blog of sorts (a discussion list) where you post your views. Pot and kettle, anyone?

Again :rolling: :rolling:

And when are we to see "papers" from you in peer reviewed journals or hear you present them at professional conferences?

FWIW, I would be proud to be connected in a published paper with Julian.

JG

Chris Weimer

Jeffrey Gibson has papers published in respected peer-reviewed journals. What about you, "Nazaroo"? Julian is a working professional in computer technology. What about you, "Nazaroo"?

Nazaroo

...and...


Obviously I've chosen anonymity.

But if any one of you were as good at scientific investigations as you claim, you would have I.D. me by now.


Here's a clue (one I've offered before): Although Ben (Mr. Scrivener) and I have similar interests, we are quite different in many ways:

(1) Scrivener is an electrical engineer, not a physicist. If you wanted to investigate him, I'd start with the IEEE. I believe he's a sound engineer, but most famous for his innovative audio circuit designs. That's more than enough for you to find him, if you're clever.

(2) Hunting down physicists is probably a little harder. But any flatfoot will tell you that good physicists usually own patents. You can ballpark my age. Here's a clue: Look in the patent office for LSI tech patents with some big company or other, say between 1980 and 1995. I don't want to make it too easy for you. The physicist with the most patents wins.

If you can't do your own investigating, don't pretend to be clever.

Apikorus

Good physicists do not "usually own patents". Many experimentalists do -- often on matters that have little practical application -- but hardly any theorists. Stephen Weinberg, Tony Leggett, Frank Wilczek, and Bob Laughlin are all excellent physicists and I doubt there is a patent among them -- certainly not many.

Physicists doing applied work in the corporate world are more likely to have patents. They're trained as physicists but generally are involved in highly applied, engineering type applications. Time was when there were major corporate research centers for physics in North America -- RCA, Xerox, IBM, Bell Labs, Ford, etc. Alas now only the Japanese have the foresight to fund such groups. With few exceptions, the best scientists at IBM and Bell Labs (the two best places for physics) left for the universities long ago. (My own department has benefited from this exodus.)

Rather than patents, a better rule of thumb is the physicist with the highest H index / most grants / most prizes wins. Patents really mean very little in physics.

I do agree that this thread should get back on track.

jgibson000

And obscurity.

Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.227]) by alnrmxc24.comcast.net (alnrmxc24) with SMTP id <20070304090515a2400dufe1e>; Sun, 4 Mar 2007 09:05:15 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [66.249.82.227]
Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i28so1261384wxd for <jgibson000@comcast.net>; Sun, 04 Mar 2007 01:05:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type;
b=EhQNbfKpePZywY84xJlkzYw/VYFXky0qoGR0im3TVcECEXxQcFEYQ7d1/DkjQqFSgrWVF8obxexCkCs7BP0FvEveNBODyhm9g1Gpv6YX+Q8 5HoE5hN+psJnTkkbG1xBk/yudMR71MKKEJNHdQOZcod0ENQWBQz2rVxPX176LCgk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type;
b=Ie6b1YUS7nin04CkkW1oMSct5GDllXTB/h0PLfLGR9cwkQA+OA281Dvr5SIY5J9v27sqw7Ex5jVCSLpZQWz hSV+cVgBP7WqJWnmDEDZvksEGaOe/Eqxwm/bP4wRtGo56ShAvqYyAWnTxXemQdoVexfbLcmQtsMtxisdSnMJm Upc=
Received: by 10.90.34.3 with SMTP id h3mr3992618agh.1172999115104; Sun, 04 Mar 2007 01:05:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.90.98.15 with HTTP; Sun, 4 Mar 2007 01:05:15 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5d9c47690703040105g2e8f9278ie02edb7ddaa6f955@mail .gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 03:05:15 -0600
From: "Edward Miller" <nazaroo@gmail.com>
To: "Jeffrey Gibson" <jgibson000@comcast.net>
Subject: Greetings and an apology

[snip]


If you wish, I can certainly convert your Wallace article to a more suitable format for your use, such as a word document and/or html. I offer my services in part to compensate you for
my previous error.

Sincerely,
Nazaroo

JG

Diogenes the Cynic

I'm moving this whole thread to ~E~. Hold on

DtC, Moderator, BC&H