Re: [Synoptic-L] META and SUV thread response to J. Gibson
- Richard Richmond wrote:
> You are predictable Jeffrey.I read them. But I didn't buy your argument or your conclusions.
> I could say that you obviously did not read any of my
> posts regarding the copy protection scheme that kept
> the text of Mark from being severely altered by the
> opposing factions, ultimately leading to the
> production of the other two Synoptics. However I do
> believe you read them at some point and just moved on
> to another credential agenda.
> Your references are not properly cited perhapsNot properly cited? Lacking in scholarly form?
> intentionally, so you can say that someone one does
> not know of them and did not read them. Which is in
> and of itself, lacking scholarly form.
I don't know how you can say this since I used the citation siglia for
the texts that I wanted to know if you read that the SBL Guidelines for
textual citations states is to be used when referring to these texts.
And I don't know how one be more" proper" in citations or adhere more
closely to scholarly form than that.
So you'll forgive me when I wonder out loud whether what you write above
is a dodge.
> You simply attempt to tie his thought to your agendaI wonder if you'd be kind enough to tell me just what my reputed agenda
> by citing other sources.
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- At 10:05 AM 8/3/2005 -0500, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
>Richard Richmond wrote:All discussions of one's hidden agenda should be
>> You simply attempt to tie his thought to your agenda
>> by citing other sources.
>I wonder if you'd be kind enough to tell me just what my reputed agenda
done OFF-LIST. This is a scholarly forum.
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481