Addendum - December 12, 2007: First is the pre-edited version of my IIDB posting accusing Jeffrey Gibson of being a liar and a fraud. This is followed by links and excerpts from "RateMyProfessors" in which past students rated Professor Gibson's talents and efficiencies as a teacher of Religion and Comparative Religion. This was brought to my attention subsequent to my final posting on IIDB, and it more than adds support to everything I've said about him over the years, and throws legitimate light on his behavior toward me. In reaction to my leaving IIDB, someone cavalierly referred to Jeffrey as having "a style which one just needs to get used to." If this is merely a "style," I suggest it is one that needs treatment.

Posting #116, December 11

Having checked in to see what’s going on a little sooner than I intended, I can see that any resolve on my part to ignore Jeffrey Gibson in future is simply not going to work.

[Originally posted by JeffreyGibson] Problem is that you haven't demonstrated, let alone offered any real concrete evidence, that scholars have "suppressed" the alleged Platonic background of Hebrews. You've only asserted that they have.

Are you actually saying that Ellingworth, Lane, Williamson, Barrett, Hurst, Attridge, et al., haven't taken notice of, acknowledged, outlined, or put forward in their works as points of discussion, let alone engaged in any meaningful way with, the arguments that proponents of the Platonic background of Hebrews have appealed to in support of their reading?

How would you know what they've done, since as you yourself admit you haven't read them (or read them in full), and since, as your own article shows, the ones you quote you only know through the excerpts of their work that you found in Price?

The most egregious statement is the final one. Perhaps someone can advise me as to how one goes about accusing in a legitimate manner another poster of a deliberate lie. I have to assume that it is deliberate, because Jeffrey is clearly implying that he has read the article, and is making his statements based on that reading. If he has not read it, he is equally culpable of making a statement that is totally unfounded and deceiving the board. Anyone else who has read it will know without a shadow of a doubt that I have quoted several commentators on Hebrews directly from their own texts, some of them quite extensively, including Attridge (I quote hundreds of Attridge’s words and paraphrase others), Wilson, Ellingworth, Buchanan, and Moffatt (all read from cover to cover), to a lesser extent a few others (see the Bibliography), most of whom I have also read completely. All of them discuss, in varying degrees, the various background concepts to Hebrews, Attridge in particular.

In none of these have I quoted through excerpts of their work that I found in [Christopher] Price (who mentions almost none of them), and that was clear, making Jeffrey’s statement a lie. There were three or four minor quotes in which I did so, and that, too, was made clear.

Jeffrey also asks for “concrete evidence” that scholars I quote have suppressed the Platonic background of Hebrews in favor of the Jewish. What does he expect me to supply? Signed confessions from them? I assert it on the basis of their own statements vs. what the text actually says, showing how they have twisted that text and read their own preconceptions into it. By that demonstration I legitimately make a judgment about what they have done. And if he read the article, he will also know that I am not saying that scholars like Attridge, Wilson or Williamson have failed to engage with arguments for a Platonic background. I deal with that engagement and demonstrate that it is largely special pleading, often fallacious and not based on a proper analysis of the text.

When the determined bully is given free rein, he will always win, to the detriment of everyone around him. I am proposing that there is ample reason for Jeffrey Gibson to be once again barred from the IIDB, this time permanently. I do not understand why he was allowed to return after his first disbarment for disreputable conduct, something of which he has a long history. The hyena cannot change his spots, and that has been amply demonstrated.

I am not willing to frequent this board as long as Jeffrey Gibson is present. Either he goes or I go, for good.

Enough is enough.

Earl Doherty

Addendum (not part of the above IIDB posting): I guess I need no longer feel singled out by this man’s incompetence or psychotic behavior. Here is a sampling of Jeffrey Gibson as a Prof at Columbia College, Chicago, Religion Department on  “Rate My Professors” dot-com. Quite an eye-opener as to what he is all about. No wonder he never actually contributes anything substantive to the discussion and refuses to answer queries about his own knowledge. This makes everything I said in my post accurate in spades. (I might point out the obvious, that this material is in the public domain.)

http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=780753
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=780753&page=2

“Don't expect him to be on time; ever. Don't expect that the material on the tests will be covered in the lectures. You need to know your history BEFORE taking this class. The main problem is he assumes we know a lot about the material, which we don't.”

“The WORST teacher I have ever had in my life- Had zero respect for students & class time- Showed up late almost every week, sometimes up to 45 min. late- Never apologized for tardiness, & thought it was funny- Did NOT know what he was talking about- Repeated lectures over again-Text books never used- Tests were a joke- Should be fired.”

“Required waaay too much books ... yet was never consistent. Tests are a killer ... he just makes that **** up. Word of advice: do not talk, otherwise he will mock whatever you say. Oh yeah .... and watch out for those "Gibson Digressions" ... :/”

“"Dr. Gibson" was the worst professor i've had in a long time. he constantly gets off topic, and we didn't even get to our last unit in the class, buddhism. horrible teacher, class would be cool if he wasn't teaching it.”

“TERRIBLE teacher. He doesn't actually know anything about religion and I'm pretty sure he just makes up the tests off the top of his head, Scientology style.”

“His jokes are not, and whatch out girls!”

“Don't take Comparative Religion with this teacher unless you plan on teaching yourself, and putting up with teacher absences and tardiness. Oh and taking tests on things that we never covered in class.”

 *

November, 2007

The ridiculous mega-reaction to my little comment that started all this speaks volumes. It is as if a pedestrian took one step off the curb when the “Don’t Walk” sign was flashing and a couple of bully cops descended on him to beat him black and blue. When the hapless fellow pleads, “I’m guilty! I’ll pay the fine,” they haul him off to a backroom cell to finish the job.

I’m actually quite happy this happened and wouldn’t go back in time to drop my rash comment if I could. I trust it has been an eye-opener. Of course, we already know that for many on the historicist side, the question of Jesus’ historicity is not some scientifically-governed scholarly debate, conducted with civility and a spirit of inquiry. It is a vicious rearguard action being fought with all the tactics and lack of rules of extreme fighting. It shows a gut animosity toward anyone who would question precious beliefs.

If my remark, or something of that nature, were spoken by some historicist scholar, his or her mistake would have been mildly chided, and all would have gone out for drinks arm in arm. But where a faux pas by a mythicist, or anything that might be challenged, is concerned, not only is the horse beaten until dead, the carcass is cut up and fed to the crows. It is truly unfortunate that boards like this, where the subject of Jesus’ existence is concerned, are allowed to be hijacked by vultures like Chris Weimer and Jeffrey Gibson, essentially pushing to the sidelines, of not off the cliff entirely, reasoned discussion on the subject. I might point out that this sort of thing does not happen on the JesusMysteries list. While there are many points of view put forward there, both mythicist and historicist, as well as conflicting views within historicism itself, some of them which others may even regard as silly, civility and reasonable discussion reigns because everyone knows it’s expected and the moderators impose it. Weimer and Gibson wouldn’t last two nanoseconds on JesusMysteries. Here, we have a few civilized historicist defenders like Ben Smith and (at most times) Rick Sumner and even GDon, but they as well as most of those in sympathy or at least open-minded about the mythicist position seem largely to remain silent at times like this and let the bully boys take over the schoolyard.

Even though I cried “Uncle,” Gibson—through his toady—doesn’t seem to be able to stop. Condemnation of every perceived minute infraction, every alleged misreading lurking around every corner, continues to be spit out with accompanying foam. It’s plain that the man has a personality disorder. The sort of pointless, baiting, manic diatribe he constantly suppurates should not be allowed on any board. It contributes absolutely nothing to any discussion but simply poisons the atmosphere. His postings are doubly painful because his writing abilities are nil and his insult skills sophomoric. Typically, he refuses to discuss the actual meat of the matter in favor of further indulging his obsession to discredit me. (I’m surprised he hasn’t suggested I’m a Satanic mole from the nether regions.) Whether scholars should regard the Hebrews postscript as authentic in any way he dismisses as unimportant, beside the point. Of course, we all have to assume by now that he has nothing to say in rebuttal to my “points of logic” (which doesn’t include my alleged misreading of something said by Moffatt, which has no effect on the logical observation I made). Does anyone believe that Jeffrey Gibson would pass up any chance to rub my nose in some weak and refutable argument? Attempting to address those arguments would illustrate that the scholarly position he is trying to protect by shouting me down doesn’t have a reasonable leg to stand on, and show that his much-vaunted scholarship can contribute nothing to its defense except rabid attacks on the messenger.

Someone like Jeffrey Gibson doesn’t belong on any discussion forum where someone who threatens his cherished identity could have the misfortune of coming in contact with him. Even poor George Buchanan had to be stabbed in the back as an “embarrassment” for daring to voice an opinion on the Hebrews postscript that could to any extent accord with mine. And let us not forget the mendacious fraud he tried to perpetrate here concerning Richard Carrier and a Columbia Professor because Carrier held opinions about Greek meanings which supported my views on kata sarka. If Gibson has been banned from here “in the flesh” for disreputable conduct, I don’t think anyone else should be allowed to inject his spirit into the proceedings.

As for Chris Weimer himself, he is beneath contempt. He too hasn’t the guts or the ability to counter the only substantive issue here, namely whether scholarship has any credibility in its opinion on the Hebrews postscript. Even calling on Vlad the Enforcer didn’t produce any of that much-needed substance but simply more of the same psychopathic condemnation of all things, and all people, mythicist—especially anyone who has had considerable success in making that case and persuading others of its feasibility.

What a spectacle, Chris! Sancho Panza holding Don Jeffrey’s coat while the Don tilts at windmills and imagines he is slaying the great myth monster. There goes a wrong page number crashing to the ground! Next, another of Doherty’s “crazy” strawmen skewered on his lance! “Verbs” that are really participles scattered before his mad charge! And the victorious Don goes off to seek his reward from his princess milkmaid Dulcinella, with Sancho Weimer trailing behind, basking in the Don’s reflected glory, heaping praise upon his exploits. There is truly lunacy in La Mancha.

If neither lord nor lackey is capable of rebutting those simple arguments, they’ll certainly come up short in rebutting my upcoming Hebrews study. I dread to think of the vituperation Gibson would have to indulge in then in order to mask and compensate for that. (Hyperbole? Maybe so, but let’s wait for the pudding.)

[Addendum, December 12: True to form, Gibson made no attempt to rebut a single argument in the study (it was subsequently revealed that he never bothered to read it), but focused on my alleged failure to consult certain scholarly works pertaining to the subject, works which in fact he himself showed no sign of being familiar with in any detail. It was on such matters that I referred to him as a liar and a fraud.]

Earl Doherty