Comment 16 by JHJEFFERY

Paul, I don't think that was aimed at me...

Well it was mate...hence my reference in brackets at comment 13.

...but just in case it was, I am no Bible scholar.

I beg to differ. Anyone studying the bible and the era in which it was written and put together, at any level of learning and for the purpose of understanding the truth of the matter, is in my view, a scholar.

"Scholarly method or scholarship is the body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them known to the scholarly public."

Which is why the following proves my point.

I have read the book and Crossan and Price and Ehrman (and some true believers) and have taken a master's course or two on it,...

And this is why, since being a member of this site, I've read more books on these subjects than all the books read in the previous 45 years of my existence, and why I decided to go back to school earlier this year. The challenge set by being surrounded by such a wealth of knowledge from the eclectic bunch that make up the RD.net family is quite an incentive to better ones understanding of things, lots of things.

...but I read neither Greek nor Aramic and my actual biblical knowledge is probably less than your own.

Well the language thing is probably what defines the amateur from the professional. The thing is, with the internet and the vast library of books and papers available to everyone via the web, it's just a case of reasonable memory and an interest in the subject matter.

I do have a passing knowledge of the period from 1 to 284, but I'm afraid I am severely limited after 333. On the other hand, if you want to know something about the only important era of the Christian experience (284-333 CE), I can go there.

My case in point. Is there anyone who you are aware of that is fully versed in the 2000 years of Christianity?

BTW--Tried to email Ehrman something about the Feast of Terminalia (302-303) and he begged off--said he couldn't go past 300. (But I noticed that he did so in his lastest book!).

Ehrman has lost a lot of credibility by his ham-fisted approach to his latest book with regards to his researching and referencing. It's a pity really, because it casts an unwarranted bad light on his other work and the manner in which he dismisses criticism does him no favours either.

Anyway, if that was intended for me, thanks for the compliment.

If the cap fits. Don't forget, I've read your thesis on Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius and the valid argument you make for his influence on the development of early Christianity, also the critical acclaim you received from Prof. Elizabeth Depalma Digeser who is no slouch on the subject. Which makes you a scholar IMHO.

BTW, I've had to reset my laptop and lost a lot of stuff including your dissertation, would it be too much to ask for another copy...just for future reference.