Jim still isn’t convinced Simcha and Tabor are correct

And should he be. As much as some like Tabor, many people he is following a conman, er, conperson in Simcha (I’m not using the dollar sign because Simcha said it was an attack against his Jewish ethnicity. I don’t want to be accused of that, because that’s not my goal. I just think Simcha is out to make money, regardless of truth).

Anyway, read something of Jim’s thoughts here.

Joel L. Watts
Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of the Free State, analyzing Paul’s model of atonement in Galatians. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013), a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013), and Praying in God's Theater, Meditations on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock, 2014).

24 thoughts on “Jim still isn’t convinced Simcha and Tabor are correct

    1. If anyone is “amazed,” it’s me. Why do anonymous critics write venomous comments like the one printed here? And why do you give them the forum to spew forth these kinds of baseless cheap shots aimed at someone like James Tabor? a man who is gifted in the extreme and a generous person, too, not at all motivated by the love of money.

      JS ought to change his handle to BS or “Just Slander!”

        1. Joel — we both know “free speech” is a good thing, but name-calling is something else entirely. You do yourself a disservice by defending ad hominem attacks as though they were an issue of personal or academic freedom. What JS wrote is more than mere commentary.

  1. What’s to prove? That James Tabor is not a scholar, a gifted writer, the head of the Dept. of Religious Studies at a highly respected university?? That he’s not motivated by the love of money???

    No thank you. He’s all the things you apparently are not, a man of principle and good will. Nothing more need be said. Or written!

      1. Listen, freedom to speak, is a constitutional right, but we are not talking about legalities here. And whether or not SJ and JT “are correct” about their discoveries is something else again. My beef is with the anonymous accusations of Just Sayin’ masquerading as “free speech.”

        So-called “commentators” should stick to the issues without resorting to that kind of personal assault. It’s called being respectful without name calling or mislabeling people as you have done with me. I’m hardly James’ acolyte, or anyone else’s.

        1. Oh? You mean like saying that I have no principles? That’s freedom of speech, you know. The same kind you’d deny to someone who whips up on your cherished person.

          1. You’re wrong about what I said. I used the word “apparently” because I don’t know you. I do know JT and I’m going to bat for him here (without him knowing about it, BTW), because I like him and respect him. You, on the other hand, seem to be stirring the pot for your own amusement or for other reasons.

      1. Nonsense, Joel. You seem to enjoy calling people names. For me it’s almost amusing, except it’s sad, too. Why don’t you try communicating without the rough edges?

Leave a Reply, Please!