This is the third in our continuing series on the egregious acts of blatant plagiarism that has come to characterize the series by Mr. Jim Johnson titled, Destroying Free Grace Theology.
PREFACE
Thus far we have had two installments in this series. They are:
Copyright Infringement & Plagiarism, Part 1
Copyright Infringement & Plagiarism, Part 2
In these previous installments we saw how Mr. Johnson plagiarized two works. They were:
1) Ralph Rogers Hawthorne’s, The Significance of the Name of Christ, Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 103, Number 410 April 1946; Number 411, July 1946; Number 412, October 1946.
2) Mario Cerda’s, Subject Determination Involving Proper Articuler Nouns in Equative Clauses, Appendix 6: John 20:30-31, Bible.org
Mr. Johnson’s plagiarism was not limited to simply copying and pasting select portions of the works by Hawthorne and Cerda. Johnson’s abuse of these articles was on a massive scale, with his plagiarizing anywhere from four to over 20 pages at a time. Furthermore, through revisions, additions and deletions Johnson manipulated the writing of these men to make the plagiarized material conform more closely to his own theological views.
INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF JOHNSON’S PLAGIARISM?
The example we are going to review today has more of the same manipulations. This time another *Bibliotheca Sacra (Bib Sac) article was Mr. Johnson’s target.
This time Mr. Johnson chose to plagiarize the very well known commentator: **W. H. Griffith Thomas. Mr. Johnson chose to plagiarize Griffith Thomas’s The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel, Part 1. (Bibliotheca Sacra, 125:499, July 1968) The portion that Johnson plagiarized begins with the sub-section, Seven Key Words in the Purpose and continues through the end of Griffith Thomas’s Bib Sac article.THE MAGNITUDE OF JOHNSON’S PLAGIARISM
The article in which Mr. Johnson’s newest example of plagiarism appears is once again found in his series, but this time, Destroying Free Grace Theology, Part 3. The point in Johnson’s Part 3 in which he inserts what he plagiarized from Griffith Thomas begins under a sub-heading, Proper Handling of John’s Purpose Statement in the Gospel - John 20:30-31. You will find this section appears about two-thirds of the way down his article and continues through the conclusion.
The magnitude of this plagiarism is almost unimaginable. I want to illustrate just how much of Griffith Thomas was plagiarized by Johnson and how much of Johnson’s Destroying Free Grace Theology, Part 3 is made up of the stolen material.
The word count from Griffith Thomas’s Bib Sac article is approximately 3,700 words. Johnson plagiarized over 1,800 words from Griffith Thomas’s document. That equates to 48% of the Bib Sac article being plagiarized by Mr. Johnson. Now, we find that Destroying, Part 3 by Johnson is approximately 9,000 words. Taking the 1,800 words Johnson plagiarized and dividing that by the 9,000 words in his article we learn that 20% of Johnson’s Destroying, Part 3 is plagiarized material from W. H. Griffith Thomas’s The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel, Part 1..
Think of it: Nearly 50% of an article was plagiarized, and the stolen material made up 20% of the discredited article(s) by Mr. Johnson.
There is no way an honest man can excuse these staggering amounts of plagiarism as innocent mistakes. This is not from a man, “that does not write well.” This level of plagiarism cannot be dismissed as mere, “errors” or “raw thoughts.” Vast amounts of other men’s writing was literally copied, large portions manipulated, and then pasted into his series to make it appear as if it is his own work. With one minor and obscure exception Mr. Johnson did not, in any way, credit or reference the various authors he plagiarized.
Let’s begin Part 3 of Jim Johnson’s Copyright Infringement and Plagiarism:
The plagiarism of Destroying Free Grace Theology, Part 3 begins about two-thirds of the way into the article and continues through the end. The exact point of the plagiarism begins under the sub-heading Proper Handling of John’s Purpose Statement in the Gospel - John 20:30-31.
I am going to follow the same format that I used when detailing how Mr. Johnson plagiarized Mario Cerda’s document. To varying degrees Johnson revised and manipulated every paragraph. The manipulation of Griffith Thomas’s document is not as extensive as what Johnson did to Cerda’s. He largely kept to plagiarizing it verbatim. Following I will provide selected examples from Griffith Thomas’s plagiarized article. Please note that I will post examples of Johnson’s revisions of Griffith Thomas’s plagiarized work in red. Griffith Thomas’s original work will remain in blue. I will insert comments detailing samples of how Johnson manipulated Griffith Thomas’s document. Because some of the plagiarized paragraphs are quite large I will post minimized versions to focus on where Johnson manipulated them.
To reiterate- the blue portions are authentic Griffith Thomas material that was plagiarized. The red portions are how Johnson tweaked and manipulated Griffith Thomas’s writing to disguise the plagiarism.
EXAMPLE #1
In relation to articles use of the purpose statement of John in the 20th chapter of his gospel, we need to find as precise meaning to the purpose of John 20:30-31 as possible. It must now be considered in detail text critically and exegetically first. A few observations up front: 1) its definiteness is evident. “These things…in order that.” It is a record (“written”) with a clear object (denoted by the ἵνα structural marker). 2) Its twofold character-first, to lead to personal belief in the historic Jesus as the Christ and Son of God; second, to lead, by believing, to the possession of “life in his name.”… This element of the personal, human life of Jesus Christ is one of the threads running through John’s Gospel.
EXAMPLE #2
To show that Jesus is the Son of God is another element of the purpose of the writer. The distinction between this title and that of the Messiah seems to be that the former is wider and includes more than is involved in Messiahship… It is found over seventy times and frequently with a moral meaning. The two aspects of Messiahship and Sonship are found combined in 1:49 and 4:42. (Two sentences by Griffith Thomas [GT] omitted here by Johnson. See below.) A very prominent part of the purpose of the writer is shown in the element of believe. He wrote in order to lead his readers to faith in the historical Jesus as Messiah and Son of God, and it is perfectly clear that every section of the Gospel bears on this definite aim of eliciting faith and illustrates it.
Following are the two sentences Johnson deleted from the paragraph above.
EXAMPLE #3
When it is remembered that the verb pisteuw occurs only eleven times in Matthew, fifteen times in Mark, and nine times in Luke, it can at once be seen how prominent the thought is in the fourth Gospel. This key is seen (GT has “struck”) as early as 1:7, 12. In chapter 1 also we have the record of the first members of the apostolic group (GT has “band”) who were led to faith, among whom was Nathaniel who at once confessed his belief in Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God (1:49). (Johnson deleted four sentences here from GT’s article) All this indicates what faith is according to John and what stress he lays on it in relation to Christ. Belief is the only and adequate response of any man or woman or child to this divine revelation. (Two more sentences from GT omitted here [see below], which describe belief in John as wholehearted surrender. This does not fit Johnson’s point so he replaced it with this sentence the following sentence) Theologically we tend to come up with content, but the author of the Gospel stresses belief.
Following are the two sentences Johnson deleted from GT’s paragraph above.
It may seem almost impossible to think of the ordinary verb have as at all characteristic of a work like the fourth Gospel. Yet it seems clear that its use is noteworthy and significant. In relation to things spiritual as distinct from mere temporal usage, it occurs at least thirty-five times, more especially in connection with such expressions as “having life,” or “having eternal life.” It implied not only possession, but conscious possession; possession with retention. The idea of having, knowing, and holding appear to be included. (At this point two sentences from GT have been omitted by Johnson.)
There are additional samples, but the key to this plagiarism is the sheer size of what was taken by Johnson inserted into his own document with no credit or even a mention of W. H. Griffith Thomas.
Mr. Johnson refuses to confess, repent and seek God’s forgiveness. Instead he is combative and he scoffs at the irrefutable evidence presented. He argues with an elitist, martyr complex, self-glorifying attitude.
CLOSING
Research has confirmed there are no less than four sources Mr. Johnson plagiarized. Two articles from Bib Sac (Hawthorne & Griffith-Thomas), Cerda’s from Bible.org, and a fourth that was discovered over the weekend. That may not be the final count, but after 30+ pages of stolen material IMO it hardly matters any more.
If I were to continue posting more of the plagiarism examples that have been uncovered this series would last through the rest of the month. I am, however, looking at wrapping it up with just one more to bring closure.
It is the hope and prayer of the men who have had to deal with this mass plagiarism that Mr. Johnson will admit what he did and repent of it. Thus far public and private attempts to encourage this have been met with hostility from Johnson.
By his own hand, Destroying Free Grace Theology, the part that is his own work, is utterly discredited. More examples of Johnson’s plagiarism, and there are many, can’t discredit his series any further.
LM
*First edition of Bibliotheca Sacra, 1934.
**This is the heading and editor’s note from the original article at Bib Sac.
W. H. Griffith Thomas, Noted Anglican scholar, One of the founders of Dallas Theological Seminary, Now deceased. [Editor’s note: This article is a hitherto unpublished work of the noted Anglican scholar, Dr. W. H. Griffith Thomas, who was one of the founders of Dallas Theological Seminary. The article was submitted to us by his daughter, Mrs. Winifred G. T. Gillespie. A second installment on the Gospel of John will appear in the next issue of Bibliotheca Sacra.]
I am going to follow the same format that I used when detailing how Mr. Johnson plagiarized Mario Cerda’s document. To varying degrees Johnson revised and manipulated every paragraph. The manipulation of Griffith Thomas’s document is not as extensive as what Johnson did to Cerda’s. He largely kept to plagiarizing it verbatim. Following I will provide selected examples from Griffith Thomas’s plagiarized article. Please note that I will post examples of Johnson’s revisions of Griffith Thomas’s plagiarized work in red. Griffith Thomas’s original work will remain in blue. I will insert comments detailing samples of how Johnson manipulated Griffith Thomas’s document. Because some of the plagiarized paragraphs are quite large I will post minimized versions to focus on where Johnson manipulated them.
To reiterate- the blue portions are authentic Griffith Thomas material that was plagiarized. The red portions are how Johnson tweaked and manipulated Griffith Thomas’s writing to disguise the plagiarism.
EXAMPLE #1
In relation to articles use of the purpose statement of John in the 20th chapter of his gospel, we need to find as precise meaning to the purpose of John 20:30-31 as possible. It must now be considered in detail text critically and exegetically first. A few observations up front: 1) its definiteness is evident. “These things…in order that.” It is a record (“written”) with a clear object (denoted by the ἵνα structural marker). 2) Its twofold character-first, to lead to personal belief in the historic Jesus as the Christ and Son of God; second, to lead, by believing, to the possession of “life in his name.”… This element of the personal, human life of Jesus Christ is one of the threads running through John’s Gospel.
EXAMPLE #2
To show that Jesus is the Son of God is another element of the purpose of the writer. The distinction between this title and that of the Messiah seems to be that the former is wider and includes more than is involved in Messiahship… It is found over seventy times and frequently with a moral meaning. The two aspects of Messiahship and Sonship are found combined in 1:49 and 4:42. (Two sentences by Griffith Thomas [GT] omitted here by Johnson. See below.) A very prominent part of the purpose of the writer is shown in the element of believe. He wrote in order to lead his readers to faith in the historical Jesus as Messiah and Son of God, and it is perfectly clear that every section of the Gospel bears on this definite aim of eliciting faith and illustrates it.
Following are the two sentences Johnson deleted from the paragraph above.
“As Messiah, Jesus unites Christianity with Judaism while as Son of God He transcends Judaism. These two aspects interpret practically every section of the Gospel.”
EXAMPLE #3
When it is remembered that the verb pisteuw occurs only eleven times in Matthew, fifteen times in Mark, and nine times in Luke, it can at once be seen how prominent the thought is in the fourth Gospel. This key is seen (GT has “struck”) as early as 1:7, 12. In chapter 1 also we have the record of the first members of the apostolic group (GT has “band”) who were led to faith, among whom was Nathaniel who at once confessed his belief in Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God (1:49). (Johnson deleted four sentences here from GT’s article) All this indicates what faith is according to John and what stress he lays on it in relation to Christ. Belief is the only and adequate response of any man or woman or child to this divine revelation. (Two more sentences from GT omitted here [see below], which describe belief in John as wholehearted surrender. This does not fit Johnson’s point so he replaced it with this sentence the following sentence) Theologically we tend to come up with content, but the author of the Gospel stresses belief.
Following are the two sentences Johnson deleted from GT’s paragraph above.
“It is based on testimony (1:7 ); it is elicited by experience (1:50 ); it rests on words spoken (10:38 ) or written (2:22 ); and it involves the wholehearted surrender of the moral being (eis). When these statements are successively understood, we come to the knowledge of what is meant by faith in Christ.”EXAMPLE #4
It may seem almost impossible to think of the ordinary verb have as at all characteristic of a work like the fourth Gospel. Yet it seems clear that its use is noteworthy and significant. In relation to things spiritual as distinct from mere temporal usage, it occurs at least thirty-five times, more especially in connection with such expressions as “having life,” or “having eternal life.” It implied not only possession, but conscious possession; possession with retention. The idea of having, knowing, and holding appear to be included. (At this point two sentences from GT have been omitted by Johnson.)
There are additional samples, but the key to this plagiarism is the sheer size of what was taken by Johnson inserted into his own document with no credit or even a mention of W. H. Griffith Thomas.
Mr. Johnson refuses to confess, repent and seek God’s forgiveness. Instead he is combative and he scoffs at the irrefutable evidence presented. He argues with an elitist, martyr complex, self-glorifying attitude.
CLOSING
Research has confirmed there are no less than four sources Mr. Johnson plagiarized. Two articles from Bib Sac (Hawthorne & Griffith-Thomas), Cerda’s from Bible.org, and a fourth that was discovered over the weekend. That may not be the final count, but after 30+ pages of stolen material IMO it hardly matters any more.
If I were to continue posting more of the plagiarism examples that have been uncovered this series would last through the rest of the month. I am, however, looking at wrapping it up with just one more to bring closure.
It is the hope and prayer of the men who have had to deal with this mass plagiarism that Mr. Johnson will admit what he did and repent of it. Thus far public and private attempts to encourage this have been met with hostility from Johnson.
By his own hand, Destroying Free Grace Theology, the part that is his own work, is utterly discredited. More examples of Johnson’s plagiarism, and there are many, can’t discredit his series any further.
LM
*First edition of Bibliotheca Sacra, 1934.
**This is the heading and editor’s note from the original article at Bib Sac.
W. H. Griffith Thomas, Noted Anglican scholar, One of the founders of Dallas Theological Seminary, Now deceased. [Editor’s note: This article is a hitherto unpublished work of the noted Anglican scholar, Dr. W. H. Griffith Thomas, who was one of the founders of Dallas Theological Seminary. The article was submitted to us by his daughter, Mrs. Winifred G. T. Gillespie. A second installment on the Gospel of John will appear in the next issue of Bibliotheca Sacra.]
Being the fair-minded guy that I am I was willing to cut Jim some slack at first, when I thought perhaps it was simply a few sentences here-and-there that were used without permission and/or proper attribution. The sheer magnitude of the plagiarism you, Greg, and JP have documented has convinced me that Mr Johnson has no excuse. It doesn't take a college level understanding of the issue to understand that copy/pasting someone elses' work as your own is seriously unethical among even the secular -- I learned that before even entering High School. Despite my disagreements with the man I am not pleased to see it come to this. Nevertheless, the truth simply speaks for itself.
ReplyDeleteHis arguments were unsound in the first place and are abundantly rebutted by articles and authors that Jim has refused to interact with. Anyone who says that it is we who are are unwilling to interact with the arguments is ignorant of, or blind to, the facts.
These actions only serve to further discredit him as a pertinent voice in the debate. We have not done this TO him, he has simply discredited himself through his unethical actions. Despite my disapproval of his actions, I am praying for the man.
Stephen
BTW:
ReplyDeleteEveryone, "was willing to cut Jim some slack at first."
However, his hostile, combative, in your face reaction made that impossible.
None of this series would have been necessary if Jim would have acknowledged what he had done and either deleted the articles or eliminated the many plagiarized portions. However, he chose to stand by his plagiarism.
His own behavior discredited his paper and his reputation. He has no one to blame (shift), but himself.
LM
Stephen:
ReplyDeleteYour opening comment pretty much sums it up.
I am certain he will continue to deny what he purposely did and demonize those of us who discovered his plagiarism. His reaction thus far is a perfect example of non-repentance. He is only sorry for having been caught.
The other thing I find noteworthy is that the alleged and secret editors are going to refine his paper. I can’t imagine how any responsible theologian/editor would want to attach himself to Johnson’s documents and release it again. It is so thoroughly discredited no one could ever take it seriously.
IMO this is one reason why the editors, if there actually are any, want to remain anonymous.
LM
Stephen,
ReplyDeleteWell stated my friend. At one time or another I'm sure we have all forgotten a footnote, and therefore all of us have probably been guilty of "plagiarism". For these minor oversights I agree we should "cut each other some slack". But Johnson's multiple cases of massive plagiarism have been entirely different. More than simply forgetting a footnote, Johnson blatantly manipulated page upon page of other men's writings, and multiple times at that.
JP
To All:
ReplyDeleteA gentleman who reads the FG blogs sent the following to me this evening.
Mr. Johnson did it at the Free Grace Churches' website.
About Apostolic Tradition - Jim Johnson...
Taken from Apostolic Tradition by John W. Purcell.
Lou,
ReplyDeleteI tried two separate computers and both times was not able to access the first link above (About Apostolic Tradition - Jim Johnson). Could you look into this?
JP
Jon:
ReplyDeleteI'll have to fix it later. Sorry about the inconvenience.
Lou
JP, I looked at it myself and think
ReplyDeletethis link to JJ's post at FreeGraceChurhces.org
is what was intended.
The healer of links,
Stephen
Lou,
ReplyDeleteBelow is the actual text from the two links above. Purcell's text appears first, followed by Johnson's.
Apostolic Tradition
Saturday, April 28, 2007
By John W. Purcell
"In 1 Corinthians 4:14-17, we read that Paul planned to send Timothy to Corinth. Paul wanted Timothy to remind the Corinthians of his way of life so that they could imitate him. The immediate context concerns Paul’s faithfulness in service and his humility as an apostle.
Paul wrote, 'I urge you to imitate me. For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.'
Notice the obvious uniformity of practice that is reflected by Paul’s words. His way of life in Christ was consistent with what he taught everywhere, in every church. There was integrity. There was a uniformity of practice that grew out of Paul’s teachings. His belief determined his behaviour. His doctrine naturally determined his duty. In similar fashion, the apostles’ beliefs about the function of the church would surely have affected the way they organized churches (form follows function).
Though the direct import of 1 Corinthians 4 is far afield from church practice, to also imitate the apostles’ ways regarding church life would be a wise choice for any fellowship. If anyone truly understood the purpose of the church, surely the original apostles did. They were hand picked and hand trained by Jesus over a three year period. Then, our Lord appeared to them over a forty day period after His resurrection (Acts 1:3).
Jesus also sent the Holy Spirit to teach them things He had not taught them before (John 14-16). Thus, whatever Jesus taught His apostles about the church was naturally reflected in the way they subsequently set up and organized churches.
In Titus 1:5, a passage that does deal directly with church practice, Paul wrote, 'The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished.' Titus 1 concerns the appointment of qualified elders in every city.
It is evident from this Scriptural passage that the apostles did indeed have a definite way they wanted certain things done regarding church. It was not left up to each individual assembly to find its own way of doing things. There was obviously some kind of order, pattern, or tradition that was followed in organizing the churches.
Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 11:34 (a passage about the practice of the Lord’s Supper, another church life topic), Paul wrote, 'The rest I will set in order when I come' (KJV, italics mine)."
About Apostolic “Tradition”
By jjohnson | December 23, 2007
"In 1 Corinthians 4:14-17, Paul said that he planned to send Timothy to Corinth. Paul wanted Timothy to remind the Corinthians of his way of life so that they could imitate him. Thus Paul wrote, 'I have sent Timothy to you, who is my dear and faithful son in the Lord. He will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church.' (NET) Notice the uniformity of practice that is implied by Paul’s words. His way of life in Christ was consistent with what he taught 'everywhere in every church.' There was integrity. There was a uniformity of practice that grew out of Paul’s teachings. Similarly, the apostles’ beliefs about the function of the church would naturally have affected the way they organized churches (the form of the church). Holding to apostolic tradition is logical, one problem though - all we have is their writings. In a group of house churches someone would have to organize and oversee the flock of each house. But who oversees the overseer? Most of what I see today is a institution of man made buildings and traditions that have nothing to do with scripture.
If anyone understood the purpose of the church, surely the apostles did. They were hand picked and hand trained by Jesus over a 3 year period. Then our Lord appeared to them over a 40 day period after His resurrection. Jesus sent God the Holy Spirit to indwell and teach them things He had not taught them before (John 14-16). Thus, whatever Jesus taught His apostles about the church was naturally reflected in the way they set up and organized churches. Since there is no Paul or Peter to plant or lead a group of house or other kind of FG churches (see above) then it could be possible that each elder of the house church would sit down with the other elders at a particular time each quarter for instance.
In Titus 1:5 Paul wrote, 'The reason I left you in Crete was to set in order the remaining matters.' (NET) It is evident from this Scripture that the apostles did indeed have a definite way they wanted things done. It was not left up to each individual church to find its own way of doing things. There was obviously some kind of order, pattern, or tradition that was followed in organizing the churches. Thus, in 1 Corinthians 11:34, Paul wrote, 'I will give directions about other matters when I come' (NET). So one task to start FG churches would have to include compiling a 'manual' of the teachings of the apostles on how a church is planted, organized, lead, and sustained."
JP
Stephen, "healer of links":
ReplyDeleteThanks for that link by the way, your medicine is strong.
JP
Jon:
ReplyDeleteWell, all I can say is that it appears Mr. Johnson's plagiarism will likely be found almost everywhere he has posted on the subject of the Crossless gospel.
Lou
Lou,
ReplyDeleteUnfortunate but true. Based on the most recent findings above, I would even go so far as to say it appears Mr. Johnson's plagiarism will likely be found almost everywhere he has posted.
JP
Dear Guests:
ReplyDeleteTomorrow morning I will be posting what I believe is going to be the final in this series.
LM
JP
ReplyDeleteWow that gives me a gross feeling in my gut to read.
I have been following this thing loosely.. but the intentionality of the edits just gets me. Of course with so much of the original text preserved one wonders why Mr. Johnson bothered to "adapt" it at all.
The only effect the "adaptations" have on the informed reader is to infuriate him.
If I were a sympathizer to the false doctrine that Mr. Johnson prescribes I would be insulted that he has such a low opinion of me that he did not even attempt to mask his plagiarism. It is obvious to this reader, after having read these posts here at Lou's blog that Mr. Johnson doesn't believe his readers read anything else.
On a funny note, I'm betting that he wouldn't use Mr. Hodges' work in such a manner. I'm sure several of his readers have those works next to memorized.
Kev
I meant that Mr. Johnson doesn't believe his readers read anything other than his "work".
ReplyDeleteKev
Kevl:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, "On a funny note, I'm betting that he wouldn't use Mr. Hodges' work in such a manner. I'm sure several of his readers have those works next to memorized."
Actually its not so funny. Johnson may not have plagiarized Hodges, but Antonio da Rosa did exactly that. He was caught almost immediately by men who are not sympathetic to Hodgism and not in the FG camp.
Here was Antonio's initial reaction, "That this isn't a classroom is apparant to me. Zane Hodges puts it into words better than I could in a more precise way. Yet, let us not so hastily detract from the points that have been made."
Lou
While Johnson still denies and scoffs about what he did...to Antonio's credit, about 3 months ago, he finally accepted responsibilty and apologized.
ReplyDeleteLou
Kevl,
ReplyDeleteYes, my sentiments as well. Johnson's recent actions are foolish on so many different levels. A few weeks ago I listed about six or seven areas of concern and I'm sure if I made the list today I could easily double that number!
One of the things I don't understand is why Johnson hasn't apologized by now? Even "crossless" gospel advocates are saying he's committed "blatent plagiarism"! And unfortunately there more and more examples of plagiarism being found as the weeks go by. Doesn't he want to put this behind him? But I guess I shouldn't try to understand what doesn't make sense. That's why it's foolishness. We need to pray for brother Johnson regardless of our differences (Eph. 6:18; 1 Tim. 2:1).
JP
Jon:
ReplyDeleteYou asked, "One of the things I don't understand is why Johnson hasn't apologized by now?"
What I am going to say is not meant to be hrash, but is IMO why he won't apologize.
Any one who has seen how many times Jim has self-promoted himself, and touted what he must believe are his outstanding credentials, might come to conclude that it is his ego that will not allow him to acknowledge or apologize for what he has been up to these many months.
LM