I am sorely tempted ...

... to include the following in a chapter examining Pseudepigraphal material in light of Pauline Christology:

"... Because Adam is worshipped as the image of God in the Life of Adam and Eve, Fletcher-Louis argues ... Barker argues that the reverence accorded the High Priest .... Horbury can ... praise of Jewish kings. ... ... so also Casey, Chester and others. This chapter aims to show how such reasoning is entirely misleading; it fletches-loose with the data, is barkering up the wrong tree, and is a sad casey of not paying sufficient attention to Paul's own language. Paul would be anything but a grinning Chester-cat to learn how he has been misunderstood"

This raises the interesting question of how appropriate attempts at humour are in a NT PhD genre. A part of me thinks 'Why on earth not?', and the other part thinks 'the Viva!'