▁and ▁Paul ▁Gros je an ▁wrote ▁a ▁joint ▁journal ▁article ▁ref uting ▁or ▁modifying ▁most ▁of ▁Bre chter ' s ▁arguments ▁about ▁the ▁Lib ell us . ▁De anes ly ▁and ▁Gros je an ▁thought ▁that ▁N oth helm ▁had ▁collected ▁genu ine ▁Greg or ian ▁letters , ▁added ▁to ▁them ▁material ▁rel ating ▁to ▁the ological ▁questions ▁current ▁at ▁Can ter bury , ▁and ▁presented ▁the ▁finished ▁product ▁( or ▁d oss ier ) ▁to ▁B ede ▁as ▁a ▁" G reg or ian " ▁work : ▁what ▁we ▁now ▁know ▁as ▁the ▁Lib ell us ▁respons ion um . ▁They ▁further ▁argued ▁that ▁N oth helm ▁did ▁this ▁in ▁two ▁stages : ▁a ▁first ▁stage ▁that ▁they ▁named ▁the ▁Capit ula ▁version , ▁which ▁they ▁considered ▁was ▁best ▁exempl ified ▁by ▁a ▁manuscript ▁now ▁in ▁C open hagen ; ▁and ▁a ▁second ▁version , ▁which ▁was ▁re arr anged ▁in ▁the ▁form ▁of ▁questions ▁pa ired ▁with ▁answers . ▁In ▁their ▁view , ▁this ▁second ▁version ▁was ▁the ▁work ▁sent ▁to ▁B ede ▁by ▁N oth helm . ▁The ▁ups hot ▁of ▁De anes ly ▁and ▁Gros je an ' s ▁research ▁was ▁that ▁the ▁Lib ell us ▁was ▁quasi - authentic : ▁while ▁not ▁a ▁genu ine ▁work ▁of ▁Gregory ▁I , ▁it ▁was ▁never theless ▁based ▁extens ively ▁on ▁authentic ▁Greg or ian ▁writ ings . ▁ ▁De anes ly ▁and ▁Gros je an ' s ▁th esis ▁was ▁addressed ▁and ▁ref uted ▁by ▁the ▁text ual ▁research ▁of