Vridar

“For an excellent example of generally high-quality scholarship by someone who isn’t a biblical studies professor, see Neil Godfrey’s work posted on the website vridar.org.”

— Tom Dykstra, – JOCABS 2015

“Many thanks for this post, and for the quality of your blog.“

— Philippe Wajdenbaum, –  November 2018

“Neil, for what it is worth it is obvious to me that if you had earlier in life tracked into a graduate program at one of the world’s leading research universities you would be one of the world’s formidable ones. You are doing essentially the same quality now (apart from the philology and languages) except mostly sticking to commenting on others’ work as informed comment/discussion.”

— Gregory Doudna, – January 2019

“Very good. This post is going straight to the March 2016 Biblical Studies Carnival.”

—N.T. Wrong, – March 2016

“I want to say here that this site is so resourceful and highly on top of the most modern scholarship in the areas discussed here. . . I know of no other site which offers a wide range of topics related to careful critical analysis of historically and scripturally related issues.”

— Martin Lewadny, – March 2009

“These reviews of yours are so bloody weird!”

— James Crossley, – April 2010

“Neil Godfrey and Tim Widowfield, who both write at Vridar . . . happen to be some of the most astute and well-read amateurs you can read on the internet on the subject of biblical historicity. I call them amateurs only for the reason that they don’t have, so far as I know, advanced degrees in the subject. But I have often been impressed with their grasp of logic and analysis of scholarship. I don’t always agree with them, but I respect their work.”

— Richard Carrier, – March 2014

“I always enjoy reading Neil’s blog because I think that he is careful, thorough, intellectually fair, and honest.”

— April DeConick, – November 2007

“Vridar is consistently thought-provoking, well-informed, and asking the right questions. There are intelligent, thoughtful comments and commenters regularly offering productive discussion. Books and publications are covered with a range of perspectives with attempts at fair and accurate representation of others’ arguments and content (where there are occasional and inevitable missteps on that I notice Neil making corrections and apologies where warranted, which wins points with me). Please carry on.”

— Gregory Doudna, – January 2019

“Thanks for your very elaborate review! I realized that I hadn’t added your blog to our blogroll. This oversight has been corrected. Looking forward to more segments.”

— Anthony Le Donne, – September 2009

“Neil, this is actually rather useful. Good job.”

— R. Joseph Hoffmann, – June 2014

“Neil, You’ve done a clean job in your posting on ‘Jesus the Healer’. It reflects well on you. Best, John”

— John Moles, September 2011 (personal email)

“Thanks for this detailed interaction! I’ll try to offer something more substantial than “Thank you” in response at some point, but I didn’t want to wait . . . to express appreciation for your detailed interaction with what I’ve written!”

— James McGrath, – June 2009

“I think you have a high quality blog that provides a positive public service by discussing academic topics within a wider audience.”

— Russell Gmirkin, – October 2016

“I’ve even been cited by atheists with approval (which I really don’t know how to take, so thanks, I think, but I’m not sure, Vrider (even though I feel like I need to take a shower now)).”

— Jim West, – Sept. 2010

“I’d like to thank you for this very nice representation of what I was trying to show in the book. It’s always gratifying when a reader zeroes in on exactly those aspects I thought were most interesting and most central to my argument. Thank you for this careful and engaged reading of my work – much appreciated!”

— Eva Mroczek, – June 2017