Search for "vridar not a mythicist blog"

The circularity of historicist arguments

Yet another parallel between creationism and mythicism is written up in another of James McGrath’s posts attempting to liken Jesus mythicism to Creationism: Accusations and Assumptions: Another Mythicist-Creationist Parallel. MYTHICISM E. P. Sanders (or insert other New Testament scholar or historian here) writes a book explaining why he believes the temple incident reflects an actual … Continue reading “The circularity of historicist arguments”

The legitimacy of questioning the historicity of Jesus

To argue for a nonhistorical Jesus has been ignorantly compared with arguing “Creation Science” (“Intelligent Design”). So it is interesting to read the following from one of the foremost public critics of Creation Science: Of course, there are scholars who are more openly secular humanist, and are willing to depart from the religionism that permeates … Continue reading “The legitimacy of questioning the historicity of Jesus”

The Medieval Origins of the “Christ paid the penalty for us” Gospel.

I was about to start the next post in my series attempting to justify seriously questioning the “bedrock fact” status of the crucifixion of Jesus when I came across a new publication by Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan, The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church’s Conservative Icon. There are some interesting … Continue reading “The Medieval Origins of the “Christ paid the penalty for us” Gospel.”

Permissions: mine and yours

If you see anything on my blog that appears to be in breach of copyright let me know {neilgodfrey1[AT]gmail.com} and I will take immediate appropriate action. Vridar by Neil Godfrey is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Based on a work at vridar.org. Permissions beyond the scope of this … Continue reading “Permissions: mine and yours“

Congratulations, Vridar, . . . I declare, Vridar, your own hard work translating Bruno Bauer will make a major difference in future studies of Bruno Bauer and the evolution of Hegel’s philosophy of religion.

-- Paul Trejo, - April 2023
"Note that I do not use the term ‘amateur’ pejoratively. . . . In fact, Godfrey is extremely well read and his librarian skills have brought many important academic works to my attention."

Raphael Lataster - August 2019
It is worth saying another word of appreciation here for Neil Godfrey's effort to make Bruno Bauer accessible in English.

-- Peter Kirby, - May 2023
"By the way, my thanks to Neil for an ongoing superb job of exposing Jim’s review for what it is: a farcical and none too effective exercise in mythicism assassination, nothing to do with rational, let alone unbiased, scholarship. I’m also happy to see even Jim giving Neil credit where credit is due."

— Earl Doherty, June 2011
"I have found your website really valuable as an interpretive filter for Biblical scholarship, especially the origins of Christianity and historicity of Jesus issue. Your clarity of expression, fair comments and personal insights are much valued. I refer to your site frequently as yet more names and publications pop up requiring an academic critique and helpful recommendations for book purchases. So, please continue to delve deeply and share this intellectual sustenance with your grateful readers."

— Mary Booker, – February 2020 (personal email)
"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
"These reviews of yours are so bloody weird!"

— James Crossley, – April 2010
"I always enjoy reading Neil’s blog because I think that he is careful, thorough, intellectually fair, and honest."

— April DeConick, – November 2007
"I find your blog most interesting and appreciate your ongoing effort to keep to the evidence for the issues discussed!"

-- Thomas L. Thompson, - April 2020
"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
"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
"Here I give an admittedly subjective short list, in random order, of useful, high level and regularly updated weblogs on the study of the Old Testament . . . ‘Vridar: Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science’ (http://vridar.org/) by Neil Godfrey"

-- Klaas Spronk, - Bibliotheca Orientalis LXXI, 3/4 (2014)
"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
"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
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=145080#p145080
Neil made a good synthesis of the work without being an “expert” of the field.

-- Enrico Tuccinardi, - October 2022
"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
"Thanks much for this book review. I think it expands, and contributes to, the effort in honouring Thomas that we with Lukasz originally had in mind with this volume. Best, Emanuel"

-- Emanuel Pfoh - August 2020
"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, – September 2010
This is superb work, Neil, and reminds me of Albert Schweitzer’s work from a century ago. . . . .

I commend you for being the first to even TRY to translate Bruno Bauer’s brilliant Kritik der Evangelien und Geschichte ihres Ursprungs, which is now more than 150 years old.

. . . . .Thank you for your historic effort.

-- Paul Trejo, M.A., - November 2022
Editor, An English Edition of Bruno Bauer’s 1843 Christianity Exposed
"Many thanks for this post, and for the quality of your blog."

— Philippe Wajdenbaum, – November 2018
"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
"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)
"Fantastic. I’m so glad you’re helping to spread these ideas!"

Nancy Fraser - June 2019 (personal email)
"Very good. This post is going straight to the March 2016 Biblical Studies Carnival."

—N.T. Wrong, – March 2016
"I still wonder at all the material you turn out for Vridar. The more I read your stuff (and I still do, of course), the more I realize how much we all owe you. Your voice is unique."

— Earl Doherty, November 2013 (personal email)
"Neil, this is actually rather useful. Good job."

— R. Joseph Hoffmann, – June 2014
"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
"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

Mark Aelred on What Did Marx Say Was the Cause of the American Civil War? (Part 1): “Thank you for this important research. In my life I have encountered a “Libertarian” fondness for defending the Confederacy along…” May 13, 00:16
Neil Godfrey on Why did Luke trace Jesus’ genealogy through David’s son Nathan and not Solomon?: “You could imagine that scenario but it’s not what either of the genealogical lists actually says. They are quite clear…” May 12, 01:31
Lorna on Why did Luke trace Jesus’ genealogy through David’s son Nathan and not Solomon?: “Doesn’t the levirate marriage sound more credible, because if you say the mention of Mary in the Matthew genealogy makes…” May 11, 23:11
Lorna on Why did Luke trace Jesus’ genealogy through David’s son Nathan and not Solomon?: “This sounds more credible, because if you say the mention of Mary in the Matthew genealogy makes it her lineage,…” May 11, 23:07
Neil Godfrey on So the Bible is “Intentionally” Ambiguous!: “The varying halachic traditions that Bóid is addressing specifically preceded the text. The text was written to accommodate and serve…” May 11, 19:04
ABuddhist on So the Bible is “Intentionally” Ambiguous!: “With all due respect, you seem to have either misunderstood my question or decided to focus upon a subsidiary issue…” May 11, 13:07
Neil Godfrey on So the Bible is “Intentionally” Ambiguous!: “One thing I am learning is that the traditional view of outright hostility between Jews and Samaritans came well after…” May 10, 07:47
ABuddhist on So the Bible is “Intentionally” Ambiguous!: “My major question, though, is how the fact that they would write a text with the capability to support multiple…” May 9, 23:22
Neil Godfrey on So the Bible is “Intentionally” Ambiguous!: “The post was not about “two sects” but numerous — many more than two — points of view and traditions…” May 9, 20:25

Search Results for: vridar not a mythicist blog

The circularity of historicist arguments

Like this:

The legitimacy of questioning the historicity of Jesus

Like this:

The Medieval Origins of the “Christ paid the penalty for us” Gospel.

Like this:

Permissions: mine and yours

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: