Vridar

2007-09-23

Learning about flagella and ID in a history book

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

(There’s a YouTube video discussing the following in more depth. Also an article here.)

I am loving a history by William Rosen, Justinian’s Flea: Plague, Empire and the Birth of Europe, “eccentric” though one reviewer might label it.

But I took time out to read this book to give myself a relaxing diversion from my usual diet of socio-political, ethical and religious tomes and tracts.

So I was caught off-guard when I came to page 203 and a discussion about Darwinian selection, ID (Intelligent Design), and what’s attached to the Yersinia pestis cell membrane. In case you were wondering “What the . . . is a Yersinia pestis?” this is the Wikipedia’s definition:

Gram-negative facultative anaerobic bipolar-staining bacillus bacterium belonging to the family Enterobacteriaceae.

Now that that has been cleared up 😉 we can continue. Continue reading “Learning about flagella and ID in a history book”

When Popeye David beat flabby Goliath and called it a ‘miracle’

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Since we’re the good guys we’ve done nothing so bad as to deserve all the headaches we have to put up with from Islamic terrorists and the bad guys in the Middle East. When the bad guys wearing the dark skins and having the wrong religion say that the root cause of all the strife in the Middle East – at least till the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 – is “the Palestinian question” and the occupation by Israel of the West Bank and Gaza since 1967, we can be sure that that is just as fatuous as an armed bank robber appealing for sympathy by telling the judge that he needed the money to pay for his gun and getaway car. Continue reading “When Popeye David beat flabby Goliath and called it a ‘miracle’”

2007-09-22

Odysseus, Moses and Jesus in Gethsemane

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

The Jesus in Gethsemane story has always been one of the most moving episodes in religious movies. It is also a literary motif that has a long pedigree and would have been well known to any author who had learned to read and write Greek and who knew Jewish writings.

The basic structure and thematic units of the story are prominent in both “classical” Greek and Hebrew literature. It is quite likely one of those stories that may have fallen easily into place in an author’s mind without necessarily consciously imitating another — like a modern superhero drama can be unconsciously built on the motif of a Jesus-like saviour figure.

There are approx ten or more significant sequential parts that make up this motif: Continue reading “Odysseus, Moses and Jesus in Gethsemane”

2007-09-21

Latest on the Hobbit and dinosaur feathers

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

So the velociraptor had feathers.

Check out some great new illustrations here.

And the latest publication in the Hobbit debate believes its identity is all in the wrist — and homo sapiens lived beside a cousin as “recently” as 12,000 years ago. (There are other useful links from this news page, too.)

More background to the latest news (linked above) can be found here on the Wikipedia site, and other info from a counter-creationist site can be seen here.

And there’s always “the book“.

(pic from Lateline & http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/21/2039663.htm

2007-09-20

3 criteria lists for literary borrowing

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Following are the different criteria lists used by three authors who have studied literary borrowings within the gospels and Acts: Allison, Clark and MacDonald.

Included are two extracts that discuss the ancient literary expectations and customs of authors borrowing from past masters.

Names and titles are hyperlinked: Continue reading “3 criteria lists for literary borrowing”

2007-09-19

Bauckham: reply 2 to JD Walters

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

A Defense of Richard Bauckham’s Philosophy of Testimony, Part 2

In this series of posts I am addressing the criticisms levelled by Neil Godfrey at Richard Bauckham’s philosophy of testimony, as outlined in ch.18 of Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Here I am responding to the observations found in this post: Continue reading “Bauckham: reply 2 to JD Walters”

2007-09-18

Bauckham: reply to JD Walters

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

JD Walters in his Cadre website has begun a lengthy series of responses to my responses to Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.

JD’s words are in black and indented.

Mine are in blue. (I hope there are not too many people who feel they have nothing better to do than to read this exchange, by the way. And why do so many Christians like martial images, like ‘cadre‘?) Continue reading “Bauckham: reply to JD Walters”

2007-09-17

Signs in Josephus, Signs in Gospels and Acts

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Weeden has presented reasons for thinking the story of Jesus, the son of Ananus, that has come to us through Josephus, played a significant part in customizing details of Mark’s gospel of Jesus. Indeed, this entire section of Josephus‘s Wars that cites 8 warning signs of the imminent fall of Jerusalem has several intriguing overlaps with not only Mark’s gospel, but also with distinctive passages in Matthew, Luke and Acts also.

What follows is only for those already willing to be persuaded that Luke-Acts is in part dependent upon the writings of Josephus. I’m not arguing the case in this post, but jotting down first-thoughts on the signs, two in particular, in Josephus and what seems like it might be their resonance in Acts. Notes for casual discussion or later consideration, nothing more yet. The Josephan passages are copied from Chapter 6 of Wars on the ccel site. Continue reading “Signs in Josephus, Signs in Gospels and Acts”

2007-09-16

When did Peter first see the resurrected Jesus?

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Following is an attempt to explain the mixed messages given the role of Peter in the post-resurrection narratives of the canonical gospels. It argues that Peter first met the resurrected Jesus, as per 1 Corinthians 15:5, some time after the writing of the gospels of Mark and Matthew but just prior to Luke’s gospel — or more likely as late as that redaction of Luke by the author of Acts (Tyson) and around the time of the Pastorals. Continue reading “When did Peter first see the resurrected Jesus?”

2007-09-15

Doing body counts: limited by our evolutionary inheritance

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Evolving as we did in small close-knit bands, evolution appears to have failed to equip us with an instinctive universal moral compass when it comes to the fates of masses of foreigners. It seems only the more enlightened about the true nature of “masses of foreigners” can summon some level of outrage. Continue reading “Doing body counts: limited by our evolutionary inheritance”

2007-09-09

Dating the Book of Acts: 6, the late date reconsidered (5. Paul’s letters)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

5. Use of Paul’s Letters in Acts

The following hyperlinked notes (continued from Tyson) outline evidence from Knox, O’Neill, Enslin, Walker, Leppa, Aejmelaeus, Goulder and Pervo for collectively “mounting a serious counterargument” that the author of Acts knew and used Paul’s letters. Continue reading “Dating the Book of Acts: 6, the late date reconsidered (5. Paul’s letters)”

2007-09-08

Dating the Book of Acts: 5, the late date reconsidered (4. Josephus)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Continuing notes from Tyson’s Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle (2006) pp. 14ff . . . . .

4. Influence of Josephus

Pervo writes that Luke would have used Josephus as a source quite differently from his other sources such as Mark, Q, Paul and the LXX. He did not quote Josephus or imitate his style. But there are good economic arguments for believing Luke used Josephus as a source and if so, that would mean that he must have written after 93-94 c.e.

Evidence for Luke’s use of Josephus (Pervo): Continue reading “Dating the Book of Acts: 5, the late date reconsidered (4. Josephus)”

Dating the Book of Acts: 4, the late date reconsidered (1-3)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Tyson has presented the selective summary of views on the date of Acts (outlined in previous 3 posts) to bring to readers’ attention the fact that the current majority view for the intermediate date for Acts (80-100 c.e.) has not always held the floor. He believes recent scholarship in a number of fields invites us to re-open the question of the second-century date for Acts, even though it has not been widely entertained now for 100 years. Tyson sees five issues as significant for this reconsideration of a late date for Acts:

External references to Acts
Significance of the events of 70 c.e.
Bearing of the end of Acts
Possible influence of Josephus on Acts
Use of Paul’s letters by the author of Acts

Again, the notes here are from Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle (2006) pp. 10-23 . . . . . Continue reading “Dating the Book of Acts: 4, the late date reconsidered (1-3)”

2007-09-07

Dating the Book of Acts: 3, Evidence for the late date (Baur)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Baur argued that Acts was written in the mid second century, around 140-150 C.E.

Baur saw Acts as an attempt to heal a rift in Christianity between two factions originally led by Peter and Paul. Christianity in Baur’s view had been divided between Jewish Christians who saw Jesus as the hope of their historical expectations, who held to the Torah and allowed gentiles into their ranks if they adhered to the Torah too, on the one hand, and gentile Christians on the other, who taught salvation by faith in Jesus only, and dismissed the Torah as ineffective for salvation.

Baur was influenced by the work of his student, Schneckenburger, who demonstrated extensive parallels between Peter and Paul in Acts. They both: Continue reading “Dating the Book of Acts: 3, Evidence for the late date (Baur)”

"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)
"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
"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
"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 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
"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
"Neil, this is actually rather useful. Good job."

— R. Joseph Hoffmann, – June 2014
"I always enjoy reading Neil’s blog because I think that he is careful, thorough, intellectually fair, and honest."

— April DeConick, – November 2007
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
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
"These reviews of yours are so bloody weird!"

— James Crossley, – April 2010
"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
"Fantastic. I’m so glad you’re helping to spread these ideas!"

Nancy Fraser - June 2019 (personal email)
"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
"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
"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
"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
"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
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
"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 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)
"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)
"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
"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, in my mature judgement (I am now an old man), this fine 4-part study is a brilliant reworking, an instructive restatement of Hayden White’s Metahistory (and his subsequent writings). Your critique of certain historiographic representations as imbedded in the case study of the “scientistic”, “empirical” Richard Carrier provides a solid starting point for the more honest “fictive” reading of the New Testament that you encourage. Your last paragraph is a very intelligent call to sensitive readers of these texts. I suspect a whole generation of biblical students has been educated without the insights provided by the incomparable White. Bravo!"

-- Timothy Bagley, - November 2024
"Many thanks for this post, and for the quality of your blog."

— Philippe Wajdenbaum, – November 2018
"Very good. This post is going straight to the March 2016 Biblical Studies Carnival."

—N.T. Wrong, – March 2016
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

Neil Godfrey on New Book Questioning Authenticity of Paul’s Letters: “It leave the “search for the historical Jesus” to the chasing o’ a wisp. Historians cannot “reconstruct” the historical King…” Jan 9, 18:55
ABuddhist on New Book Questioning Authenticity of Paul’s Letters: “If these core New Testament writings were written during the 2nd century CE, as this non-mythicist scholar accepts as possible,…” Jan 9, 16:13
ABuddhist on New Book Questioning Authenticity of Paul’s Letters: “I have been fascinated by your argument that Paul’s original letters – whatever they may be – should be dated…” Jan 9, 16:06
Neil Godfrey on On Doing History with Jesus, Bayes and Carrier: “Call me a suspicious soul, but Doherty further made what I think is a significant point: there is no unambiguous…” Jan 9, 07:49
Neil Godfrey on New Book Questioning Authenticity of Paul’s Letters: “I said in the post that my translation of a work by Rudolf Steck is not yet ready for public…” Jan 9, 07:29
Neil Godfrey on On Doing History with Jesus, Bayes and Carrier: “I’m in the same position as you. Obviously something as major as a war in which our parents were directly…” Jan 9, 07:24
Darren on On Doing History with Jesus, Bayes and Carrier: “First – Thank you for your response! I’m just going to leave this one last comment (to which you can…” Jan 9, 06:17
Neil Godfrey on On Doing History with Jesus, Bayes and Carrier: “Hi Darren. I have several ways of responding to that kind of question — it is one that absorbs my…” Jan 9, 05:47
Darren on On Doing History with Jesus, Bayes and Carrier: “I’ve been reading these blog entries and actually find them very interesting, even insightful. (I’m reading this one for the…” Jan 9, 05:01

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

5. Use of Paul’s Letters in Acts

Share this:

Like this:

4. Influence of Josephus

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: