Tag: Vridar blog

WordPress have collated and forwarded me these stats for the past year:

450,000 views in 2012. This was up from 280,000 in 2011. The shift began with posts on Paul-Louis Couchoud and responses to James McGrath’s vacuous efforts to “review” Earl Doherty’s Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, but a new plateau was established with posts on various responses to Bart Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist?, in particular Earl Doherty’s chapter by chapter reviews. These have been collated and edited into a new ebook.

Most popular posts:

• 1 10 characteristics of religious fundamentalism June 2007
• 2 The Twelve Disciples: their names, name-meanings, associations, etc  July 2008
• 3 Blind Bartimaeus: some meanings of the story surrounding his healing  February 2011
• 4 The origin and meaning of the Emmaus Road narrative in Luke  November 2007
• 5 Why Christianity spread so rapidly to become the main religion of the Roman empire  August 2010

The busiest day last year was April 27th when I posted Carrier versus Ehrman: Reflections — 2,618 views on that day.

Thanks everyone for commenting or just quietly lurking. Glad to be able to write posts others find of interest.

 

While catching up with other blogs I came across this comment in a post by Ian at Irreducable Complexity that jolted me. It was written by Sabio Lantz who has sometimes left a comment here:

He wrote here:

I actually enjoy Neil Godfrey’s writings sometimes — but it is usually beyond my pay grade – as is Ian’s stuff when he is not kind! But usually Ian is very kind and keeps stuff simple for us lay folks.

Ouch. That smarts a little because it’s true. When I started this blog I was always sure to keep my posts clear. I kept foremost in mind how I had to struggle when first reading esoteric terms like “Q” and “redaction criticism” and “oral tradition” and “intertextuality” and “Messianic Secret” etcetera etcetra to get my head around what the writers were talking about. Continue reading “Ouch! It’s True!”

Funny things sometimes happen browsing the web. In searching for what others were saying about a book highly recommended to me as a solid case for astrotheology (I found that the book makes no case at all — no, it’s not by any author I have reviewed on this blog before) I stumbled into a rather suspect discussion group whose moderators have made recent notorious appearances here. Along with some highly dubious titles they include some works that look like real gems:

Freedom of Speech

First of all, before anyone brings up the subject of human rights and freedom of speech, let me be clear:  We’re all for freedom of speech in the public square. But this isn’t the public square. It’s Neil’s blog. Since its inception Vridar has permitted open commenting — you don’t have to wait for approval, unless you’re on the list of spammers who get sent to the trash heap right away or on the roster of off-topic windbags, copypasta commandos, and attention-whores who have to pass muster first. We don’t intend to change the policy.

Neil and I like comments. We don’t want to write in a vacuum, and we certainly don’t want to set ourselves up as knowledge-transmitters like certain scholars who would much rather talk than listen. You certainly don’t have to agree with us. Is there anything more boring that talking to somebody who thinks exactly the same way you do?

So I think we’ve been really tolerant for the most part. Unfortunately, that leniency has often come back to bite us when certain people abuse the privilege. It’s a problem we’ve needed to address for some time. We need to get a handle on comments.

New Rules

Vridar is not my blog. I’m just a lazy roommate who sleeps on the couch, leaves his stuff lying around, and steals beer out of the fridge. So to earn my keep, Neil has asked me to start helping moderate comments. I said I’d be glad to, as long as we can agree on the rules.

1. All decisions are final. If your comment is denied, go publish it somewhere else.
2. No abusive language. We get to decide what’s abusive language. We’re not impartial judges.
3. No threats of any kind. No exceptions.
4. Your comment must be relevant to the current post. If you want to publish a tract on your favorite scholar, get your own blog. There’s a vast Internet out there.
5. If you can’t be interesting, at least be brief. If your comment is excessively long and and extremely dull, it will probably be denied. If your comment is really, really long and is not broken up into paragraphs, it will definitely be denied. Seriously, if you don’t have time for minimal proofreading, or if you’re too busy to break your wall of text into paragraphs, then we don’t have time to read it.
6. Do not repeat your points. If you feel very strongly about a particular subject, start your own blog. Squatters are not welcome.
7. Fairness is not an issue. If you think your comment was unfairly denied, you may be right. On the other hand, see rule 1.

We’ve already started the process. Neil and I began filtering comments yesterday. If yours aren’t showing up, or if they disappear suddenly, now you know why.

It’s great that this blog attracts a range of views in the comments on the posts, but I’d like to ask for a curbing of enthusiasm if you start to notice from the icon count in the right-hand column that you are starting to dominate the discussions.  Even I get embarrassed if, after catching up with comments I find I have my name and avatar appearing more than three times in the currently visible list.

And please do aim for conciseness in comments. I doubt many take the time to read lengthy comments anyway. But if you find you are compelled to write regular lengthy posts in the comment box then it would be more appropriate if you started your own blogs. It is not really appropriate to use another’s blog as a regular sounding board for your own lengthy views. From your own blog you can still comment upon posts and other comments here and link to them.

Lately several comments are going well beyond merely “commenting” on the thoughts on the posts or on others’ views.

I have had to place in the spam filter a few commenters who have tried to use this blog as a platform for regular evangelization or other forms of preaching, racist bile, and personal abuse. I recently removed one comment that included an inappropriate term of address for Stephanie Fisher. (I regret not noticing the same term used in several earlier comments.) A little joking and humorous cutting down arrogant and other nonsense I don’t mind, and calling a spade a spade is okay at times, too. But we can draw the line at using this blog as a public platform for sneering and insulting expressions.

It’s great to have Tim as a co-blogger — as well as recent posts from Earl and Roger — so my occasional absences should scarcely be noticed.

Since my last blogpost more books have come my way, and contrary to aspersions from Jesus Process ©™® intellects I really do read books, even whole ones, before bringing them here for discussion. One of them (Why Did They Write This Way?) discusses the literature of the Hebrew Bible and expresses some curious ideas such as the fundamental necessity for independent testimony to serve as controls to enable us to decide if our biblical accounts are historically reliable or not. I guess many historical Jesus scholars will be able to dismiss this logic and methodology because it is only relevant to the historical analysis of documents that have nothing to do with Christian origins.

Another newly published work (Christ Among the Messiahs) argues that Paul’s concept of “Messiah” or “Christ” needs to be understood as part of the broad mosaic of Jewish understandings of the term and not as something oddly mutated into an idiosyncratic cultic idea. I’m wondering what implications such an argument might have for our understanding of the emergence of Christianity. A third (The Quest for the Origin of John’s Gospel) explores the relationship of the Gospel of John with the Synoptic Gospels. And I want to catch up, also with the latest by Steven Pinker and David Brooks. And there are still scores of older ones I want to blog more about. But if I start with any of these I will miss the tedium of bothering with the three processed cheeses fun of huffing and casing and fishing with the flavour of last month. Continue reading “Where to restart blogging?”

Just a reminder about my approach to “comments and moderation”: It’s in the right hand margin beneath the “About Vridar” notice.

I recall a time when I belonged to a religious entity some years back and was involved in a letter-box drop activity. Our aim was to blanket a city with our educational flyers. To us they were always “educational literature”, never religious tracts at all. Sorry, but I see things differently nowadays. I like to think my blog has an educational sharing thrust. Others with alternative curricula are welcome to post their course content in other spaces.

 

Introducing a second regular author on the Vridar blog, Tim Widowfield.

Will let his posts speak for themselves.

I’m looking forward to keeping up with his series on Wrede and the Messianic Secret.

Regret not learning about this till 5 am this morning my time. Better to have had 5 1/2 hours down time than none at all:

/?blackout_preview=full

/?blackout_preview=full

But don’t be too flighty. Be sobered by the inevitable.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events

On the other hand, think of a higher species evolving — does that mean God will have to send his son as a higher than human life form to die for their sins?

 

Vridar is my escape for some light entertainment past-time blog. But this week my after-hours are going to be mostly consumed by work since I am attending a week long conference in Melbourne and sharing tidbits of the day with my work colleagues, starting from today: http://metalogger.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/eresearch-australasia-2011-conference/

So, till I return to normal routines again I will be posting short snippets on and off here on Vridar.

But after recent experiences here in biblical studies I am not at all missing efforts to address what ultimately I realized was the anti-intellectualism of several anti-mythicists. It is incredibly refreshing — rejuvenating and even a little exciting — to be joining in discussions where some of the brightest minds in their fields can say something and be completely open to another person standing up and offering a diametrically opposed — but equally supported — argument.

I guess if the likes of Butler theological associate professors (who resort to trolling even on their own site!) and the arrogant and very often outright offensively rude wits they attract on their blog were ever as open to discussion of genuine methodology and evidence — and not for ego sakes resorting to subjective and vacuous “not persuasive” or “overly sceptical” retorts — this world would be too perfect and we’d never appreciate the difference between good and evil. (Okay, I’m typing this after the end of a long and intellectually stimulating day with an also quite stimulating — and proprietary sponsored — alcoholic beverage. )

I’ve been having a break from real blogging since the past week. Need a breather and time for real life responsibilities. But when I return to the serious stuff that interests me most I want to address

• Roger Parvus’s latest three posts on the “Ignatian” letters,
• complete what I started with the study of George Athas’s arguments re Tel Dan,
• have a closer look at that Nazarene word, especially in light of Rene Salm’s recent articles and translations,
• finish notes from Horsley’s history of messianic movements up to the outbreak of the Jewish war,
• return to studying Herodotus and the Primary History of Israel and the relationship between the two,
• outline the evidence for the Persian and Hellenistic era provenance of the OT writings,
• catch up on some publications about Marcion and Paul’s letters,
• do more on the Lévi-Strauss model of myths and its application to Old and New Testament narratives,
• continue doing chapters of Earl Doherty’s book,
• try to finish my posts on midrash (if I can — I contacted one of the authors of one of the books I have been using to ask for clarification on a particular point I was about to address and have come away with more than I expected to think about),
• and a whole lot more in the back of my head that escape me at the moment.

Hence my lazy off-the-top-of-my-head reflections on things I’ve covered a million times before and that still seem to bug  the arrogant and ignorant.

I was reading Richard Carrier’s comments that Dr McGrath pointed to recently and note him saying that a PhD is the equivalent of 10,000 hours of training. I wish I had the time and opportunity for that (my circumstances did not permit me to take up an invitation for higher studies at the end of my post grad educational studies degree) since I painfully aware of my limitations as an amateur hobbyist in the area of biblical studies. I know I often present a slapdash argument or statement assuming that what I have said somewhere else a week or more ago is on any other reader’s minds, too. And I look back and am embarrassed at how often I have presented a point very badly.

I get a lot out of reading many formal scholarly works from a range of disciplines, and Doherty’s works, and it’s not always the raw content — often I’m studying the argumentation, the logic, the presentation and structure of the argument, etc. (And yes, this is where I find a lot of historical Jesus works a very mixed bag of flashes of brilliant insights and absurdly baseless circular and incredibly blinkered arguments.)

Anyway, before I get back to what I love to blog about the most, I have at hand some notes I hope to do up soon – one on the way a historian of relatively modern history uses myths and legends as sources in his historical inquiries, and another on how a historian uses certain kinds of analysis of ancient inscriptions in order to reconstruct historical events. I believe both illustrations demonstrate the point I have made for some time now about the different approaches of New Testament historians (I hope that’s a valid term — I copy it from Dr McGrath after he chastised me for using the term “biblical historians”) to the Gospels for their inquiries into the historical Jesus and the way other historians handle material that is mythical or in need of close literary analysis to decipher its meaning.

I’m looking for other blogs that also discuss the Bible and Bible scholarship in depth as I do here. I don’t mean from the same perspective — no matter if they are Catholic, Mormon, atheist, anything — just curious to know what else there is in internet-land that discusses biblical questions as regularly and analytically as I attempt to do here.

Many thanks.

(Email me if reluctant to post here: neilgodfrey1[AT]gmail[DOT]com)