RJH blog

The New Oxonian
Books etc.
 Comments and Moderation
 Vita Brevis
 ..
Religion and Culture for the Intellectually Impatient


Books etc.



Share this:
Facebook
Twitter
Email
StumbleUpon
Digg
Reddit
Print

Like this:

.

Leave a Reply
 
Enter your comment here...Enter your comment here...






Gravatar






WordPress.com Logo



Twitter picture



Facebook photo



Google+ photo











 .

Topics
Uncategorized
Archives
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009


 
Blog at WordPress.com. The Manifest Theme.
     
 
Follow
Follow “The New Oxonian”

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 161 other followers

    

Powered by WordPress.com
     

loading




The New Oxonian
Books etc.
 Comments and Moderation
 Vita Brevis
 ..
Religion and Culture for the Intellectually Impatient


Comments and Moderation

Dear Reader:
Thanks for reading.  Here are a few basic guidelines for those wanting to leave a comment on New Oxonian.
All responses are welcome and will be reviewed in the order in which they are received.

The standard for this site is civil discourse, using Kenneth Gergen’s standard now widely used in colleges and universities.  The national crisis in civil discourse is created, not least, by the speed and ease of communication, which create opportunities for the abuse of language, ideas and persons.  Civil discourse is therefore: “The language of dispassionate objectivity [which] requires respect of the other participants, such as the reader. It neither diminishes the other’s moral worth, nor questions their good judgment; it avoids hostility, direct antagonism, or excessive persuasion; it requires modesty and an appreciation for the other participant’s experiences.”
Underlying this principle is that while the ideas and the actions of individuals are always subject to scrutiny and correction, attempts to discredit ideas through personal insult are never appropriate.
The site is moderated: no posts that do not meet the following editorial criteria will be published:
1. Posts that are merely abusive, personal, or just terribly dull will be trashed.

2. Posts that are tangential to the topic, oratorical, overly pedantic, or just plain strange will be trashed. (If you want to be pedantic, get your own blog).
 3. Posts that, given a fair response from me but devolve into the argumentative (not to be confused with argument which is highly valued), will be trashed.
 4. Theoretically I will not post a comment that I can’t reasonably respond to, or don’t have time to respond to, but there are exceptions–if, for instance, I hope to be able to respond, or if the respondent has a dialogue going with another commentator (as long as it meets other criteria).
 5. Occasionally, but not without asking, I like to make a respondent’s views the jumping off point for another blog and quote from your response.
 6. Because I do not have time to whittle overly long comments down to size, I ask you to try to keep comments under 500 words, and preferably shorter.
 7. Comments will be closed on most posts after 10 days. Old news is old news.
8.  If you think one of your comments has been unfairly judged and that you were really just trying to help the conversation along, let me know about it.


Share this:
Facebook
Twitter
Email
StumbleUpon
Digg
Reddit
Print

Like this:

.
17 Responses to “Comments and Moderation”

.
 s. wallerstein
 April 20, 2011 at 5:37 pm
I made a comment this morning to the post on Religion, and the comment has disappeared in moderation.
As far as I can see, the comment does not violate any of the rules stated above.
Reply

 rjosephhoffmann
 April 20, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Sam, where? You usually just pass through the gate!
Reply
 

 Ed Jones
 July 17, 2011 at 7:59 pm
I await reply to my above comment.
Reply

 Alex Beam
 November 10, 2011 at 10:16 am
Trying to reach you … Alex Beam, Boston Globe writer,
 617-244-1315 Thanks
Reply

 Dwight Jones
 December 13, 2011 at 10:52 pm
“…It answers a deep need in man. It is neither a metaphysic, nor a morality.”
Very well spoken by Friedrich Schleiermacher. Religion need be explained no further, although it is useful to pick through the ashes.
We can never be humanists until we account for, describe, embrace what it might be that springs eternal in the human breast…There is work to be done then when the atheists have been sprayed with OFF.
Reply

 Stevie
 January 31, 2012 at 8:57 pm
Joe
Not for publication
So, Have I caught your attention?
You may not be hugely surprised to learn that I spent some time at the Shakespeare Institute in Stratford, and possibly not much more surprised to discover that the theories which arrived, by the ream, in our postboxes every day made vampires and werewolves seem positively plausible by comparison.
On the other hand, if one is going to be lumbered with those reams I can imagine no more idyllic a setting than Mason Croft in which to write the invariably courteous and scholarly rebuttals of the latest lunacies, particularly since as a mere researcher I could usually simply pass it up the chain and get somebody else to write them. Apart, that is, from when it impinged on my own work which involved, inter alia, Edward Alleyn, so if you have detected a certain froideur in my comments thereon I can claim some small justification.
Should you ever find a good enough excuse, sorry, reason to attend the Birthday Celebrations, perhaps involving the pressing need to consult the libraries, then I think you should grab it with both hands.
Actually, and perfectly seriously, I do genuinely feel that Marlowe’s Faust would repay attention from someone with your skillset. I know the fact that you might win the annual Hoffman prize will not weigh with you overmuch since $15,000 is not exactly riches beyond the dreams of avarice, but it may serve as an addition to my view that this is something which you could do, do very well, and should do.
If you have any interest in this then I would be happy to provide you with an introduction to some members of the staff; in particular, Martin Wiggins who won the Hoffman prize himself in 2006 with his paper on the dating of Dido.
Stevie
Reply

 Earl Cruser
 April 1, 2012 at 1:59 am
I am very glad to have stumbled onto your Blog searching for critical reviews of Chris Hedges, “I don’t believe in atheists.” You gave me a jolt by being a reasonable atheist who agrees with Hedges. I think I did, too, but didn’t know how to express it without seeming to be dis-loyal to my new “new atheist” friends. I look forward to exploring your extensive writing more fully. I was also surprised to see that you are heading yet another search for the historical Jesus. Lots of luck! I am a former Presbyterian minister turned social worker and in retirement still searching for truth or wisdom. I also look forward to reading your comments on James Luther Adams, since I m currently exploring UU “theology.” I am wondering if you know Ralph Potter. He was a class mate and close friend in the late 50′s. I thought your paths might have crossed. Thank you very much for your erudition, balance, fairness and provocations. Oh, yes, I am involved in The Clergy Project of the Freedom from Religion Foundation and find their closed website helpful and challenging.
Reply

 rjosephhoffmann
 April 1, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Earl, thank you. I knew JLA slightly, he was still going strong in my day, and Ralph was an ethics teacher of mine–a very solid and generous man. Still searching for wisdom? Aren’t we all. I lament that the new atheists don’t seem to be.
Reply
 

 Thom Stark
 April 25, 2012 at 8:42 pm
Dr. Hoffmann,
I’ve just posted a critique of Richard Carrier’s “dying messiah” thesis. You may be interested. http://religionatthemargins.com/2012/04/the-death-of-richard-carriers-dying-messiah/
All the best,
 Thom
Reply

 rjosephhoffmann
 May 26, 2012 at 9:38 am
@David: Tell me if you feel you have had a comment of substance “disappeared”; I would have thought that posting the comments would have made your query redundant, and I am trying to prevent comments from going orphan. There have certainly been a few abusive comments (not from you) that do not meet moderation standards for the site.
Reply

 Dean Switzer
 July 30, 2012 at 11:56 pm
I’m writing to enquire about a youtube video that was attached to your last post “Secularism isn’t Atheism” and had a minor heading “Videos from this email”.
The video is titled “3 Surviving Seduction : Remaining Orthodox in a Secular World : A Sermon by Frank Shaeffer”.
I’m wondering if the attachment was intentional on your part? I suspect it wasn’t.
Reply

 rjosephhoffmann
 July 31, 2012 at 7:56 am
You mean in the link in the Huffpost? I don’t think it is attached to my blog.
Reply

 Dean Switzer
 July 31, 2012 at 10:42 am
I shouldn’t have used the word “attachment”. It was a direct link to the video I mentioned and appeared after “Thanks for flying with WordPress” message that is normally appended to the email I receive from your blog. I believe the problem is on my end. Google or Youtube appears to be adding viewing suggestions on it’s own. I’ll update once I understand why Gmail included the link. Thanks for your time and sorry for bothering you over a minor issue.

 
 

 stevenbollinger
 December 31, 2012 at 10:57 am
I like to comment on your latest post, “Jesus: The Outline,” but the “Leave a Reply” box is missing.
Reply

 steph
 January 4, 2013 at 5:09 pm
The comment facility is restored, Steve. Thank you for drawing attention to it.
Reply
 

 stanko999
 January 5, 2013 at 8:24 pm
Where is any bit of actual factual information about historicity of Jesus. All is philosophy. I heard much better arguments before, one of the best is. There are so many mistakes in describing life of Jesus that if he was not real, why would the writers go through so many troubles?
Reply

 rjosephhoffmann
 January 5, 2013 at 8:39 pm
It isn’t true that “all is philosophy.” But not all is fact, either. Shakespeare wrote a play called Julius Caesar. Do you know which bits are real? Do you think that Julius Caesar was not real because Shakespeare wrote a play called Julius Ceasar, or do you think Julius Caesar was real because writers 1500 years before Shakespeare were better historians. To do history, you have to understand the sources you’re working on. Some demand a rasp, some a chisel, some a shovel–but very few approaches advocate sledgehammmers as a way of getting at the facts.
Reply
 


.
Leave a Reply
 
Enter your comment here...Enter your comment here...






Gravatar






WordPress.com Logo



Twitter picture



Facebook photo



Google+ photo











 .

Topics
Uncategorized
Archives
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009


 
Blog at WordPress.com. The Manifest Theme.
     












 
Follow
Follow “The New Oxonian”

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 161 other followers

    

Powered by WordPress.com
     

loading



The New Oxonian
Books etc.
 Comments and Moderation
 Vita Brevis
 ..
Religion and Culture for the Intellectually Impatient


Vita Brevis

Following graduation from Harvard Divinity School and the University of Oxford, R. Joseph Hoffmann was tutor in Greek at Keble College and Senior Scholar at St Cross College, Oxford, and Wissenschaftlicher Assistent in Patristics and Classical Studies at the University of Heidelberg.

St Cross, St Giles Entry
He began his teaching career at the University of Michigan as Assistant Professor of Near Eastern Studies where he developed the undergraduate and graduate program in Christian origins. From 1991 to 1999, he was Senior Lecturer in New Testament and Church History at Westminster College, Oxford. Hoffmann has also taught at Cal State Sacramento, the American University of Beirut and Wells College, where he was Campbell Professor of Religion and Human Values until 2006 and Distinguished Scholar at Goddard College in 2009.
He has held visiting positions at universities in Africa (Malawi, Zimbabwe, and Botswana), the Middle East, the Pacific (Australia and Papua New Guinea) and South Asia, most recently as Visiting Professor of History at LUMS in Lahore, Pakistan.

Hoffmann has focused on the controversial aspects of Christian origins, with special reference to early heresies, gnosticism, and the pagan philosophical critiques of the Christian movement. His most recent books include an edited volume entitled Just War and Jihad: Violence in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (2006) and Sources of the Jesus Tradition (2010.)


His study of the concept of the right to life in early Christianity, Faith and Foeticide, will be published in 2012, along with another in his series of translations of the classical philosophical critiques of the Christian movement: Christianity: The Minor Critics. 
With Maurice Casey, Stephanie Fisher, and James Crossley, he is a director of The Jesus Process, a consultation of scholars committed to non-parochial and non-theological investigations of the early Jesus traditions.
Hoffmann is professor of historical linguistics at the Graduate University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing.
Email: joseph.hoffmann@keble.oxon.org


Share this:
Facebook3
Twitter
Email
StumbleUpon
Digg
Reddit
Print

Like this:

.
25 Responses to “Vita Brevis”

.
 Randolph
 May 9, 2009 at 12:16 am
Hi Dr. Hoffmann. I am very interested to see where the Jesus Project will go. I’ve read all of Robert M. Price’s and Earl Doherty’s stuff. A friend of mine also turned me onto “The Pious Fraud” by John MacDonald at http://www.caseagainstfaith.com (the paper is not of academic quality style-wise, but the ideas are thought provoking) – anyway, keep up the great work; Randy
Reply

 rjosephhoffmann
 May 9, 2009 at 9:09 am
Hi Randolph: watch this space–we have a meeting coming up in the autumn at Stanford (Locating Jesus) and it promises to be the first big step ‘forward” for the Project.
Reply
 

 Ally Moss
 May 9, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Hi all:
I haven’t read Earl Doherty, but I have read Price’s “Deconstructing Jesus,” “Incredible Shrinking Son of Man,” and “New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash.” MacDonald’s article that you refer to is fun. I don’t think he ‘proves’ anything (it’s more like the Da Vinci Code than scholarship), but I’m guessing that people who approach the bible from a secular point of view, not believing in the divinity of Christ, probably think something like that probably happened.
I asked my Divinity professor and he said he didn’t think the Jesus project will result in anything valuable because the real question is not whether Jesus existed or not, but whether the stories about him (as Price seems to think) are basically a curtain of haggadic midrash behind which you can stick your hand and feel around, but never go behind or come up with anything tangible. Barrie Wilson (How Jesus Became Christian 2008) once told me that there is a major schism between New Testament Scholars. On the one hand, you have scholars who, over twenty years ago, found Wolfgang Roth’s “Hebrew Gospel: Cracking The Code Of Mark” persuasive and followed the line of scholarship that went from there, and on the other hand there are those for whom Roth was unpersuasive or for whom whose book went under the radar.
My question would be, if the New Testament writers were basically just Rewriting Homer, Josephus, The Septuagint, and Euripides Bacchae, as Price says, why on earth were they doing it? Price links it to something akin to what happened with Mormanism and Joseph Smith, but Smith never attempted anything as precise and cryptic as what Price sees in the New Testament.
Did the writers intend an initial stage where a more literal interpretation of the New Testament would facilitate a taking over of the world according to the bringing forth of their worldview, whereby only later, through tireless scholarship (at time of science and reason), the New Testament would be recognized for what it was (made up) and discarded because at that stage it wouldn’t be needed any more (because the world would have matured from the disastrous age in which the Jesus stories were passed down)?
I trust Dr. Hoffmann. He will offer focus and guidance to this project and direct the scholars toward results that will be meaningful, not just for professors, but for the average person believer and non-believer, who has a curiosity about religion
Reply

 rjosephhoffmann
 May 10, 2009 at 3:57 am
My question would be, if the New Testament writers were basically just Rewriting Homer, Josephus, The Septuagint, and Euripides Bacchae, as Price says, why on earth were they doing it?>>
Hi Ally. I strongly disagree with my friend Bob price: there would have been no reason for re-writing the ancient poets–in fact, I doubt very much whether there are any deliberate literary overlaps. If there is a heavy dose of the mythical and the supernatural, it simply means we are dealing with the sort of literature that was being written in the first and second century: the Greek historians are full of it (myth I mean) and the Romans follow suit. I don’t think we can expect the gospels to be “Better than” people who thought they were doing history.
J.
Reply

 Ally Moss
 May 10, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Hi Dr. Hoffmann: If it was just part and parcel of the writing of that time to include myth, then how do you separate out the historical stuff from the legendary stuff. You can’t do it just on the basis of “the natural sounding stuff” is the historical stuff because even Oddysseus had “mundane” parts of his journey that were still, in no way, real. This is a fundamental problem that goes beyond simply pointing out contradictions, like the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, and the stories about where Jesus was taken after he was born (mutliple attestations of the same account don’t resolve this problem because there are also multiple agreeing source accounts about what certain Greek Gods did). Another problem I have are fundamental doctrinal contradictions. For example,
(A) For example, God’s knowledge is self contradictory:
Either he knows everything about you and your future: “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart for my holy purpose. I appointed you to be a prophet to the nations (Jeremiah 1-5)“, or else God doesn’t know everything about you (though he may know your future) “the LORD God called to the man, ‘Where are you?‘“(Genesis 3:8); or else God knows nothing regarding your future or even what He Himself is going to do regarding it “Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though ‘you incited me’ against him to ruin him without any reason. (Job 2:3)“
(B) Also, God’s laws are self-contradictory. For Example:
(1) It’s wrong to lie:
Exodus 20:16
 Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Exodus 23:1
 Thou shalt not raise a false report.
Exodus 23:7
 Keep thee far from a false matter.
Leviticus 6:2-4
 If a soul … lie unto his neighbour … or hath deceived his neighbour … Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely. … Then … he shall restore that which he took.
Leviticus 19:11
 Neither lie one to another.
Deuteronomy 5:20
 Neither shalt thou bear false witness.
Proverbs 12:22
 Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord.
Proverbs 13:5
 A righteous man hateth lying.
Proverbs 24:28
 Be not a witness against thy neighbour without cause; and deceive not with thy lips.
Luke 3:14
 Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely.
Ephesians 4:25
 Wherefore putting away lying, speaking every man truth with his neighbor.
Colossians 3:9
 Lie not one to another.
Revelation 21:8
 All liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.
Revelation 21:27
 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
(2) It’s okay to lie and can even be the thing that makes you righteous
Joshua 2:4-6
 And the woman [Rahab] took the two men and hid them and said thus: There came men unto me, but I wist not whence they were; and it came to pass about the time of shutting of the gate, when it was dark that the men went out; whither the men went I wot not; pursue after them quickly, for ye shall overtake them. But she had brought them up to the roof of the house and hid them with the stalks of flax.
James 2:25
 Was not Rahab, the harlot, justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?.
Exodus 1:18-20
 And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men-children alive? And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives.
1 Kings 22:21-22
 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him .. I will go forth and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him and prevail also; go forth and do so.
2 Kings 8:10
 And Elisha said unto him, go, say unto him, Thou mayest certainly recover: howbeit the Lord hath showed me that he shall surely die.
The one on lying I took from the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible (which brings out many contradictions), which is on the internet
How can we tell what in the bible is reliable?

 
 

 john76
 May 11, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Of course your right Ally. The disjunction between The God of Jeremiah and that of Job is probably one of the classic examples.
“Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart for my holy purpose. I appointed you to be a prophet to the nations (Jeremiah 1-5)“
“Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though ‘you incited me’ against him to ruin him without any reason. (Job 2:3)“
The God presented in the Jeremiah passage is a God of total knowledge and foresight, who knows us in our past, present, and future. The God of the Job passage is quite different. He didn’t know he would bring Job to ruin, and by extension he didn’t know Job in his past, present and future. He says quite clearly “you incited me,” and even more emphatically in the King James version he said “thou movedst me.” God did not know He was going to do what the Devil ‘incited’ him to do. The language is plain and clear. The devil had a causal effect on God. The God of Job is not a God of total knowledge and foresight – or else He ‘chose’ not to be such a God in Job’s case and only chose to exercise the power of foresight in the previous case.
And this goes on. Go to one place you find a God of war (Exodus 15:3
 he Lord is a man of war.Psalm 18:34 He teacheth my hands to war. Psalm 144:1
 Blessed be the Lord my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight), others a God of peace (Romans 15:33 The God of Peace. 1 Corinthians 14:33 God is not the author of confusion but of peace. 2 Thessalonians 3:16 The Lord of peace himself give you peace always.
 Hebrews 13:20 The God of peace…..,) others a God of Jealousy (Exodus 20:5
 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, Exodus 20:4-6, Exodus 34:14 Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. Exodus 34:13-15 Deuteronomy 4:24 For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, Deuteronomy 6:15 for the LORD your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land. Deuteronomy 6:14-16 Deuteronomy 32:16 They made him jealous with their foreign gods and angered him with their detestable idols.
 Joshua 24:19 Joshua said to the people, “You are not able to serve the LORD. He is a holy God; he is a jealous God. He will not forgive your rebellion and your sins. Nahum 1:2 [ The Lord 's Anger Against Nineveh ] The LORD is a jealous and avenging God; the LORD takes vengeance and is filled with wrath. The LORD takes vengeance on his foes and maintains his wrath against his enemies.,) others a God of love (Exodus 34:6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, Deuteronomy 7:9
 Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands. Deuteronomy 7:12 If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the LORD your God will keep his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your forefathers. 1 Kings 8:23
 and said: “O LORD, God of Israel, there is no God like you in heaven above or on earth below—you who keep your covenant of love with your servants who continue wholeheartedly in your way.1 Kings 10:9 Praise be to the LORD your God, who has delighted in you and placed you on the throne of Israel. Because of the LORD’s eternal love for Israel, he has made you king, to maintain justice and righteousness.” 2 Chronicles 6:14 He said: “O LORD, God of Israel, there is no God like you in heaven or on earth—you who keep your covenant of love with your servants who continue wholeheartedly in your way.Psalm 136:2 Give thanks to the God of gods. His love endures forever), and so on and so forth.
You get the same thing with Jesus. Is Jesus a Jesus of Peace (Luke 2:14
 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. John 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. Acts 10:36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ.) Or of conflict (Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. Luke 22:36 He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Revelation 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war), or is the real Jesus the Jesus of Matthew, or Mark, or Luke, or John, or Paul, Or Q1, Or is there a stratification of Q, or is there a Q at all, or some combinational variant?
I only cited a small fraction of passages, but people pick and choose their favorite God and Savior, emphasizing certain passages and de-emphasizing others.
Reply

 john76
 May 16, 2009 at 2:54 pm
I know Dr Hoffmann and Dr. Price disagree on this point but I find Dr. Price’s “New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash” http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_midrash1.htm very compelling. If not the Haggadic Midrash argument, I would like to know what Dr. Hoffmann thinks are reasons to bring the historicity of Jesus into question, if indeed he has any. This article on Dr. Ehrman is also very good.
Reply

 john76
 May 16, 2009 at 2:55 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/05/15/bible.critic/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Sorry – forgot to post the article on Ehrman
Reply

 john76
 May 18, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Another interesting vein in the midrash hypothesis is Proto Luke. Some deny the Q hypothesis and argue for the Proto Luke hypothesis. Proto-Luke is a hypothetical document that may have been the main source for the gospel writers. Modelled on the Elihja-Elisha narrative of 1 and 2 Kings it is an alternative theory to the Q hypothesis. Proto-Luke has been reconstructed by Dr Tom Brodie (Dominican Biblical Institute, Limerick, Ireland) and is largely made up of material in Luke-Acts, but can be found in Mark, Matthew and John also. The theory is not unconvincing and explains the ‘synoptic problem’ more convincingly than the Q hypothesis. However, it has yet to be taken seriously by the academic community at large. However, a conference in Limerick in April of 2008 saw top scholars such as Dr. John Kloppenborg and Dr. Dennis MacDonald discussing Proto-Luke seriously which will result in a publication in the next few years which should see wider Proto-Luke discussion.
Reply

 Seth Strong
 February 23, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Where did your post “Of the Importance of Soft Belief” go? That was a good post.
Reply

 steph
 June 17, 2010 at 2:52 am
Deer Isle Maine, peace of mind, sensational x
Reply

 antiphonsgarden
 August 23, 2010 at 12:29 pm
HE?
Reply

 steph
 August 23, 2010 at 2:44 pm
That’s right, antiphonsgarden (… WHO?!!), I think Scipio hath graciously written this ‘about page’.
Reply
 

 antiphonsgarden
 August 24, 2010 at 8:16 am
Hmm, so it is a blog “about” someone else than the person writing the blog?
 A bit like the clergy pretending to be “gods voice”?
Reply

 steph
 August 24, 2010 at 10:10 am
No, this ‘about page’, about the philosopher who composes articles for this website, is quite possibly written by the elusive Scipio, and your analogy is just plain false. For someone with a made up pseudonym like you, I’m surprised at your seeming lack of imagination and creativity.
Reply
 

 antiphonsgarden
 August 25, 2010 at 3:32 am
A THE “elusive”.
I see!
 I MUST be stupid compared to those who participate by association to those “who know”.
Reply

 steph
 December 22, 2010 at 1:53 am
I like the update. Congratulations.
x
Reply

 Pointing Out Stupidity « Matt's Notepad says:
 January 9, 2011 at 6:30 pm
[...] The first comes from the blog Curious Presbyterian. Now, to be fair, the blog itself is quite alright and the author seems to be a reasonably articulate and intelligent person. Instead a quote they have selected to … well, quote is exceptionally silly. ‘Atheists should not be patting themselves on the back for discovering that creation science isn’t real science.  That’s a bit like discovering the two men inside the horse-costume.’ ~ R. Joseph Hoffmann [...]
Reply

 robert verhoeven
 June 19, 2011 at 12:53 pm
When is your book Christianity: The Minor Critics coming out i would like to buy it.
 I have read celsus the true doctrine and i liked it very much.
Reply

 bizuteria zlota
 July 1, 2012 at 1:22 am
very nice post, i actually love this web site, carry on it
Reply

 Anonymous
 May 11, 2013 at 12:08 pm
Dear Joe,
 I post from the hospital, my 94 years has caughjt up with me a bit, but no I am going to make it for a while longer. God is good! I still stand by my reconstruction of post-Easter traditions see The Importance of the Histroical Jesus Ed Jones, Comments. I must say our most certain access to the the historical person Jesus is the Sermon on the Mount Matthew 5:3-7:27, no bio. just sayings which is all that we need.
 This is our closest source to the original and originating faith and witness of the apostles. None of the writings of the NT, the letters of Paul, the Gospels, as well as the later writings of the NT is apostolic witness.
 Take a look at Critical Ink: Ed Jones on A viable solution to the “Jesus Puzzle”. Note John’s LINK, Again I relish your generous comment: “Ed Thank you so much foir thart – filled with wisdom and knowledge – like Job!”.
I will be posting again soon. Hasten to the point of it all – the Sermon! Keep at it.
Reply

 rusty1919
 May 11, 2013 at 1:30 pm
test
Reply

 Edward Jones
 May 11, 2013 at 1:57 pm
Joe, I post on a hospital computer, but no my 94 years has just caught up with me a bit. God is good – I expect a few more.
 I still stand by my reconstruction of post Easter Jesus traditions see: The Importance of the Historical Jesus – Ed Jones Comments. The reconstruction was not edited but it can be read. See all of my comments.
 You once said “I see what Betz sees in the Sermon on the Mount, Math. 5:3-7:27. It is here that we find the person the historical Jesus. Hasten to tjhis lead. It is not a bio. just sayings, all that we need and more! I follow your proigress with real interest. Hasten to the Sermon, It is your short cut to finding the real Jesus.
 I still re;ish your comment to my post “A viable solution to the “Jesus Puzzle”. Try going by way of Debunking Christianity: Ed Jones on a Viable solution to the “Jesus Puzzle, note John’s Link. I will comment futher.
Reply

 rjosephhoffmann
 May 11, 2013 at 6:11 pm
Ed–so nice to hear from you! I’m glad you are still reading–your comments are a constant source of delight and wisdom.
Reply
 

 Edward Jones
 June 6, 2013 at 9:41 pm
Thanks Joe, your generous comment was a God-send. I am out and “running” again – looking forward to your further posts.
Reply


.
Leave a Reply
 
Enter your comment here...Enter your comment here...






Gravatar






WordPress.com Logo



Twitter picture



Facebook photo



Google+ photo











 .

Topics
Uncategorized
Archives
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009


 
Blog at WordPress.com. The Manifest Theme.
     











 
Follow
Follow “The New Oxonian”

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 161 other followers

    

Powered by WordPress.com
     

loading







Sign in 

2 of 5



Bing




Web
Images
Videos
Maps
News
More

Also try:Joseph Hoffman Obituary·Joseph Hoffman Attorney·Joseph Hoffma…
602,000 resultsAny time





The New Oxonian | Religion and Culture for the Intellectually ...
rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com
Reprinted from R Joseph Hoffmann, ... Ah! Joseph, ” said the king— ... Blog at WordPress.com. The Manifest Theme. Follow.


R. Joseph Hoffmann » A Writing Tablet
www.rjosephhoffmann.com
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. %d bloggers like this: Skip to toolbar. WordPress.com. New ... R. Joseph Hoffmann Proudly powered by WordPress.


R. Joseph Hoffmann's Blog - Open Salon
open.salon.com/blog/r_joseph_hoffmann
R. Joseph Hoffmann. Add as Favorite; Send message; RSS; Location Boston, Massachusetts, USA Birthday December 16 Bio R. Joseph Hoffmann is a Boston …


NT Blog: R. Joseph Hoffmann responds to Jesus Project Concerns
ntweblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/r-joseph-hoffmann-responds-to-jesus.html
Aug 20, 2007 · I am grateful to R. Joseph Hoffmann for sending me a copy of his detailed response to concerns about the Jesus Project. It is now published online on ...


Ari's Blog: R. Joseph Hoffman (ed.), Sources of the Jesus ...
sxcari.blogspot.com/2011/01/r-joseph-hoffman-ed-sources-of-jesus.html
Jan 20, 2011 · Below is the contents of the new volume Sources of the Jesus Tradition: Separating History from Myth (Ed. R. Joseph Hoffman). The volume is comprised …


Related searches for r joseph hoffman blog

Joseph Hoffman Obituary
Joseph Hoffman Attorney
Joseph Hoffman Pianist
Joseph Hoffman Chairs
Joseph Hoffman Piano Lessons
Joseph Hoffman Bowling Green KY
.


R Joseph Hoffmann — Blogs, Pictures, and more on WordPress
en.wordpress.com/tag/r-joseph-hoffmann
Start a WordPress blog or create a free website in minutes. Choose from over 200 free, customizable themes. Free support from awesome humans.


R. Joseph Hoffman's Blog - Prayer of Pope St Francis - March 23 ...


www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/3917582-prayer...
Lord, make me an instrument of political persuasion:Where there is pomp let me feign humility;Where there is skepticism, sincerity;Where ...
.


Amazon.com: R. Joseph Hoffmann: Books, Biography, Blog, …
www.amazon.com/R.-Joseph-Hoffmann/e/B001ITYX5A
Visit Amazon.com's R. Joseph Hoffmann Page and shop for all R. Joseph Hoffmann books and other R. Joseph Hoffmann related products (DVD, CDs, Apparel). …


R. Joseph Hoffmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Joseph_Hoffmann
Biography ·
Humanist Advocacy ·
Scholarly work ·
The "Jesus Project"
R. Joseph Hoffmann is a historian of religion, and was chair of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, Associate Editor of the journal Free Inquiry ...


Steven Carr's Blog: R. Joseph Hoffmann on the evidence for Jesus
stevencarrwork.blogspot.com/2012/07/r-joseph-hoffman-on-evidence...
Jul 23, 2012 · In an excellent article, scholar and prolific blogger, R. Joseph Hoffmann summarised the evidence for the historicity of Jesus that can be got from Paul's ...


R.Joseph Hoffman's - The New Oxonian | Religion and Culture for ...
rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/about
Following graduation from Harvard Divinity School and the University of Oxford, R. Joseph Hoffmann was tutor in Greek at Keble College and Senior Scholar at St …


R. Joseph Hoffmann's Blog
open.salon.com/blog/r_joseph_hoffmann/most_read
R. Joseph Hoffmann. Add as Favorite; Send message; RSS; Location Boston, Massachusetts, USA Birthday December 16 Bio R. Joseph Hoffmann is a Boston …


Winner of the Mooney Award for Accommodationist of the Year: R ...
whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/winner-of-the-mooney...
Jan 03, 2012 · UPDATE: R. Joseph Hoffman has responded to me on his blog, proving something else: Despite his desperate attempts to be humorous, he's not …


R. Joseph Hoffman knows the truth about Jesus! « Why Evolution …
whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/01/02/r-joseph-hoffman-knows...
Jan 02, 2013 · Over at The New Oxonian, R. Joseph Hoffmann,who has not exactly been a friend of this website, reports that he is writing a book that will at last tell us ...
.

1
2
3
4
5
Next

Ad

R Joseph Hoffman
www.Amazon.com/R Joseph Hoffman
Free 2-Day Shipping w/ Amazon Prime! Low Prices on Millions of Books.

See your ad here »


Related searches
Joseph Hoffman Obituary
Joseph Hoffman Attorney
Joseph Hoffman Pianist
Joseph Hoffman Chairs
Joseph Hoffman Piano Lessons
Joseph Hoffman Bowling Green KY
Joseph Hoffman Attorney Fort Myers
Joe Hoffman
.






#name#







#name#















Connect to Facebook to see what your friends know.
Learn more
Connect with Facebook




© 2013 Microsoft |
Privacy and Cookies |
Legal |
Advertise |
About our ads |
Help |
Feedback