"Vridar"

2011-04-08T09:01:00.000-07:00

25th October 2011 - "Vridar" - Is History a Trial? He wrote:
"James Crossley is spot on when he advocates doing history the same way it is practiced in areas outside Jesus studies."

I made a few responses to his site, which he refuses to publish.

You are surely not holding up James Crossley as a good example of how history should be written?
Comment by Geoff Hudson — 2011/10/27 @ 1:01 am | Reply
In fact the history that Crossley regurgitates is precisely how New Testament historians and other scholars remember it, and is no different from your Le donne.
Comment by Geoff Hudson — 2011/10/27 @ 4:34 am | Reply
Reading his Introduction to Why Christianity Happened, James Crossley writes:… "Christianity remained a largely law-observant movement until the early to mid-40s CE…. This not only meant that the first Gentiles to attracted to Christianity were law observant…."

I think that most historians of whatever kind would not dispute that. Yet I can think that the reason the Gentiles were first attracted to Christianity was because of the ‘freedom’ they had in the Spirit. Not only that, but some Jews had for some time experienced the same. This had nothing to do with any Jesus. These Jews realised that obeying the law did not necessarily make a better person, and was certainly not the way to be right with God. Freedom in the Spirit meant freedom from the law.
Comment by Geoff Hudson — 2011/10/27 @ 6:13 am | Reply
- This gives the lie to James’s statement: “One implication of all this is that the reasons Christianity included people who were no longer observing major commandments were largely social”.
  
  There was no need for social explanations. Gentiles could see the universality of the concept of ‘freedom in the Spirit’. They simply liked the concept.
  Comment by Geoff Hudson — 2011/10/28 @ 5:39 am | Reply

29th September 2011 - "Vridar" wrote an article Keeping (Biblical) Scholars Honest (does this assume that mythicists are dishonest?).

"Vridar wrote": "One of the best things that has happened to challenge scholars in recent years is the internet and the internet’s potential to democratize knowledge". One mythicist is certainly dishonest. He manages his web site like the dictator he is. He puts my posts through his spam filter. No democracy here. And why doesn't Mark Goodacre post to his blog if mythicists help to keep "scholars like him honest"?

10th September 2011 - more posts he has put through his spam filter - What Mark's Episodes Do For Readers (and the real historiographical question to ask) Never mind about Mark's "episodic narratives" (referred to by "Vridar" in a book, by Whitney Shiner - when is "Vridar" going to think for himself?).

So who put this onto my link to "Vridar"? Block all aliasesofjeffreygibson.blogspot.com results.
It was "Vridar" himself (Jeffrey) doing the linking. See this: http://aliasesofjeffreygibson.blogspot.com/2011/04/vridar-httpvridarwordpresscom.htm. Now he is fighting dirty. So never mind about: "does Jesus exist?" Does Neil Godfrey exist? Can anyone prove that Neil Godfrey exists? Mark Goodacre exists - he is a professor at Duke University. He publishes his photo. He makes videos. He writes books. Does Neil Godfrey write books?

"Vridar" wrote: "It is naive in the extreme to simply say that the Gospels give the dominant impression that Jesus was a teacher and healer, for example, and that we can therefore justify a presumption that Jesus really was a teacher and a healer..... The truly fundamental historical question is to ask for any evidence — evidence, not assumptions — that will help us determine why someone wanted readers to think that."

I replied: "Your literary evidence is thin, speculative and predicates a religion that came from nobody and nowhere – it does not relate to first century Judaism. If christianity came out of first century Judaism, as you say, then that is what it should be traced back to, and not to a later stage in history. There are traces of first century Jewish history in Mark, and there are many more in the so-called epistles of Paul. So you have not revealed the true origin of christianity."
Comment by Geoff Hudson — 2011/09/20 @ 6:46 pm | Reply

"Vridar" wrote: “He only needed one passion scene to show Jesus’ ability to submit to unjust suffering.”

And the passion scene in Mark bears an eery relationship to a traditional Jewish stoning.
Comment by Geoff Hudson — 2011/09/20 @ 9:59 pm | Reply

“Vridar” wrote: “Mark only needed one narrative episode ribboned with a “midrashic prophecy” to demonstrate how cowardly the disciples were.”

This is surely a later Roman propagandistic reference to the prophets who turned from peace to terrorism when Vespasian betrayed them by destroying the temple for its gold after four/five years of peace (the so-called years of the revolt). Four/five years earlier, Nero had promised that he would preserve the temple after destroying the priests.

Nero had done what Herod the Great had been thwarted by his sister Salome from doing on his death (Ant.17.6.6), destroying the priests and giving power back to the prophets. The prophets were not cowards, just the losers in a very uneven battle with the much more powerful army of Vespasian.
Comment by Geoff Hudson — 2011/09/21 @ 12:13 am | Reply

"Vridar" wrote: I am never “convinced” by any speculation. Why would anyone ever expect “speculation” to “convince”? No, “we” are not “all” speculating by any means. You appear to be unable to see the difference between speculation and evidence-based argument.

Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2011/09/21 @ 6:35 pm | Reply

I wrote: And the difference is: one is speculation without evidence based argument, and the other is speculation with evidence based argument. Your speculation does not satisfy an important criteria. It does not explain how Christianity arose out of Judaism.
Comment by Geoff Hudson — 2011/09/21 @ 7:57 pm | Reply

2 September 2011
"Vridar" Why are the Gospels so believable?
- another of my posts which he has put through his spam filter so that no-one can read it.

Mark contains some stories that were created from real events. For example, the prophet went into the temple proclaiming the Spirit of God. He walked beside the altar and saw priests casting a sacrifice into the fire. He called to the priests to come and obey the Spirit because He (that is the Spirit) would make them clean, whereas their sacrifices would not.
Comment by Geoff Hudson — 2011/09/02 @ 7:49 pm | Reply

Mk1:14. Here Jesus “went” “into Galilee”. Mat.4:12 emphasises: “he returned to Galilee”. The purpose for all this to-ing and fro-ing is to hide a journey that really happened. Lk.4:44 has Jesus at one instant in Judea, then Lk.5:1 has him at the next instant “standing by the Lake of Gennesaret”; Jesus was travelling at the speed of light. In none of these accounts is there any indication of the journey time to Galilee – a journey time that would have taken several days.

The prophet was obviously still in Judea. He had come from Rome with the authority of Nero behind him, which was why he could go into the temple and proclaim the Spirit. He didn’t go to the Sea of Galilee, a ridiculous idea, but he went into the temple. ‘Proclaiming’ is explicit. The prophet’s mission was to proclaim the Spirit.Co
Comment by Geoff Hudson — 2011/09/02 @ 8:22 pm | Reply

3 August 2011
Dratted Midrash - "Vridar" has been talking about the murder of the innocents. http://vridar.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/gospel-prophecy-and-history-through-ancient-jewish-eyes-the-massacre-of-the-innocents/
Needless to say, you cannot read my comment there because "Vridar" won't allow you to - he has put it through his spam filter. But this wannabe librarian gets his knickers in a twist with his midrash. I would suggest an alternative comment to "Vridar's" feeble voluminous midrashic explanation. The reference to Jeremiah 31: 15 in Matthew 2:15-18: "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, 'In Ramah was there a voice heard, lamentation and weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and would not be comforted, because they are no more' ", was nothing more than a convenient reference dragged from Jeremiah to back-up a point. That point was pure mockery of Herod and Mariamne (Rachel) by the priests who were doing the writing of Matthew (on behalf of the Romans). Mat.2.16 - Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked by the wise men - the wise men were ex-priests. The reason was, Herod had not killed his children or his wife, but some of them had been poisoned by the priests, including Antipator who one has to suspect was also Mariamne’s child. The priests hated Herod’s children because they were Hasmonean descendants of Mariamne, a Hasmonean, and Herod wanted one of his Hasmonean sons to succeed him, one of which did, by the name of Aristobulus. Hasmoneans favoured the prophets. So before "Vridar" wanders off into the realms of fantasy, he should read the history, between the lines, first.

The Massacre of the Innocents is at Matthew 2:16-18. this version is taken from Wikipedia:

When the Magi had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. Get up, he said, take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him. So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son." When Herod realised that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more."

This story undoubtedly reflects what happened to Mariamne's children by Herod. The children were brought up in Rome, not Egypt. The priests were trying to search for the children and Mariamne to kill them. When they were successful, 'Herod realising he had been outwitted', was filled with anger towards the priests. He gave orders to have all the priests executed. The voice 'in Ramah' was that of a dead mother, Mariamne, mourning the loss of her children.

4 July 2011"Vridar" sent me an email today, at 23.00 hours. It reads:

Okay Geoff, that's it -- I find your rudeness, your lack of "netiquette", over the top and as bad as any fundie apologist who tries to use my blog as a platform for preaching. If you wish to post again on my blog I will ask that you seek prior email permission since from now on I am putting all your posts directly into the spam filter. It is simply rude and boorish to continually seek to turn every conversation and contact into a discussion of your own agenda. You do not even read my posts -- I explained that the authors of the DSS were among the elites already in this series -- but I am not interested in reading anything more from you. If you wish to post again then send me a special request by email. But if I receive any email from you trying to push your own agenda again, including a response to this email, I will also put all emails from you directly into my spam filter too so I will in all likelihood not receive any more emails from you either.
Neil

"Your lack of 'netiquette', he says!  What about his? An expert on IT, he exploits the internet, and trades under all sorts of false names. He is worried that he might be revealed as Jeffrey Gibson. He was sore because I had reminded him that the DSS referred to Messiahs. And I have certainly never seen him refer to the writers of the DSS as elites. I have to wonder why he didn't use the proper term, high priest.

Where did he get my email address from? I'll bet he's had it stored away for years, from previous correspondence.

About Vridar
"Vridar" claims to be some sort of librarian who wanders about the southern hemisphere. But I ask myself, how can he do this job and do all the blagueing he does? He must surely be someone else.

"Vridar" (http://vridar.wordpress.com/) will allow almost anything on his blog so long as it upholds the mithicist case. Suggest that there was reality behind the origin of the New Testament, and that it was the product of conspiracy, in effect a cover-up, and he will remove your post. Never mind about the hard evidence which he ignores.

"Vridar" (http://vridar.wordpress.com/) A quick rub of his magic lamp can make anyone of his aliases appear; N T Wrong, Earl Doherty, Derek Murphy and uncle Tom Cobbley. Thus he has Doherty versus a real character, a Dr James Mcgrath. He is fixated by mythical origins of Christianity, which Mcgrath rejects. Mcgrath is a believer in Jesus. But what if the texts (the NT and Josephus) are full of lies? What if it can be proved that there was a true story behind the NT? Suppose there was no Jesus. Suppose that there was a real prophet with a movement of prophets which the texts, including Josephus, are based upon. Suppose that movement had started to reach out to Gentiles. Then "Vridar" and Mcgrath are both stuffed. Would it be possible to prove from these texts alone what the lies are and what the truth is? Is it possible to have tests that show where we have interpreted them wrongly?

"Vridar" wrote (see http://vridar.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/jesus-potter-harry-christ/):
"I regularly argue .... for an appreciation of the literary nature of the leading characters, episodes and narrative structures in the canonical gospels. .......... But I encourage anyone interested in the gospels and Jesus as literature to read the content below and see that it does seek to be a serious contribution to an understanding of the literary and mythical character of Jesus. Neither is this a slur against Christianity."

He has a peculiar idea of what a slur is. "Vridar" has already reached his decision. He is interested in promoting a mythical Jesus based on literary considerations. This is not because he actually believes a word of what he says. He is interested in writing books to make money. He enjoys argument for argument's sake. Supporting the mythicist case means that he can keep his Jesus, albeit a mythical one. The moment I suggest that there was another story, a non-mythical one, the shutters go up, and I am barred from posting on his blog. He uses the excuse that I am not engaging with his "issues".

I posted the following which suggests a different story. He refused to publish it. There are too many coincidences for it not to be true. It is what I consider to be an interpolation which was subsequently edited by a post 70 CE writer with fanciful detail. So bang goes his hypothesis of a purely mythical NT:

Neil wrote: “What also worries me a bit are those split brain experiments that show just how clever we are at fabricating rational tales that are in fact all bollocks.” How about this for fabricating a rational tale?:
The Acts of the Spirit (Chap.19)
[Text considered post 70.]
{Text considered pre 62, the year when James was murdered.}
JAMES OPPOSES THE TEMPLE TREASURER ANANIAS – AN EDITED INTERPOLATION
19.23.About that time there arose a great disturbance about the [Way] {temple}.
19.24.A [silversmith] {high priest} named [Demetrius] {Ananias}, who [made] {collected} silver [shrines of Artemis] {half-shekels}, brought in no little [business] {tax} for the [craftsmen] {temple}.
19.25.He called [them] {the brothers} together, [along with the workmen in related trades,] and said: “[men] {brothers}, you know [we] {the temple} receive{s} a good income from this [business] {synagogue}.
19.26.And you see and hear how this fellow [Paul] {James} has convinced and led astray large numbers of [people] {brothers} here in [Ephesus] {Rome.} [and in practically the whole province of Asia]. He says that [man-made] {sacrifices to} God[s] are [no gods at all] {ineffective}.
19.27.There is danger [not only that our trade will lose its good name, but also] that the temple [of the great goddess Artemis] will be discredited, and [the goddess herself, who is worshipped throughout the province of Asia and the world,] will be robbed of [her divine Excellency] {its income}.”
19.28.[When they heard this, they were furious and began shouting: "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!"
19.29.Soon the whole city was in an uproar. The people seized Gaius and Aristarchus, Paul’s travelling companions from Macedonia, and rushed as one man into the theatre.
19.30.Paul wanted to appear before the crowd, but the disciples would not let him.
19.31.Even some of the officials of the province, friends of Paul, sent him a message begging him not to venture into the theatre.]
19.32.The [assembly] {synagogue} was in confusion: Some were shouting one thing, some another. [Most of the people did not even know why they were there.]
19.33.The [Jews] {brothers} pushed [Alexander] {me} to the front, and some of the [crowd] {synagogue} shouted [instructions] {accusations} [to him] {at me}. [He] {I} motioned for silence [in order to make a defence] before the [people] {brothers}.
19.34.[But when they realised he was a Jew, they all shouted in unison for about two hours: "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!"]
19.35.[The city clerk] {I} quietened the [crowd] {assembly} and said: “[Men of Ephesus] {brothers}, doesn’t all the world know that the city of [Ephesus] {Rome} is the guardian of the temple [of the great Artemis and of her image, which fell from heaven?]
19.36.Therefore, since [these] {this} fact[s are] {is} undeniable, you ought to be quiet and not do anything rash.
19.37.You have brought these men here, though [they] {we} have neither robbed {the} temple[s] nor blasphemed our God[dess].
19.38.If, then, [Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen have] {Ananias has} a grievance against [anybody] {us}, [the courts are open and there are proconsuls. They can press charges.
19.39.If there is anything further you want to bring up,] it must be settled in [a legal] {before} [assembly] {the synagogue}.
19.40.[As it is, we are in danger of being charged with rioting because of today's events. In that case we would not be able to account for this commotion, since there is no reason for it."]
19.41.After [he] {I} had said this, [he] {I} dismissed the assembly {synagogue}.

He has written a number of books under various names, and then he refers to them as though they are authoritative. Thus, for "Derek Murphy" he writes (http://vridar.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/jesus-potter-harry-christ-ch-2-the-mythicist-controversy-ancient-and-modern/#more-18903): " Murphy brings readers up to date with scholarly method";  "Murphy is right to point out that the Jesus"; "Murphy discusses the reflections of another scholar "; " But Murphy rightly goes further than I have done in my discussions"; "I particularly like Murphy raising the question whether New Testament scholars are the ones qualified to investigate the historicity of Jesus or Christian origins. Would not there be a case for mythologists, sociologists, comparative religionists, or historians being better qualified to study the historical origins of the movement?"; (Notice where he puts historians: last.) "So Murphy demonstrates that the scholarly approach ..... does not get us anywhere nearer a historical Jesus. A historical Jesus is merely a hypothesis constructed to catch what cannot be explained by Judaism and the Christian tradition — and that omits the very mythical elements that really make the Jesus narrative meaningful."

Murphy this, Murphy that, Murphy the other. Murphy is an "Irishman". He quite obviously is someone's "doppelganger". While there may be these "mythical elements" (I prefer to see them as deliberately fabricated elements), Vridar refuses to consider that the NT was  the work of later editors who superimposed them on real original shorter prophetic documents.

Aliases of Jeffrey Gibson

"Vridar"