Monday, August 13, 2007
Comments on Hoffmann's Statement
I have some comments on the Statement by R. Joseph Hoffmann: Jesus Project v. Jesus Squad, the substance of which I shared with Joseph Hoffmann over the weekend.
What seems clear, having the statement, is that their was no malicious intent on Hoffmann's or anyone else's part in publishing the list of "fellows" on the site. It seems to have been a mistake, and one that has now been put right both by taking down the old list and issuing the statement. That's a great relief to hear. It is disappointing, though, that there is no apology for the mistake. Although the explanation is the fundamental thing, it would have been straightforward to have said something like, "We are sorry for any confusion . . . ."
My major concern about the statement was the way that it talked about bloggers and blogging. It may be that the blogs Hoffmann had in mind were genuinely unhelpful and problematic, but since the only one he mentions by name is Jim West's, it is difficult to know which ones he was concerned about. As a blogger myself, I was not keen on the use of catch-all terms like "blog assault" and "blogmasters". The following sentences, in particular, concerned me:
Similarly, Hoffmann speaks about "the uncontrolled methods of Bible-blog", but I would want to add that one of the strengths of the blogs is that they are uncontrolled. There is no central authority, nor should there ever be one; their glory is in that they are a democratic medium in which scholars and students put their views out into the public where they themselves can be discussed, engaged, confirmed, refuted.
However, it may be that Hoffmann is talking about quite different blogs than the ones I read. And that perspective may be confirmed by the use of the term "Jesus Squad" in the title and body of the piece. I am guessing that that is Hoffmann's own description of those who have, he feels, been unfair to the Jesus Project. But if so, I think it might have been worth clarifying that all bloggers should not be tarred with the same brush. Where there have been concerns raised in the blogs I read, they appeared to me to be honest, legitimate concerns about what appeared to be misleading claims.
I shared the substance of the above with Joseph Hoffmann, who said in response "Your inference is correct; I mean to make a distinction between those who simply want to torpedo the Project and those who are simply seeking clarification." I am still not clear which blogs are being talked about here, except that I can't imagine they are among those that I regularly read.
In comments to my previous post, Chris notes the statement, "I recognize no names, among the bloggers, of anyone who has been invited at any stage to participate in the JP" and wonders about April DeConick and James Tabor, both of whom were listed among the fellows, and both of who have commented on the project.
Update (11.40): Chris Zeichman has some helpful comments on Thoughts on Antiquity headed Hoffmann responds to blogdom on The Jesus Project.
Update (14.10): Doug Chaplin has some interesting comments on Metacatholic, The Jesus Project: On not being responsible.
Update (Tuesday, 12.20): Chris Heard has some helpful comments, also picking up on the "even bloggers . . ." comment, on Higgaion: Jesus Project Update.
What seems clear, having the statement, is that their was no malicious intent on Hoffmann's or anyone else's part in publishing the list of "fellows" on the site. It seems to have been a mistake, and one that has now been put right both by taking down the old list and issuing the statement. That's a great relief to hear. It is disappointing, though, that there is no apology for the mistake. Although the explanation is the fundamental thing, it would have been straightforward to have said something like, "We are sorry for any confusion . . . ."
My major concern about the statement was the way that it talked about bloggers and blogging. It may be that the blogs Hoffmann had in mind were genuinely unhelpful and problematic, but since the only one he mentions by name is Jim West's, it is difficult to know which ones he was concerned about. As a blogger myself, I was not keen on the use of catch-all terms like "blog assault" and "blogmasters". The following sentences, in particular, concerned me:
False report, of course, is the culture in which blogging thrives. But even bloggers have a minimal responsibility to fact and to discovering facts.These statements are, I think, unfair since most of the bloggers that I know, and who blog in the areas of ancient world / Biblical Studies / Christian origins, are firmly committed to honest reporting and setting the record straight. Indeed, if anything, one of the engines that drives blogging is the desire to keep scholars and scholarship honest, and to hold the media and others to account where they engaging in false reporting.
Similarly, Hoffmann speaks about "the uncontrolled methods of Bible-blog", but I would want to add that one of the strengths of the blogs is that they are uncontrolled. There is no central authority, nor should there ever be one; their glory is in that they are a democratic medium in which scholars and students put their views out into the public where they themselves can be discussed, engaged, confirmed, refuted.
However, it may be that Hoffmann is talking about quite different blogs than the ones I read. And that perspective may be confirmed by the use of the term "Jesus Squad" in the title and body of the piece. I am guessing that that is Hoffmann's own description of those who have, he feels, been unfair to the Jesus Project. But if so, I think it might have been worth clarifying that all bloggers should not be tarred with the same brush. Where there have been concerns raised in the blogs I read, they appeared to me to be honest, legitimate concerns about what appeared to be misleading claims.
I shared the substance of the above with Joseph Hoffmann, who said in response "Your inference is correct; I mean to make a distinction between those who simply want to torpedo the Project and those who are simply seeking clarification." I am still not clear which blogs are being talked about here, except that I can't imagine they are among those that I regularly read.
In comments to my previous post, Chris notes the statement, "I recognize no names, among the bloggers, of anyone who has been invited at any stage to participate in the JP" and wonders about April DeConick and James Tabor, both of whom were listed among the fellows, and both of who have commented on the project.
Update (11.40): Chris Zeichman has some helpful comments on Thoughts on Antiquity headed Hoffmann responds to blogdom on The Jesus Project.
Update (14.10): Doug Chaplin has some interesting comments on Metacatholic, The Jesus Project: On not being responsible.
Update (Tuesday, 12.20): Chris Heard has some helpful comments, also picking up on the "even bloggers . . ." comment, on Higgaion: Jesus Project Update.
Labels: Jesus Project
Sunday, August 12, 2007
R. Joseph Hoffmann responds to Jesus Project Concerns
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 Robert Price's Website:
Statement by R. Joseph Hoffmann: Jesus Project v. Jesus Squad
I would like to make a couple of my own brief comments on the statement, but I think it fair to wait until people have had chance to read the statement first.
Statement by R. Joseph Hoffmann: Jesus Project v. Jesus Squad
I would like to make a couple of my own brief comments on the statement, but I think it fair to wait until people have had chance to read the statement first.
Labels: Jesus Project
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
The Jesus Project: Robert Price's Response
Robert Price has published a helpful Response to Concerns about the Jesus Project on his official homepage. Price was invited to be a fellow, but notes that there has been a slow trickle of information since the launch; he is inclined to blame the overcommitment of those involved, especially Hoffmann, who has "many other duties". On the fellows list, he writes:
There is one element of Price's response that requires a quick comment:
Price urges people "to reserve judgment while the nuts and bolts are worked out" and that may be good advice. I suppose the concern of many in the blogosphere has been the allegedly fraudulent nature of the claims, which does not inspire long term confidence about the project. As I mentioned previously, it may be that a good explanation and / or an apology will be forthcoming.
Update (11.54): in comments, Robert Price notes that Richard Bauckham was invited to the conference but could not attend, in which case the list of fellows may have been drawn from a list of people invited to the Scripture and Skepticism conference.
Update (14.54): April DeConick comments on the Forbidden Gospels Blog.
And as for that list of Fellows of the Project, featuring the names of some who have never in fact been officially asked, I don’t know. But, again, my guess is that someone simply mistook the list of participants in the “Scripture and Skepticism” event for a list of agreed Fellows of the Project. I don’t know what else it could be. It would be absurd to intentionally add names without their owners consent so I assume they did not.I think there is little doubt that this is in part behind the list of fellows because of the inclusion of people like James Tabor who were at that conference. But I doubt that it explains the whole list since people like Richard Bauckham were not at the conference, as far as I can tell. (I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong).
There is one element of Price's response that requires a quick comment:
Some seem to be gloating, and pretty overtly, since they had already written off the whole endeavor as one more Satanic scheme to subvert Christian faith and Western civilization.I think it needs to be made clear that any such comments are not associated with those in the biblioblogosphere, at least not among those I read and reference, and those sorts of reactions, which I have not seen, can only detract from the serious questions that are being asked.
Price urges people "to reserve judgment while the nuts and bolts are worked out" and that may be good advice. I suppose the concern of many in the blogosphere has been the allegedly fraudulent nature of the claims, which does not inspire long term confidence about the project. As I mentioned previously, it may be that a good explanation and / or an apology will be forthcoming.
Update (11.54): in comments, Robert Price notes that Richard Bauckham was invited to the conference but could not attend, in which case the list of fellows may have been drawn from a list of people invited to the Scripture and Skepticism conference.
Update (14.54): April DeConick comments on the Forbidden Gospels Blog.
Labels: Jesus Project
The Jesus Project's Problems
One of the strengths of the blogging community, all the more so when it is backed up by e-listers, is that it can hold public bodies to account; it can test misleading claims. The Jesus Project was recently announced as a kind of successor to the Jesus Seminar, but with the intention to be "the first methodologically agnostic approach to the question of Jesus’ historical existence". The project's website had an impressive roster of fellows including names like John Dominic Crossan, Richard Bauckham, Philip Esler, Adela Yarbro Collins, Kathleen Corley and Marcus Borg. Alongside these there were some independent scholars like Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. It has been interesting to watch as it has become clear that several of the listed fellows in fact have no association with the project at all. I asked Richard Bauckham, for example, and he confirmed that he had nothing to do with the project and could not imagine how he was added. I would like to add that I also asked Justin Meggitt about his involvement and he confirmed that he had been asked to be a fellow.
Key blogs that have been reporting on this developing story are Christopher Heard's Higgaion, James McGrath's Exploring Our Matrix and Thoughts on Antiquity (team blog, but I think this post is Chris Zeichman). Jim West has been posting developments as they happen on his blog. Doug Chaplin comments on Metacatholic. Two of the listed fellows themselves blog about it, April DeConick on Forbidden Gospels Blog and James Tabor back in January. Sorry if I have missed any.
Clearly the bloggers' and e-listers' efforts have made an impact because today all the materials on The Jesus Project website have been taken down, including the list of fellows, and leaving only the front page with an "update in progress" sign. Let us hope that when it returns there will be some explanation of the recent debacle. In the mean time, one of the encouraging things to come out of this is the extent to which the biblioblogging community is able successfully to test claims made in public by people working in our area and on this occasion to find them wanting. In this respect, it is a continuation of one of the fundamental benefits of academic scholarship -- it keeps people honest.
Key blogs that have been reporting on this developing story are Christopher Heard's Higgaion, James McGrath's Exploring Our Matrix and Thoughts on Antiquity (team blog, but I think this post is Chris Zeichman). Jim West has been posting developments as they happen on his blog. Doug Chaplin comments on Metacatholic. Two of the listed fellows themselves blog about it, April DeConick on Forbidden Gospels Blog and James Tabor back in January. Sorry if I have missed any.
Clearly the bloggers' and e-listers' efforts have made an impact because today all the materials on The Jesus Project website have been taken down, including the list of fellows, and leaving only the front page with an "update in progress" sign. Let us hope that when it returns there will be some explanation of the recent debacle. In the mean time, one of the encouraging things to come out of this is the extent to which the biblioblogging community is able successfully to test claims made in public by people working in our area and on this occasion to find them wanting. In this respect, it is a continuation of one of the fundamental benefits of academic scholarship -- it keeps people honest.
Labels: Biblioblogs, Jesus Project
![[Valid Atom]](valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom feed"){kind=small}
