Thoughts on Antiquity

R. Joseph Hoffmann has written up a response “to concerns about The Jesus Project,” focusing largely on the negative response in biblioblogdom. This is certainly warranted, given that almost universally negative comments about the project over the past few weeks. In short, the list of fellows was posted prematurely and at least some of the names were not intended to be on the final version. I think a few things are worth commenting upon regarding Hoffmann’s post.

First, given the information that various bloggers had, being little more than The JP’s website, the reaction was largely responsible. There was no reason to believe that the JP website was intended to be anything other than the final version, that the list of fellows was intended to be the final version, and that this is what the public was intended to see. Those of us who had knowledge about contrary - or contradictory - evidence to the claims made on the site were justified in presenting such, and doing so in such a way that it evidenced problems for the organization. Likewise, the fellows list included some individuals which would almost seem to discredit the enterprise. Freke and Gandy, for example, have no reason to be listed alongside Robinson, Crossan, DeConick, Bauckham, Price, Kloppenborg etc. These two individuals and their hermeneutic cannot be described as any part of Hoffmann’s trifecta of “non-confessional,” “non-parochial and non-theological.” Why not list minimalists who bear far more impressive credentials and thinking: Burton L. Mack, William Arnal, etc?

Thus, Hoffmann’s plea for bloggers to wait “until there is something to assess and not try to thwart us at the beginning of an organizational period” is a bit late; bloggers cannot be faulted for doing this, since there was no reason to believe it was in such a stage. It it were the final version, the JP would certainly be guilty of trying to manufacture credibility and these criticisms would be valid. Thankfully, this seems to be untrue.

Secondly, Hoffmann writes: “I recognize no names, among the bloggers, of anyone who has been invited at any stage to participate in the JP.” What of April DeConick and James Tabor? Certainly being listed as a fellow (if prematurely) constitutes some stage of invitation. It is clear that he encountered their comments, since he explicitly mentions Jim West who linked to both posts.

Most importantly, Hoffmann is oversimplifying when he frames the question as one of “Jesus Project vs. Jesus Squad,” which bears implicit claims of theological agendas. Some of the voices speaking negatively about the JP have no clear theological agenda in favor of Jesus’ historicity, such as Chris Weimer and Jeffrey Gibson. Similarly, Hoffmann unfortunately conflates criticism of the JP with blind opposition to the JP. I suspect that many people’s intention was never the latter (myself included). Some of us probably only wanted to point out problems believed to be considerable, especially given what we had known. There is certainly a continuum of opinions regarding the JP among bibliobloggers and not everyone’s comments should be interpreted as malicious. I eagerly await various discussions, even if it seems that the current evidence so strongly supports historicity that the question does not necessitate the formation of this group.

Lastly, if Hoffmann is serious about wanting people to send him their CV, or contacting him regarding other things about the project, he may want to provide some contact information or at least provide the JP’s mailing address.

Jim West (Update X) and Mark Goodacre have also taken note of Hoffmann’s posting.

Update: Mark Goodacre responds at length, so does MetaCatholic, and R. Joseph Hoffmann has commented to this post below, providing contact info for those who would like it.