James Crossley's blog Contact: jgcrossley10 - AT - yahoo - DOT - co - DOT - uk

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Real men don’t email frequently: Stephan Huller and a new twist on blogging and gender from a (relatively) creative sexual imagination

There has been a weird blog dispute over Stephan Huller not taking down a private email sent by Maurice Casey. Stephan has gone on the rampage since being asked by Maurice’s PhD student Stephanie Fisher to remove the comments. The back story is covered very well by Joel Watts and by Dilettante Hobby Horse. Stephan’s comments I refer to below are from the following links (though some do go missing so these links could be out-of-date at anytime):

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2010/01/just-why-am-i-in-this-business-again.html

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2010/01/and-now-for-something-completely.html

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2010/01/professor-casey-was-that-really-you.html

There is more going on on Joel Watts' blog (comments section) and some very weird comments on Mike Bird's blog (NOT by Mike I hasten to add - I suspect he hasn't noticed yet because it is on an old blogpost which Stephan has been commenting on).

A lot of what is said focuses on telling the truth and I think Stephan might just be reading a little too much into things and a very interesting kind of reading between the lines at that. That’s getting ahead of ourselves. Let’s ease our way in gently. Here’s one of Stephan’s milder comments:
I also noticed that she goes on people's blogs anonymously

Am I missing something here? How does Stephan know if she is acting, erm, anonymously? As far as I know Steph's comments have all been under her own name. Here is part of Stephan’s defence:
I have been working as part of a team developing a documentary on the controversy surrounding the Mar Saba document. Members of our team sent out emails to prominent scholars asking them to tell us what they thought of Roger Viklund's article on Stephen Carlson's shoddy methodology. They were explicitly told that their comments were 'on the record' - i.e. that they would be published in some form as part of our efforts to see what the opinion of scholarship is both of Viklund's analysis and the Mar Saba document itself. On the team there is myself, Charley Richardson and one other person.

I have been posting these comments at my blog. I figure the email said they would be on the record. We are working as a team. Why not give people a sample of some of the comments we thought were part of the public record.

I got the email from Charley Richardson too and it is a little vaguer than what Stephan says but he’s more or less right on the issue of public record. But...Maurice Casey very clearly said he didn’t want to be part of the team so it seems a reasonable request to ask for Stephan to remove the comments (it seems Charley Richardson had no problem doing so). To be honest it is difficult to see why Stephan has got all angry about this: it is hardly a big ask. ‘I wonder if any of these comments were actually from Casey, even the original email,’ asks Stephan. Yes they were. He told me, hence I'm writing all this, in addition to Maurice not being a reader of blogs.

Stephan complains,
In today's email we see 'Professor Casey' say a rambling non-sequitur (which I can't possibly understand):
some busy professors do not find it [the Mar Saba document] significant enough to discuss. I do, but that’s a little bit in the next book, not as big a bit as Price, but knowledge could in my view advance a lot more quickly if people like that did not hold it up. Why have you no interest in telling the truth?
...Today after I wasn't interested in hearing from his live-in girlfriend, Casey suddenly decides he really is interested in Mar Saba document and compares himself to Robert Price.

I'm going to suggest that Casey *isn’t* comparing himself to Price and that he is saying that the section on Price in Casey’s next book is bigger than the section on Mar Saba...? We will come to the girlfriend issue soon.

Stephan dropped one of his bombshells which is the basis of his further polemic:
I have an expose on what it takes to ahead in scholarship. It would make me feel better about my plight as an ignored scholar. It would temporarily allow me to get revenge for all the inequities and injustices I see is at work in the field...
Why am I doing this? Is it because I am starting to lose my ideals? Yeah, maybe that it. There might have been a time once upon a time when I thought that I could change the world. Now I am inclined to believe that the whole world is a cesspool and maybe it was meant to be a cesspool from the very beginning, from the highest authority in the universe...
...Thank you Professor X for convincing me that it is all one big cesspool - but a cesspool in which people like you can pontificate about what reprobates people like me are for not being willing to play the game - playing the game, in which you sit on top of the hill as some deified God I might add.

This Professor X (shouldn’t that be Professor XXX? See below) sounds interesting. I’d quite like to see the evidence to back up the claim ‘...which people like you can pontificate about what reprobates people like me are for not being willing to play the game - playing the game, in which you sit on top of the hill as some deified God I might add...’

But that’s the easy bit...Stephan got a little giddy when thinking about all things sexual. It is based on this claim made by Stephan:
Stephanie Fisher is Maurice Casey's live-in girlfriend who regularly sits on his computer to correspond with people...

She isn’t his live-in girlfriend (or live-out). I know Steph helped Maurice when he was very ill and it is no surprise they are very good friends. I know both of them and have met with them in Nottingham on several occasions. I can also exclusively reveal that she uses her own computer. Stephan also writes the following:
... Well after that incident with that unnamed professor, his girlfriend and their tendency to expose the details of their personal life on my blog...

Hmmm, but didn’t Stephan also invent details of personal life? Well yes...and here is another interesting take on the whole episode (with reference made to ‘Professor X’):
But you know what, the words in his email that keep ringing in my ears are his accusation against my integrity as a scholar - 'Why have you no interest in telling the truth?'
Yeah, that's right. I have no interest in the truth. You are the truth teller, is that it? Why then do you have such issues with me telling the truth and keeping up those posts and those comments?
If I were really interested in the truth I wouldn't ask you for your opinion on all of this. I would instead practice learning how to give fellatio to some other old fuck who made a name for himself by writing some important paper twenty years ago... Yeah, that's right. If I wanted to take part in your bullshit world I would find me an old professor whose dreams and fantasies I could fulfill - like the way Carlson 'proved' his master's suspicions about the falseness of the Mar Saba document. I'd just learn to seek out another old professor and 'work together for a while,' until I became 'a wonderful personal friend' to him or her and provided services that he or she could get on a vacation to the Third World for the price of a new pair of shoes.

Now, those are some interesting suggestions to make in the context of telling the truth. I know I’m going to regret this, but, ahh, how does Stephan find out his details? I’m really going to regret mentioning this one, but does Stephan’s reasoning apply to all PhD students of the person he calls ‘Professor X’ who may have become personal friends and stayed at his house...?

This is good too:
At one point I naively asked him what his relationship with Stephanie was. Was she his daughter? ...What is so odd about this whole situation is that I offered to call Professor Casey at his home and actually went so far as to email 'him' my phone number so 'he' could contact me... If the real Professor Casey really wants me to take these down please call me. I sent an email with my phone number. If you can't afford the long distance send me your phone number and I will call you.

Who wouldn’t be straight on the phone to a stranger who has asked if they have daughter, invent them a girlfriend, talks about someone called Professor X and a bit of oral sex, not to mention conspiracy theories about ancient religion?

Perhaps the best bit was Stephan’s handling of gender issues, discussed in more detail on Dilettante Hobby Horse. Make of this what you will:
Do men really take exception to 'rudeness'? That's something women concern themselves with. It's unmanly to complain about another man being 'rude' to you.
The deluge of emails seemed un-manly. I told him I would take down the comments. There was nothing embarrassing about these comments. Why was I getting messages almost every five minutes at one point - very reminiscent of a hysterical woman...
Your girlfriend is bad news.

To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman Psalm 6:24

Erm...er...um... eh?!! Then I think of Stephan’s invention of personal lives... Stephan asks, ‘I would be happy to hear any theories from anyone out there.’ Ok. Here’s one. I don’t like the frequent emailing inevitable in my job but I email all the time. So I’m wondering – assuming the Hullerite take on gender for one moment – if my dislike stems from being de-manly-ised? But then maybe without realising I’m...turning...into...a...hysterical...woman...

Right, enough rambling. Let’s boil it down to these questions:

Did Stephan invent the issue of the girlfriend relationship (and the implication of a sexual relationship) or does Stephan have access to information no one else does?

Did Professor X really ‘pontificate about what reprobates people like me are for not being willing to play the game’ (and recalling what Huller meant by ‘playing the game’)?

148 Comments:

Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

If people can't be honest, straight forward, courteous, then why bother with them?

January 13, 2010

 
Blogger J. L. Watts said...

The man has created some strange and interesting theories, none of this which compare to Professor X wrecking his 'life's work.'

January 13, 2010

 
Blogger J. L. Watts said...

Speaking of craziness, btw, I've had Huller use pseudonyms to post comments on my blog, and I fully suspect that his 'documentary' creation was little more than an attempt to gain admission into the voices of noted academics and turn it around - as he has tried to do - to support him. The man is certifiable.

January 13, 2010

 
Blogger steph said...

yes, pseudonyms used to attack me of using pseudonyms, interesting. It's as though he looks into a well to find those he's attacking, and sees a reflection of himself...

January 13, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

So, its pretty hurtful. And may be he looks into a well to see who he is for today. But may be its more serious than is apparent. The question I would ask is: What are Stephan Hullers motives? I somehow doubt that it has anything to do with Professor X wrecking his 'lifes work'.

January 13, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

So, its pretty hurtful. And may be he looks into a well to see who he is for today. But may be its more serious than is apparent. The question I would ask is: What are Stephan Hullers motives? I somehow doubt that it has anything to do with Professor X wrecking his 'lifes work'.

January 13, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Has anyone even met or seen Stephan Huller?

January 13, 2010

 
Blogger hatsoff said...

Bizarre. Is this typical behavior for the community of scholars of ancient history? I sure hope not.

January 13, 2010

 
Blogger Stephan Huller said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

January 13, 2010

 
Blogger J. L. Watts said...

@hatsoff - Stephan is not really into ancient history. More like historical fiction.

January 13, 2010

 
Blogger Stephan Huller said...

You see what I mean? So now my part in the dysfunctional hate triangle is to say 'yeah historical fiction like the Book of Acts' and then Joel follows up with ...

January 13, 2010

 
Blogger hatsoff said...

Mr. Huller (or is it Dr. Huller? I do not know your qualifications), actually I would have something to say about that: Do you not regard Acts as an attempt at history? It seems to me that one consequence of denying such would be to say that GLuke was also intended as fiction, which I cannot imagine being a tenable position.

January 13, 2010

 
Blogger Stephan Huller said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

January 13, 2010

 
Blogger Stephan Huller said...

Hatsoff,

Yes I think that Acts is fictitious. Set up my cross. My appointment with flogging is approaching. My basic rule of thumb is that whatever the Marcionites regarded as spurious probably was spurious. I know this doesn't sit well with the big guy so let's start the attacks. I am crazy, blasphemous, my God is this what it is like to have an abusive father? Let's go, Joel. Ready for my lesson Daddy. Explain to me God's will again ...

January 13, 2010

 
Blogger Stephan Huller said...

And no it's not Dr. Huller. I'll save Joel the punchline

January 13, 2010

 
Blogger hatsoff said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 13, 2010

 
Blogger hatsoff said...

Mr. Huller, I see. So then you think Acts and GLuke were composed by two different authors (or perhaps editors), yes? Do you also suppose Acts was composed in the mid-2nd century, to combat Marcionite heresy? By the way, in case you take the time to respond to my lay-level questions, you needn't worry about any rhetorical flogging from me, although I suppose a peanut gallery may form in our wake.

January 13, 2010

 
Blogger Stephan Huller said...

Since the big guy is beating up someone else I will explain my position regarding Acts. If you look carefully at Tertullian Against Marcion Book Four it is obvious that it was developed from an original work written by someone who employed a Diatessaron as his text of choice. There are just too many times when Tertullian's source (read the opening words of Against Marcion to see an acknowledgement that the existing text was rewritten countless times) thinks that Marcion has taken something out of 'his gospel' which is not in Luke. Williams has written about this. The bottom line is that Luke was written very late. I think that Theophilus is Theophilus of Antioch. I think Kuhne has written about this.

In any event, I think the structure of Acts has been missed. If you look at the work, its John Mark that holds the text together. He is the glue that links the Petrine narrative with the Pauline narrative which follows. I think that a case can be made that this is a recognition on the part of Acts original author (Polycarp?) that even though John Mark is ultimately subordinated his witness is still ultimately necessary to prove that there really was a 'Pauline church' and a 'Petrine church' which I think is totally fictitious.

As such when you go back to the opening words of what is now Luke the natural question of the identity of the original author gets resolved by the suggestion that Polycarp wrote both Acts and a single, long gospel in the name of John and that Irenaeus his successor 'broke up' this original single gospel + Acts canon (witnessed in early Syriac canons) into a fourfold gospel + Acts that we are now familiar with.

In other words the language of Luke 1:1 - 4 seems Johannine to me. There are Diatessaron manuscripts which begin with the words from Luke.

As crazy as this all sounds, David Trobisch read the argument and wrote the introduction for my unpublished manuscript.

The point again is that the Diatessaron context is the only scenario that accounts for the argument in Against Marcion Book Four. I think that Irenaeus introduced the idea that Paul rejected John Mark in order to allow for Luke to become the text that the apostle repeated identifies as 'his gospel.' If you look at the Muratorian canon, the writings of Ignatius and various other texts the idea that John's churches were somehow connected to Paul's churches can be discerned.

Just look at Ephesus as an example. Can anyone imagine that the church said to be established by Paul didn't also claim to preserve the original text of John. How do these two ideas get resolved? Paul had another gospel - Luke - but the Ephesians discarded it and chose John instead? Or maybe Paul didn't have the gospel already. But this doesn't make sense either.

The only thing that makes sense (especially in light of the Ignatian epistles) is that the Ephesian church had a special place in Asia Minor BECAUSE it fused the traditions of Paul and John in the preservation of that one gospel text (that I think Polycarp forged anyway). There is only so much you can say in one of these boxes http://www.radikalkritik.de/Huller_Peregrin.htm

January 13, 2010

 
Blogger Stephan Huller said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 13, 2010

 
Blogger Stephan Huller said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 13, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Has anyone met or seen Stephen Huller?

January 13, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Could he be another manifestation of N T Wrong? After all there is a book?

January 13, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

And it is the mad season when men have nothing better to do. And N T has just given-up his trainspotting.

January 13, 2010

 
Blogger steph said...

Stephan, I don't think you have read the posts here, at Dilettante Hobby Horse and at Joel's blog, very carefully at all. James has made clear that Maurice, he and I are friends. Gosh, he comes over and the three of us have dinner sometimes. He spoke to us on the phone last night. Maurice and I sent James and Joel the email correspondence threads between you and Maurice and copies of the original comments (abusive?!! we don't think so!) I left on your blog some of which is published according to their choices in the three posts. I sent no emails. And why Stephan would you expect Maurice to email you late at night when his computer was turned off? I showed him your post with his email published in it, on my computer and he asked me to ask you to take the post down. Bird's post is also linked to on James' and the DHH posts to expose your comments. Nobody is worried about Bird's post and it has already been noted that most thought it off mark, and some of the comments reflect this.

The only one destroying your 'life's work' is you. You do not know how to tell the truth about anything, including your 'scholarship'.


All of us who know Joel, know that he is honest and kind. He is a very good friend too.

But please carry on with your entertaining theories and maybe beat the comment record...

Geoff: Wrong is intellectually sophisticated, widely learned and knows how to handle the evidence - and he doesn't make stuff up!

January 13, 2010

 
Blogger J. L. Watts said...

No, Geoff. NT Wrong had a certain, um, sanity about him.

January 14, 2010

 
Blogger Michael F. Bird said...

Whoa! Who dragged me into this? I've had my tiff with Stephanie in the past, but I think we have reached a mutual agreement to live and let live. Commenting on aspects of her personal life on a blog is below par and such things should not be uttered in biblioblogdom.

James, this is the weirdest blog post I have ever read!

January 14, 2010

 
Blogger Stephan Huller said...

Steph, there is no point in rehashing what happened. In order to defend my actions I would have to explain them and explaining them would mean violating my promise to the professor. Do I wish that I could take back the things I said about you? Of course.

The context was Biblical and part of a debate question how 'conservative' Joel really is. He just posted a ludicrous post that the story of Adam and Eve isn't mysogynist by its very nature. There are countless stories where cohabitation = harlotry in Biblical traditions. Many of my comments were not published by Joel so the context isn't properly preserved but that's not the point.

If I could do it all over again I wouldn't have said those things. It would have better not to make a point with Joel through you in the same way that it wasn't a bright idea to make a point with you through the issue with the professor. This wasn't me at my best.

Pride's like a knife. If I could turn back time.

January 14, 2010

 
Blogger hatsoff said...

Mr. Huller,

Wow, that's quite a hypothesis. I can see why you get a lot of flack for it. I myself know very little when compared to professional historians, but from what I do know it seems your solution is unnecessarily complex. For example, if Irenaeus says some unusual things about Marcion's Gospel, that's easier to explain how it could be that Marcion just happened to leave out everything unique to Mt and Mk. Or if we say that Luke is an interpolated version of Marcion, then the idea of a proto-orthodox author using Marcion's Gospel as a framework seems wilder still.

Of course, I cannot stress enough that I am no scholar, and so my historical conclusions are bound to be precarious. However, it does seem that mainstream scholarship shores them up, and that makes me feel quite comfortable in them.

I thank you for your response.
--Ben

January 14, 2010

 
Blogger J. L. Watts said...

Wow - Stephan. you realize that anyone could read my blog and see that your statement about me 'just posting a story on Adam and Eve' is a complete lie. My goodness, really, you just pulled another huller.

Your unpublished comments said some vile and ugly things about Steph - unbecoming of my blog. I still have them, actually, but they make me sick just reading them.

Don't worry, Ben, Huller isn't a scholar either. He writes fiction.

January 14, 2010

 
Blogger Stephan Huller said...

Joel, it must be fun to play the game and be the referee. If I wanted to continue this nonsense I would post the comments I am talking about (because they still say pending). I have done everything to make the professor happy and more. There is no more that can be asked of me.

If I wanted to continue our dysfunctional hate triangle, about now I would hit the ball back to you. But even a jackass like me can see that some people are beyond repentance. I am happy that I have tried to set everything right on my end.

You have a childish notion that absolute knowledge of early Christianity is possible given the incompleteness of the surviving testimonials.

If you think abusing people you disagree with will make up for the loss of the earliest and best evidence regarding the origins of your religion I have done my part with your rehabilitation.

Find someone else to play therapist with you ...

January 14, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

N T Wrong as N T Wrong may be: "intellectually sophisticated, widely learned and knows how to handle the evidence - and he doesn't make stuff up!" But you forget that he is an actor. He does voiceovers on a commercial basis - you should hear his English voice. He is a man of many parts. His background is theatre. And he is schizophrenic. He can create any style of writing.

January 14, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

He may have created some strange theories, but he has kept Jesus. The Catholic Church promotes him, as it did all his other aliases and books which have a pattern of keeping their Jesus's in their various forms, as in The Jesus Puzzle. That is my conclusion. The aim is to undermine traditional evangelical belief. The contents of the books are fictional and nonsensical.

January 14, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

It also stifles the debate of those who don't believe in Jesus which the Catholic Church is quite happy to do.

January 14, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

He's quite good with a computer too. It isn't the first time that he's stolen someone's blog and doctored it.

January 14, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

A "creative sexual imagination" - N T fits the bill.

January 14, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

So Joel belongs to the greater Church of Jesus Christ. Well where the heck is that? Is he yet another manifestation conjured-up for us, a Mr Good, while Stephan Huller is Mr Bad. You see the whole internet thing is totally unreliable. So come-on Joel (Polycarp) who are you? Have you met or seen Stephen Huller? And has anyone met or seen Joel Watts?

January 14, 2010

 
Blogger J. L. Watts said...

Geoff, I've not really been able to make sense of your comments and was wondering why... Oh, yes, that's right, you've made the Dilettante Hobby Horse Biblioblog for some comments pretty similar to this and indeed, pulling hullers left and right.

No, no one has met me. I am a figment of your imagination....

January 14, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

But are you just a figment of everyone's imagination, except yourself of COARSE (remember)? A picture is not proof of identity - it could be anyone, dead or alive. Where do you go to Church? I understand you are a member of the larger Church of Jesus Christ, wow!. It didn't take that much thought, to find a form of words by which you do not have to identify yourself, did it? As for 'orthodox' doctrine, any child could find that out. You are yet another fraud.

January 15, 2010

 
Blogger J. L. Watts said...

Yep, I am. No one has met me. I'm just a cyber-citizen. And I'm watching you....

January 15, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

So first we have John Loftus, then Stephan Huller, and now Joel Watts, all cybermen creating alot of noise on the web, along with hatsoff. Could they be from one source?

January 15, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

A Link Between Judas (or rather the Gospel of Judas) and the Removal of Animal Sacrifice.

It comes from the Tchacos fragments of the Gospel of Judas, (a preliminary translation, in red).

(p.41) Jesus said [to them], "Stop [sacrificing animals].

'animals' has been added in red

This shows what the issue was going right back to Judas who turned his back on animal sacrifice. It was the issue that came to divide priest from prophet. It wasn't Judas the Galilean, it was Judas the Hasmonean who was the original subject of Josephus's introduction to 'War'.

January 15, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Romans 4 was edited from a document that looked something like the following.

Chapter 4

MOSES CLEANSED BY THE SPIRIT AND NOT BY SACRIFICE
'What then shall we say that Moses, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Moses was cleansed by sacrifice, he had something to boast about -- but not before God. Now when a priest sacrifices, his cleansing is not credited to God as a gift, but as a reward. However, to the prophet who does not sacrifice, but obeys the Spirit who cleanses the impure, his cleansing is credited to God. Thus Moses’ cleansing was credited to God. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he sacrificed, or before? It was not after, but before! And he received the sign of God's presence before he sacrificed. So then, he is the father of all who obey the Spirit but have not sacrificed, in order that cleansing might be credited to God.'

This is how the prophets of the first century viewed Moses. The editors (Flavians) substituted Abraham for Moses sacrifice for circumcision.

Moses received a sign (a promise of God's presence with him, Ex. 3:12) and before he offerred sacrifice.

January 15, 2010

 
Blogger steph said...

'violating my promise to the professor' ... that's frankly ridiculous in view of your further rude email as well as rude and mendacious comments on blog threads regarding Maurice and me. You promised to take down an email which neither Maurice nor Charley Richardson gave you permission to publish, as well as another post too making the same sort of rude and mendacious comments that you have nevertheless continued to make on blogs. Following the removal of your first two posts you have put up another post with unambiguous and rude insinuations about us as well as an (entertaining) attempt to engage a previous publication of Maurice's. I have showed him that, as I showed him Mike's (bless his heart) post whenever he first wrote it, with initial comments, and again more recently exposing your rude and mendacious comments. As friends, I always share amusing things from blogs and as friends, we both often share language.

'Respecting anonymity' indeed: the email was not written with permission to be published, anonymous or not.

January 15, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Steph, why waste your effort whingeing? Its all a load of nonsense, Watts, Huller, and hatsoff are all frauds.

January 16, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Steph is a fraud too.

January 16, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Rom.1
THE WICKEDNESS OF THE PRIESTS - THEY EXCHANGED THE SPIRIT OF GOD FOR SACRIFICES OF BIRDS AND ANIMALS
The Spirit of God is being revealed from heaven against all the wickedness of the priests who suppress the spirit of truth by their spirit of deceit, since the Spirit of God is plain to them. For since the creation of the world, God's Spirit has been clearly heard, being understood from what he has spoken, so that priests are without excuse. For although they hear the Spirit of God, they neither glorify him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their spirits of truth are darkened. Although they claim to be wise, they exchange the glory of the Spirit of God for sacrifices of birds and animals.

January 16, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

This came through on April De-Conick's blog.

J. Quinton said...

According to Epiphanius' Panarion 30.16, he quotes a line from the gospel used by the Ebionites that says: "[Jesus said] 'I am come to abolish the sacrifices: if ye cease not from sacrificing, the wrath (of God) will not cease from weighing upon you'". Depending on how reliable Epiphanius was and who the earliest Ebionites were, provisions against animal sacrifice might have been a staple of early Christians.

January 15, 2010 1:26 PM

January 16, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

James, its your watch. All the comments, apart from my own are made under pseudonymns. So what do you make of that? I thought this blog was about the earliest christianity, whereas all I see from the pseudonymous commentators is insanity.

Its like you say, real men don't email frequently. I repeat my question: why are you mixed-up with these folk?

January 16, 2010

 
Blogger J. L. Watts said...

Geoff is hilarious.

Poe's Law

January 16, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

'Joel' is hilarious. He a cyberman whose watching me - pity about the round poe face and the ginger hair. Nothing that plastic surgery can't correct. But a workout would help, that is assuming he is real. I wonder what the rest of him is like.

January 16, 2010

 
Blogger J. L. Watts said...

Geoff, you should take your act on the road, I mean, if it exists, and other people exist which most likely, those outside of England don't. Germany? A Freudian metaphor about internalization of hate and aggression. France? Nope. France is an internalization of the desire to make cheese.

Nope, no one really exists. Just you. Guess that makes you a god.

January 16, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

And the US is an example of what? Aggression? War? College massacres? You see Joel, you are just a pig headed, ignorant product of your own society.

January 16, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

If you are looking for God, you should look no further than the US. Because there you will find him. His name is 'Joel L. Watts', among many others who think they rule this world. But be especially careful about the biblical gods in institutions who tend to be very loud and nasal. They make Huller look an angel.

January 16, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

So James, what makes you get mixed-up with this lot?

January 16, 2010

 
Blogger steph said...

Geoff, you're on another planet, and on this one nobody believes a word Huller says. But perhaps you two were separated at birth? ;-)

January 16, 2010

 
Blogger J. L. Watts said...

@steph ha!

Now, that wasn't a real laugh because none of us by Geoff is real.

January 16, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

So why James are you mixed-up with this lot?

January 16, 2010

 
Blogger J. L. Watts said...

You know, I was looking over these comments, and if there were made here in the states, I think some legal action might be necessitated.

And Geoff, how do you know we are not all James? Or maybe we are all Jim West?

January 17, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

But you don't exist. The lesson for you my friend (Jeffrey) is don't start it.

January 17, 2010

 
Blogger J. L. Watts said...

Is Jeffery your imaginary friend?

January 17, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Mark 2

JAMES IS ASKED WHY HIS FOLLOWERS DO NOT SACRIFICE
Now the high priests were sacrificing. Some priests came and asked me, "How is it that the high priests are sacrificing, but your followers do not?" I answered, "How can the prophets of the Spirit sacrifice while He is with them? They cannot. No-one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins."

How does this grab you? Makes you think! New wine!

January 17, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

And this:

Mark 3

WHICH IS LAWFUL - TO OBEY THE SPIRIT OR SACRIFICE
Another time I went into the temple, and a priest with a sacrificial animal was there. The high priests were looking for a reason to accuse me, so they watched me closely. I said to the priest, "Which is lawful: to obey the Spirit or to sacrifice." But they remained silent.

January 17, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Mark 12

THE MOST IMPORTANT COMMANDMENT - OBEY THE SPIRIT
Noticing that I had given them a good answer, one of the high priests asked me, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" I answered, "The most important one is this: Obey the Lord your God with all your heart. To obey him with all your heart, IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ALL BURNT OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES." When they saw that I had answered wisely, from then on no-one dared ask me any more questions.

Here we have an important statement as to where the prophet James stood on the subject of animal sacrifice. It gives the necessary support to all the other examples.

January 17, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Acts 19

THE TEMPLE TREASURER, ANANIAS, TRIES TO DRUM-UP SUPPORT IN THE SYNAGOGUE (IN ROME) - HE ACCUSES ME OF TEACHING THAT SACRIFICES ARE NO GOOD AT ALL.
The high priest Ananias, who collected silver half-shekels, brought in no little tax for the temple. He called the brothers together, and said: "men, you know the temple receives a good income from this city. And you see and hear how this fellow James has convinced and led astray large numbers of brothers here in Rome. He says that sacrifices to God are no good at all. There is danger the temple of God will be robbed of its income."

January 17, 2010

 
Blogger James Crossley said...

I removed a couple of comments. Not the sort of thing I like doing but they were a touch on the libelous side...

Geoff, I get involved because I am on the quest for the historical Joel. Don't tell me he's simply a creation!

January 18, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Its like searching for historical Jesus. James, he either is JG (and he has used any old photo), or is JGs colleague. Who else would write 'Jeffery' or talk of legal action, unless he wished to provoke? I have seen both before. And then there is the copying of Mike Bird's blog, and N Ts sexual imagination.

January 18, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

And for good measure:

James 2

DO NOT LISTEN TO PRIESTS - WHAT GOOD IS IT IF A PRIEST CLAIMS TO SACRIFICE BUT DOES NOT HAVE THE SPIRIT
My brothers, as prophets, don't listen to priests. Suppose Ananus comes and says, “You sit on the floor by my feet.” Have you not compromised the Spirit? Has not God chosen those who are prophets to be in the Spirit he promised those who obey him? Is it not the priests who are persecuting you? Are not they the ones who are dragging you before the Sanhedrin? Are they not priests who are slandering the Spirit whom you obey? If you obey the Spirit you are doing right. But if you listen to priests, you are condemned by the Spirit. Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the Spirit that gives freedom, because condemnation will be shown to priests who have not been obedient. What good is it, my brothers, if a priest claims to sacrifice but does not have the Spirit? Can sacrifice cleanse him? You see that a person is cleansed by the Spirit, and not by sacrifice.

January 18, 2010

 
Blogger J. L. Watts said...

Actually, I didn't mention Jeffery first nor did I threaten legal action.

Geoff, you are the defining example of Poe's Law. You need a smiley face

January 18, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Whats this?

J. L. Watts said...
Is Jeffery your imaginary friend?
January 17, 2010

You obviously understand the significance of 'Jeffery' as distinct from Jeffrey - something between JG and myself.

And this:

J. L. Watts said...
You know, I was looking over these comments, and if there were made here in the states, I think some legal action might be necessitated.
January 17, 2010

If this is not a threat of legal action, what is?

They are the scare tactics of JG.

January 18, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Circumcision was originally sacrifice, don't you agree Jeffrey?

January 18, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

And the academics have been wrong for a very long time, haven't they Jeffrey?

January 18, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Gal.2

SACRIFICE DOES NOT CLEANSE
Fourteen years ago, I came to Rome with Simon. I brought Judas along also. I set before the brothers the Spirit that I proclaimed among the Judeans. When Ananus came to Rome, I opposed him to his face. I said to Ananus in front of them all, a man is not cleansed by sacrifice, but by obedience in the Spirit.

January 18, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Gal.3

DID YOU RECEIVE THE SPIRIT BY SACRIFICE?
You foolish Judeans! Ananus has bewitched you. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by sacrifice, or by obeying the Spirit you heard? Are you so foolish? After receiving the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your cleansing by sacrifice? Have you suffered so much for nothing -- if it really was for nothing? Does God give you his Spirit because you sacrifice, or because you obey the Spirit you heard?

January 18, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Gal.5

STAND FIRM IN THE SPIRIT – IF YOU SACRIFICE THE SPIRIT WILL BE OF NO VALUE
It is for glory that the Spirit has cleansed us. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of sacrifice. Mark my words! I, tell you that if you sacrifice, the Spirit will be of no value to you at all. So I say, obey the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the spirit of deceit. For the spirit of deceit desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the spirit of deceit. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the spirit of deceit.

January 18, 2010

 
Blogger J. L. Watts said...

Opps - a transposition of letters. And no, that is not a threat, but a statement of fact. Wow, the medication you must go through.

January 18, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

A typical JG get-out. Y'ouve been caught with your trousers down -'opps' he says - he suffers from dislexia folks - JG does too. It comes through sitting at all his computers for too long. The mere mention of legal action is typical JG. And so is talk of medication.

So I am right about circumcision being substituted for sacrifice, aren't I Jeffrey. There was no Jesus, was there Jeffrey. There was a prophet James, wasn't there Jeffrey. James was responsible for most of the original New Testament, wasn't he Jeffrey. There was no Paul, was there Jeffrey. There was no mission to Gentiles, was there Jeffrey. And obedience in the Spirit was the way to be cleansed before God, wasn't it Jeffrey.

January 19, 2010

 
Blogger J. L. Watts said...

Wow or should I spell it wow. I can never tell.

January 19, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

So who is Stephan Huller and Joel Watts? No-one is any nearer to saying, and they won't say.

January 19, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

James, there are a number of semi-academic religeous books being sold (for example the Jesus Puzzle supposedly written by Earl Doherty) whose authors cannot be traced. The book supposedly by Stephen Huller would seem to be in that mould. I come from a science (physics) background in which such a practice would be total anathema. The practice originates in the US where the dollar rules. It seems as though either there are some uncscroupulous people out there who couldn't care less what they write so long as the gullible public buy their books, or there is something more sinister going-on. If it is the former, then 'Joel Watts' is merely stirring up trouble to draw attention to Stephan Huller and his book, presumably to encourage the suckers among the general public to buy his book. Casey is just being used. So what do you think?

January 20, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

The use of false identities is endemic in the US, as is shown by the Raphael Golb affair covered by Robert Cargill. I'll bet the mere mention of Raphael Golb sends shivers down JGs spine.

January 20, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

And why has Robert Cargill gone to so much trouble to discredit Raphael Gold? It has seemed to be an unusual preoccupation.

January 20, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Was it because Robert Cargill is a supporter of the Qumran-Essene theory, whereas Norman Golb, Raphael Golb's father, is not.

Norman Golb says in his article Fact and Fiction in Current Exhibitions of the Dead Sea Scrolls:
1 The Scrolls are of Jerusalem origin.
2 Qumran was a secular site with no connection to a religeous sect, and that the Scrolls had no organic relation to that site.

Golb is essentially right, with one or two qualifications.

January 20, 2010

 
Blogger J. L. Watts said...

Maybe he not the real Bob Cargill?

January 21, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

What the scrolls show is that the priests were not always in control of the temple. There was a time when they were exiled to a figurative Damascus, i.e. out of the temple. That time began with Judas the Hasmonean (Maccabeus) who 'took down the altar of burnt offering', and brought-in new furniture for the sanctuary where they celebrated the Festival of Lights. This was the Judas remembered in the Tchacos fragments. Sacrifices of animals had previously continued under Antiochus and the priests, but now they were both defeated.

The extant record (Ant.12.7) has been heavily garbled by Flavian historians.

January 21, 2010

 
Blogger Peter M. Head said...

I thought that 80 comments meant some interesting engagement with the interesting post. Now I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Probably I'll just eat my lunch.

January 21, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

J. L. Watts said...
Maybe he not the real Bob Cargill?

January 21, 2010

He is the real Bob Cargill. But he knows JG and has probably been instructed/helped by JG. In tracking Raphael Golb's activities, he has done a number of things that are typical of JG.

January 21, 2010

 
Blogger Steven Carr said...

Professor Maurice Casey did email me on the subject of Jesus, but I would never publish the contents as I don't believe they are at all useful to anybody.

January 21, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Robert Cargill, the Qumran-Essene theory is finished, washed-up, caput, no longer tenable. The 'essenes' were observed by Pliny around 70 CE when there was a five year period of peace. Nero had put an end to the priests in 66CE. The ranks of the 'essenes' (prophets) were being swelled by by 'a throng of newcomers'. And this was only in one place to the 'west of the Dead Sea', probably Ein Gedi, where there were palm trees. And they were in every village, where no doubt their numbers were growing too.

Pliny wrote:

"To the west (of the Dead Sea) the Essenes have put the necessary distance between themselves and the insalubrious shore. They are a people unique of its kind and admirable beyond all others in the whole world; without women and renouncing love entirely, without money and having for company only palm trees. Owing to the throng of newcomers, this people is daily reborn in equal number; indeed, those whom, wearied by the fluctuations of fortune, life leads to adopt their customs, stream in in great numbers. Thus, unbeleivable though this may seem, for thousands of centuries a people has existed which is eternal yet into which no one is born: so fruitful for them is the repentance which others feel for their past lives!"

January 21, 2010

 
Blogger Jim said...

what the...

i just saw this (sorry- occupied with other stuff since it appeared).
what craziness. i told you you should moderate comments. it keeps the loony nut cases away. once they tire of sending you personal emails and friend requests on facebook they leave you alone.

anyway- to accuse steph and maurice of what huller has is libelous. i think they ought to sue.

January 21, 2010

 
Blogger steph said...

Thanks Steven for your wisdom, that almost had us both ROFL. I knew he shouldn't have bothered.

January 21, 2010

 
Blogger J. L. Watts said...

Oh sure, Pliney you believe existed. Nope, I'm really Pliney too - younger and older

January 21, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Jim said:
"anyway- to accuse steph and maurice of what huller has is libelous. i think they ought to sue."

Sue who? Stephan Huller alias Joel Watts alias 'Steph' alias Steven Carr alias John Loftus alias guess who? We could get Dierk yet who took a bullet in Iraq. The possibilities are endless.

THE QUMRAN-ESSENE THEORY IS FINSIHED. (I hope Raphael Golb gets-off)

January 21, 2010

 
Blogger Steven Carr said...

I can just imagine Steph laughing at people who get an email saying 'I really cannot establish any of this here.... I can't altogether explain why except in a whole book,' and who decide the email they had received was not much of an explanation.

I would like to thank Professor Casey for his time and trouble in sending me an email outlining why it would take him too long to explain his opinions.

But as I said, and as the email explained, it did not really contribute much.

January 21, 2010

 
Blogger steph said...

ah - you're right, he did write that - but did we really misinterpret the tone of your comment on this post? You said the reason you wouldn't publish his comments in his email to you is because you don't 'believe they are at all useful to anybody', not that Maurice said so himself or that Maurice didn't give you permission to publish.

January 21, 2010

 
Blogger Jim said...

joel is john loftus???? i knew it!!!!!!!!!

(that's sarcasm, by the by since in new orleans i happened to have met joel- a delightful guy- and saw loftus (choosing to avoid him like the black death).)

January 21, 2010

 
Blogger J. L. Watts said...

The black death is a lot more interesting.

January 22, 2010

 
Blogger J. L. Watts said...

And friendly

January 22, 2010

 
Blogger Steven Carr said...

Professor Casey said himself he was not able to explain in a short email.

All I had done was ask him if the words attributed to Jesus in 1 Corinthians 11 were authentic.

I don't know why it takes a whole book for him to answer 'yes' or 'no'.

January 22, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Yes. In the original of the prophets.

PRAYER IN THE SPIRIT

Now I want you to realise that the Lord of every man is the Spirit, and the Lord of every woman is the Spirit. Every man who prays or prophesies in the Spirit honours his Lord. And every woman who prays or prophesies in the Spirit honours her Lord. In the Spirit, woman is independent of man , and man is independent of woman. All Spirits come from God.

When you come together, it is not in the Spirit you pray, for as you pray, each of you goes ahead without waiting for the Spirit. One remains standing, another gets up. Don't you have the Spirit to pray in? Or do you despise the Spirit of God and humiliate those who have the Spirit? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not! For anyone who prays without waiting for the Spirit of the Lord brings judgement on himself. That is why many among you are powerless and impure, and a number of you have stumbled. But if we waited the Spirit, we would not come under judgment. When we are waiting for the Spirit, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned. So then, my brothers, when you COME TOGETHER to PRAY, WAIT FOR THE SPIRIT.

January 22, 2010

 
Blogger hatsoff said...

If we are interested in determining whether Jesus actually said the words written in 1Co 11:24-25, then the answer, in my limited judgment, is probably not, no. But is that all we really care about? It seems to me that we're more or less forced in assuming that Jesus did say those words, since that is the picture of the Last Supper painted by our earliest sources. After all, we don't want to simply express skepticism. Rather, we wish to develop a shared historical narrative in which we may understand our cultural past. At least, that's how I view things.

January 22, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

1 Corintians is largely a contrived fabricated document. But there are glimmers of the original which was much shorter. The original was written from Rome, probably by James, to the prophets in Judea.

January 22, 2010

 
Blogger steph said...

Actually Steven, you sent a whole list of questions. He replied 'it is very difficult for me to answer your questions, because you assume opinions which I do not share.' For example, you start off with 'presumably, Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, or failed Messianic-candidate..' etc and go on to assume things about the last supper, then listing questions like 'why did Jesus expect his movement to proclaim him Messiah after his death?'. Jesus didn't expect it to, Steven. Maurice went on to tell you his opinions, and actually provide you with several pages from his book Aramaic Sources of Mark which dealt with the last supper and reconstruction of its source. He also pointed you in the direction of Martin Karrer in regard to the debate over 'messiahship'. Of course it takes his whole forthcoming book to explain the Life of Jesus of Nazareth and put everything in context.

The whole reason we both laughed out loud (yes imagine that - he laughs louder than me) is because you seem to assume you could have published his email if you had believed his 'comments' were 'useful to anybody'.

January 22, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Another book to explain the life of Jesus of Nazareth! What makes Maurice think he can do any better than the millions of others. Jesus never existed.

The principal prophet was James who went to Rome because things were getting too hot in Jerusalem. He was sent back to Jerusalem by the senate, and Nero, only to suffer at the hands of Ananus about two years later.

January 22, 2010

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This farce has gone on long enough. Isn't it obvious to everybody that Geoff Hudson is none other than... Jim West?!!!?

http://aliasesofgeoffhudson.blogspot.com/2010/01/hudson-is-jim-west.html

January 22, 2010

 
Blogger beowulf535 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 23, 2010

 
Blogger beowulf535 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 23, 2010

 
Blogger beowulf535 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 23, 2010

 
Blogger beowulf535 said...

I have been watching this debate with complete and utter disappointment. I can't believe how juvenile Biblioblogging is. Do you people hear what you are saying? Do you see how you immature you look to the rest of us regular folks? As I see it one guy is trying to get people to take another look at whether Morton Smith was wrongly accused of forging the Mar Saba document and the rest of the world wants to focus on whether he is sexist. James asks 'I wonder what Huller's motives were?' I know what they are and I am not an academic. Just read the email. If the Mar Saba document is authentic it changes everything. I can't believe that in 104 posts no one is talking about the article which has been the personal crusade of this 'sexist' you keep maligning.

Back in my day we let a man speak without referencing all this kind of personal distraction. Instead I see you engaging in all kinds of name calling, accusations of 'sexism' splashed all over the page. Is this how things work in 'higher education'? I feel like I am back in high school or grade school or worse. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

If this is an academic blog why don't you focus on the issues. It isn't hard to make sense of this article he is pointing people to. I went there. There is no forger's tremor. Everyone should just go to the site and take a look for himself.

What happened to Morton Smith is going on here in this little forum. It is utterly shameful.

January 23, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

WHY NERO LED AN INVASION OF JUDEA IN 66 CE

Ant 20.2
About this time it was that Agrippina, the empress, and her son Nero, changed their course of life, and embraced the Spirit of God, and this on the occasion following: Claudius Caesar, who had also the name of Nero, fell in love with his brother’s daughter Agrippina, and took her to be his wife, and adopted her child. And when his son was adopted he called him Nero. He had indeed Britannicus, his son, by Messalina also, as he had a daughter Ocatvia by her besides. He sent Nero, with many presents, to Agrippa and he committed his son's preservation to him. Upon which Agrippa gladly received the young man, and had a great affection for him, and
embraced him after the most affectionate manner, and bestowed on him the country called Ein Gedi; it has a soil that bare amomum in great plenty:
Accordingly, Nero abode in Ein Gedi until his father's death.

But the very day that Claudius died, Agrippina sent for all the senators, and for those that had the armies committed to their command; and when they were come, she made the following speech to them: "I believe you are not unacquainted that my husband was desirous Nero should succeed him in the government, and thought him worthy so to do. However, I wait your determination; for happy is he who receives a kingdom, not from a single person only, but from the willing suffrages of a great many." Upon the hearing of which, they said that they confirmed the emperor’s determination. Agrippina replied to this, that she returned them her thanks for their kindness to herself and to Nero; but desired that they appoint Seneca to administer the affairs of the empire till he should come of age.

Now, during the time Nero abode at Ein Gedi, a prophet, whose name was James, taught him to worship God in the Spirit. He also, at the earnest entreaty of Nero, accompanied him when he was sent for by Seneca to come to Rome. And he said that he might worship God without sacrificing. He added, that the Spirit of God would cleanse him, though he did not sacrifice.

But as to Agrippina, the emperor’s mother, when she saw that the affairs of Nero’s empire were in peace, and that her son was a happy man, and admired among all men, and even among foreigners, by the means of God's Spirit over him, she had a mind to go to the city of Jerusalem, in order to worship at that temple of God which was so very famous among all men, and to offer her thank-offerings there. So she desired her son to give her leave to go thither; upon which he gave his consent to what she desired very willingly, and made great preparations for her dismission, and gave her a great deal of money, and she went down to the city Jerusalem, her son conducting her on her journey a great way.

Now her coming was of very great advantage to the prophets of Jerusalem; for whereas the priests did oppress them at that time, and many prophets died for want of what was necessary to procure food withal, Agrippina sent some of her servants to Alexandria with money to buy a great quantity of corn, and others of them to Cyprus, to bring a cargo of dried figs. And as soon as they were come back, and had brought those provisions, which was done very quickly, she distributed food to those that were in want of it, and left a most excellent remembrance behind her of this benefaction. And when her son Nero was informed of this persecution, he sent great sums of money to the prophets in Jerusalem.
..................................
Nero was a convert to the Spirit. This was the way to God adopted by the prophets. Quite probably, James went to Rome with Nero's blessing.

Nero, when he was older invaded Judea because the priests continued to oppress the prophets.

January 23, 2010

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and beowlf is Huller.

January 23, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

and Huller is JG.

January 23, 2010

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and JG is Jim West

January 23, 2010

 
Blogger J. L. Watts said...

Everyone is Huller. I bet even Hudson is Huller. So was Mark. And Peter. No, wait, they were Josephus. Okay, so we have two people that are real in the world. I just don't know who they are.

January 23, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Just to avoid all the confusion, JG is definately Huller, like Izates was Nero.

January 23, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Huller is to JG is as
Izates is to Nero is as
fictitious is to real

January 24, 2010

 
Blogger Robert R. Cargill said...

what the???

am i not me? who am i then?

and when have i ever accepted the qumran-essene hypothesis? in my book i never call the authors essenes, i think that at least 70 percent of the scrolls came from elsewhere (not qumran), and qumran was established as a fort.

who is geoff hudson btw?

it's almost comical, if you like lunacy as comedy...

January 25, 2010

 
Blogger Robert R. Cargill said...

seriously. who am i again? lol

January 25, 2010

 
Blogger J. L. Watts said...

You don't exist. We are all the same person who is out to get Geoff. I think, however, we are all French, but I'm not sure.

January 25, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Then why have you persued Raphael Golb in such a fanatic manner, Robert? It wasn't just for the sake of academia.

January 25, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

And secondly, Robert Cargill you have in effect supported the Qumran-Esene hypothesis by stating that you believe that a 'sect' of Jews ocupied Qumran. Now in most people's mind, talk of a 'sect' implies Essenes. What about priests occupying Qumran, and high priests at that, as implied by Hirschfeld in Qumran in Context, page 242? High priests, a 'sect'?

January 25, 2010

 
Blogger Robert R. Cargill said...

geoff,

1) i knew something was odd when rg cited your 'the aliases of jeffrey gibson' in his motion to dismiss. when rg cited gh, much was made clear to me. lol. :)

2) you calling me fanatical ~ bush calling obama bad president

3) as far as your comment about me and the essenes, all i can say is 'you truly have a dizzying intellect.' i never call them essenes, think qumran was built initially as a fort, and think over 70% of the scrolls came from outside qumran. jodi magness criticizes me, and yet i am a q-e supporter?? because by your twisted logic, mentioning a group of jews living at qumran *must* mean essenes in the minds of other people?

you can read the minds of other people? really??

i *do* think those at qumran were priests/of priestly order. hirschfeld was wrong about his interpretation of the site (even peleg said so), but whoever was at qumran were of priestly descent, imho.

what perplexes me is that you assume to know what i think, and place hypotheses in my mouth, and when i disabuse you of your ignorance, you state, 'well, by saying what you say, people think what they already think.' that's as nutty as saying i'm the same person as gadda, gibson, and everyone else you've claimed i actually am in the past year.

it's nutty. get help. seriously. ;-)

January 25, 2010

 
Blogger steph said...

don't worry bob, nobody takes him seriously - it's just that he has a free soapbox in James' comments (look at other posts!) because James is too NICE and unlike other bloggers won't delete anything ... except when, like with Huller, the comments become libelous ... so reflecting, perhaps Geoff's comments are too.......James!!!!

January 25, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

It seems to me Hirschfeld was almost right about his interpretation of the type of people that were at Qumran. He wrote:

"The word 'priests' can sometimes be misleading. These were the most sophisticated, affluent and fashionable of Jerusalem's citizens and the most romanized. The excavations of Nahman Avigad in Jerusalem reflect their opulent upper-class lifestyle. The priestly cemetery of Second Temple Jericho, excavated by Rachel Hachlili and Anne Killebrew, contains much evidence of this wealth. The results of both these exacavations show that though these people were wealthy and romanized, they were meticulous in following the halakah and in questions of ritual immersion and ritual purity. The archaeological findings at Qumran, indicating wealth and Roman culture, on the one hand, and mikvehs of the Jerusalem type and stone implements, on the other, suit these families exactly."

In other words they were high priests.

January 25, 2010

 
Blogger Robert R. Cargill said...

wonderful, geoff. you're arguing that hirschfeld believes high priests lived in a fortified estate manor at qumran, but that they are not responsible for any of the dss found in the nearby caves (a minor point you omitted.) high priests lived at qumran, but produced no scrolls? but they built and expanded the site, but did no rituals (which hirschfeld rejects).

hirschfeld never says priests lived at qumran so why do you say that he does? hirschfeld says it was a country estate.

now your misrepresenting hirschfeld and me. wait... i got it... i am yizhar hirschfeld!!! and we are both jeffrey gibson!

and you never answered my question: why are you saying that i say things i don't say?

i know... maybe the high priests are jeffrey gibson too...

lololol

January 25, 2010

 
Blogger Robert R. Cargill said...

i'm done here btw. it's just too far out.

imagine entertaining a conversation with someone who thinks we all are the same person......

at least when i argued that proposition, i had evidence to prove it. lol.

cheers - bc

January 25, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Robert, you can twist and turn Hirschfeld's words as much as you like. He as good as said that the people who occupied Qumran were high priests. That is the only conclusion one can come to. They obviously felt responsible for the Scrolls. They could have been involved in writing them, but not at Qumran. Golb claims their origin to be Jerusalem. They were mainstream priestly documents.

More importantly, you didn't answer my question. Why did you hunt Raphael Golb down like a dog? Did you think you were being clever?

January 25, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Robert,

Hirschfeld wrote (page 242 of Qumran in Context):

"At the time of Herod, Qumran was rebuilt as a fortified manor house; it continued to function as such until the first Jewish revolt.".............

"Against this background, it may be conjectured that one of the affluent priestly families in Jerusalem owned Qumran and its estate. This assumption may explain the strict observance of the laws of ritual purity by the inhabitants of Qumran (as expressed by the ritual baths and stone vessels found at the site)."..........

"These Jews, strictly observant according to the finds, continued to live at Qumran up to the first revolt, a crucial fact for any proposal of a scenario explaining the origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls."

January 25, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Except that perhaps the high priests were not so pure as they liked to make out. I refer to the young age of those in the cemetery. Joe Zias and James Tabor think the answer has to do with using the same unhealthy Essene toilets - now its my turn to really laugh.

January 25, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Rom. 1

THE WICKEDNESS OF THE PRIESTS
The Spirit of God is being revealed from heaven against all the wickedness of the priests who suppress the spirit of truth by their spirit of deceit, since the Spirit of God is plain to them. For since the creation of the world, God's Spirit has been clearly heard, being understood from what he has spoken, so that priests are without excuse. For although they hear the Spirit of God, they neither glorify him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their spirits of truth are darkened. Although they claim to be wise, they exchange the glory of the Spirit of God for sacrifices of birds and animals.

Because of their disobedience, God gives them over to spirits of lust. Even their women exchange natural spirits for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandon natural spirits and are filled with spirits of lust for one another. Priests commit indecent acts with other priests, and receive in their bodies the spirit of perversion.

Such was the immmoral behaviour of the priests, including those at Qumran.

January 25, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

'Stephan' apparently wrote:

"...Thank you Professor X for convincing me that it is all one big cesspool - but a cesspool in which people like you can pontificate about what reprobates people like me are for not being willing to play the game - playing the game, in which you sit on top of the hill as some deified God I might add."

So 'Stephan' sees himself as a reprobate in an academic community. He sees professor X as sitting on top of a hill as some deified God. He obviously considers himself the equal of professor X - he could 'play the game' if he wanted to. He would really like to be there himself 'sitting on top of a hill as some deified God'. I can think of one person in particular who fits. In fact, he is deified already by some - it is N T Wrong.

January 26, 2010

 
Blogger J. L. Watts said...

http://tinyurl.com/yb6bv9r

January 26, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

You obviuosly know where to shop for your pills in the US, don't you Jeffrey - what is it, schizophrenia? A breakdown in the relation between thoughts, feelings, and actions, frequently accompanied by delusions and retreat from social life. Is that why you spend so much time in front of all your computers?

January 26, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Joel (Jeffrey), I copied these hypocritical words from a blog of yours (one of many):

"This blog started as a small and feeble attempt to rid myself of words and thoughts that needed expressed. It was my feeble attempt to do something for the Kingdom of God. It has grown beyond my original intentions. I will focus on doctrine, on helps, and of course on bringing you news that interest me. I like to study. I like to know. Further, I like to know why and what I study and what and why you study what, well, you study. I want to learn more about what I believe, and why I believe it; if I find that my beliefs need to be changed, I will change it.
It relieves stress – believe it or not."

'beliefs need to be changed', eh, like the English weather. You 'like to study', well we know that. Jim West says he has met you, but it wasn't the guy in the picture we see here that he met. And when Jim West describes you as a 'delightful guy', we know he is lying.

January 26, 2010

 
Blogger J. L. Watts said...

Geoff, I can't believe someone like you is real...oh wait...never mind

January 26, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

I know Joel L Watts is not real, don't I Jeffrey.

January 26, 2010

 
Blogger steph said...

I wonder how much of what Geoff says he actually believes. I met not only Joel, but his son too. Even James saw them both. And at the same conference I spoke to Jeffrey Gibson too - quite a different person and quite alot older. And Bob and Jim and Mark - spoke to them too ... who else doesn't Geoff think is real?

Perhaps Geoff is right and the american SBL is just a conference of zombies... Matt 27.51-52 - yes we were all there too.

January 26, 2010

 
Blogger J. L. Watts said...

Steph, while I appreciate you vouching for my reality, you failed to mentioned that while you met all of us, I was the prettiest :)

I think Geoff has little else to do than get on line and see his name

January 26, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Certainly zombies - people who don't think. I have yet to see 'Joel' contribute anything worthwhile of any intellectual content to this blog, and the same goes for 'Steph'. So zombie is highly applicable. This especially so for some of those who attend American SBL - which I don't rate. I'll bet you meet 'Huller' there too.

January 27, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Pretty boy Jeffrey.

January 27, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

And no-one has seen Huller, or knows his whereabouts, or knows how he earns his living. Isn't that right Jeffrey? May be he will appear on a group photo at SBL. Now that would be a fine thing.

January 27, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

I can't help thinking that Robert Cargill and Jeffrey Gibson have a few things in common, suggesting collusion. They both fancy themselves as web detectives - they have a thing about being able to trace the computer IP addresses of those they would investigate. Cargill used address search tools extensively to hunt down Raphael Golb - he still hasn't said why he did it. Gibson is certainly known to use such tools. And they both have photos on the web that is a partial facial image - rather sinister don't you think. I would not trust either as far as I could throw them.

January 28, 2010

 
Blogger James Crossley said...

Oh no, what kind of monster have I spawned?!

January 28, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Robert Cargill wrote:

"The texts of too many of the Scrolls appear to be speaking of a community living and working together in the dessert. This interpretation best fits what is described within several of the Scrolls. And that interpretation best fits with their origin in the desert."

The 'Community' was a community throughout Judea. The priests were in every village. For example, the Church consists of a number of churches. The Community consisted of a number of communities. The Community Rule was a model for all the communities. The headquarters was Jerusalem where the Scrolls were written.

"They shall separate from the congregation of the men of falsehood and shall unite, with respect to the Law and possessions, under the authority of the sons of Zadok, the Priests who keep the Covenant, and of the MULTITUDE of the men of the community who hold fast to the Covenant." (1QS:5)

So Robert Cargill, according to you, there was a multitude of men living in community at Qumran. I don't think so. Your interpretation is not the one that best fits an isolated living in the desert.

And who were the congregation of the men of falsehood?

January 28, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

So Robert Cargill, there was no living in the desert by a community as such. This was a high priest's residence, and a fortified one too. Communal living was by the high priests servants. Obviously, at a time of war, it was capable of being reinforced and defended. This is all shown quite clearly in Hirschfeld's book. He also shows the carved stone vessels which would have been the possessions of wealthy people.

Qumran was attacked (after Masada), in 66 CE by Romans commanded by Nero.

January 28, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

On page 166 of Hirschfeld's Qumran in Context, I found (yesterday) this remarkable piece of evidence which has a relevance to Izates being an editor's substitute for Nero:

"In the excavations at Ein Gedi headed by Benjamin Mazar, a Roman bathhouse was discovered not far from the shoreline. The structure. which is typical of Roman military bathhouses throughout the empire, was in use between the two Jewish revolts. From the archive found by Yigael Yadin in a cave near Nahal Hever, we know that a Roman military unit was stationed in Ein Gedi after the first revolt. In the documents the village of Ein Gedi is called 'the village of our lord the Emperor'."

So at Ein Gedi, we have a Roman bathhouse and a Roman military unit, and from a nearby cave a citation that the village of Ein Gedi was called 'the village of our lord the Emperor'. Hirschfeld and Yadin assume that the Roman bathhouse and the military unit were post the first revolt because they believed Romans had not been present there before. But we have seen in the 'Izates' story, that Nero stayed at Ein Gedi (the place where 'ammomum' was plentiful) at the invitation of king Agrippa (who had not died). Claudius died while Nero was at Ein Gedi. Nero was declared Emperor. Thus the appropriate declaration written shortly after: "the village of our lord the Emporer".

January 29, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

'Huller' has a book:

"JW: Why blog anonymously?

NTW: It gives you a degree of freedom to say what you really think, without worrying about what those who might employ you think. I encourage everybody to do it.

In fact, most books should be published pseudonymously, too. Who doesn’t want to write a scathing refutation of what they wrote ten years ago?

I think it could encourage more open writing. It might also make it easier for people to approach works without bias against the author. It wouldn’t help with The Man’s academic publishing requirements — but you know what they can do."

I don't think anyone will buy his books, if they have any sense. He's afraid to admit he might have been wrong.

January 30, 2010

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

So James, according to NTW, all your books should be published psuedonymously. And every other scholar should do the same. That way we wouldn't know about Einstein or anyone else. And if Einstein had been wrong, he could have changed his mind and no-one would have been any the wiser.

If anyone is 'certifiable', it is NTW. Under a psuedonymn, he can get away with any 'scandal', say what he likes about others, and write rubbish to boost his income. And he won't have to apologise to anyone, unless the FBI raids his computers.

January 30, 2010

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cargill became a "digital humanities" police informant because Raphael Golb exposed the museum exhibit lies on Now Public. Raphael Golb's pseudonyms and his tongue-in-cheek commentaries were a hilarious send-up of the practices of the power-abusers. It was like, "oh, you don't like my pseudonym? then I'll use 80 of them - and maybe one day you'll actually address the issues rather than make this into a personal thing."

Raphael had fascinating insights and a perfectly legitimate interest in the seedy politics and religious orientation of DSS science museum exhibits. He was also justifiably indignant about the activities chronicled in this document:

http://scrollmotions.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/dead-sea-scrolls-controversy-motion1.pdf

Raphael Golb used provocatively ironical communicative techniques which the New York prosecutor, ignoring the First Amendment, has chosen to criminalize as a favor to NYU and dogmatist Lawrence Schiffman. We read of embarrassing internet communications being criminalized in places like China or Tajikistan, but in America? It's alarming to think people have to be looking over their shoulders and living in fear of sharks like Schiffman and his UCLA crony.

April 08, 2010

 

Post a Comment

<< Home