Talk:R. Joseph Hoffmann

Vanity
This looks like it belongs on your user page not as a main space article. Would you like it moved to your user page? Brian 21:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)btball


 * This person is a significant contemporary biblical and patristics scholar with an international reputation and this article should stand as is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.58.7.187 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-27 18:59:35 (UTC)


 * It is, however, a vanity article. –Dicty (T/C) 12:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a cross reference bio. prepared by the research associate and containing verifiable biographical and bibliographical facts. --RJOSEPHHOFFMANN 12:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I see this article is continually scrubbed by Roger Pearse to avoid any implication that Hoffmann is "significant." When I looked in yesterday citations had been added which were scrubbed by him without explanation. They will have to replaced as this article needs to be balanced and fair and not in the editorial hands of someone who has made this his project. Michael J. Elliott (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This article seems fair and much improved to this point. I suggest while references are added the tags be removed. I think there needs to be a new category for "Advocacy for Secularism and Humanism," however.--Michael J. Elliott (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"Two-thirds world"
The article uses the phrase "two-thirds world", lk'g it to Third World. The term was added in the 14-16 June 2007 edits of 76.180.91.218. If it is verifiable that he uses that term, the correct markup is
 * [[Third World|what he calls "the two-thirds world"

otherwise, the expression is just one WP-ignorant editor's slogan, and the markup must be simply
 * the Third World

as i have left it pending such verification. --Jerzy•t 02:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Review of Porphyry
Marcion, Porphyry etc.:

I will get round to editing this section on Porphyry and Julian soon enough. It's fundamental problem is that while the number of reviews may be significant, Hoffmann's work has become standard for scholars relying on translations of these sources as a simple Google Book citation or Scholar search will attest. Pearse, for example, does not hesitate to cite as somehow dispositive an obscure footnote in a work by Ehrman, who is a facile writer, but omits for some reason an extensive glowing review of the Marcion in Revue Biblique by Jerome Murphy O'Connor. The latter stated that no future work on the New Testament canon would be possible without coming to terms with Hoffmann's thesis, and that has certainly been the case. Celsus received many more than two reviews--and is a bibliographical reference in the Oxford Classical Dictionary (though I have not checked the ODCC). I myself have reservations about some of the racier elements of Hoffmann's translation; but that does not mean that his contribution should be trivialized in this way.

I'll get back to this as I compile the references. It would seem fair, however, to get rid of the flag on notability.

Michael J. Elliot

L'Année Philologique does not have exhaustive coverage of theological journals (for example, ATLA Religion finds reviews of Hoffmann's Marcion not listed in AP), so it is not a sound basis for concluding that a book on early Christianity received no academic reviews. As it happens, my search of the electronic version does turn up one review of Hoffmann's Porphyry:


 * Porphyry's Against the Christians : the literary remains / ed. and transl. with an introd. and epilogue by R. Joseph Hoffmann. Amherst (N. Y.) : Prometheus Books, 1994. 181 p. || JNStud 1997-1998 6 (2) : 115-126 Douglas P. Lackey.


 * JNStud is the Journal of Neoplatonic Studies, which is difficult to find in the UK – Copac finds copies at the Institute of Classical Studies in London, the Warburg Institute in London and the Sydney Jones Library in Liverpool. I am unsure whether I could even see a copy through interlibrary loan. EALacey (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent -- wish I could get hold of the article, but we can put this in. I note that my (referenced) statement was deleted... Roger Pearse 09:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In the UK an ILL will supply a photocopy. Do you want to get hold of one, or shall I?  (I'm willing).  "Douglas P. Lackey"... what a splendid name! Roger Pearse (talk 11:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to get one. EALacey (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Great! Let me know when you have it -- I'll be very interested to see it.  It wasn't an academic book, but I thought it deserved a review. Roger Pearse (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Everyone needs a hobby I suppose. Roger Pearse seems to be the main source of negative reviews cited against Hoffmann in the external links section of this article. These appear from his own website and his contributions to Amazon.com He (or his delegate) is also the source of most of the filters and attempts to flag, delete, or lessen Hoffmann's significance. This might be OK if he had not already been cited many times for a certain tendency to introduce a note of intemperance if not slander into the bargain (see his comments below). As it stands, the article cannot both be flagged as to notability and continue to provoke this much discussion, primarily from Pearse. Suggest that unless the article is returned to its status quo ante as on October 8, 2008, Pearse should be cited to WIKI for abuse. At the very least he has lost any entitlement to edit this piece further.

Michael J. Elliot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael J. Elliott (talk • contribs) 14:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we discuss the article, rather than me? I notice that your edit deleted the referenced statement as to the number of reviews that the books received, in exactly the same manner as all the other anonymous posters -- all of them you, perhaps?  But would you explain why?  Do you dispute the facts?  Do you have better info?  (If so, why not contribute it?)  But if not, what is the point of the above?  -- I reference my sources!


 * I don't know where this stuff about "delegate" comes from -- all my contributions are signed. The problem with this article is that Hoffmann is barely notable; if he IS notable, the article needs to be balanced, surely?   If people insist on deleting anything except positive sounding material, inevitably I will appear to be posting negative stuff!  It is, in reality, merely a question of balance...   Roger Pearse (talk 09:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of article?
I don't look in on this article very often, but I was amused to discover that it is still being edited almost exclusively by one of Hoffmann's "associates" in order to promote the "great man". I see that all the material which presented Hoffmann as anything less than a great and important scholar, with external links, has been quietly removed, without any discussion on the talk page.

Others have commented in the past on the vanity nature of this page. The edits -- mainly anonymous, all designed to 'puff' Hoffmann, seem to be all by Hoffmann and his stooges. Perhaps the time has come to put in a request for deletion, on grounds of persistent abuse of Wikipedia?

I have restored the links to external reviews, and the notes on the poor reception that two of his books got, with references. If these disappear, as I expect them to, then I think that we will have to consider getting rid of this page.

Hoffmann seems to be a very minor American academic who has published some rather dull and unimportant academic pieces, together with some risible "translations" which, insofar as they attracted any notice, were slated. He is barely notable, in truth. I would generally feel that he should have an entry, as a published author. But what we're looking at here is clearly self-advertisment. Roger Pearse 10:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearse (talk • contribs)


 * Glad to see EALacey is rewriting it. Looks much better. Roger Pearse 14:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearse (talk • contribs)


 * Based on Hoffmann's pillorying of Pearse in one of the external links, I can see why he wants to delete this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.90.94 (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean to say that I must be biased against Hoffmann because he wrote an article abusing me? Well, I suppose some people might be. But I only saw that article by chance, years after he wrote it, and thought it very amusing, actually.  My concerns about this article have nothing to do with any supposed enmity by me against Hoffmann (who?  after all, Hoffmann is a nobody).  No, they are based on the general principle that articles in Wikipedia should be unbiased, and not used as a means of self-promotion.  This means the bad as well as the good.  Referencing reviews of his work (good or bad) helps the reader.  Your own contribution of reviews was helpful.  Removing mention of the lack of reviews was not.  E.A.Lacey's note that there *was* a review of the Porphyry somewhere was also helpful.  I don't understand why this is controversial.  Would you tell us why you removed my referenced comments that his Celsus and Porphyry were hardly reviewed? This action might help Hoffmann.  It helps no-one else.  Let's try to reach some consensus here.  Roger Pearse 11:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that I moved this comment to the right section, and placed the delete stuff at the bottom. Roger Pearse 11:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Atheist polemicist
The article is light on Hoffmann's non-scholarly activities as an atheist polemicist. These are probably his most visible side online. I'm going to look for referenced information on this and add it. If people don't like these edits, do comment here and we can discuss it. What I am less clear about is whether to describe him as an atheist. I think he is one; but I've also read sometime a statement by him that he didn't like the label. Not sure how to best handle that. Roger Pearse 07:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearse (talk • contribs)

I do think it is appropriate and useful to cite Hoffmann's reputation as a "figure" in the humanist movement. But as a former student of his I can say that he is far from an atheist. I believe your edits have actually created a bogeyman who does not exist. It would be a mistake for example to see his academic work through the prism of his work as a humanist. I was amused to follow the controversy surrounding the Jesus Project, as Hoffmann has been famously neutral on the question of the historical Jesus--moreso than many liberal theologians! If it would help, I have a copy of a recent lead article for the CSER Review in which he chastises secular humanists for failing to recognize the Christian origins of secularism. Hoffmann actually reintroduced the study of religion to the American University of Beirut. Hard to pinpoint, yes. Atheist, no. By the way, the course I took from Hoffmann at Michgan was the Gospel of John in Greek. You should not underestimate his philological gifts. He studied with von Campenhausen at Heidelberg, a baptism of fire.

--Michael J. Elliott (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Michael J. Elliott
With reference to all the comments by this editor on this page, I've just looked at this "editor"'s contribution history. The only article edited, over a period of years, is ... this one. Roger Pearse (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC

Major revision
As of today I have uploaded an extensively revamped version of this page. My intent was to eliminate dead links, improve readability, and cite more recent and relevant elements of the subjects life. Littleboybrew (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Which you appear to have done in spades. Good work, page looks a lot better and it is nice to have a photo as well. Sgerbic (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)