About Vridar (authors’ profiles – updated 11th May 2013)

Before adopting the current “Rubric” WordPress blog theme I was able to display the following caption below the Vridar header:

Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science

Even if that caption does not show it nonetheless encapsulates the original intent of this blog.


Since the spiel below — in late February 2012 to be more precise — Tim Widowfield has joined me as a regular co-contributor to this blog. The closest piece to a little “bio” of himself I have been able to persuade Tim to produce is in his post How I Escaped Fundamentalism: 5 Myths About Ex-Fundies.

Tim has let slip more of his personal background in a comment that I reproduce, in part, here:

I lost faith in God and left Fundamentalism when I was about 15 years old. I took my first university course in New Testament Studies three years later. It was in that class, which I enjoyed immensely (because I was still fascinated by the Bible and likely always will be), where I first learned about source criticism, form criticism, and the basic history of Christian theology.

When the professor first went over the Two-Source Hypothesis, it was an exhilarating experience. Eureka! I drank it all in and loved every drop.

From the age of 15 until my mid-40s, I accepted the “failed apocalyptic prophet” theory of the historical Jesus, and didn’t think very much about it. In fact, I didn’t know that mythicism was even an option until a few years ago. And I’m still not convinced by it.

For me, it’s similar to Marxism. Marx’s critique of capitalism is devastating. But Marx’s replacement leaves me unconvinced. In the same way, Price’s, Doherty’s, and Carrier’s critique of historical Jesus scholarship has revealed the naked emperor. But I still can’t justify moving from my agnostic position. . . . .

Finally, as Neil said, we’re just hobbyists here, but we take it seriously. I don’t have to worry about making friends or influencing people. I’m not jockeying for a better parking space in the faculty lot. I don’t worry about tenure. So I’m free to speak my mind. And you can damned well bet that I’ll continue to do so.


Vridar is my doppelganger. The name comes from Vardis Fisher’s fictionalized biographical two-part novel “The Orphans in Gethsemane” and is a near-anagram of the author’s own name. To read this novel, or even his 1939 Harper prize winning “Children of God”, is to read my life too. Everything from boyhood, religion, women, fatherhood, personal growth to atheism is there. For info on who Vardis Fisher is check out Vardis Fisher (American Atheists site), Vardis Fisher (VardisFisher.com) and Vardis Fisher (wikipedia article). But if you’re really wanting to know where I’m coming from it might be easier to simply read my own odyssey from heavenly thrones down to earth.

My background (chronologically) is in

  • secondary school history teaching (ancient and modern history),
  • postgraduate educational studies and information science,
  • academic librarianship,
  • being the metadata specialist with a project building regional university repositories in Australia and New Zealand,
  • digital repository management,
  • two years as a Principal Librarian and Bibliographic Consultant with National Library Board, Singapore,
  • coordinating the digitisation, repository services and digital collections in Australian universities — University of Southern Queensland, RUBRIC Project, Murdoch University, Deakin University, and am currently at Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT. The most exciting project I am involved with here is a national government funded project to digitize, collate and make available for preservation, research and cultural purposes aboriginal languages resource materials,
  • and most recently — research data management.

Specifically, my formal educational qualifications are a BA and post graduate Bachelor of Educational Studies, both at the University of Queensland, and a post graduate Diploma in Arts (Library and Information Science) from Charles Sturt University near Canberra, Australia. I am an associate of the professional library and information services organization of Australia.

But “librarian” means little as a job label nowadays. I actually never see or deal with books at work. My business cards say things like “metadata specialist” and (currently) “digital collections coordinator”. I work with computer programmers, academics and research bodies as well as librarians. Job titles and labels are as fluid as my responsibilities. My job is to assist with applications of new technologies and metadata schema and ontologies to enhance the accessibility of cultural resources and research data online and to help coordinate systems that enhance the availability of academic research publications and datasets as well as coordinating the development of research data management across CDU. I am also on two national metadata advisory committees (RIF-CS and MACAR). Perhaps “information specialist” is a more accurate term for my profession than “librarian”.

For the benefit of those who are curious about internet claims that I am someone else I invite them to read the Synapse Newsletter volum3 2011, page 7.

My informal education is somewhat reflected in my personal library collection, LibraryThing.

So the biblical studies interest is a hobby, although a serious one. I do like to check out the foundations of significant beliefs as thoroughly as my real-life commitments will allow.

Since some people have wrongly imputed to me some sort of vitriolic anti-Christian vendetta, I have posted the reasons for my Vridar blog under Why I’m doing this, Vridar is not an anti-Christian blog (which includes a link or two to posts by fellow atheists expressing the most humane indulgence towards religious viewpoints!), and Hoo boy, I have a headache. A more recent “autobiographical” post is I left the cult and met the enemy. (I do criticize religion at times, but sometimes I also say nice things about it. But where there is damage done by certain aspects of Christianity then I sometimes think I am not being critical often enough and I should post more about that. But I know others do a good job of this anyway.)

My views on biblical studies are very much in line with those of “minimalists” such as Philip R. Davies, Niels Peter Lemche and Thomas L. Thompson. I have attempted to apply some of the relevant principles of scholars such as these to New Testament studies as well.

Most of my posts relate to New Testament studies, and my primary interest is in sharing new ideas, in particular those that explore the New Testament writings from the perspective of literary analysis. One will see many of the scholars whose works I have blogged about — with a view to sharing new ideas into biblical and Christian origins, or simply sharing certain scholarly ideas that would not otherwise be readily accessible to the wider public — in my Categories list under “Book reviews and comments”.

While my posts on mythicism sometimes attract more than average attention, I do not post on that topic very often at all. I have attempted a number of times to clarify that this blog is exactly what I have said it is: a sharing of the lesser known biblical scholarship with a wider audience and an exploration into Christian origins with a focus on the more liberal or radical interpretations emanating from biblical scholars. See, for example, my post Vridar is not a mythicist blog but a blog about Christian origins and evidence . . . . The topics that interest me the most are about scholarly insights into new understandings of biblical origins, writings, etc. Sometimes I will certainly draw conclusions from these that do not agree with the majority of scholars, but I always make my own views clearly distinct from others I am discussing.

I am also very interested in other topics (politics, human nature) but don’t post as often on those anymore, partly because I feel I have more “amateur expertise” in biblical studies and know others are doing an excellent job in those other areas.

One reason I believe some tend to brand this blog as a mythicist blog is the implications of my posts about methodology, in particular methodology in historical studies. Just as the so-called “minimalists” embraced normative historical methodology and applied it to the study of the Old Testament, and just as the conclusions of that methodological inquiry led to a re-evaluation of the historicity of many OT biblical persons, so I have attempted to apply the same methodology to NT studies. And yes, this method does indeed open the door to the possibility of Jesus never having been a historical person at all. But intellectual integrity means we must follow wherever the valid methods lead. On the other hand, much of what passes for NT historical studies is subjective and fallacious, and I take little pity on unscholarly remarks and even outright intellectual dishonesty where I see them — especially if I see evidence that such shoddy methods are from those who have a wide public influence. Public intellectuals have a public responsibility for how they lead society and I have little sympathy for them when they fail to promote intellectual integrity.

Another reason this is incorrectly seen as a mythicist blog is probably my record of challenging attacks on certain mythicist authors that are clearly ignorant of their arguments or grossly misrepresenting them. It should be obvious that one does not have to agree with all the arguments of everyone one defends in such situations.

I was quite surprised when I read others saying that my blog was for a mythicist audience so I set up a poll to ask where readers stand on this question, and I am very grateful to see that is clear that most are not mythicists.

Politically I am very much on the Left-ish and/or Green-ish (in some areas anarchistic “black-ish”) side of things. I see myself as a humanist-activist whenever given half a chance.

Since writing the above a number of critic have attempted to characterize me as “once a fundamentalist always a fundamentalist” on the strength of their awareness of my cult background. In response I wrote another post, A Little Biographical Footnote.

My other blog is Metalogger.

& my personal library collection is at LibraryThing.

Email: neilgodfrey1 [AT] gmail [DOT] com

Also contactable on Facebook (though not often — I am spending less and less time there all the time, now)

Neil Godfrey

Temporarily defunct blog is Sweetreason (for real life, philosophical and activist issues) — simply could not keep up with so many blogs. Most sweetreason things fill up my time in real life anyway. Blogging seems superfluous. But add from time to time to my Vridar blog what would once have been a Sweetreason post.

15th May 2008, have just noticed that some users are copying posts of mine without attribution and also in contexts I am not comfortable with. That’s the internet I guess, but I’d prefer anyone wishing to copy to abide by the terms of the Creative Commons licence I have just taken out for this site:

Creative Commons

Creative Commons License

Vridar by Neil Godfrey is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

Based on a work at vridar.wordpress.com.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://vridar.wordpress.com/permissions/.


  1. Hi Neil,

    Liked your Justin Martyr’s Gospel Narrative chart, but wondered what it would look like if you could see the whole thing on one screen. Made a graphic (98×579) that shows how events from the chart cluster together. If your interested and will send be an email address that can accept attachments, I send you a copy of it.

    Terry Fuller

    Comment by Terry Fuller — 2007/01/16 @ 8:31 pm

  2. I do like the idea of a single image, Terry. I’m happy to add it with attribution of course. Can you tell me a bit more about it, though. I don’t understand such images — I have come across them once before and what I saw seemed too small — but I would not doubt there is something I am missing or don’t understand. Let me know.

    Comment by neilgodfrey — 2007/01/21 @ 9:54 pm

  3. Thank You

    Comment by Alex — 2007/04/23 @ 12:46 pm

  4. Hello Neil,
    I was having another look at your site and noticed you are in Toowoomba. You probably know that I lived in Brisbane for years. Anyway i thought that was interesting and wanted to say hi. I haven’t been back to Oz for a long time and would love to – perhaps we can meet some day when I figure it out.

    Meanwhile I’m involved in the discussion about this shooting at the church in Colorado – on the media because we communicated online back in May when the gunman was posting very anguished posts on a website and I was invited by the moderator to offer some help.

    Must go. Stay in touch. keep up the good work. We are starting a new website with resources listed, so I will include you. http://www.recoveryfromreligion.org

    Kind regards,

    Comment by Marlene Winell — 2007/12/15 @ 3:13 am

  5. Hi Marlene,

    I chanced to hear you interviewed by Rachel Kohn on Radio National’s Spirit of Things when driving home for lunch one day. I missed your name and had to phone the radio station to get contact details. That’s when I picked up your “Leaving the Fold” and may have spoken to you on the phone a couple of times — you were in Brisbane but I had recently moved to Toowoomba and unable to meet up.

    Good to “catch up” again,

    Comment by neilgodfrey — 2007/12/15 @ 8:33 am

  6. Conspicuously absent from your list of book reviews on Religion and Christian origins is Rodney Stark. I recommend _The Rise of Christianity_.

    And _Cities of God_.

    Also, Stark and Finke’s _Acts of Faith_ represents a paradigm shift in the sociology of religion. It’s no longer Weber and Durkheim. These guys do real science.

    I would love to know your thoughts on this new market-based, rational-choice theory, social scientific way of explaining religious behavior.

    Comment by Russell Booth — 2008/05/01 @ 4:02 pm

  7. I haven’t read Stark, but I’d appreciate any summaries and/or snippets of her/his ideas — feel free to fill me in here. Any elaboration might tempt me to buy a copy sooner than otherwise.

    As for “market-based” theory, I am not up to date with that sort of thing as such in the literature, but it sounds a bit like some of the articles cited in a recent National Radio program bibliography I included here:

    Do let me know more.

    Comment by neilgodfrey — 2008/05/01 @ 4:14 pm

  8. I never knew that asking for evidence meant the other person won (I’m banned from IIDB, but of course your lack of logic compelled me to email you, which I don’t see from your site).

    Comment by Solitary Man — 2008/07/01 @ 3:54 am

  9. Anyone curious to know what the above comment refers to can see the exchange here. My post that has prompted SM’s comment there is #17.

    Comment by neilgodfrey — 2008/07/01 @ 8:23 am

  10. Mr. Godfrey, you may be interested to know that I have featured your series on canonical Luke as a response to Marcion on Patristic Carnival XIII.

    Comment by Tim Troutman — 2008/07/02 @ 1:48 pm

  11. I hope you don’t mind, I’m adding you to my blogroll.

    Comment by Tom Verenna — 2008/10/22 @ 6:45 am

  12. It’s about time i found a Vardis Fisher fan! Howdy!

    Comment by Vardis — 2008/11/22 @ 5:42 am

  13. Welcome to the club! It was Earl Doherty who introduced me to Vardis Fisher and I’ve been grateful ever since. I zapped up VF’s Testament of Man series and The Children of God and the odd article available on the net and have found myself forever referring back to something he has written. Maybe he is the paradigm for anyone who has struggled to think their way honestly out of a cultic fundamentalist belief system? Yes?

    Comment by Anonymous — 2008/11/22 @ 8:34 pm

  14. Just wanted to say thanks, and I’m looking forward to visiting as often as I can :)

    Comment by troy — 2010/05/02 @ 1:25 am

  15. Neil, while I’m still learning a lot about your views and your site, I can go ahead and say that I really appreciate the substance of your efforts toward examining Christian orgins. We may view Christian origins differently (and I’m still in the process of learning precisely what those differences might be), but there’s no doubt that you provide your reader’s thoughtful and extensive expositions of your views as well as the views of others.

    Comment by Mike Gantt — 2011/01/23 @ 12:30 am

  16. I am amazed at the absence of Bob Price from your…oops. Sorry I take that back. Embarrassing!!
    Keep up the good work: how about us all putting together a response to this:
    Bob it seems is getting tired of going the full rounds with these fabricators.

    Comment by TRIALNERROR — 2011/02/19 @ 8:27 am

  17. I had someone either claiming to be Holding and/or someone writing on his behalf at this older post: https://vridar.wordpress.com/2008/05/17/authenticity-of-pauls-letters-holding-versus-detering/#comments

    You can see from the tone of the comments there — I wonder if Joel Watts was their script writer — why I considered then, and still do, it to be a waste of time to bother even attempting to talk with them.

    Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2011/02/19 @ 11:33 am

  18. […] my interests and motivations are. It is all there, including links to those posts, in my “About” page that I have updated […]

    Pingback by What sort of blog is Vridar? « Vridar — 2011/07/13 @ 11:01 am

  19. […] [36] https://vridar.wordpress.com/about/ […]

    Pingback by The Jesus Process: Maurice Casey « The New Oxonian — 2012/05/22 @ 8:50 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: