MetaCatholic

Mark Goodacre first draws attention to R. Joseph Hoffmann’s response on behalf of the Jesus Project, and then offers his own comments on that statement. Others who have commented include Jim West (scroll to Update X) and Chris Zeichman. As one of those who also made a critical comment on the website launch of the project, I also want to add my two pennyworth..

Mark in particular reflects on what is, undoubtedly a gross generalization in Hoffman’s response about blogging on the Bible. Like him, I can’t think of any blog post that did more than raise serious questions about what on earth was going on with this project and its announcement of its fifty fellows, at least several of whom (including two bloggers) had either raised questions, or denied knowledge of being a fellow. That is hardly an assault or outright opposition. Mark’s post is well worth reading both as a response, and a general reflection on the role of blogging in the area of biblical studies.

Near the heart of Hoffman’s explanation of the problems is this statement:

While the website was only a model of things to come, a compilation of biographies of the entire list—UCD, listserv, and “under consideration”–was posted to the site together with some sample texts as active information.  What was meant as a test has lingered on the site as a done deal.  This was done largely because we were being hammered for information and were late in conceptualizing the site itself.   The posting was premature; the website was not flagged as under construction.

But I want to say this is not good enough. You are responsible for what you publish. If you publish a website that claims fifty fellows in your project, you must expect those reading it to believe you mean it. Your readers are entitled to criticise your choices. they are further entitled to assume that those you name have made specific agreements to participate in the project, not merely that they haven’t replied to an email asking if they wished to be disassociated from the project!

The web is not a place for private test sites. It is a public forum. There is in truth much rubbish on the web, many spoofs, many intentionally misleading posts, and polemical and wilful mischaracterizations of others work. There is also a great deal of reliable information, thoughtful comment, truth-digging exploration and honest enquiry and dialogue.  The biblioblogs I read (mainly those listed on the Biblioblogs site) share this latter set of characteristics, not the former.

Most of us who spend time on the web know the web’s mixed nature, know how to use it, and also understand its public nature – what is said is open to comment by all, fair and unfair, scholarly and ignorant. We (if I may include myself in this august company) assume that official sites portrayed as major projects by reputable organizations are meant to be read as truthful announcements of a public nature. We do not expect them to be trial balloons of something not even at first draft stage, a Lorem ipsum mockup of nonsense text with no meaning.

It is therefore not only inadequate but inaccurate to say in this context, as Hoffman does:

But even bloggers have a minimal responsibility to fact and to discovering facts.

If I may address you directly: Mr Hoffman, you and your organisation published this as fact. You issued no disclaimers, and no hint of a process of planning and selection still being worked out. You made a public launch in the world’s largest public medium, and most widely spoken language. Now you tell us it was all an honest mistake, and most of it was what you hoped would become true, but your “facts” were only in the process of being realised from your ideas.

Bloggers like Jim West (whom you single out for mention) were being responsible to facts and to discovering them. But you are responsible for what you place on the web and thereby into the public arena, and you can’t blame your cock-up on our “conspiracy”. You are responsible for what you publish, and what you published was wishful thinking disguised as fact. It is hardly an auspicious beginning for what is intended to be an enterprise dedicated to scientific historical enquiry.