Loading article…
Raymond Joseph Hoffmann (born December 16, 1957) is a historian whose work has focused on the early social and intellectual development of Christianity.[1] His work includes an extensive study of the role and dating of Marcion in the history of the New Testament, as well the reconstruction and translation of the writings of early pagan opponents of Christianity: Celsus, Porphyry and Julian the Apostate. As a senior vice president for the Center for Inquiry, he chaired the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, CSER, where he initiated the Jesus Project, a scholarly investigation into the historicity of Jesus. Hoffmann has described himself as "a religious skeptic with a soft spot for religion".[2]
Hoffmann holds graduate degrees in theology from Harvard Divinity School and a PhD in Christian Origins from the University of Oxford. He began his teaching career at the University of Michigan as assistant professor of Near Eastern Studies, where he developed the undergraduate and graduate program in Christian origins. From 1991 to 1999, he was senior lecturer in New Testament and Church History at Westminster College, Oxford.
Hoffmann's academic positions include tutor in Greek at Keble College (1980–1983) and senior scholar at St Cross College, Oxford. He was the Wissenschaftlicher Assistant in Patristics and Classical Studies at the University of Heidelberg, the Campbell Professor of Religion and Human Values at Wells College until 2006 and Distinguished Scholar at Goddard College in 2009. He has taught at Cal State Sacramento, the American University of Beirut and various universities in Africa (Malawi, Zimbabwe, and Botswana), the Middle East, the Pacific (Australia and Papua New Guinea) and South Asia, most recently as visiting professor of history at LUMS in Lahore, Pakistan and as Professor of Historical Linguistics at the Graduate University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing. Hoffmann has also served as special lecturer in Liberal Arts at the New England Conservatory in Boston.[3][4]
探求センターの研究員として、2003年から2009年まで宗教の科学的検証委員会の委員長を務め、ヒューマニスト研究所の創設教員（1986年）でもあった。[ 5 ] [ 6 ] 2016年まで、中央アジア・アメリカ大学の教養学部の教員を務めた。ヤシル・ファザーとともにポートスーダンにウェストミンスター・スクールを設立し、ケンブリッジ・インターナショナルの学術担当副総支配人（2013年、2016年）を務めた。
ホフマンの1982年の博士論文『マルキオン：キリスト教の復興について』は1984年に出版された。ホフマンは、マルキオンの生没年は教父たちの証言に基づく年代よりもかなり古いと主張した。ホフマンによれば、マルキオンはルカ福音書の最古の写本を所有し、パウロの手紙の原始的な写本を保存していたという。彼はまた、マルキオンの生涯と思想が弁証論的な動機に基づいていたとする初期の教父たちの証拠の多くを否定しようと試みた。
この著作に対する批評は、その論争的な性質を反映していた。Revue Bibliqueに寄稿したジェローム・マーフィー＝オコナーは、ホフマンの理論の急進的な性質に注目しつつ、「この世代で同等の重要性を持つ書物が登場する可能性は低い」と断言した。[ 7 ] JL ホールデンは、マルキオンの古代の批評家たちの「行間を読む」ホフマンの技量を称賛し、この本を「教義史が今どのように書かれるべきかの模範」と呼んだ。[ 8 ]一方、ジョージ・E・サン＝ローランは、「今後、パウロの決定的な役割に関する限り、マルキオンがカトリック正教会の主流の伝統に肯定的な貢献をしたことは認められなければならないだろう」と結論付けた。[ 9 ]他の批評家は、ホフマンの証拠の検討は価値があるが、彼の結論は推測に過ぎないと考えていた。[ 10 ] [ 11 ]この本は、 CP バメルから非常に否定的な評価を受け、著者は数多くの歴史的誤りや教父文献の誤った解釈をしていると非難された。[ 12 ] 1993 年に出版された本の中で、バート D. アーマンは、ホフマンのマルキオンは「あまり受け入れられていない」と指摘した。[ 13 ]
Hoffmann responded to critics of the Marcion in a special issue of The Second Century.[14] His thesis has since been revisited by New Testament scholars including David Trobisch, Joseph Tyson and Robert M. Price.[15][16][17]
Hoffmann has also published English translations of three early pagan opponents of Christianity. In each case, the original work has been lost but the arguments have survived through contemporary works written to refute them. The first, Celsus: On the True Doctrine was published in 1987. Hoffmann recreated the arguments of Celsus using the work Contra Celsum, written by Origen of Alexandria. Theology professor William Weinrich commented that Hoffmann "wisely forgoes any attempt to restore the original order of Celsus' work, opting rather to present Celsus' writing thematically."[18] Others have criticized Hoffman's recreations of Celsus as misrepresentative.[19]
In 1994 Hoffmann published Porphyry: Against the Christians (the Literary Remains). Hoffmann's work is a new translation based on a 15th-century manuscript preserved by Macarius Magnes. The author of the criticisms in that manuscript is not known with certainty. The argument that the critic was Porphyry was first advanced by the historian Adolph von Harnack,[20] though his theory has been disputed.[21] In a recent translation of the contemporary works citing Against the Christians, Robert M. Berchman notes that Hoffmann's translation is "an important contribution to the study of the text."[22]
In 2004 he published a translation of Julian: Against the Galileans, a work by the last non-Christian Roman Emperor, Julian. Julian's arguments survived through the work Contra Julianum written by Cyril of Alexandria.
In 2007 Hoffmann, together with New Testament scholars Robert Price and Gerd Lüdemann, announced the formation of a colloquium to re-examine the traditions for the existence of a historical Jesus.[23][24] The initial meeting of the so-called "Jesus Project[25] " took place in Amherst, NY, December 5–7, 2008 and included fifteen scholars from a variety of disciplines including James Tabor, Robert Eisenman, and Bruce Chilton. The Project, according to Hoffmann, was designed to determine "what can be reliably recovered about the historical figure of Jesus, his life, his teachings, and his activities, utilizing the highest standards of scientific and scholarly objectivity".[26] The Project was seen as a continuation and modification of the Jesus Seminar, founded by Robert Funk and John Dominic Crossan.[26][27]
In 2009 the Center for Inquiry de-funded the Jesus Project and discontinued CSER.[28] He wrote that there were problems with adherents to the Christ myth theory, the idea that Jesus did not exist, asking to set up a separate section of the project for those committed to the theory, which Hoffmann felt signalled a lack of necessary skepticism. He was also concerned that the media was sensationalizing the project, with the only newsworthy conclusion being that Jesus had not existed, a conclusion he said most participants would not have reached.[29] In 2012, Hoffmann wrote concerning the "Jesus Process" where he extensively criticized christ myth theory and its proponents.[30]
Though Hoffmann self-identifies as a humanist, he has criticized many aspects of contemporary humanism and atheism. In 2007, following comments from Greg Epstein, the Humanist Chaplain at Harvard, suggesting that atheist authors Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins were "atheist fundamentalists", Hoffmann wrote a publicly posted letter that called Epstein confused and accused him of abusing the Harvard name to stake out his own divisive position.[31][32] He further criticized Epstein's "New Humanism"[33] as "Gen-X humanism for the passionately confused".[31][34][35]
Hoffmann has also criticised the tactics employed by the New Atheist movement. In a 2009 blog post discussing the Center for Inquiry's Blasphemy Day, he wrote that New Atheism is "really nothing more than the triumph of the jerks".[36] Commenting about the American Humanist Association's selection of P.Z. Myers as 2009 Humanist of the Year, he wrote "humanism, infused and high-jacked by the "new" atheism, has been turned into a parody of serious humanist principles and ideals".[37] Hoffmann has also decried the lack of historical theological knowledge of many New Atheism proponents, criticizing the work of atheist writers Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett as being historically naive in a 2006 Free Inquiry article.[38]
Hoffman has criticized the documentary film The Lost Tomb of Jesus (2007), rejecting the filmmakers' conclusion that the Talpiot Tomb was the burial place of Jesus and his family.[39] He has also criticized the sensationalism attached to The Da Vinci Code as a confusing blend of history and fiction.[40]
Hoffmann has also criticized supporters of the Christ myth theory, a theory which he has called "fatally flawed".[30]
・サン＝ローラン（1986年春）「マルキオンの書評」アメリカ宗教学会誌54 （ 1）：176-177。
月）「マルキオンの書評」『神学研究』46（1）：173-174。
月)「マルキオンの書評」教会史54 ( 2):230. doi : 10.2307 /3167238 . JSTOR 3167238. S2CID 162707834. no
no
このエッセイは、ナザレの歴史上のイエスは存在しなかったという理論に基づく新約聖書への議論的アプローチである、「キリスト神話」または「非歴史性」テーゼと呼ばれるものに関連する手続き上の問題を明確にしようとする試みの一部である。私はこのテーゼが致命的な欠陥があり、新約聖書学者の学術論文ではあまり強調されていないさまざまな反論を受けると考えるようになった。 [...] 簡単に言うと、歴史上のイエスに関する事実は、救済神話、初期信者の軽信、時代の歴史記述の傾向、初期著者の編集上の傾向などによって最初から危うくされてきたが、福音書はイエスに関する歴史的見解を頑固に保持し、彼の生涯と教えに関する信頼できる情報を保存しており、福音書が書かれた状況のいずれにも影響されていないというのが私の見解である。ナザレのイエスは、歴史的背景のない神話や物語として生まれたのではなく、1世紀のローマ領パレスチナの教師として生まれたのである。
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: 元の URL の状態が不明です (リンク)